When is abortion - homicide, when is murder of a human not homicide?

[BNR32FAN]

from; U.S. Abortion Statistics

WHY DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?
In 2004, the Guttmacher Institute anonymously surveyed 1,209 post-abortive women from nine different abortion clinics across the country. Of the women surveyed, 957 provided a main reason for having an abortion. This table lists each reason and the percentage of respondents who chose it.
Percentage Reason
<0.5% Victim of rape
3% Fetal health problems
4% Physical health problems
4% Would interfere with education or career
7% Not mature enough to raise a child
8% Don't want to be a single mother
19% Done having children
23% Can't afford a baby
25% Not ready for a child
6% Other
==========================

so then <= 7.5% related to health or rape...​

yeah so that adds up to 86% of abortions basically come down to the woman simply doesn’t want to have a child. That’s not counting the 6% for “other” reasons.

 

[TLK Valentine]

yeah so that adds up to 86% of abortions basically come down to the woman simply doesn’t want to have a child. That’s not counting the 6% for “other” reasons.

So how is that your problem?

 

[rambot]

Then why is it considered a double homicide if someone kills a pregnant woman?

Essentially? I think it's just precidents.

But I agree, it shouldn't be.

 

[rambot]

That is a strange assumption for one to make. It certainly does not agree with the definition of sentient in conjunction with some of the latest scientific evidence.

sentient
[ˈsen(t)SH(ē)ənt]
ADJECTIVE

1. able to perceive or feel things.
   "she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"

does a fetus feel pain at 12 weeks - Bing

For a qualified opinion on the subject, I like the following opinion piece.

A Science Lesson for Justice Sotomayor | Opinion



Although I don't understand why trying to ascertain what a fetus wants should be the foundation of one's view on abortion, I think it is highly likely that fetuses are sentient life forms.

Well that's embarrassing. I used the wrong word. When talking about what a fetus "wants", it makes no sense to bring up that it is "sentient".....

 

[Pommer]

"Homicide" is the legal term for an unlawful killing. Homicide in the heat of the moment is "manslaughter." Homicide with malice aforethought is "murder."

No, my understanding is that the term “homicide” is legally neutral, death occurred by the hand of another human being, but the legality of the death is determined by other terms.

 

[rturner76]

Babies can kick as soon as 16 weeks. They’re not alive?

Not independently, unless a baby can live on its own after 4 months.

 

[rturner76]

That’s completely irrelevant what does breathing have to do with life? The baby receives its oxygen from the mother who is breathing for it.

It hasn't received the breath of life yet.

 

[rturner76]

That’s just the name for a different stage of development it doesn’t determine whether or not the baby is alive or not, there’s 6 different stages fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, and adult.

If you stop it at fetus, it's not an infant yet and therefore not murder. It's abortion. A vile practice to be sure but legal.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, my understanding is that the term “homicide” is legally neutral, death occurred by the hand of another human being, but the legality of the death is determined by other terms.

In the sense that we say "justifiable homicide" -- homicide that would be unlawful but for an affirmative defense... but personally, I think we're splitting hairs here.

 

[Tanj]

I think it is necessary to address the substance of a person's argument rather than looking for loopholes in the way a word is defined.

It's not an issue of loopholes. Talking about legal murder is like talking about dry water. It's entirely meaningless.

Perhaps the OP would suggest that the second definition of murder provided below (to slaughter wantonly) is the one that applies to abortion?

It doesn't because, in the USA, abortion is not illegal. Also because if you follow the link to slay it talks about epidemics and dragons.

If the US Supreme Court were to rule that abortion is illegal, would all subsequent abortions suddenly become murder?

Well, they'd become illegal. Whether the crime in question is murder or some other charge is up to the courts to decide.

Were the abortions prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe V Wade murders but all those after not any a case of murder?

I don't know if the supreme court can make its decision retrospective, but by this point you have split hairs down to the atom. In Colorado a few years ago, smoking dope was illegal. Then it wasn't.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't wish to use the word murder in talking about abortion,

Then don't.

If the US Supreme Court were to rule that abortion is illegal, would all subsequent abortions suddenly become murder? p

Yes -- because what is or isn't "murder" is defined by the law, and the law is defined by the judiciary branch... culminating in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Were the abortions prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe V Wade murders but all those after not any a case of murder?

No -- because contrary to numerous misinformed opinions, abortion was not illegal in the United States prior to Roe v Wade... it was legal in some states, but illegal in others.

All the Roe v Wade decision did was rule that the laws which outlawed abortion were Unconstitutional due to the 14th Amendment.

Either a particular abortion is murder, or it is not.

Currently, it is not. Problem solved.

IF SCOTUS were to overturn Roe v Wade, that would make abortion a legal matter for the individual states -- it would be murder in that state, but not murder in this state...

Make sense? No? Welcome to the legal system.

I would say something can be classified as murder based upon what our rational minds convince us murder i and not based solely upon what some government decides is legal or not.

You would say that, and that would be your opinion, and we would decide whether it's worth a plugged nickel or not.

I don't see how trying to make a case based upon one truncated definition ignoring all other uses of the word is helpful in discussing the issue. One could point out that the defense that "I was following the then legal orders of the government at the time" was not accepted at Nuremburg. Which suggests that the definition of murder as unlawful can indeed transcend what any particular government or governmental body says is lawful.

Indeed -- except it should be noted that "I was following orders" was a legal defense for any soldier ranked sergeant or below.

Plus, the definitions can transcend... to where, exactly? In the case of the Nazis, they eventually answered to the world court at Nuremburg -- but as Americans are so ga-ga over their sovereignty, who do we answer to?

Answer: nobody. Because here's a fun fact -- the US is one of only seven countries who are not members of the International Criminal Court... so tell me, if the US decides something is or isn't murder, who's going to tell us we're wrong?

Answer again: nobody.

In the US prior to Roe v Wade there were multiple governments proclaiming things about abortion. some making abortion legal and other governments proclaiming it illegal. Did that mean that there was murder being committed in some states and not others despite the fact that the action was exactly the same?

Yes. Next question?

Can one rationally conclude that the exact same act is either murder or it isn't no matter which government decides whether to make it legal or illegal?

Rationally? Yes.
Legally? Also yes.

Are those two conclusions always going to match up? Not a chance.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The unborn haven't been born yet so they are not alive. To be alive you need the breath of life. Though I know it's fun sitting on a high horse. Just don't fall off

Did you just fall off?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Fetuses don't breathe.

True. Are they dead or alive?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Not independently, unless a baby can live on its own after 4 months.

If you leave a four month old baby alone it will die. Even a two year old is not independent. Maybe a five year old. We are not independent beings for the most part even as adults.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If you stop it at fetus, it's not an infant yet and therefore not murder. It's abortion. A vile practice to be sure but legal.

May it's 'legality' be undermined and soon.

 

[cow451]

Is abortion homicide depending on who does or does not agree to it - and whether the instrument used is a bullet or not?

Or Is the real issue -- "the value of human life"? -- yes indeed "the value of human life". (not "the convenience" of human life)

So I suppose we can say that a few things are true for this topic:

• - there is a way that murder could always be "safe" for the one doing the murdering...
• - murder could always be "legal" if the law can be created to accommodate it
• - finding two people on Earth in favor of the murder might not be as hard to find as some may have thought.

If we were talking about removing a skin tumor it would be a different story.

Supposedly this topic is sooo very hard to understand -- yet look at how much "clarity" we still have in some parts of this nation regarding the fact that killing the unborn is murder - unless the mother approves.

What we know: Prattville man arrested after double homicide of woman, unborn child

Pregnant Woman’s Death Will Be Prosecuted as Double Homicide: LRPD – Family Council

In this next example the pregnant woman lives but her unborn twins were killed when the woman was shot.

Shooting of pregnant woman in Minneapolis now a double homicide after death of unborn twins

NM

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not independently, unless a baby can live on its own after 4 months.

again this is completely irrelevant in determining whether or not the fetus is alive. Dead fetus don’t kick, they don’t do anything.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I haven't read every post - apologies if this has been covered...
I'm also out of touch with the matter - it's not a discussion i follow...

but the last I heard about this debate was that it hinged on when you consider "life begins"?
some think it's at fertilisation others think it's some time thereafter - when the cells / egg / fetus is "viable" (when it can survive on it's own).

I ask because as far as I can tell - we legitimately do not have an answer about the subject...but many are making grand claims of mass murder??

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you stop it at fetus, it's not an infant yet and therefore not murder. It's abortion. A vile practice to be sure but legal.

I never said anything about murder we’re discussing whether or not a fetus is alive. By your logic if you stop (kill) it at infant it’s not a child either. The very definition of the word abortion implies that a fetus is alive.

Abortion-the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus

A fetus can’t die if it isn’t alive.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I haven't read every post - apologies if this has been covered...
I'm also out of touch with the matter - it's not a discussion i follow...

but the last I heard about this debate was that it hinged on when you consider "life begins"?
some think it's at fertilisation others think it's some time thereafter - when the cells / egg / fetus is "viable" (when it can survive on it's own).

I ask because as far as I can tell - we legitimately do not have an answer about the subject...but many are making grand claims of mass murder??

Infants and toddlers can’t survive on their own.