• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Abortion Murder?

Is abortion murder?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 24.0%
  • No

    Votes: 38 76.0%

  • Total voters
    50

ecco

Veteran Member
Conspiracy theory sites are garbage. I have no idea why you accept them over mainstream news outlets.
I have an idea why people accept Conspiracy theory sites.

It's my experience that the vast majority of people who accept Conspiracy theory sites are also Conservative Christians.

I believe it goes back to early childhood. The daily indoctrination led directly to gullibility and a profound distrust of science.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Roe v Wade puts no restriction on abortion at any point during the pregnancy.

It should not be up to me or anyone in this forum to educate you. You should be able to read Roe v Wade yourself. It is obvious you have not.

I guess you feel that ignorance is bliss.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Then tell how in most, if not all states killing a pregnant woman results in being charged with two counts of murder ?

Because prosecutors like to pile on charges.
Because prosecutors believe they have a better chance of getting a conviction by pulling on the heartstrings of jurors.
Because prosecutors can get double penalties.
Because doing so does not violate any Constitutional rights.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
I've personally experienced an out of body experience, which happened to me when I was 13 years old. It happened immediately after I had a fainting spell from hyperventilating and holding my breath in such a way that I'd forced myself to pass out. When I woke up from this fainting spell, I was floating outside and above my body. While I was floating outside and above my body, everything in the room started spinning around me and then became brightly illuminated with a blinding white light which blinded me until I descended back into my body.

I initially believed my out of body experience was a spiritual experience, but now I believe this was an altered state of consciousness where I was vividly able to project myself and immediate surroundings from the perspective of being a close distance around the outside of my body.



Yes, those people on your video are working on it. I like that they were bringing in a lot of different sides. I think there are more sides not accounted for which need them to investigate. Often when one is convinced they have the answer, beliefs take over. The journey to discovery never ends for there is always more after a door is open.

I still think you can discover much from your quiet room experiment. Who you are requires no out of body experience. You are still you.

Think hard to the very first memory you have in life. I know it was a very long time ago. Try to remember.
There are those who's first memory is being installed in their physical body. The connection or interface is in the brain and not the heart as some people might think.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
conjoined twins are considered separate individuals in terms of rights and obligations, even though they depend upon one another for life.
If one of those conjoined twins was severely under developed, physically and mentally, so under developed that it would be comparable to a fetus, then the other one would be making the decisions for both. And yes, even decisions about life and death.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
If one of those conjoined twins was severely under developed, physically and mentally, so under developed that it would be comparable to a fetus, then the other one would be making the decisions for both. And yes, even decisions about life and death.

This is getting far afield, but...you are correct. However, that determination would be made by a court, 'coming down' from the presumption of individuality and personhood. As in, it would have to be proven that the incompetent twin WAS incompetent.

I am so tired of this argument that because a fetus isn't an infant or toddler or whatever, that it's OK to kill it.

It is exactly the same argument as 'let's kill this two year old to prevent it from growing up."

Exactly the same argument. If the argument made regarding the two year old is anathema, or horrific....well, so is the argument that it's permissible to kill a fetus BECAUSE it hasn't reached a different level of development yet.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Because prosecutors like to pile on charges.
Because prosecutors believe they have a better chance of getting a conviction by pulling on the heartstrings of jurors.
Because prosecutors can get double penalties.
Because doing so does not violate any Constitutional rights.
Sigh, you miss the point totally. How can you murder something that isn´t a person ?

Prosecutors must apply existing law, they cannot simply make stuff up as they go along.

Obviously, existing state law sees an unborn baby as a person, else no one could be prosecuted for murdering one.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
It should not be up to me or anyone in this forum to educate you. You should be able to read Roe v Wade yourself. It is obvious you have not.

I guess you feel that ignorance is bliss.
LOL, I am very familiar with the case in total, and I am absolutely correct, there is no restriction on abortion from conception to birth.

Why must you make personal attacks ? That seems to be your stock in trade when you feel cornered.

You have not read the case, you don´t know what it says, and you are speaking from ignorance.

I don´t like calling you out so directly, yet I am tired of little verbal thugs who are unable to make a factual argument, so resort to drive by childish posts instead.

I have made it as clear as possible that you have no idea what you are talking about, none.

Prove me wrong.

You cannot.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Roe v Wade did not allow unfettered abortion in the US.

It is obvious that you do not know enough about Roe v Wade to make cogent comments.
Roe v Wade allows for abortion from conception to birth.

After the second trimester, it gives states interest in regulating abortion, if they choose. Most of these state laws of regulation have been struck down by federal courts.

Roe itself has NO regulations or restrictions on abortion.

It is obvious you have no knowledge of Roe, you are just playing a sad little game of ¨I know, I know !¨
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
God is silent on the issue.
Or maybe he or she just speaks through human decision, that's not the point of this thread though. You are correct that humans do have say over what they deem to be murder.
Begging the question.

It is not murder. "Murder" is an artificial classification given to a type of killing by the culture and system of law that exists. The definition is not set in stone. Right now, it is not 'murder' to kill a fetus. Unless, of course, that fetus is killed by someone who kills the mother, in which case s/he is quite likely to be charged with two murders; that of the mother AND the fetus, with sentences reflecting two murders.

The question should be: should abortion, in some cases, BE classified as murder?

I, for one, say yes. It should be. Not in every case, but when an abortion is sought by someone who entered into consensual sex with the full knowledge that pregnancy could result, and when the motive for the abortion is...."I'm too busy right now" or "oops" or "I changed my mind" or "but I didn't MEAN it!" Especially if there were birth control options that were not used, and other options are available.

If the motive is....I want to kill this human so it won't interfere with my fun....yeah.
What about instances of rape, incest, or medical complications?
It's a matter of feelings. If you feel it's murder then you'll see it as murder. If you don't feel it is murder then you won't.

Feelings aren't logical/rational. They are influenced by many things, some outside our conscious awareness. therefore often hard to express exactly why we feel a certain way.

For me, in most cases, not all cases, I see it as murder. That's the way I feel. Why do I feel that way? Don't ask me, ask my unconscious mind. However, I wouldn't expect it to answer.
I think that there are cases where the mother has a right to defend herself from the effects of the child. In those cases it would be deemed self defense.
If a child is conceived, then it has a right to live.
Now, tell me if the Bible says definitely in these exact words, humans have the right to live.
However you want to justify it.....I believe it is wrong. Life is a gift and if we do not want the child, then there are other options. They made it....its the natural consequence of having sex.....which was meant to produce babies.....loved and wanted ones within a stable family. If you don't want babies, then we all know what to do....don't we? This is the 21st century after all....why are we still murdering unborn human beings by the millions every year?
Well, we know that sex is not procreative only, but intimate. That's why people take the risk.
On the other hand, I'm not really for abortion. It's a responsibility thing. Abortion makes it easy not to make good choices and act responsibly.
I don't like it either, but if the zygote does not have personhood then it isn't murder. I know what you're saying, there is a major double standard when scientists will go to the mat for a different animal species but they won't even care about their own animal species.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Or maybe he or she just speaks through human decision, that's not the point of this thread though. You are correct that humans do have say over what they deem to be murder.

What about instances of rape, incest, or medical complications?

What part of 'consensual sex" encompasses rape, incest or medical complications?

I'm more than a little tired of having to insert that particular disclaimer. Pay attention.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
If one of those conjoined twins was severely under developed, physically and mentally, so under developed that it would be comparable to a fetus, then the other one would be making the decisions for both. And yes, even decisions about life and death.
Siamese twin Gracie Attard tells her story 14 years after the ethical dilemma | Daily Mail Online
The little girl whose Siamese twin died so she could live: Gracie tells her utterly inspiring story 14 years after the ethical dilemma that gripped Britain
  • Gracie Attard was born a Siamese twin, joined to sister Rosie end to end
  • The girls, born in 2000, shared an aorta, a bladder and circulatory systems
  • Yet while little Gracie was robust, Rosie was weak and ailing
  • Doctors believed unless the girls were separated, both would die in months
  • But separating the sisters would kill Rosie, who needed her twin to survive
  • Rina and Michael could not bring themselves to allow one daughter to die
  • Three Appeal Court judges decreed the twins should be separated
  • Rosie duly died, three months, six hours after the complex surgery
  • Gracie, now 14, gives her views on her origins for the first time
 

ecco

Veteran Member
This is getting far afield, but...you are correct. However, that determination would be made by a court, 'coming down' from the presumption of individuality and personhood. As in, it would have to be proven that the incompetent twin WAS incompetent.

I am so tired of this argument that because a fetus isn't an infant or toddler or whatever, that it's OK to kill it.

It is exactly the same argument as 'let's kill this two year old to prevent it from growing up."

Exactly the same argument. If the argument made regarding the two year old is anathema, or horrific....well, so is the argument that it's permissible to kill a fetus BECAUSE it hasn't reached a different level of development yet.
Siamese twin Gracie Attard tells her story 14 years after the ethical dilemma | Daily Mail Online
The little girl whose Siamese twin died so she could live: Gracie tells her utterly inspiring story 14 years after the ethical dilemma that gripped Britain
  • Gracie Attard was born a Siamese twin, joined to sister Rosie end to end
  • The girls, born in 2000, shared an aorta, a bladder and circulatory systems
  • Yet while little Gracie was robust, Rosie was weak and ailing
  • Doctors believed unless the girls were separated, both would die in months
  • But separating the sisters would kill Rosie, who needed her twin to survive
  • Rina and Michael could not bring themselves to allow one daughter to die
  • Three Appeal Court judges decreed the twins should be separated
  • Rosie duly died, three months, six hours after the complex surgery
  • Gracie, now 14, gives her views on her origins for the first time


What would you have done?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Then tell how in most, if not all states killing a pregnant woman results in being charged with two counts of murder ? Can you murder something that isn´t a person ?

Because prosecutors like to pile on charges.
Because prosecutors believe they have a better chance of getting a conviction by pulling on the heartstrings of jurors.
Because prosecutors can get double penalties.
Because doing so does not violate any Constitutional rights.
Sigh, you miss the point totally. How can you murder something that isn´t a person ?
I didn't miss your point at all. You just don't like the reality of my response.

Prosecutors must apply existing law, they cannot simply make stuff up as they go along.
The prosecutors didn't make up anything. Legislators, under pressure from the Right Wing, made the laws. The point being exactly what you are making it out to be.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]
It was a way of trying to undercut Roe v Wade by giving a fetus status. It was enacted when Bush was president and Congress was Republican.


Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses,​
 

ecco

Veteran Member
LOL, I am very familiar with the case in total, and I am absolutely correct, there is no restriction on abortion from conception to birth.


(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Why must you make personal attacks ? That seems to be your stock in trade when you feel cornered.
Cornered? By a shmogie? That's really laughable. When you make ridiculous comments, I will call you out. If you want to consider that a personal attack, well, that's not my problem.

You have not read the case, you don´t know what it says, and you are speaking from ignorance.
Actually I have. Several times throughout the yeasrs when discussing it with folks like you. Were you aware of the research the Justices did regarding abortion throughout the ages? Are you aware that the anti-abortion thing is relatively new and, at least partially, the result of the resurgence of Fundamentalism?

I don´t like calling you out so directly, yet I am tired of little verbal thugs who are unable to make a factual argument, so resort to drive by childish posts instead.
Feel free to call me out. Feel free to ignore me. I could care less either way.

I have made it as clear as possible that you have no idea what you are talking about, none.

Prove me wrong.
I just did.

Furthermore...
In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Siamese twin Gracie Attard tells her story 14 years after the ethical dilemma | Daily Mail Online
The little girl whose Siamese twin died so she could live: Gracie tells her utterly inspiring story 14 years after the ethical dilemma that gripped Britain
  • Gracie Attard was born a Siamese twin, joined to sister Rosie end to end
  • The girls, born in 2000, shared an aorta, a bladder and circulatory systems
  • Yet while little Gracie was robust, Rosie was weak and ailing
  • Doctors believed unless the girls were separated, both would die in months
  • But separating the sisters would kill Rosie, who needed her twin to survive
  • Rina and Michael could not bring themselves to allow one daughter to die
  • Three Appeal Court judges decreed the twins should be separated
  • Rosie duly died, three months, six hours after the complex surgery
  • Gracie, now 14, gives her views on her origins for the first time


What would you have done?

probably that.

Just as I would, though it were a tragedy, abort a pregnancy that was endangering my life. Just as Gracie and Rosie's case was...lose one or lose both, so are abortions in situations where it is 'lose the child or lose both mother and child."

the thing is, that is a tragic, necessary and unavoidable decision, and should be seen as such.

And as such, (and you will notice that it took the COURTS to decide about Rosie, having to take the assumption that Rosie was indeed an individual worthy of rights, and decide that in their case, it was...lose one or lose both).

It's like mountain climbers tied together. If the bottom climber falls, and the choice is...cut the rope and let him fall, or everybody falls, the rope gets cut. Everybody mourns...but nobody cries 'murder.'

However, if someone cuts the rope when there is no need to do so, that's a very different situation indeed.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Now, tell me if the Bible says definitely in these exact words, humans have the right to live.

Since it was a capital offense to take a life, then by implication no one has a right to take it, unless authorized to do so. A capital offense meant taking the life of the offender, which in turn meant that someone was authorized to implement the penalty without becoming a murderer themselves.

A doctor performing a medical abortion e.g. to save the life of the mother, would not be guilty of murder because of sacrificing one life to save another. But it seems like an awful anomaly to me, for a doctor to take the life of an unborn child in one part of a hospital, and then desperately try to save the life of an equally premature infant in a Neo-natal ICU in the same building. What is the difference? That one actually wants their child and the other does not?

The life of the unborn was covered under God's law to Israel.

Exodus 21:22...
“If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman’s husband and confirmed by judges." (Complete Jewish Bible)

This was an accidental harming of an unborn child....so if the harm was deliberate, then the penalty set by the child's father and the judges, would reflect that. There was a difference in the penalties applied for manslaughter and murder.

Well, we know that sex is not procreative only, but intimate. That's why people take the risk.

The sex drive in all species is powerful for obvious reasons. But animals do not have a sense of morality. The drive to perpetuate their species is programmed....often those creatures who operate in family troupes will all participate in caring for the young, instinctively. But humans are very different. Only humans perform marriage where two individuals are joined (according to rules set by their god in many cases) in a union that is the beginning of a new family unit that becomes part of a wider community. Families form the foundation of society and always have. When the family unit breaks down, so does society. Look at what is happening today....?

Remember that the most powerful empire on earth (the Roman Empire) was not overthrown by a more powerful enemy.....it decayed from within due to its own decadence and complete disregard for the integrity of the family as a foundation for their whole society.

Only humans have rules about their procreative powers, limiting sexual activity to their marriage mate. To step outside of that arrangement, incurred penalties. Crimes had names like "fornication" and "adultery", with penalties mirroring the the seriousness of those breaches.

Sex is not a right for Christians...it is sacred privilege confined to scriptural marriage. A very intimate and loving way to create new life. It is not undertaken purely to make babies, but as an expression of love and commitment to one mate. A pregnancy then would be welcomed, not dreaded. And as I said...there is no excuse for unwanted pregnancy these days anyway. How much better to prevent one than to kill an innocent victim of a sexual encounter that had no such commitment or to whom the pregnancy would simply be an impediment to a person's social life. How many abortions have legitimate medical reasons for them?
 
Top