• 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
Jeremiah Ames

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
RedDragon94 said:
If it is murder, we have an obligation to stop it. (It's against the law)

If it's not then we have an obligation to affirm it. (It's a constitutional right)

So, I will ask again, is it murder? And why or why not?
Click to expand...
Just because someone views it as murder, doesn’t mean it’s against the law
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
ecco said:
(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.


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.

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?


Feel free to call me out. Feel free to ignore me. I could care less either way.


I just did.

Furthermore...
In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
Click to expand...
No, Roe v Wade does not restrict abortion in any way. States MAY regulate, not restrict, if they choose. Most state regulation laws have been overturned, as over restrictive. The health provision has been interpreted to include mental health, meaning at any stage of a pregnancy a woman can be declared by a physician to have mental health threats from continued pregnancy, at any stage, and the baby may be kileed.

Not the same thing, at all.

The unborn were considered persons till 1973.

The right to life movement began in 1973, immediately after roe

As I said, the Roe v Wade decision puts no restrictions on abortion.

As per usual, once again you were wrong.
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
ecco said:
I didn't miss your point at all. You just don't like the reality of my response.


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,​
Click to expand...
This is a federal law, only applicable for federal crimes. Murder is usually not a federal crime. State law is where murder is applied. State laws, in some cases for a century, have held that killing an unborn baby and it´s mother is murder.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
dianaiad said:
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.
Click to expand...

So who decides when there is a "need"? SCOTUS ruled that the woman who is pregnant has the sole right to decide up to a specified time.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
Deeje said:
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?
Click to expand...
Usually about six months gestation.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
Deeje said:
The life of the unborn was covered under God's law to Israel.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, SCOTUS looked at history to determine at what point during gestation people considered a fetus to be a human being. Had you bothered to actually read Roe v Wade you would have known that. Had you bothered to read The Constitution, you would have known that the laws of this Country are based on things besides God's law to Isreal.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
columbus said:
Families are breaking down.

I'm certain that is more about feminism and divorce than gay marriage or abortion, but it really is breaking down.
Tom
Click to expand...
So you are under the impression that back in the good old days Archie Bunker sang about, family units were more stable. Maybe that was because many families stayed together because divorce was not a viable option from the standpoint of laws and society.

How is feminism causing families to break down?
 
dianaiad

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
ecco said:
So who decides when there is a "need"? SCOTUS ruled that the woman who is pregnant has the sole right to decide up to a specified time.
Click to expand...

You are begging the question.

SCOTUS has been wrong a time or three. They have changed their opinions, as well, something like 300 times. Perhaps you remember Plessy Vs Ferguson? You know the one...overturned over half a century later with Brown vs. the Board of Education?

Or Abood V. Detroit Board of Education, which was the law of the land for four decades, overruled with Janus v. AFSCME?

Or how about this one...Korematsu v. United States, which allowed the forcible internment of Japanese Americans. In actuality, it has never been expressly overturned...just ignored.

So pulling the "Scotus has decided" doesn't work here. Yes, SCOTUS HAS decided. SCOTUS has been wrong before, and will be wrong again, and the question isn't decided by whether SCOTUS decides anything. The question is whether it was a good decision and should be over ruled or adjusted.

Don't come to me with 'SCOTUS settled it," or "fetuses aren't persons" or 'killing a fetus isn't murder" because the law says so. The question is...should the law say so?
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
shmogie said:
Nope, I know the decision very well. Refute me, if you think you can.

Some abortionists or facilities may have policies, but those aren´t law.

An abortionist can always be found to legally take the life of the unborn baby at any stage of the pregnancy.

Assuage your conscience with the myth if you must, but it is just a myth.
Click to expand...
What decision?

"Late term abortions" are for emergencies. Like a friend of mine who recently had to get a "late term abortion" in order to give birth to the two nonviable fetuses within her uterus.

The myth is that women are changing their minds at the last second and getting "late term abortions" just for the hell of it. That's bull.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
leov said:
Well, allow me not to believe their statement, they used it, but suppose they just texted it....idea itself worth Mengele.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you don't believe their statement. Why should anybody else here believe anything they've claimed on their site at all then, given that you don't even accept it???
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
RedDragon94 said:
If it is murder, we have an obligation to stop it. (It's against the law)

If it's not then we have an obligation to affirm it. (It's a constitutional right)

So, I will ask again, is it murder? And why or why not?
Click to expand...


As "murder" is a legal term, I'll respond in kind.

No, abortion isn't murder. There is no killing involved.
What an abortion really is, is the termination of a pregnancy.

A c-section, on other words, is ALSO an abortion.

At no point is a human foetus / baby / whatever killed.
A pregnancy is terminated.

This simply doesn't fit the definition of "murder". It just doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top