Is Abortion Murder?

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is a FUTURE individual, I was a fetus once, l presume you too

I was a sperm once, I presume you were too.

Therefore, masturbation is mass murder.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fetus does not belong to mother

The uterus does.

 

[shmogie]

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.

The law, roe v. wade, allows abortion from conception to birth. You may want late term abortions to be for emergencies, but what you want has nothing to do with reality.

They occur, are perfectly legal, and many have nothing to do with emergencies.

Why don´t you do a little research on the matter ?

 

[shmogie]

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.

Really ? Murder is the unlawful killing of another by an act or failure to act. First degree murder is the unlawful killing of another with prior intent and planning to accomplish the death.

For almost 200 years before Roe v. Wade, abortion was murder.

Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in the US by way of the unenumerated right of privacy, and by denying the personhood of an unborn baby, for abortion purposes only.

Roe further stated that advances in medical science regarding the personhood of the unborn might require the law to be revisited.

The time has come.

The unborn meet all the criteria of personhood just after the beginning of the second trimester, and they feel pain.

So, your sophistry is interesting. Applying your logic, If I were taking care of my dotty grandmother, I wouldn´t be trying to kill her by not feeding her, I would only be trying to save money, a noble goal.

Roe will be revisited, and the personhood of the unborn baby will be established at some point during the pregnancy.

An abortion after the point, except for legally defined exceptions, will be first degree murder, as it should be.

 

[leov]

My wife just had an abortion 4 months ago.
She was pregnant "the wrong way".

It was abortion or death.

your wife = special case, if doctors determined so, I would not argue about that.

 

[dianaiad]

My wife just had an abortion 4 months ago.
She was pregnant "the wrong way".

It was abortion or death.

I am very sorry for your loss, and it was a loss.

It was a tragic choice; the fetus died, or both mother and fetus died. There was no choice. It was the only thing she could do, and live to possibly have another child, or if not that, simply to live.

Such choices are sometimes (and in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, always) necessary: tragic, and should be mourned for what they are: the unavoidable ending of one human life in order to save another, when there is no chance that both could be saved. No real, or reasonable, or possible, other choice.

But don't think for one minute that a human life wasn't ended, even though it WAS necessary. It was.....and your wife's situation is NOT the same thing, nor her abortion done for, the same reason the vast majority of abortions are done; simply for the sake of convenience.

 

[ecco]

You are begging the question.

SCOTUS has been wrong a time or three. The question is...should the law say so?

No. That is not the question. The question revolves around...

In Roe v Wade, the decision allowing unfettered abortion in the US

That's the comment shmogie made that started this sub-thread. I have shown that Roe v Wade did not allow "unfettered abortion".

Your comments...

SCOTUS has been wrong a time or three.
The question is...should the law say so?​

...are meaningless in terms of my conversation with shmogie.

​

 

[ecco]

So pulling the "Scotus has decided" doesn't work here. Yes, SCOTUS HAS decided.

, 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?

Until it gets overruled by another SCOTUS decision, it is the law of the land. I realize that people who love to hide behind the flag and the Constitution, are the same ones who do everything in their power to bend decision completely out of shape because they don't like it. Alabama, Missouri, Texas, et al.

 

[shmogie]

No. That is not the question. The question revolves around...


That's the comment shmogie made that started this sub-thread. I have shown that Roe v Wade did not allow "unfettered abortion".

Your comments...

SCOTUS has been wrong a time or three.
The question is...should the law say so?​

...are meaningless in terms of my conversation with shmogie.

​

You have shown nothing. Roe v. Wade has No, No, No limitations on abortion from conception to birth.

 

[dianaiad]

No. That is not the question. The question revolves around...


That's the comment shmogie made that started this sub-thread. I have shown that Roe v Wade did not allow "unfettered abortion".

Your comments...

SCOTUS has been wrong a time or three.
The question is...should the law say so?​

...are meaningless in terms of my conversation with shmogie.

​

So...I was getting the conversation back on topic according to the thread title.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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?

Murder is just homicide that society has made illegal. We have not defined abortion as murder, so no. We usually don't assign to fetuses the status of persons, either.

 

[dianaiad]

Until it gets overruled by another SCOTUS decision, it is the law of the land. I realize that people who love to hide behind the flag and the Constitution, are the same ones who do everything in their power to bend decision completely out of shape because they don't like it. Alabama, Missouri, Texas, et al.

That's what being a republic/democracy is all about. We do not necessarily accept court decisions as 'the law of the land' without protest. If such a decision is morally and ethically wrong, then we work to fix/change it.

Which is a darned good thing. Unless of course you want to keep Plessy vs. Ferguson as the law of the land?

I mean, it was for over half a century, after all. You want to evoke stare decicis...well, there you are. That's quite a precedent.

But it got over turned.

............oh, and I would remind everybody that it was the Republicans who were mostly behind that over turning, and were absolutely behind enforcing Brown vs. the Board of Education, and it was Democrats who were violently, and I do mean violently, opposing the whole idea.

Isn't it amazing how (mostly the left wing) people pull out the 'SCOTUS said so, and that settles it" when they like the decision, and criticize anybody who disagrees, but when they DISAGREE with a court decision or law, then 'civil disobedience' and not so civil disobedience and demonstrations are considered honorable and appropriate methods of protest?

Hypocrisy really annoys me.

The question posed by the thread is: "Is abortion murder?"

Well, no. it's not. Scotus and the law of the land say so. The REAL question is:

SHOULD abortion be murder?

When it is sought because the woman entered into consensual sex in full knowledge that sex makes babies, and she wants an abortion because...she didn't use her birth control properly and it's just plain not convenient to have a baby right now and....

yeah. It should be.

Not all abortions should be classed as 'murder,' just as not all killings are murder. It is the motive and actions of the killer that make something murder, after all, and ending a human life just BECAUSE it's going to be born? No other reason...just because that life is inconvenient, or will interfere with the woman's life?

Yeah. That should be murder, in my opinion.

I'm all for pro-choice. It's just that I think that a woman's choice about whether or not her convenience is more important than someone else's life ends when she has consensual sex.

The time to choose is BEFORE that. Birth control. It's a good thing. Responsibility for one's actions. Also a good thing.

 

[RedDragon94]

Murder is just homicide that society has made illegal. We have not defined abortion as murder, so no. We usually don't assign to fetuses the status of persons, either.

True dat about personhood.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really ?

Yes, really.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another by an act or failure to act. First degree murder is the unlawful killing of another with prior intent and planning to accomplish the death.

Yes. And abortion is neither, as abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in the US by way of the unenumerated right of privacy, and by denying the personhood of an unborn baby, for abortion purposes only.

Not "only". The unborn have exactly zero personhood and you can see this in everything.

For example, if there is a population count in a country - the unborn aren't counted.
The unborn have no nationality.
The unborn have no citizenship.
The unborn have no passport.
And eventhough an unborn has no citizenship, no nationality, no passport... when a pregnant woman finds herself in a country (any country), the unborn isn't seen as being illegal in the country.


Literally NOTHING attributes persoonhood to the unborn.
Except certain religious doctrines, which aren't relevant in a secular society.

The unborn meet all the criteria of personhood just after the beginning of the second trimester, and they feel pain.

So, will they then be counted during a census?
Will they be seen as citizens?
Will they require a passport?
If they have neither, will they be seen as illegal residents?

Applying your logic, If I were taking care of my dotty grandmother, I wouldn´t be trying to kill her by not feeding her, I would only be trying to save money, a noble goal.

No, that would neglect.

Roe will be revisited, and the personhood of the unborn baby will be established at some point during the pregnancy

And secularism will take another hit and the facist theocracy will be yet another step closer.

An abortion after the point, except for legally defined exceptions, will be first degree murder, as it should be.

I already look forward to the day where a woman will be the target of a first degree murder charge investigation after a miscarriage. Good luck with that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

your wife = special case, if doctors determined so, I would not argue about that.

Another women had an abortion after being gang raped.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am very sorry for your loss, and it was a loss.

Not really. The pregnancy was in one of the ovaries instead of the uterus. Don't know the english term for such condition. It was discovered after 3 weeks and removed after 5.

The removal of part of the ovaries was the actual loss.

It was a tragic choice; the fetus died, or both mother and fetus died.

I wouldn't call it a "tragedy".
And if i were, the tragedy was the fact that she required surgery and had a part of an ovary removed.

Such choices are sometimes (and in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, always) necessary: tragic, and should be mourned for what they are: the unavoidable ending of one human life in order to save another, when there is no chance that both could be saved. No real, or reasonable, or possible, other choice.

The fetus was just a blob of cells dude. Get over it.

But don't think for one minute that a human life wasn't ended, even though it WAS necessary.

No. A blob of cells, is not yet a human.

It was.....and your wife's situation is NOT the same thing, nor her abortion done for, the same reason the vast majority of abortions are done; simply for the sake of convenience.

Another person I know had an abortion after being gang raped.

 

[leov]

Another women had an abortion after being gang raped.

it is tragic but it is not baby's fault. i' ve seen on the news Izidi women had a child the same way, she loved that child had to leave her tribe because they would not accept that baby.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

it is tragic but it is not baby's fault.

There was no baby yet.

i' ve seen on the news Izidi women had a child the same way, she loved that child had to leave her tribe because they would not accept that baby.

And that's her choice.
If she didn't want that child, for whatever reason, it is her choice and to then FORCE her to have that child anyway, is like raping her again.

Just like it was wrong of that tribe to try and force her to have it removed.

It's the woman's choice. Not yours, not theirs. Hers.

 

[leov]

There was no baby yet.



And that's her choice.
If she didn't want that child, for whatever reason, it is her choice and to then FORCE her to have that child anyway, is like raping her again.

Just like it was wrong of that tribe to try and force her to have it removed.

It's the woman's choice. Not yours, not theirs. Hers.

yes, it is her choice, but it is morally wrong, it is murder.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

yes, it is her choice

indeed it is

, but it is morally wrong

no it's not

, it is murder.

and no it's not.