Why isn't abortion murder?

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by GmoS719
reply to post by windword

 

You can't give "human being" any definition that you see fit.
You said the fertilized egg was human well I have news for you.
There is no difference between human and human being.

A human being is a sovereign person, with thoughts, emotions hope and dreams and fears. Every cell within your body is human, but a fertilized egg is not a person. It's not a human being.

Again you are giving it your own definition.
Show me one source for this definition.
You can't.

reply to post by Carreau

Well scientifically speaking at 8 weeks the fetus has it's own heart beat, independent measurable brain waves, formed spinal cord, moves all limbs, has all digits and finger prints.

Let's not exaggerate what is and is not present at 8 week of fetal development. The fingers or toes are not developed yet, and certainly no fingerprints!

Takingf a life is murder, plain and simple, be it in the womb, electric chair or anything
War, I'm conflicted with, its still murder, and I have never been placed in the situation where it was my life or theirs

reply to post by windword


Link


Week 8

The fetal development stage begins around the eighth week of the pregnancy. At the beginning of this stage, the placenta has formed a thin, fluid-filled membrane called the amniotic sac. The fetus floats in the amniotic fluid contained within this protective sac, attached to the placenta and the mother via the umbilical cord. All of the oxygen and nutrients needed for development are delivered from the mother's bloodstream to the fetus via this cord. Even at the beginning of this stage, the fetus has rudimentary forms of all of its main body parts. The heart is present, beats, and pumps to circulate blood around the body of the fetus. The brain and spinal cord are both formed and active. The brain produces recordable electrical activity that causes the muscles to contract and the body to move. Arms and legs are both present as well, with corresponding fingers and toes.

Here's more evidence.

There is a tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins. This is hardly controversial. If the claim were made that life was discovered on another planet, for example, there are well-defined criteria to which we could refer to conclusively determine whether the claim was accurate. How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?

LIFE cover photo A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

www.prolifephysicians.org...

Here's what a Dr. of Genetics had to say.

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

Abortion is murder.

reply to post by Carreau


At 8 weeks a fetus is what it is. Nobody is saying that abortion isn't ending a life. But is that life viable enough to be considered a person, with rights that trump the rights and self determinism of the woman who is hosting it's development through her own biology?

reply to post by neoholographic


Thanks for this article. I believe abortion is murder and the only reason it's legal is to reduce the number of low income mouths to feed with government assistance. I don't believe it has anything to do with a woman's right to choose. That's just the way it was sold to the public and an easy way to justify it.

I think most people that are pro-choice are just influenced by that. They think if the government says it's not murder then it must not be murder. I mean it's not like the government ever has any hidden agendas, right?

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by neoholographic

 

Thanks for this article. I believe abortion is murder and the only reason it's legal is to reduce the number of low income mouths to feed with government assistance. I don't believe it has anything to do with a woman's right to choose. That's just the way it was sold to the public and an easy way to justify it.

I think most people that are pro-choice are just influenced by that. They think if the government says it's not murder then it must not be murder. I mean it's not like the government ever has any hidden agendas, right?

BINGO!!

You're exactly right.

reply to post by windword


No I'm not saying one life "trumps" another either way. I'm only saying that at that point there are 2 heart-beats, 2 active brains, and 2 humans. Not just 1 human making a decision that affects only 1 human.

I am not stating I am for or against abortion, I am looking at the situation in a logical way and not in an emotional one.

reply to post by neoholographic


I notice you chose to simply ignore the legal definition that I posted, which specifically spells out WHY abortion is not murder.

Honestly, this thread should be closed, as the question posed by the title has been answered.

Reply to post by neoholographic

because a fetus is a parasite to a pregnant woman. it is not a human, therefore has no rights until it can survive without it's host


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by doclec


So, if someone decided to go around kicking pregnant women and killing the fetuses, that wouldn't be considered murder either?

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by doclec

 

So, if someone decided to go around kicking pregnant women and killing the fetuses, that wouldn't be considered murder either?

Again, refer to the legal definition I posted on the previous page. It spells it out pretty succinctly.

no, it's not murder. they are just walking around kicking pregnant women in the stomach. a cause of the kick might be a loss of the fetus, but it's not murder.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by windword

 

No I'm not saying one life "trumps" another either way. I'm only saying that at that point there are 2 heart-beats, 2 active brains, and 2 humans. Not just 1 human making a decision that affects only 1 human.

I am not stating I am for or against abortion, I am looking at the situation in a logical way and not in an emotional one.

From a logical perspective only, all emotion aside, the woman should have a choice over whether or not she wants to host that life.

There is nothing particularly sacred about our biological processes. We should not consider ourselves victims of our biological processes and urges. We have very right to override biology and do it all the time in other areas of medicine, as well.

reply to post by doclec


How long would a born child survive without care? A 2 year old? Because if a human at any stage of development could not survive on it's own "it" doesn't have rights and can be killed? That is a flawed argument.

reply to post by Carreau


Anyone can take of an infant. No one, but the pregnant woman can carry that pregnancy to term.

reply to post by doclec


Well that's just wrong. Some women only get one chance at pregnancy. This is one reason I feel it has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose.

Reply to post by Ireminisce

windword is right. an infant can be taken care of by the system. a fetus relies on the mother for all nourishment. and if a woman has one chance at pregnancy she shouldnt have an abortion, but i dont know what that has to do with her decision...you can't give full rights to fetuses


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by doclec

 

So, if someone decided to go around kicking pregnant women and killing the fetuses, that wouldn't be considered murder either?

Very good point.

Yes, abortion is murder.

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother's body. Since when does a mother's body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.

www.prolifephysicians.org...