Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why isn't abortion murder?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


yawn....why are you still ignoring the legal definition? Using an OBVIOUS propaganda source does not back up your point in any way. The least you could do is get a source that at least ATTEMPTS to hide its overwhelming bias.

It is not murder as there is not legal authority over the fetus.

/thread.
edit on 15-1-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-1-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
whaaaat...ok first your source says "prolifephysicians...", do you have something a little less bias? second do you know what the function of an umbilical cord is?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


You're not making any sense at all. Yes, abortion is murder but it's lawful murder because of Roe vs. Wade. This is why I said Roe should be overturned.

Abortion is intentionally cutting off the process of life. It's murder.


Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. See Homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder. Some other states base their murder laws on the Model Penal Code.

At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

"Intent-to-kill murder"
"Grievous-bodily-harm murder" - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodiliy harm. For example, if a person fatally stabbed someone, even if she only intended to wound her victim, she could still be executed.
"Felony-murder" - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
"Depraved heart murder" - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.


www.law.cornell.edu...

Abortion is lawful sadly but it's lawful murder (intent to kill).



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

According to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, a person is "a human being." Attempts to render an entire class of human beings as "non-persons" based upon arbitrary qualities such as age and place of residence in order to discriminate against them is immoral and unjust. History is full of infamous examples of governments legalizing the discrimination of an entire class of human beings by rendering them "non-persons." Jews were rendered "sub-humans" in Germany in the 1940's and colonial slaveowners bought and sold Africans as "property." As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that Dred Scott, a black slave, was not a "person" with rights but the "property" of his master. Was the Court wrong then? Of course! The Supreme Court of 1973 that legalized abortion nationwide with its Roe v. Wade decision was just as immoral and unjust. They dehumanized an entire class of human beings in order to legitimize wholesale discrimination against them. Abortion may go down in history as the greatest human rights abuse of all time.


Again, hopefully Roe is overturned and we do away with this lawful murder of innocent human beings.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


So if you are going to force me to have a baby I can't care for, you are going to take care of it, right?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Reply to post by neoholographic
 


it's not homicide because a fetus is not a human being


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Why is abortion not murder?....

Like all things legal it comes down to what the state has to say it is the state who define “murder” and “abortion” in some states their definition of “murder” does include the act of abortion yet in most western states abortion and murder are not the same even although both involve the killing of another living being.

The reason has to do with the idea of sentience, that is to say when one becomes self-aware and develops consciousness. An unfertilised ovum or a spermatozoa cell is not self-aware it is just a cell, like a skin cell, the same can be said of a Zygote that is to say the cell formed when a ovum is fertilised by a sperm and again it is not self-aware. Likewise the embryo itself is not self-aware; neither is the foetus itself and so on. Essentially the argument is that the unborn child does not know it is a living being and as such is not “human”.

This is a highly controversial argument because science has found it difficult to determine when exactly a foetus becomes sentient. When a child is born the baby is not self-aware, it can feel pain, hunger and can smell its mothers milk but it is not self-aware according to some scientists the actions of the child are driven by instinct it is unable to interpret emotional impulse and makes not conscious choices.

The controversy arises when one takes the view that abortion is just because the child is not sentient because when taken to extremes the argument becomes very muddy, on the one hand proponents of this argument could say that because a 2 month old baby is not sentient it is just to kill the child. Likewise those who take the view that the child has the ability to develop a consciousness and as such abortion is wrong fall into a similar trap. That would mean that they are saying any cell that has the potential to produce life should be regarded as life, which would make contraception and masturbation murder at the most extreme end of the argument.

It is up to the individual really what end of this argument they chose to take, for some it is a religious believe and others would say why is it right that the rights of the child are second to the rights of the mother. The problem with that argument is that the answer is simple, the mother is self-aware and the foetus is not. Then there are others who say that abortion is a necessary evil in society because without it birth rates would surpass the limit of population which the state and society can support.

I am personally against abortion however I would not presume to judge or ridicule those who are “pro-abortion” that is their choice. My reasons for being against abortion are religious therefore my attitude is that it is for God to judge if those who advocate abortion are wrong or not.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


You seem to have trouble comprehending this, so Ill post it one more time for you:

Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.


dictionary.law.com...

post whatever you want,but this right here, proves, beyond argument, that it is not murder. It is not the semantic argument you are attempting to turn it into. By U.S. law, it is a FACT that abortion is not murder.
edit on 15-1-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I am not going into legal definitions, as those differ in time and space tremendously, nor are they guarantee of morality.

Ethically speaking, the issue of beginning and also end of human personhood is not at all clear. It is only relatively recently that brain death was established as an official definition of death. The situation when it comes to beginning is even less clear, with many available thresholds to choose from.

Id go with the appearance of brainwaves in cortex, which makes sense because it is kind of an opposite to brain death. I think our definitions of beginning and end of human "life" should be consistent. This "brain birth" does not occur before 5th month of pregnancy, so its not murder before this time, IMHO.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
First you say:


Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Why would you support restricting freedom?


Followed later by:



In your opinion. You keep forgetting to add that. IN YOUR OPINION. Thats all it is. And i respect your freedom to have it. Its sad that you dont have the same respect for other people.


And then later you say:

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


As well as:

/thread.


So you accuse the OP of supporting the restriction of freedom and then call for the thread to be closed - thereby restricting the OP's freedom of speech...simply because the OP disagrees with the morality of US law and chooses to call it murder. As do many others in this thread. So freedom of speech in this thread only for all who agree with your opinion of the morality of the law?

And speaking of what is "legal", what about all of the innocents we murder every day because they happen to be in the wrong town of the wrong country? Well that's ok too! Drone strikes that murder children are legal because we were gunning for terrorists that just might be hiding there. And since that is also legal, there can be absolutely no moral objection or else we need to call for those who speak out against it to be silenced too.

Regardless of what United States law says, you will never change anyone's morals - or lack of morals. You may be successful in shutting them up, but you won't change their opinion.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 




Why is it a womans right to choose

Because It's inside of her.

For me, there's no more debate.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tallcool1
 


1)freedom of speech is non existant on a privately owned website. Sad how many people do no understand this.

2)I asked for the thread to be closed, because the topic of the thread is a question, and that question was unequivocally answered. Thats it and thats all.

3)No one is saying you cannot say abortion is murder, even though it is incorrect.

4)This thread is not about drone strikes.

5)Im not asking anyone to change their opinion. In fact, I have openly stated that I respect their right to have that opinion. what I dont respect is an attempt to force personal views onto society as a whole.
edit on 15-1-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by tallcool1
 


1)freedom of speech is non existant on a privately owned website. Sad how many people do no understand this.

2)I asked for the thread to be closed, because the topic of the thread is a question, and that question was unequivocally answered. Thats it and thats all.

3)No one is saying you cannot say abortion is murder, even though it is wrong.

4)This thread is not about drone strikes.

5)Im not asking anyone to change their opinion. In fact, I have openly stated that I respect their right to have that opinion. what I dont respect is an attempt to force personal views onto society as a whole.


1) Ok - agreed. You are abolutely right on this point.

2) I guess I can see your point. I don't agree, but I do acknowledge the validity of your point. Still, once a question has been answered it doesn't mean that there can't be more discussion on the opinions of our members.

3) Legally you are correct. Morally not.

4) I am going to assume you are bright enough to figure out my point. Your entire argument is based on legal issues as if there's no room for a moral argument. I was showing another example of legal vs moral. Sorry if it went over your head.

5) I don't think anyone in this thread was trying to force anyone into anything. I don't personally believe that abortion on demand as a form of birth control is morally right, but I'm certainly not going to stand in anyone's way. I know people who have had abortions and I feel that it was their choice and I will not do or say anything to make them feel bad about it. All we are doing is having a discussion here - not forcing anything on anybody. And in reality, the law is just the personal views of the Supreme Court - personal views forced on people who don't agree. Not even the whole court agreed. This goes for far more than just abortion.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tallcool1
 


The Op of this thread is trying to force the label 'murder' onto abortion. Murder is illegal. It is punishable all the way up to death.

To call it murder is to say people should be prosecuted for it. That is an attempt to force a view



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
It is horribly sad that that many babies are killed, especially given so many people who want to have children in the worst way, often suffer infertility of the most heartbreaking magnitude.

As someone has had a few miscarriages and who has had a stillborn, the very idea of people wantonly killing their babies, is soul-crushing.

It would be nice if governments decided to offer funding for women to carry to term and adopt their unwanted babies as opposed to giving tens of millions to Planned Parenthood for abortions. It might not solve the problem entirely, but it would certainly help.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I find it really funny that things are being discussed by 'legal' definition. That's the same as arguing that mass genocide is not murder, but collateral damage. Laws are using words that divert attention from real issues. If you want to talk about ethics and what's right and wrong, it should be independent of law. If something being good or bad is only dependent on what 'law' there is, in other words, if something being good or bad is only dependent on our fear of punishment, we really are a pathetic species. I hope you people are actually better than that, and can actually reason instead of being blind followers.

I find it really awkward that people are saying that they have the choice of allowing another being to grow inside of them, while there are more than enough precautions one can take to not let conception happen in the first place. If you let it happen anyway, it's your own fault, and the being inside you should not pay for it. Things like rape are obvious exceptions, but things like being drunk are not.

I find it interesting that people are saying that a fetus is not a human being. At which point is it considered a human being, and what are your reasons for it?
edit on 15-1-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by rimjaja
 


I'm sorry for your experience, but that is YOUR life, and has no bearing on anyone elses. Its sad that you have had issues having kids, but that in no way gives you the right to tell others that they MUST carry a child to term.

As for adoption, you do understand how terrible the american adoption system is, dont you?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


I find it funny when so many choose to ignore the fact that, in the end, the legal definition is what matters. You have your idea of moral. I have mine. Neither matters in the eyes of the law.

There are hundreds of arguments to be made for being pro-choice-in the end, though, none matter, because it is legal.

The good thing is, you can choose NOT TO HAVE AN ABORTION, if you wish.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by vasaga
 


I find it funny when so many choose to ignore the fact that, in the end, the legal definition is what matters.
Why is that exactly?


Originally posted by captaintyinknots
You have your idea of moral. I have mine. Neither matters in the eyes of the law.
And what about laws of other countries then? Not everyone can be right.


Originally posted by captaintyinknots
There are hundreds of arguments to be made for being pro-choice-in the end, though, none matter, because it is legal.
What is 'legal' exactly, other than an OPINION that has been forced upon the people at gunpoint?


Originally posted by captaintyinknots
The good thing is, you can choose NOT TO HAVE AN ABORTION, if you wish.
And the bad thing is, you can choose to have an abortion, after being irresponsible.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
My little opinion,.

I believe abortion is murder.. so I dont have one. My belief is not a religious one. I make my choices and take responsibility for my actions.. as everyone should. If YOU want an abortion, it is legal, have as many as you want, and YOU should take responsibility for your own actions. You want one, pay for it. I do not agree with it and feel it is forcing me to do something against my will to be party to it if I fund it. Much like i feel about certain military actions.. I am party to something against my will. I do feel that medical issues and cases of rape are definitely more of a grey area than abortion for birth control or because you cant make adult choices. I do understand mistakes, but having sex is an on purpose. There are all sorts of super fun ways to have orgasms and neato stuff.. without the risk of pregnancy.. in case you havent heard.


So, until its deemed illegal.. have at it. Abort away. Just dont ask me to pat you on the back and tell you I think its okay. Dont demand I accept and condone it. Take care of your own business and stop demanding that everyone agree with you. If you are so firm in your decisions concerning abortion, why do you need validation by acceptance anyway..





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join