reply to post by captaintyinknots
I'm not gonna bother replying to your numbers... But.. By your own definition:
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.
Bold part is the key point. What I said still stands...
If someone else kills a fetus by kicking a woman, it's considered murder.
If a woman kills the fetus by herself, it's considered murder.
If a woman lets the government kill a fetus, then somehow magically, it's no longer considered murder.
Can anyone explain to me how this makes any sense whatsoever, without appeal to authority? Obviously, the arguments that were presented here, that
it's about the woman being able to choose and whatnot do not hold water, because if she really could choose, it wouldn't be illegal to do it on her
This whole thing is about the government always being the exception to the rules, so that it can pretend to be this benevolent savior of us all, and
you people blindly following them. No one can kill, except the government. No one can counter-fit, except the government. No one can kidnap, except
the government. No one can steal, except the government. No one can abort babies, except the government.
In other words... The only reason abortion is not considered murder, is because the government says so
. There is no other real substantial
logical empirical reason. And if you believe that governments are always right, then you agree that abortion is not murder. But if you think
edit on 15-1-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)