I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

windword
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

I had a friend some years back in that situation. A young, single girl, raped. She got pregnant. She kept the baby. This was a beautiful little girl, very sweet, and very loved. The mother stated simply that she didn't believe punishing a child for the crime of the father was right.

I hope that this young, single mother and rape survivor doesn't live in a state that give parental rights to her rapist.

No. Such a thing is abominable when it does occur, and those laws should be changed. That isn't a reason to kill the child, though.

windword
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

It is also a fact that the tests for these things are often incorrect. There are parents that were told, after amnio, that the baby would be "defective", and abortion was recommended. They refused, and had perfectly healthy children, with NO issues.

I seriously doubt that it's a "fact" that medical tests are "often" incorrect. What source, besides one second hand story, verifies you claim? Are you encouraging mother's to be to ignore their doctor's findings?

If a couple is given news that their fetus has a severe medical issue, that will certainly result in a short life filled with unthinkable pain and misery, not to mention certain financial hardship, in your opinion, should they have a right to choose to terminate that pregnancy?

What if the doctor's findings confirm that this fetus poses severe risk to the mother's health? In your opinion, should they have the right to choose to terminate that pregnancy?

I have known couples that were told they had a "defective" child, and found later that the child was normal. I have read a LOT of stories of other such couples, too. Such stories aren't false. Tests aren't foolproof, and even a top-notch OB/GYN, head of that department in a major hospital, admitted they can be wrong. The tests also come with real risks.

it isn't our place to decide of a person has a right to live or not. That is for God to decide. ALL life comes with some pain, and some problems. Who are we to say that one person doesn't have the right to their life? We don't have that right.

As a mother, I would die before I would kill a child to save my own life.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

No. Such a thing is abominable when it does occur, and those laws should be changed.

But, this does happen, and children are often placed with an abusive parent or caretaker. There are plenty of holes in the law that work against the best interest of the children involved.

That isn't a reason to kill the child, though.

A fertilized egg.......
An embryo.........
A fetus.......
Isn't a child!

I have known couples that were told they had a "defective" child, and found later that the child was normal. I have read a LOT of stories of other such couples, too. Such stories aren't false. Tests aren't foolproof, and even a top-notch OB/GYN, head of that department in a major hospital, admitted they can be wrong. The tests also come with real risks.

Fine. get a second opinion.

But, you religious folk can't keep denying science and medicine, like denying carbon dating, but relying on Xray technology and chemo therapy, accepting vaccines, but denying the sciences of biology and evolution, accepting astronomy but denying cosmology..........

It isn't really ethical, in order to promote your pro-life stance, to encourage expectant mothers to ignore their doctor's finding and advice, because you don't like the prognosis. Denial doesn't make a problem go away.

it isn't our place to decide of a person has a right to live or not. That is for God to decide.

There is so much wrong with this argument that I scarcely know where to begin!

If it's for God to decide perhaps we should stop all life saving and life extending methods and leave it all up to God. No more paramedics, surgeons or fire fighters. Using this argument, employers and even insurers could deny coverage based on God's will!

According the Bible, God does tell us that it is his will for us to kill others. A rebellious teenager, a fornicator or an adulterer, or a person who doesn't worship YOUR God is fair game. The God of the Old Testament even allows for abortion if the husband of the pregnant women isn't sure that he's the sire!

We can't have a free society if we allow legislation that's based on some religion's interpretation "GOD" and of what is God's will. There are those that don't believe in a God at all, little alone your God. You can't enforce your beliefs on others, no matter how justified you may think they are.

The way I see it, the pro-life God is biology, and biology is the will of their God. But to me, a society who's morality is based on a biologically driven moral compass is equal to the materialistic metaphor of "The Beast", that is our biblical enemy. The Beast (sexual urges) must be resisted, but if, in a moment of weakness, or if ones' birth control should fail, then "The Beast's" will must take precedent. The Beast must be honored.

As a mother, I would die before I would kill a child to save my own life.

Good for you. But not all women feel that way, and you can't force a woman to place a fertilized egg's, an embryo's or a fetus' potential to realize life after birth, above and beyond her own well being.

Your comment, however, is reminiscent of Church doctrine on the role of women as baby makers.

"If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."
Martin Luther 1483 to 1546

Forgive me for having absolutely no respect for what some perceive as "God's will." I prefer to leave "God's will" out of legislation and opt fora society that reveres personal freedom and free will, thank you.

reply to post by windword

Your comment, however, is reminiscent of Church doctrine on the role of women as baby makers. "If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there." Martin Luther 1483 to 1546

Good thing I wasn't eating while I read this or I would be cleaning my monitor right now. This is not doctrine of any Christian church. It is one man's opinion and he didn't write the Bible, (change it up some, but he didn't write it). Do you think Christians should hang their faith on every word this man says? Sounds like this is what you believe. I doubt any denominations go there.

Ephesians 5:25

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I know I should give your lengthy post serious consideration and response, but it's Midnight and all I'm up for is a quick hit and run.

Forgive me for having absolutely no respect for what some perceive as "God's will." I prefer to leave "God's will" out of legislation and opt fora society that reveres personal freedom and free will, thank you.

Does that include allowing people the free will to vote to criminalize abortion?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

This is not doctrine of any Christian church. It is one man's opinion and he didn't write the Bible, (change it up some, but he didn't write it). Do you think Christians should hang their faith on every word this man says? Sounds like this is what you believe. I doubt any denominations go there.

The Christian church "hangs its faith" on the words of men, and it's men that decided the doctrine of the church and how it should be enforced.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE). He wrote to a friend:
"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

St. Tertullian (about 155 to 225 CE):
"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."

reply to post by charles1952

Does that include allowing people the free will to vote to criminalize abortion?

Can personal freedom and free will exist in a society that "votes" to take the rights of certain populations? The USA is NOT a Democracy, it's a Republic. If we allowed mob rule blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn't be able to own property, vote,ask for a divorce or lead a company/business.

Governments that disregard free will and personal freedom usually are governments in bed with religion, and religion, historically, has no respect for personal freedom or free will.

5 Countries That Would Let a Woman Die Before Getting an Abortion

List of Countries where Abortion is illegal
Angola,
Central African Rep.Chad
Congo
Benin
Gabon
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Madagascar,
Mauritius,
Mauritania,
Senegal,
Somalia,
Uganda.
Afghanistan,
Iran,
Egypt,
Lebanon,
Libya,
Oman,
Syria,
United Arab Emirates
Yemen.
Bangladesh,
Myanmar,
Indonesia,
Laos,
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Malta
Colombia,
Ireland
Brazil,
Guatemala,
Haiti,
Honduras,
Nicaragua,
Panama,
Venezuela,
Paraguay,
Dominican Republic
Chile,
El Salvador
Mexico
Sudan (r)
Cote d’Ivoire
Lesotho
Mali
Niger
Tanzania
- See more at: www.whichcountry.co...

Which of these countries would you like to see the USA model of it's concept of human/women's rights after?

About 42 million. This astonishing figure is the number of abortions worldwide per year. For comparison, the population of Argentina is only a few thousands bigger. Indeed, what would you say, if there were one Argentina less each year? Some people suppose abortions to be a social crime, because innocent babies are killed without any sin or mistake, and a crystal soul dies before birth. It's true. However, when it comes to women who were raped, who have no money to take care of a baby or to unintended pregnancy, what is better, an abortion or unhappy lives of both parents and a child? Society has to admit that women will do abortions with or without permission of the government, just because it's their own decision. However, the consequences of unsafe abortions are much worse than the consequences of safe ones. Therefore, abortions should be legalized at least for two reasons. One of them is that such a measure can help to cut the level of committed crimes, because fewer potential criminals will be born. Another reason is maternal health. Every year almost 70,000 women die from the effects of unsafe abortions. This is an outrageous fact. By legalizing abortions, this number could reduce in a few times.
Firstly, legalization of abortions is a right way to reduce the level of crimes. To begin with, it is common knowledge, that women make abortions only in the cases of absolute necessity: they are abandoned by a father of a child or they are in their teens or too poor, so they do not want that child. In any case, such women usually cannot provide their child with enough care. Consequently, a child has less probability to become a successful and well-developed person. Hence, having less chance to show achievements in labor market such child is in a high risk group to become a criminal. According to the research conducted by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, there is a strong correlation between the level of crimes in 1990s and the legalization of abortions in 1973 in USA. The legalization was extended to the whole country and already by the early 1980 the official number of abortions reached 1.6 million per year, or approximately, one per 2.25 born children. It is known that before the legalization lots of women who actually wanted to make an abortion just could not afford it. However, after 1973 “instead of an illegal procedure that might cost $500, any woman could easily obtain an abortion, often for less than $100” (Levitt and Dubner 126). According to the study, a typical unborn child in first years of legalization had 50 percent more probability than an average child to live in poverty and also was 60 percent more likely to have a single-parent family. These clearly lead the conclusion that such child would have been expected mostly to become a criminal. Concluding, there is clear statistic evidence, that after less than 18 years of legalization, in the early 1990s, the number of criminal decreased dramatically, and it proves the public benefit of legalization of abortion.
Secondly, abortions shouldn’t be restricted, because making abortions illegal will lead to an increase in deaths caused by unsafe abortions rather than reduce the amount of them. Today 40% of the world’s women of reproductive age live in countries where abortion is highly restricted. As the experience of these countries shows, in most cases restrictive laws do not stop women from making abortions, but force them to find other, unsafe ways to do it (Cohen 3). Therefore, almost a half of women who have a clandestine abortion suffer complications and need to receive medical care. These complications can lead to such consequences as anemia, chronic inflammation of the reproductive tract and even secondary infertility. On the contrary, the evidence shows that making abortions legal reduces the level of mortality. For instance, in South Africa 6 years after the liberalization of abortions the amount of deaths caused by unsafe abortions has decreased by more than 50% (Haddad et al. 124). So, there is no good in restricting abortions, as it has negative effects on women’s health and causes lots of deaths due to unsafe abortions.
All things considered, we firmly believe that abortions should be made legal all over the world for two main reasons. The first reason is that the legalization of abortions can significantly reduce the level of crime. The second reason is that restricting abortion will lead to an increase of deaths due to unsafe abortions, so its consequences are worse than those of legalization. As the experience of many countries shows, the struggle with the amount of abortions has nothing to do with making abortions illegal. Abortion is a serious step that is taken only in hopeless situations. Therefore, restricted or not, abortions will take place. The question is what the consequences will be. Making abortions hardly accessible, mothers are forced to make abortions unsafely. Thus, we impose threat on their health without reducing the amount of abortions and saving more lives. Just imagine, seven women per hour die, because they were left with no choice rather than to have a clandestine abortion! When the costs of restricting abortions are so high, does this measure still seem relevant for society, where the health of individuals is above all?

windword
But, this does happen, and children are often placed with an abusive parent or caretaker. There are plenty of holes in the law that work against the best interest of the children involved.

Bad things happen to everyone. Based on your logic, we should just eliminate the entire human race, so they don't ever get hurt.

LadyGreenEyes
That isn't a reason to kill the child, though.

windword
A fertilized egg.......
An embryo.........
A fetus.......
Isn't a child![/quote]

DNA shows that you are mistaken.

LadyGreenEyes
I have known couples that were told they had a "defective" child, and found later that the child was normal. I have read a LOT of stories of other such couples, too. Such stories aren't false. Tests aren't foolproof, and even a top-notch OB/GYN, head of that department in a major hospital, admitted they can be wrong. The tests also come with real risks.

windword
Fine. get a second opinion.

But, you religious folk can't keep denying science and medicine, like denying carbon dating, but relying on Xray technology and chemo therapy, accepting vaccines, but denying the sciences of biology and evolution, accepting astronomy but denying cosmology..........

It's denying science to claim that a human being at an early stage of development, with unique DNA, is simply a "part of the mother", and thus subject to her whims to live or die. If you want to discuss things like carbon dating, evolution, and so forth, start a thread for that. It's off topic here.

windword
It isn't really ethical, in order to promote your pro-life stance, to encourage expectant mothers to ignore their doctor's finding and advice, because you don't like the prognosis. Denial doesn't make a problem go away.

It isn't ethical to pretend that a person isn't a person to excuse killing them, to promote your pro-abortion stance. A doctor that tells someone to kill their child should lose his medical license. No, denial certainly doesn't make the problem go away, and many formerly pro-abortion people have realized that.

windword
If it's for God to decide perhaps we should stop all life saving and life extending methods and leave it all up to God. No more paramedics, surgeons or fire fighters. Using this argument, employers and even insurers could deny coverage based on God's will!

Are you actually trying to compare deliberately ending a life to taking measures to save one? Really??? I can't even begin to comment on that.

windword
We can't have a free society if we allow legislation that's based on some religion's interpretation "GOD" and of what is God's will. There are those that don't believe in a God at all, little alone your God. You can't enforce your beliefs on others, no matter how justified you may think they are.

We cannot have a free society of some members of that society receive no protection under the law for even their right to live. Pretending that the unborn aren't human is forcing them to accept YOUR beliefs, and they have no say in the matter. Separate people with unique DNA are not part of the mother; they are human beings at an early stage of development, and should be afforded every right of all human beings. Stop trying to bring religion into this, and address the science you claim to support, but ignore on this simple matter.

windword
The way I see it, the pro-life God is biology, and biology is the will of their God. But to me, a society who's morality is based on a biologically driven moral compass is equal to the materialistic metaphor of "The Beast", that is our biblical enemy. The Beast (sexual urges) must be resisted, but if, in a moment of weakness, or if ones' birth control should fail, then "The Beast's" will must take precedent. The Beast must be honored.

Do you even know what that's supposed to mean? Please make up your mind, and either address this as a religious person, or don't. This constant back and forth is making me dizzy.

LadyGreenEyes
As a mother, I would die before I would kill a child to save my own life.

windword
Good for you. But not all women feel that way, and you can't force a woman to place a fertilized egg's, an embryo's or a fetus' potential to realize life after birth, above and beyond her own well being.

Those women should keep their legs crossed, then. If someone isn't responsible enough to raise a child that results from their actions, they have no business committing those actions. Killing another person for one's own irresponsibility is the worst example of the "it's someone else's fault" mentality of the modern society. A "fertilized egg" is a tiny human being. Denial gets you nowhere.

windword
Forgive me for having absolutely no respect for what some perceive as "God's will." I prefer to leave "God's will" out of legislation and opt fora society that reveres personal freedom and free will, thank you.

Except, of course, for the personal free will and freedom of all those killed in the womb, right? Easier to pretend they aren't really people, right? Gee, didn't people say that about certain skin colors at one time?

LadyGreenEyes
Except, of course, for the personal free will and freedom of all those killed in the womb, right? Easier to pretend they aren't really people, right? Gee, didn't people say that about certain skin colors at one time?

There's no pretening needed.

It's not a person.

Its functionality is closer to a parasite.

with unique DNA

Just like a parasite.

reply to post by TheRegal

Dear TheRegal,

It's not a person. . . . Its functionality is closer to a parasite.

And here we return to an oft discussed question, and further proof that the subject can't be discussed logically.

If we say that only a person who functions in a certain way is a human, there are several logical and practical problems. One, of course, is how much functioning is needed to be human and is it decided by courts, legislators, each individual doctor making his own call? All of those are insufficient.

Second, the elderly are often reduced to a condition where they cannot function. At some point do they stop being human? Remember that pre-born babies have brain activity. Sleepers have no ability to function, but they will regain it in eight hours. Those knocked unconscious may regain it in eight days. Pre-born babies will regain it in eight months. That's the difference between human and non-human?

And if it is not a human, what is it? A giraffe? Science says that it is a member of the human race, which shouldn't be surprising.

It's very uncomfortable to say we should kill a human being, but as some prefer the killing to continue, they are forced to say it isn't a human being. That question was discussed earlier in the thread.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


It's certainly human, there's no question about that. But no, it's not a human being. There's a whole lot of controversy around the areas of when you really begin to be able to call it a human being. Having a parasitic functionality certainly does add credit to the pro-choice side, especially in the early trimesters. This is literally a fleshy growth in a woman's uterus that robs her of her nutrients and energy and physical capabilities. Your analogies that you suggested do not, so they are strawmen. It's not the same thing.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say about giraffes here, because I'm fairly certain that science does not consider them human. They do have 7 vertabrae in their necks just as humans do but other than that they are not even primates much less a part of the hominidae (great apes) family. Also, the term "human race" is never used in science, because human beings are not a race; we are a species.

We're all familiar with the saying about "the right to swing your fist in public ends where my nose begins". The right a woman has to determine what happens to her body ends where her baby's body begins. Because chemical changes occur that allow a female to carry a separate and distinct person (with a different blood type even!), we should be elated that even if no one else recognizes it, the woman's own body recognizes that the developing fetus is a separate, distinct being and makes life-affirming accommodations for it. Are we so out of touch with our own bodies that we don't recognize life blossoming even inside ourselves?

reply to post by whitewave


Women do not want to sacrifice their bodies for another life anymore. Like it or not, there it is. What for? No one cares after they take their first breath anyway. In the past, our babies use to be an asset to a civilization and producing food. The only valued babies in our country are the ones born to celebrities and the wealthy.

Having read the article and some of the postings the following can be stated:

This article is more than just about the abortion debate, and should ultimately serve to enlighten and help us understand all of the issues that around the entire abortion issue. At the heart of the matter is this as the facts will direct, taking out everything and bringing it down to its most basic level, and the truth becomes clear.

A man and a woman are in a relationship. They are not married and thus the concept of family is not really there. They are engaging in having unprotected sex. The problem is that the man does not want children, not at this point in his life and the woman does. In the course of such, the man tricks the woman and gives her a pill, lying to her about the nature of said pill and it caused her to abort and end the pregnancy.

Those are the facts of the case. And from what I can tell, this is not about abortion and here is how I came to that conclusion. The first is that the man and woman were engaging in unprotected sex. There is no mention of preventative measures mentioned, no mention on the use of birth control pills or of the use of condoms. Not one, so the risk of pregnancy has just raised up.

The second point is that the man did not want the child, and the woman did. The question now is how the law or even society rectifies such a situation, if one person does not want children and the other does. What legal rights does the man have, to say no I do not want a child, I do not want the expense and I do not want to deal with such? In most cases the law is written in a biased point of view where the man has no rights, and would be financially responsible to the point of jail or the loss of some privileges granted by the state.

But the third point that I think many people are missing, is that this man lied and gave his girlfriend a pill, knowing the effects, yet hiding such from her. What would the issue had been if the woman was allergic to the medicine that he gave her, or there was a complication that caused her death? There are laws that are written to protect people, and if it was a doctor that did such, the doctor would face harsh penalties and a loss of license in the ensuing court battles.

If anything I would think that the charges that the man would face should not be the death of an unborn child, but the following: Practicing medicine without a license, malpractice and attempted murder. The fines and penalties would be far more sever and it would send out a stronger signal that any sort of medical procedure needs to be conducted by a licensed professional and not take matters into one’s own hands. And at the same time, the laws around children need to be removed and rewritten, to also include the man’s point of view to where it makes it where a man can avoid having to pay for child support, if he can prove that he did everything possible and used contraceptives during sex. That way it would be very clear that he was not wanting to have children.

It is a lie, a self deception to say life does NOT begin at CONCEPTION so you can justify abortion.

You do not have the answers to creation but God our creator does, He has revealed it, life begins at CONCEPTION. He creates a new human person with a body and a SOUL. We can know and modern science today shows you with technology.

Do it, you do not know your last day. If you have had ANY involvement with an abortion and that includes
voting for a pro-abortion candidate (no matter their level, national, state or local) because you have supported their legislating abortion! Please, from the heart confess this MORTAL sin to God. He is merciful and loving and is waiting for you but you must act, confess this sin to Him.

Check the KJV or the Douay-Rheims Bible. The verse in the KJV is Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 50:7 in the
Douay Rheims. www.drbo.org...


p.s. Catholics must do more, they must go to Confession. Go to a neighboring parish, just go.




For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.

reply to post by MOMof3

The only valued babies in our country are the ones born to celebrities and the wealthy.

Could not disagree with you more. I am sorry if you don't feel that your parents valued you. I see tons of people sharing their pride and joy across Facebook and they are not wealthy or celebrities.

Do you think people adopt children because they no desire to share their love?

People, big or little are priceless, whether they are homeless or live in a castle.

Any society that has no respect for humanity is doomed. Our country still cares for each other. It is what love is all about.

reply to post by colbe

You do not have the answers to creation but God our creator does, He has revealed it, life begins at CONCEPTION. He creates a new human person with a body and a SOUL. We can know and modern science today shows you with technology.

I don't who the "you" is that you're talking to, but it sounds like YOU think that YOU have the answers to creation.

God creates a human person? Uh, no he doesn't. Sex creates a human person. Also, sex created kittens and puppies. I guess sex creates a soul too, and that puppies and kittens have souls too, because they were all created the same way.

And oh yeah, life doesn't begin at conception. Nobody know when life started, but whenever it did start, if hasn't stopped, and nobody has created or even has a clue how to create "life" ever since.

reply to post by TheRegal

Dear TheRegal,

Interesting approach, thanks for your post. May I look at in the order in which you wrote it?

It's certainly human, there's no question about that. But no, it's not a human being.

That's why I mentioned the giraffe, to emphasize the point that it was human. Consider your position. It is human, and it is uniquely identifiable, as it has different DNA from its mother and father. If simply left alone it will be perfectly capable of doing, thinking, and appearing just like any other human.

Yet you make the distinction between human and human being. I don't see the justification for creating a new category. That does not advance the discussion, we're back where we started. All of the questions remain. Is it a "human being?" How do we decide? Please look at my earlier post and notice that except for the change to "human being," none of the questions have been answered.

There's a whole lot of controversy around the areas of when you really begin to be able to call it a human being.

This, to me, is a very strong argument on the pro-life side. So we're not sure if a baby is a human being or not? Surely, in a situation in which we're not sure, the wise move is to err on the side of caution and not kill something that may be a human being.

Consider the hunter who sees a rustle in the bushes. He thinks it may be a deer, but is not sure. Every hunter knows the rule "If you're not sure, you don't shoot." He may kill his hunting partner. Are we so reckless that we abort without being sure if it's a human being or not?

Having a parasitic functionality certainly does add credit to the pro-choice side, especially in the early trimesters. This is literally a fleshy growth in a woman's uterus that robs her of her nutrients and energy and physical capabilities.

All right, so if it's a human being, we can kill it because it's making mom feel sick for a period of time? Are you arguing for lethal self-defense? That is beyond imagination.

Your analogies that you suggested do not, so they are strawmen. It's not the same thing.

I fail to understand this sentence at all. An analogy may be imperfect, actually all analogies are imperfect, but I've never heard of a strawman analogy.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


A caterpillar is NOT a butterfly......yet

All right, so if it's a human being, we can kill it because it's making mom feel sick for a period of time? Are you arguing for lethal self-defense? That is beyond imagination.

I think self defense is a sensible argument.

reply to post by Sookiechacha

Dear sookiechacha,

I agree with you. Shocked?

I think self defense is a sensible argument.

IF the mother is in reasonable fear of imminent severe bodily injury or death caused by the baby. That's not what's happening in abortions.

Certainly, it does occur once in a while, but not that often. Let's try a trade. I'll agree to legalizing abortions, if you agree that they should be limited to those occasions described above. Deal?

With respect,
Charles1952

This whole discussion is subjective. Everyone is discussing the morality of it. Murder is already legal in certain situations (like defending ones own life, fighting as a soldier, death sentence, etc. etc.).
Whether or not it is murder is moot. If society comes together enough to say "yes, it's acceptable, or not it's a crime" then that's all that matters, murder or not.

How you deal with the morality of it is up to you. Some have stated feeling guilty, other have a clear conscience.

As much as I love debated morality, as a morality that is debated, tested, evaluated, adjusted, tested, and on and on is inherently and logically more moral and ethical than arbitrary morality, in the end the whole question is a societal one. Either society says "yep, that (whatever it is) fits us and it's fine" or society says "no that's not okay, and doesn't represent us or what we want the future to look like". The reasons fall by the wayside.

I will never convince someone else that red is the best color if they think blue is.