Can someone help me understand this

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Only by "Legal" definition, which in God's economy is unimportant. Whether YOU like it or not, you're hiring a Contract Murderer to Murder your baby because you don't want to to bother with him/her.
The legal definition is the only valid one. If y ou want to talk about it being murder in some obscure realm, then specify that. In the US, and other jurisdictions where abortion is legal, it is not and cannot be murder by definition.

Whether YOU like it or not.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
No. She is entering the new Olympic event, the 50 mile cow carry. She is tipped for a medal, as long as the transgender weightlifters are not allowed to compete.
Thank you for the real lol.

I heard it's like a decathlon, with a number of events, only one of which is the cow carry. She also has to sail at an average speed of 30 knots per hour at 18,000 in South America.
 

Ignatius

Member
If someone is pro-life, and would want (demand by law) a woman to carry a child to term no matter the personal case (rape, incest, doesn't want / can't afford) then please answer this for me. Why shouldn't we also make it mandatory to be a bone marrow or kidney donor, in order to keep that same child alive after it's born? If we're asking a woman to literally risk her life to carry a child, why not ask the same thing of some random man that happens to have the life saving donor match of a kidney?
You know those are the same scenarios right?
 

J regia

Well-known member
And if you rationalize away the humanity of the Fetus you're murdering, it makes the MURDER much more palatable. Hiding behind a "Legal definition" of MURDER is the coward's way out.
What is the biblical definition of murder?
And is it murder to terminate a pregnancy as commanded in Leviticus 20:10 or Numbers 5:20-28?
And is it murder to commit genocide as commanded in Deut 7:16, and as described in Joshua 6:21 7:26 8:26 Deut 2:34 7:2 etc?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
ANybody SERIOUSLY trying to equate a Conceived Baby with dead skin cells isn't to be taken seriously.
Anybody SERIOUSLY trying to equate a human embryo with a delivered baby isn't to be taken seriously.

Having established the outer limits, what is needed to resolve the issue is to find a point nearer the middle where some compromise is possible.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
If someone is pro-life, and would want (demand by law) a woman to carry a child to term no matter the personal case (rape, incest, doesn't want / can't afford)
Death sentence for some one else's rape? incest? poverty?
I see you express In English carry a child.
Have you been carrying your organs all your life?

Children all have some chance that their parents may become poor at some point in time. Many of you can't afford children in college. Should they be exterminated?

Ours have trust funds. One didn't need a dollar out of her trust funds. I had scholarship surpluses.
 
Abortion is still murder. Why can't they just wait for 9 months, give birth, and give it to an adoption agency? 9 months is not long and its not a life time of inconvenience. Anyway, they are going to reject the baby anyway and why not give it to someone that needs them?

I am only for abortion if the life of the mother is at stake, defective fetus, and what not. A "healthy baby" should never be aborted.

So it's okay to murder someone who is defective?

If abortion is murder, and abortion is okay if the fetus isn't healthy, then you're saying it should be perfectly legal to murder someone who is blind, or mentally unsound, or has some other "defective" trait?

Who gets to decide who is "defective" and who isn't?

Perhaps we should do what civilizations have done for thousands of years, and let doctors decide?
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
So it's okay to murder someone who is defective?

If abortion is murder, and abortion is okay if the fetus isn't healthy, then you're saying it should be perfectly legal to murder someone who is blind, or mentally unsound, or has some other "defective" trait?

Who gets to decide who is "defective" and who isn't?

Perhaps we should do what civilizations have done for thousands of years, and let doctors decide?
The entire subject is an ethical nightmare.

With regards to your opinion above, as someone who supports choice, I'd change your wording a bit. A doctor would likely never declare a fetus/baby as defective (or decide when abortion is called-for), but would instead describe the health problems it has. The baby's mother/parents would then decide whether to abort or not. I'm pretty sure this is what you meant, but this topic is so toxic, being as precise as possible prevents misunderstandings.

I'm happy to let pro-lifers believe what they want, but I admit I'm encouraged by any believer who doesn't see the abortion issue in black and white terms (ie. right vs wrong, good vs evil, etc). Abortion is deep-gray colored, and Radioactive is one of the few believers in this specific forum who've recognized this.

As a pro-choicer myself, I don't want unfettered access to abortion; I don't want it to be used like contraception, or irresponsibly. If I could vote, I'd vote against allowing abortion in the third trimester, for example (exception in situations so extreme that I can't think of one right now - perhaps that's where I'd want a doctor to decide).

Sorry for the soapbox. I was mostly adding to what you said, rather than trying to correct anything...
 

Temujin

Well-known member
The entire subject is an ethical nightmare.

With regards to your opinion above, as someone who supports choice, I'd change your wording a bit. A doctor would likely never declare a fetus/baby as defective (or decide when abortion is called-for), but would instead describe the health problems it has. The baby's mother/parents would then decide whether to abort or not. I'm pretty sure this is what you meant, but this topic is so toxic, being as precise as possible prevents misunderstandings.

I'm happy to let pro-lifers believe what they want, but I admit I'm encouraged by any believer who doesn't see the abortion issue in black and white terms (ie. right vs wrong, good vs evil, etc). Abortion is deep-gray colored, and Radioactive is one of the few believers in this specific forum who've recognized this.

As a pro-choicer myself, I don't want unfettered access to abortion; I don't want it to be used like contraception, or irresponsibly. If I could vote, I'd vote against allowing abortion in the third trimester, for example (exception in situations so extreme that I can't think of one right now - perhaps that's where I'd want a doctor to decide).

Sorry for the soapbox. I was mostly adding to what you said, rather than trying to correct anything...
I absolutely agree with this. Abortion is solvable as an issue. It is not controversial in most European countries for example. Nor is it a religious issue. Compromise has been found such that abortion is safe, cheap but not unfettered or uncontrolled. There are those who are unhappy, of course. But these are few and uninfluential.

The problem in the US seems to be a total refusal to compromise, with a very real fear that any meddling with the deeply unsatisfactory current legislation would lead to something worse. This applies to both sides. Both sides claim the moral high ground. Both sides claim biology is on their side. I cannot see it being solved without a willingness to see how other countries have solved it. But that is not the American way.
 
With regards to your opinion above, as someone who supports choice, I'd change your wording a bit. A doctor would likely never declare a fetus/baby as defective (or decide when abortion is called-for), but would instead describe the health problems it has. The baby's mother/parents would then decide whether to abort or not. I'm pretty sure this is what you meant, but this topic is so toxic, being as precise as possible prevents misunderstandings.

I think we agree very much on this topic.

When I say, "let the doctors decide," what I mean is, let doctors decide whether something is "murder" or not. A doctor is already ethically bound not to cause harm. If an abortion is not in the best interest of all those involved -- including the parents and the potential child -- the doctor cannot do it, professionally and legally. This is a law that is older than the United States. Adding a layer of law on top of this law is unnecessary and, frankly, frightening to me. If the government is allowed to tell doctors when life begins, what is stopping them from telling doctors when life ends? I find it odd that people who would fight against government control in almost any other issue -- gun control, taxes, religious freedom, etc. -- seem to have no problem handing over the choice of life itself to the government, that institution that we all ought keep at arm's length.

People who don't trust the government to teach their children to read trust the government to govern their bodies? This makes no sense to me.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I think we agree very much on this topic.

When I say, "let the doctors decide," what I mean is, let doctors decide whether something is "murder" or not. A doctor is already ethically bound not to cause harm. If an abortion is not in the best interest of all those involved -- including the parents and the potential child -- the doctor cannot do it, professionally and legally. This is a law that is older than the United States. Adding a layer of law on top of this law is unnecessary and, frankly, frightening to me. If the government is allowed to tell doctors when life begins, what is stopping them from telling doctors when life ends? I find it odd that people who would fight against government control in almost any other issue -- gun control, taxes, religious freedom, etc. -- seem to have no problem handing over the choice of life itself to the government, that institution that we all ought keep at arm's length.

People who don't trust the government to teach their children to read trust the government to govern their bodies? This makes no sense to me.
Hear hear!
 

LifeIn

Active member
It's still not murder, by definition.
Well, if you use the current legal definition of murder, abortion is not murder. But then we have seen the legal definition of murder change over the course of history. At one point in time it was legal in the United States to kill your black slave if he was costing you too much to keep him alive and could not do any more work for you. It was legal because black slaves were not defined as humans, so killing them was not much different than putting down the family dog. Currently, in the US, a baby that is only part-way through the vagina and has not taken its first breath is not considered a human person, worthy of legal protection. In some cases, even after a baby is extracted during an abortion and happens to be still living, and even viable, that baby is also not considered legally to be a human worthy of legal protection the same as everyone else. The thought of killing a viable baby after it has been removed from the mother is abhorrent to most people.

We now have laws to protect blacks from being killed (even though it still seems to happen far too often), prompted by the same revulsion that people fell about a baby being killed. Of course an underdeveloped fetus does not look much like a child yet, and most abortions are on such fetuses, so it is understandable that some people can call them "not human". But a newborn baby looks quite different from a 30 year old man. So relying on superficial appearances may not be the best way to base moral understandings, and law as well.

The relationship between law and moral beliefs is a close one. Most laws grow out of the moral beliefs of the people in the society in which they live. If we are questioning the basis of a law, or a proposed law, it is proper to consider it as a moral question.

However there are other ways of achieving moral goals besides punitive laws. For example, the incentive for abortion could be vastly reduced if pre-natal and maternity services were provided at no cost to all pregnant women as a matter of course, regardless of complications in delivery. That might actually do more good than making abortion a crime.
 
The relationship between law and moral beliefs is a close one. Most laws grow out of the moral beliefs of the people in the society in which they live. If we are questioning the basis of a law, or a proposed law, it is proper to consider it as a moral question.
I disagree.

While some laws are also moral, just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral, and sometimes things that are illegal are moral.

You brought up several examples of things that have been legal throughout history that are clearly illegal, and we need not look very far to see examples of things that are illegal but are the only moral option.

Laws are designed to protect people. IMHO, secular laws ought to be ONLY for that purpose. "The right to swing your arms ends at my face," as the saying goes.

You want to smoke? That's just fine. Pour all the toxins into your own body that you want. But the state (that is, the government, whether city, federal, or whatever other level of government) has the right to limit WHERE you smoke, to protect others. You can smoke in your own home -- as long as you don't have children whose lives may be endangered. You can smoke in wide-open spaces, other than certain spaces that may have been designated as "no-smoking zones" (i.e. within a certain distance of entrances of public buildings or businesses). Even though smoking is clearly immoral, I would not want to see any more restrictions on it than we currently have, and maybe even ease the restrictions there are.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Well, if you use the current legal definition of murder, abortion is not murder.
Great, discussion ended, you agree. Abortion is not murder.
But then we have seen the legal definition of murder change over the course of history. At one point in time it was legal in the United States to kill your black slave if he was costing you too much to keep him alive and could not do any more work for you. It was legal because black slaves were not defined as humans, so killing them was not much different than putting down the family dog. Currently, in the US, a baby that is only part-way through the vagina and has not taken its first breath is not considered a human person, worthy of legal protection. In some cases, even after a baby is extracted during an abortion and happens to be still living, and even viable, that baby is also not considered legally to be a human worthy of legal protection the same as everyone else. The thought of killing a viable baby after it has been removed from the mother is abhorrent to most people.

We now have laws to protect blacks from being killed (even though it still seems to happen far too often), prompted by the same revulsion that people fell about a baby being killed. Of course an underdeveloped fetus does not look much like a child yet, and most abortions are on such fetuses, so it is understandable that some people can call them "not human". But a newborn baby looks quite different from a 30 year old man. So relying on superficial appearances may not be the best way to base moral understandings, and law as well.

The relationship between law and moral beliefs is a close one. Most laws grow out of the moral beliefs of the people in the society in which they live. If we are questioning the basis of a law, or a proposed law, it is proper to consider it as a moral question.
None of this is relevant. The discussion was about whether or not abortion is murder. It's not, as you agreed in your first sentence. Whether it was or might have been in some other time or jurisdiction is completely irrelevant.

However there are other ways of achieving moral goals besides punitive laws. For example, the incentive for abortion could be vastly reduced if pre-natal and maternity services were provided at no cost to all pregnant women as a matter of course, regardless of complications in delivery. That might actually do more good than making abortion a crime.
There are many ways abortion could be significantly reduced. The vast majority of pro-lifers aren't interested in them. They're only interested in stopping abortion on their terms.
 
Top