Abortion is murder ?

legally it should be defined as murder ?

No. Not murder.

Premeditated.

Medusa said:

legally it should be defined as murder ?

Click to expand...

Unless or until the ZEF becomes defined as a person by law it cannot be murdered. Unless or until the Government decides to eliminate the rights of women to their own bodies and reproductive freedom abortion cannot be designated as murder. Unless or until we as a society are willing to abandon the concepts defined in our constitution (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness) Abortion cannot be murder.

tecoyah said:

Unless or until the ZEF becomes defined as a person by law it cannot be murdered. Unless or until the Government decides to eliminate the rights of women to their own bodies and reproductive freedom abortion cannot be designated as murder. Unless or until we as a society are willing to abandon the concepts defined in our constitution (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness) Abortion cannot be murder.

Click to expand...

some people and especially pro life women never understands what the freedom is

Not murder.

I support term limits however and would start to disagree if the foetus / human / baby / person were certainly into the last third of pregnancy. The first term is (for me) definitely the time when both men and women should be allowed to choose not to carry through to birth.

Infinite Chaos said:

Not murder.

I support term limits however and would start to disagree if the foetus / human / baby / person were certainly into the last third of pregnancy. The first term is (for me) definitely the time when both men and women should be allowed to choose not to carry through to birth.

Click to expand...

Would you still believe that term limits are needed if late term elective abortions dont occur anyway?

And several states and all of Canada do not have those limits...and still, no elective abortions late term. (of course, there are reasons for that, which I think people must not be aware of, since many do speak out against late term abortion. Unless of course, they are against medically necessary abortions.)

WCH said:

Premeditated.

Click to expand...

AH, A TYPICAL IGNORANT/IDOTIC BLATHERING FROM AN ABORTION OPPPONENT. More, since this particular abortion opponent has previously been educated about "murder", the blathering also qualifies as a Stupid Lie. While abortion can indeed be the premeditated killing of a human entity, that is insufficient for abortion to qualify as murder. Otherwise most beauticians would have to be convicted of mass murder, for their routine killing of living human cuticle cells by the hundred, during ordinary manicures and pedicures. And cancer researchers would have to be convicted, too, since every human cancer cell is premeditatedly targeted by them for killing.

It is personhood, not human-ness, that can turn "killing" into "murder". One cannot murder a fly, because a fly is not a person. One cannot murder a dandelion, because a dandelion is not a person. And one cannot kill human cuticle cells, or human cancer cells, or even whole unborn humans, because none of those qualify as persons, either. And no abortion opponent has ever offered the slightest bit of Objectively Verifiable Evidence supporting their worthless/idiotic blathering/say-so, that an unborn human qualifies as a person. Yet somehow they seem to think that if they blather their Stupid Lie often enough, it will become believable. Tsk, tsk!

Quoting...

" should be defined as murder "

It is murdering a defenseless child and its cheap.

Lursa said:

Would you still believe that term limits are needed if late term elective abortions dont occur anyway?

And several states and all of Canada do not have those limits...and still, no elective abortions late term. (of course, there are reasons for that, which I think people must not be aware of, since many do speak out against late term abortion. Unless of course, they are against medically necessary abortions.)

Click to expand...

Term limits would be a guide where it is not a commonplace occurrence, that I can agree. Elective abortion not being the same as a medically necessary abortion, I am speaking metaphorically when I state my disagreement with the idea in principle. I'm not against abortion in the late term where the mother's life is at serious risk or similar justifications.

Infinite Chaos said:

Term limits would be a guide where it is not a commonplace occurrence, that I can agree. Elective abortion not being the same as a medically necessary abortion, I am speaking metaphorically when I state my disagreement with the idea in principle. I'm not against abortion in the late term where the mother's life is at serious risk or similar justifications.

Click to expand...

I am also personally against late term elective abortion, but I'm not concerned with a need for any additional guidelines because they dont occur. I feel that the constant proposals for such laws is more inflammatory than anything else...inflaming outrage in the less informed in order to keep the abortion issue in the media.

FutureIncoming said:

And one cannot kill human cuticle cells, or human cancer cells, or even whole unborn humans ...

Click to expand...

OOPS, TYPO: In that sentence the word "kill" should have been "murder".

It is really scary that anybody voted yes to this poll and scarier that they are allowed to vote.

PTF said:

It is murdering a defenseless child

Click to expand...

AH, ANOTHER TYPICAL IGNORANT/IDIOTIC BLATHERING FROM AN ABORTION OPPONENT. In this case not only are you exposing your ignorance of what the word "murder" means, you are also exposing your ignorance of Facts about unborn humans.

FIRST, they are provably so very different from ordinary born humans that it is idiotic to equate them with "babies" or "children". The proof comes from modern DNA testing, which revealed something unknown for thousands of years, that much of the placenta is part of the overall unborn human entity. The placenta is as much a vital organ for the unborn human as the heart. Meanwhile, no ordinary baby or child needs an attached placenta to survive --YOU are more similar to an ordinary baby or child, than any unborn human is similar to it! If your idiocy was correct, equating an unborn human to an ordinary baby or child, you should be able to remove an unborn human from a womb at any time and expect it to live, right?

SECOND, an unborn human uses its placenta to commit at least 4 types of assault against its hostess. It steals biological nutrients from her body. It dumps toxic biowastes into her body. It infuses addictive substances into her body ("postpartum depression" after a pregnancy ends, no matter how it ends, is basically a drug-withdrawal symptom). And it infuses a mind-altering substance into her body. That last one is the reason why a pregnant woman who first decides to adopt-out her future newborn changes her mind at birth. It is the reason you don't get between a mama bear and her cubs. That substance tends to cause the hostess to become the defender of the unborn human that is hosted --it is not as defenseless as you ignorantly claimed!

AND SO, for any pregnant woman who doesn't want her body weakened and poisoned, and doesn't want her mind damaged and her free will bent by drugs, abortion is a perfectly legitimate act of self-defense from a mindless animal that acts worse than any parasite.

Lursa said:

I am also personally against late term elective abortion, but I'm not concerned with a need for any additional guidelines because they dont occur. I feel that the constant proposals for such laws is more inflammatory than anything else...inflaming outrage in the less informed in order to keep the abortion issue in the media.

Click to expand...

Liked your post because we had a civil disagreement yet were still polite. Wish that was more common on the forum.

Anyhow, my only disagreement with your latter statement now is that when our abortion laws were created in the UK (1967) the provisos on later term abortion were clearly set out then, meaning no new laws really needed to be considered.
You can see the benefit of this as Northern (and Souther Ireland) took slightly different courses (on religious grounds) and we get many women from across the Irish see here in the UK for abortions as they are not available in their home country.

Where there have been proposals for updates - in contrast to your USA example, one has been where there is a suspicion some abortions (mainly in immigrant family) are asked for based on the gender of the child.

Medusa said:

legally it should be defined as murder ?

Click to expand...

Hell no.

Where's that option?

Dragonfly said:

Hell no.

Where's that option?

Click to expand...

eace

No, it should not be defined as murder. I feel abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that has a place in treating patients. There is, of course, the standard "rape, incest and health of the mother" caveats that justify its use.

Where I don't agree with it is in the "what was I thinking" form of birth control. The cause of pregnancy is well known as are the risks of unprotected sex. And the availability of protection is wide spread. And yes, contraception is not 100% guaranteed. So, choosing to have sex protected or unprotected is taking a chance. The couple has to choose to take that chance and live with the consequences. Yes, there probably are some exception but spare me the "what about . . ." rebuttals.

I also feel that abortion kills a human. From conception on the odds are than "lump of cells" given a chance will develop into a full term child. I don't buy into the "viability" criterion", e.g. the fetus is able to live on its own, because a newborn couldn't live on its own either.

Bullseye said:

No, it should not be defined as murder. I feel abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that has a place in treating patients. There is, of course, the standard "rape, incest and health of the mother" caveats that justify its use.

Where I don't agree with it is in the "what was I thinking" form of birth control. The cause of pregnancy is well known as are the risks of unprotected sex. And the availability of protection is wide spread. And yes, contraception is not 100% guaranteed. So, choosing to have sex protected or unprotected is taking a chance. The couple has to choose to take that chance and live with the consequences. Yes, there probably are some exception but spare me the "what about . . ." rebuttals.

I also feel that abortion kills a human. From conception on the odds are than "lump of cells" given a chance will develop into a full term child. I don't buy into the "viability" criterion", e.g. the fetus is able to live on its own, because a newborn couldn't live on its own either.

Click to expand...

I wish people care about children much more than fetus rights,but many just ignore the other living kids

Infinite Chaos said:

Liked your post because we had a civil disagreement yet were still polite. Wish that was more common on the forum.

Anyhow, my only disagreement with your latter statement now is that when our abortion laws were created in the UK (1967) the provisos on later term abortion were clearly set out then, meaning no new laws really needed to be considered.
You can see the benefit of this as Northern (and Souther Ireland) took slightly different courses (on religious grounds) and we get many women from across the Irish see here in the UK for abortions as they are not available in their home country.

Where there have been proposals for updates - in contrast to your USA example, one has been where there is a suspicion some abortions (mainly in immigrant family) are asked for based on the gender of the child.

Click to expand...

Ah thank you. I can see why you have a different perspective.

Bullseye said:

No, it should not be defined as murder. I feel abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that has a place in treating patients. There is, of course, the standard "rape, incest and health of the mother" caveats that justify its use.

Where I don't agree with it is in the "what was I thinking" form of birth control. The cause of pregnancy is well known as are the risks of unprotected sex. And the availability of protection is wide spread. And yes, contraception is not 100% guaranteed. So, choosing to have sex protected or unprotected is taking a chance. The couple has to choose to take that chance and live with the consequences. Yes, there probably are some exception but spare me the "what about . . ." rebuttals.

I also feel that abortion kills a human. From conception on the odds are than "lump of cells" given a chance will develop into a full term child. I don't buy into the "viability" criterion", e.g. the fetus is able to live on its own, because a newborn couldn't live on its own either.

Click to expand...

Yes they do, but you dont get to choose their consequences. And abortion is a consequence, painful, potentially contributing to permanent health damage or even death. If that's not 'enough' of a consequence to you, then perhaps you might be looking at consequences as something punitive for women. I dont regard kids as valid punishment.

"Coerced" parenthood is not in society's best interests, nor the child's...the risks are that much higher in abuse or neglect or just poorly raised kids..

And in a country with more than 100,000 kids available for adoption (not including those in foster care), it's potentially lessening their chances of finding a home by adding more newborns unnecessarily.

Lursa said:

Yes they do, but you dont get to choose their consequences. And abortion is a consequence, painful, potentially contributing to permanent health damage or even death. If that's not 'enough' of a consequence to you, then perhaps you might be looking at consequences as something punitive for women. I dont regard kids as valid punishment.

Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying. Point still is the they indulged in behavior that could have those consequences. That fact may cause some couples to change their minds about sex.

Lursa said:

"Coerced" parenthood is not in society's best interests, nor the child's...the risks are that much higher in abuse or neglect or just poorly raised kids.

Click to expand...

Neither is giving free passes.

Lursa said:

And in a country with more than 100,000 kids available for adoption (not including those in foster care), it's potentially lessening their chances of finding a home by adding more newborns unnecessarily.

Click to expand...

Possibly.

Medusa said:

legally it should be defined as murder ?

Click to expand...

LMAO nope by definition its factually not
and it would be a completely monumentally insane idea to make it so on multiple levels. legality, logically, rights wise, logistically and basic common sense.

Not to mention abortion is a medical procedure to end pregnancy. LIFE plays no role in that. its preformed on living and dead ZEFS and whether they life or die afterwards its still an abortion.

Calling abortion murder is liken to calling driving or shooting a gun murder. It just logically and factually isnt. Murder is murder.

Lasltly in a great country like america, a first world country it will never happen. Heck the likelihood of abortion ending will never happen. Thats 3rd world stuff where you have dictators and no rights, the majority of first world countries with freedoms and womens rights are prochoice.

Bullseye said:

I hear what you're saying. Point still is the they indulged in behavior that could have those consequences. That fact may cause some couples to .

Click to expand...

I think adults should be able to enjoy consensual sex whenever they want....sex is a wonderful thing.

But it's my hope that any consequences would encourage more and better use of birth control.

Infinite Chaos said:

Not murder.

I support term limits however and would start to disagree if the foetus / human / baby / person were certainly into the last third of pregnancy. The first term is (for me) definitely the time when both men and women should be allowed to choose not to carry through to birth.

Click to expand...

Im ok with limits to and have stated such over the years. We may disagree about when but i dont have issues with limits because i like and respect the equality approach. Of course on this topic equality is factually impossible but i still like that we try. currently RvW is 24 weeks. Im fine with that and i have no motivation to change it. if people wanted it changed i would be willing to go down to the 20 week mark as long as there were still acceptations.