legally it should be defined as murder ?
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.
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.
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.Premeditated.
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.)
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.
OOPS, TYPO: In that sentence the word "kill" should have been "murder".And one cannot kill human cuticle cells, or human cancer cells, or even whole unborn humans ...
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.It is murdering a defenseless child
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.
legally it should be defined as murder ?
Hell no.
Where's that option?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Neither is giving free passes.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.
Possibly.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.
legally it should be defined as murder ?
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 .
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.