People disagree about abortion and the morality of it because we disagree about what defines human life. Some people feel it is not immoral to kill in the first trimester and some people feel it is. Some people feel it is moral to kill the entire nine months for no reason and others find this immoral. Our country has not agreed or comes to a consensus on that. The debate goes on and will never stop. Since Roe the pro-life community has not let up on this because of the moral implications of abortion. Those who find it immoral generally believe abortion is murder because they give the unborn personhood and if you kill a person intentionally that would be murder. That makes sense, it is logical. When do we become human? When is a fetus considered living? Our society defines murder in several ways. If you accidentally kill another human being say you back out of your driveway and run over another person this is not intentional. It would not be murder. It was not intentional. In the case of abortion it is intentional. The goal of the abortionist is to kill the human life growing in the womb. It is human, it is living and while most pro-aborts would say that it is not a person one would have to look to science to see what they say on the beginnings of life .it is not an orange not a car .not an idea .it is something. And that something is a member of the human species however small it is, however far along it is living and growing..aging as any living human being is out of the womb. There are different viewpoints about this however. But from the viewpoint of someone who gives the unborn personhood and believes that every fertilized egg is a sentient human person abortion becomes that more horrific. Any abortion performed at an abortion mill or clinic is no accidental death. It is a planned intentional hit. President Bush on April 1, 2004 signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act,known as "Laci and Conner's Law." The law states that any "child in utero" is considered to be a legal victim if injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence. The bills definition of "child in utero" is "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." If abortion is not murder then why do we have laws like this on our books? "Kentucky is one of the latest states to recognize "fetal homicide" as a crime. Since February 2004, Kentucky law recognizes a crime of "fetal homicide" in the first, second, third, and fourth degrees. The law defines an "unborn child," as "a member of the species homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency." This came after the March 2001 tragedy involving 22-year-old Veronica Jane Thornsbury who was in labor and on her way to the hospital when a driver, under the influence of drugs, Charles Christopher Morris, 29, ran a red light and smashed into Thornsbury car and killed her. The fetus was stillborn. The drugged driver was prosecuted on for the murder of both the mother and the fetus. However, because her baby was not born, state Court of Appeals overturned a guilty plea in the death of the fetus." Currently, 30 states recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances. Why have all these laws if that which is in the womb is not a person and should not be recognized as a person? http://crime.about.com/od/issues/a/fetalhomicide.htm Can a fetus be a victim of murder? The pro-life community believes so...as do many states that define it as such.
no one I know disagrees with what defines human(adj) life, the difference is-is what defines a human(noun) life. The problem the pro-lifers have and will always have is that there is no universal morality that can be agreed upon, each of us defines our own morality and to each individual that morality is correct, morality in law is usually judged on what the majority agree is moral, hence why murder is illegal along with a host of other things .. in the case of first trimester abortion the issue of it's morality is fairly evenly split as the pregnancy continues then peoples perception of the moral implications of abortion changes, this is true even in murder. Depends if you mean human adjective or human noun a fetus is living from the moment of conception, there is no argument on that point. Our society also accepts the morality of killing in self defence, self defence is also the intentional killing of another "person", currently US law accepts three reasons for use of deadly force in self defence. 1. when one is threatened with death 2. when one is threatened with a serious bodily injury (defined as damage or loss of use of an organ or limb for a protracted period of time, such as six weeks) 3. the invasion of one's liberty, such as in kidnaping, rape, or slavery I don't believe that even a pro-lifer would stop a woman having an abortion if to continue the pregnancy would kill her. The US already recognizes "wrongful pregnancy" in cases of rape and incest where the pregnancy is considered a continuation of the injury to the woman, what happens to a woman during pregnancy more than meets the requirements for the use of deadly force in self-defence. A pregnancy is also an invasion of liberty, the woman, in effect, is held hostage to the fetus, she cannot do anything without the fetus being there, neither can she control the fetuses use of her body. or it is a woman using her right to self defence in order to remove the "person" causing injury to her body. this law also carries exceptions for abortion, and to date no person has been convicted of causing the death of a fetus without the death or serious damage to the woman. This law also carries the exception that no woman can be convicted if the loss of pregnancy is through her consent. Purely as an attempt by pro-lifers to undermine the standings of Roe. Kentucky law on this actually states the following - " (2004) define "unborn child" as a member of the species Homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health or condition of dependency. The laws define fetal homicide in the first, second, third, and fourth degrees. These laws do not apply to acts performed during any abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which the consent is implied by law in a medical emergency." So we can see that even in this case the law is very specific as to when it is used, basically it is used when the consent of the woman has not been provided. and all of them exclude abortion or when the woman's consent has been given. Every single attempt to introduce a law that criminalizes abortion has been cast out. simple, it was recognized that a pregnant woman who is killed or abused and so loses her pregnancy without her consent should be entitled to greater protection under law for the lose of the wanted pregnancy and that the punishment should fit the crime of that loss. It is only the interpretation of these laws by pro-lifers that bring us to the stage we are now, where they are trying to use these protection laws as a means to make abortion illegal. Yes it can .. but only in a certain set of circumstances, just as in murder as a whole there are various considerations that have to be involved in the situation. The prime circumstance that must be established before someone is charged & convicted of fetal homicide is did the woman give consent or not.
Most pro-choicers are moderate, meaning that they believe that elective late-term abortions should not be legal? Why? Because late-term fetuses are persons. The pro-choice people that I know; not even them believe that it should be legal for a woman to abort a viable fetus. I don't care how that baby was conceived, no woman has the "right" to kill a fully grown viable fetus in the womb. Saying that late-term abortions should be illegal, with the exceptions of rape and incest, is very hypocritical and inconsistent. That's like saying that it's okay to take a newborn's life because they were conceived from rape or incest. If you believe that women should have the right to abort fully grown viable fetuses that can feel pain, if the baby was conceived from rape or incest, then by that logic, you should also believe that elective-late term abortions should also be legal.
I try not to get involved in the debate but must raise a curious point under US law. If you abort a fetus in a medical procedure, it's cool as that fetus is not considered "life" at that point. But if someone shoots a pregnant woman and kills her and the baby the shooter can be charged with double homicide....and there's no double standard..... right
Murder of a fetus is about an outside party injuring the mother in such a way that the fetus is killed.. It has nothing to do with the choices of the mother or abortion.
No there isn't a double standard, the whole fetal homicide laws are based around the consent of the woman .. if a third party kills and/or injures her to the extent that the pregnancy is lost without her consent then the law recognizes her loss to be greater than that of a non-pregnant woman. It is only the pro-life misguided interpretation of these laws that finds us in the position we are now, even the pro-life people who proposed this law did so with no intention of trying to undermine current abortion legislation, though why any of the pro-choice representatives who voted in favor believed that is anybodies guess. - - - Updated - - - We have had this conversation before, the viability of a fetus is irrelevant when it comes to self defence.
Self defense from what? Emotional pain? Emotional distress does not justify killing somebody. Second of all, my main argument is that your stance is inconsistent and hypocritical.
If I slipped an abortion pill into a pregnant woman's drink, would it really be so much worse than if she was not pregnant? I mean, is the existence of the fetus even relevant here? And if so, why? Is the fetus part of the woman's property?
Again we have had this conversation before, I have a thread that lists all the physical injuries a woman must suffer when pregnant .. I even asked you in that thread if you would seek medical help to rectify those conditions if they happened to you, to which you haven't replied as yet. how? - - - Updated - - - It isn't they just choose to ignore it as it doesn't fit their agenda.
If you believe that a woman has the right to abort a viable late-term fetus if the fetus was conceived from rape and incest, then logically, you should also support a woman's "right" to abort a viable late term fetus, for purely elective reasons.
Because you are then removing her choice in the matter, the existence of the fetus is pretty much irrelevant . the fact is you would be trying to achieve an outcome without the knowledge or consent of the other person involved. It would be no different to a man slipping rohypnol into your drink in order to anal rape you without your knowledge or consent.
Which I do .. though I also know that a woman who has carried a pregnancy to the third trimester is very, very unlikely to want an elective abortion and therefore laws banning elective late term abortion are irrelevant and not required.
There has always been universal morality...basic moral principles that most people follow. ""People who regularly lie, cheat, steal, and murder make up a very small percentage of the world's population- perhaps only 5 or 6 percent. These people cause a lot of pain and tragedy, but they are a small minority. The most significant fact is that literally billions of people - the other 94 or 95 percent of the world's population - follow fundamental, universal moral principles on a daily basis." http://www.universalmoralcode.com/code.html The majority of people know rape is wrong..murder is wrong....child abuse is wrong...even when they do it. Most people who are pro-abortion...IMO know abortion is wrong. If there was a way to get the fetus from the woman's body without killing it...I am sure they would vote for this instead of killing the life. But that is not an option....so for them killing must be a choice. This is a case....where people know something is wrong...and don't care enough to stand up for what is right..because they are not involved. No it is not. That child would not be there had the woman not had sex...and allowed the sperm to unite with her egg. SHE SAID YES TO SEX. She took the risk....she allowed it to happen. She invited the life inside her. The choice happens in the bedroom and should not be after the child is conceived especially if it is to kill it. The conception happened because the sex act happened. The fact is the pro-life community has made leaps and bounds...and have gained a lot of ground on abortion. States are changing laws that make abortion harder. Why? Because people are understanding what abortion is really all about. The Time Magazine cover this past January was shocking to say the least. That after 40 years abortion activists are losing. Roe was their big victory and they have been losing ever since. States this year have passed over 47 laws that have restricted abortion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...more-pro-life/2012/05/24/gJQAsqt4mU_blog.html http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx The fetus today has been humanized. This is one big reason pro-choicers do not want pictures of aborted fetus shown. Its not the graphic nature....because there is violent and graphic pictures...shown in movies all the time. Holocaust pictures are tragic and equally hard to look at but you don't see groups trying to ban them. It is no wonder why pro-aborts do not want these pictures shown...our country supports and allows this to happen. Is the mood changing? Groups like PP are doing their best to stop giving personhood to the unborn. Science is clear on fetal development and that helps the pro-life stance. Unfortunately IMO the pro-abort side does not care about this. As this article states...abortion is being framed as a civil rights issue. Another good article. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/15/remember-roe.html
Interestingly the very first paragraph of your link states the following; "The Universal Moral Code is not a set of principles that everyone follows successfully every day, nor a set of principles that each of us would apply the same way in every case. (Sometimes we disagree very strongly about how to apply them!) The Universal Moral Code is a list of principles that describe the kind of behavior most people aspire to. Even when we fail to live up to these principles, we keep trying, because we believe that this is how we should live." and the point is that the examples you use are extremes, extremes that effect society as a whole and even then people see those extremes in different ways .. I mean the pro-life people are found of telling us how individual and unique we are, yet they adhere to this universal morality that we are all supposed have "hard wired" into us, kind of makes us not quite so individual and unique as pro-lifers would have us believe. Yep because they effect all people, abortion doesn't effect society as a whole and I would like to see any evidence to support the assumption that a rapist or abuser knows what they are doing is wrong .. the only reason they see it as wrong is because society tells them it is wrong, in their own mind it is not. However The law does not require a person to consent to injuries just because that person consented to take a risk and that is all sex does, it creates the risk that pregnancy could occur and even that risk is only 20-30% during a female cycle, being involved in a car accident carries more risk than becoming pregnant .. do we withhold treatment for a person injured in a car crash because they took the risk. Regardless of how you see it the law already sees a "wrongful pregnancy" as an act of invasion of liberty for a woman who is raped or part of incestual abuse and allows the use of deadly force in order to rectify the situation. Not really, the laws being enacted are nothing but TRAP laws purely to try and make abortions harder to get they have done nothing to actually change the legality of abortion. One would have thought that if the pro-life message was strong enough there would be no need to go via the back door in order to achieve their goal, as it stands though all and any attempts to over turn Roe have been comprehensively defeated. I think you do most people a dis-service in assuming people don't know what abortion is about. it has been a main stream debate in the US for quite some time now and I don't believe that the general public are ignorant of it. The thing I find reprehensible is that pro-lifers indulge in pseudo-science produced by pseudo specialist in order to promote their propaganda for example; Post abortion syndrome Abortion creates a higher risk of breast cancer some contraception cause embryo abortions all of which are fallacies with no reliable scientific evidence to support them. I'm all for truth about abortion, I'm all for the woman being told everything about it .. what I am not for is the blatant propaganda being peddled by pro-lifers. I've seen this brought up numerous times and yet the figures show that the relative changes in pro-choice and pro-life have changed very little since the polls began and as can be seen on the following polls - http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx the majority of Americans do not want Roe overturned (53% not over turn opposed to 29% to over turn) and that they feel that abortion should be legal in the first trimester (61% in favor opposed to 31% against) so while it may appear that the majority are now pro-life, that figure is only for themselves. I really couldn't care less what pictures pro-lifers show so long as they are genuine, the problem is the vast majority they use have already been shown to be false in one way or another, again the question needs to be asked why the pro-lifers see the need to use false evidence in order to support their campaign if it is a strong as they say it is, I assume you know what to bear false witness is. Sure pro-lifers have run an excellent campaign and have made some in roads, but I firmly believe this is because of the complacency of pro-choice people .. I hope that the time will come when pro-choice people will step up to the plate and start to show the pro-life propaganda for what it is. Too may pro-lifers act as if pro-choice people don't care about the un-born, that is just plain wrong .. what both sides want to achieve is a time when abortion is moot .. however it is the method to achieve that-that separates them. Pro-life people believe they can accomplish it through legislation Pro-choice people believe they can accomplish it through education and contraceptive prevention. I know which one upholds the fundamental "right" of the individual and it is not pro-life.
What culture around the world thinks child abuse is ok...murder is ok.....pedophelia is ok? How many people just go out and murder people? You say these are extreme...well they are...they are the biggies in most societies. And I believe people are born with a moral code that is written on their heart. I believe abortion does affect society on a whole. What effects did slavery have on our nation? It pitted people against one another. You take any social issue today and people will agree to disagree. This one however is the only one that actually deals with killing a living human being. This one has to do with life...the killing of an innocent child in the womb. And for many people....abortion should be allowed in the ninth month even if the woman has no medical issues. How is this valuing life? Sure it gives women the power to kill...but is this power act moral? Why would someone who was against it...not stand up for it? Just like in times of slavery...people finally stood up and said..hey this is not right, not moral. Or do you agree that society was just in allowing slavery. Did the North have a right to stand up against the South? And when a society does not value life...it takes for granted everything good. The decline starts.... No changes in attitudes about life? I disagree and so does TIME. Pro-life will go on...and more state restrictions will be passed....and then what? The fact is if I say....yes...no matter what it is you will say no. If I say no, you will say yes. All pictures you think are not real...and this is why this forum will never change. I do not believe and it is my opinion that....the pro-abort position does not leave room for empathy for the unborn...it's as simple as that. How can a late term abortion position...that holds abortion on demand for any reason even at nine months.....how is this caring for the unborn? Show me where they caring comes in? if abortion is not bad...why would there be a time when there would be no abortion? Your side maintains that abortion has always been around so it must be good. You want education..just not dealing with abortion itself...certainly not fetal development...allowing sonograms...etc. You said...your side wanted a time when no abortions would be needed? if you say "I know which one upholds the fundamental "right" of the individual and it is not pro-life." You can't have it both ways. Is abortion bad? And if it is...why do you support it?
This depends on state, in some it can be murder, in some it cannot, in some it depends on trimester. It is a mess. I think that if nothing else, this should certainly be harmonised with abortion legislation. So if the foetus is killed before an abortion limit, legally it should be only an attack on the woman and some analogue of destruction of property. If the foetus is killed after an abortion limit, I think it should be murder. Otherwise we can get absurd situations where it is murder or not, depending on what the mother feels like or whether the foetus was killed by mother or someone else.
With regards to the double standard present, it was not pro-choice groups but pro-life ones who pushed the unborn victims of violence act. I as a pro-choice certainly disagree with such inconsistent double standard. Make it murder, but only when the foetus is late-term and abortion is already illegal.
Well according to this list of age of consent for all countries world wide there are a number that condone sex with girls under 16 years old .. does that qualify as child abuse? Age of Consent Global As to murder, do you consider honor killings murder or not? The following is a list of countries where honor killings occur legally; Jordan: Part of article 340 of the Penal Code states that "he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds, or injures one of them, is exempted from any penalty." This has twice been put forward for cancellation by the government, but was retained by the Lower House of the Parliament, in 2003: a year in which at least seven honor killings took place. Article 98 of the Penal Code is often cited alongside Article 340 in cases of honor killings. "Article 98 stipulates that a reduced sentence is applied to a person who kills another person in a 'fit of fury'" Morocco: Revisions to Morocco's criminal code in 2003 helped improve women's legal status by eliminating unequal sentencing in adultery cases. Article 418 of the penal code granted extenuating circumstances to a husband who kills, injures, or beats his wife or her partner, or both, when catching them in flagrante delicto while committing adultery. While this article has not been repealed, the penalty for committing this crime is at least now the same for both genders. Syria: In 2009, Article 548 of the Syrian Law code was amended. Beforehand, the article waived any punishment for males who committed murder on a female family member for inappropriate sex acts. Article 548 states that "He who catches his wife or one of his ascendants, descendants or sister committing adultery (flagrante delicto) or illegitimate sexual acts with another and he killed or injured one or both of them benefits from a reduced penalty, that should not be less than 2 years in prison in case of a killing." Article 192 states that a judge may opt for reduced punishments (such as short-term imprisonment) if the killing was done with an honorable intent. In addition to this, Article 242 says that a judge may reduce a sentence for murders that were done in rage and caused by an illegal act committed by the victim. Italy: Article 133 and 62 of the Italian Penal Code offer the possibility of reduced sentencing and punishment for crimes that occur within the offender's cultural norms. In the case of honor killings and other honor related crimes, these articles could possibly allow for honor killing offenders to ask a reduced punishment. Italian Parliament member Souad Sbai suggested in 2010 that Italy amend these articles so that honor killings do not have extra protection under Italian law. Egypt: A number of studies on honor crimes by The Centre of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, includes one which reports on Egypt's legal system, noting a gender bias in favor of men in general, and notably article 17 of the Penal Code: judicial discretion to allow reduced punishment in certain circumstance, often used in honor killings case. Do you consider the deaths of civilians in drone bombings murder considering that they are protected by the Geneva Convention Article 32. So your belief that people are born with a moral code would seem to only apply to certain cultures and are not inherent. how? Slavery had a huge effect on every nation it was practiced in, it deemed a whole section of born people to be less that others - which in my opinion is what making abortion illegal will do, it will make pregnant women lesser than those not pregnant. Let me ask you in the female/fetal relationship who is the slave and who is the master, I would submit that if abortion is made illegal then the woman becomes the slave to the fetus. Not correct, people stand against the death penalty, people stand against war .. both of which kill a living human being and regardless if the fetus is innocent or not self defence laws allow for use of deadly force where a person is being threatening even if the "person" doing the threatening does not realize what they are doing. If you could show that women were getting elective abortions regularly in the ninth month of pregnancy then you would have a point .. however every single study shows that even in countries where there are no restrictions on abortion ie Canada there are few, if any, elective late-term abortions .. in fact Canada's late term abortions figures are less that the USA's, the point being that the figures show that women do not have elective late term abortions, so to me this late term elective abortion mantra is a red herring, a propaganda tool. I have no problem with people being against abortion, it is the methods they employ that bothers me .. false pictures, edited videos, TRAP laws, Half-baked evidence and the obstruction of people going about their lawful business. Despite what many think of as the moral decisions made to abolish slavery, it was primarily for economic reasons and not moral ones. slippery slope fallacy I already posted peoples responses to overturning Roe and 1st trimester abortions both of which are firmly supported to keep as is by the majority of people. I suspect one or more of the states will wake up and start to overturn these TRAP laws, probably not the overtly religious ones, but abortion will continue in the USA. I will say no to the items that restrict a woman's right to choose, if you were to support the only things that have been proven to reduce abortions, comprehensive sex education and contraception, then I would agree with you .. as I did with the item about women being fully informed about their pregnancy, however I will never agree to forcing a woman to turn over a part of her body to state control. and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is. you see this is the problem pro-lifers have, they assume because pro-choice people support the right of a woman to choice that we think abortion is good .. that is just not correct, the difference is we are not trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, we are trying to find a way to ensure the requirement for abortion doesn't exist for the majority of people through comprehensive sex education and better contraception, the problem with what the pro-lifers want to do is that it makes pregnancy a form of punishment, pro-choicers would rather the pregnancy never occurred in the first place. This is just projection on your part .. If I had my way a full detailed education on exactly what abortion is and how it happens would be compulsory on the sex education syllabus. Of course I can have it both ways, I live in reality where abortion is a requirement, what I hope for is a time when that requirement is no longer needed .. but I will not stand by and watch pregnant women being turned into some sort of gestation chamber for the sake of others feeling good about themselves. I'm sorry to say that history defeats every single argument that pro-lifers put forward, wherever abortion has been made illegal it has made little to no difference to the number of abortions performed, where it has made a difference is in the mortality rate of women. Again this is a misrepresentation of pro-choice, we support the woman's right to choose. Is abortion "bad", well that really depends on which perspective you are looking at it from doesn't it.
Yes. Like you said, the UVVA already makes it so... The exceptions it makes to (for now) allow for abortions to continue not withstanding.
