Sincere request to help me understand why you feel abortion is not murder.

First, you have no idea how special her needs are or her condition so that is a statement without validity. If you mean there are conditions which in the eyes of man relatively guarantee no chance at survival, I would agree. But I do not think termination of that life is the call of any man.

- - - Updated - - -

I will completely disagree with you that the zygote is not human....but we certainly can agree that a lot of people fit in that category. I would differ that I would say most politicians as opposed to some.

 

I answered, the Constitution is the law .

...and you never answered where the law is that backs up your ridiculous ""by the mother as that is her duty since she made the choice to participate in the first place.""

What law says that's a woman's duty??

 

Yes, you present two of the three arguments I've seen so far.

By your first argument, other than your opinion, what evidence do you have that you have to be born to be a person?

By your second argument since it is regarding legality, if the supreme court decided to overturn RvW, it would then be murder, correct?

- - - Updated - - -

Correct, would be willing to continue that conversation in the religious forum if you wish. Partial answer above to another poster.

 

I observe that your claim here is unsupported. You failed to even list the factual disagreements you have with the post.

 

No, you did not, the constitution says you have to be born here to be a citizen. It does not say you have to be born here to be a person. By your argument, anyone who is not a citizen is not a person.

You were the one quoting law, I was quoting my opinion. But, if you wish a law to go along with that, it would be God's law.

 

First you would have to prove there is a god and that is off topic in this forum...and I suspect that even if there was a god you aren't his designated spokesperson...

...and you never answered where the law is that backs up your ridiculous ""by the mother as that is her duty since she made the choice to participate in the first place.""

What law says that's a woman's duty??

 

I appreciate the participation and comments....it definitely has given me much to consider and pray about. I have three basic arguments from the posts on the opinion of my abortion isn't murder, which is more information that I had prior to the post.

As only one person on one side of this conversation, time simply will not allow me to respond to all of you. I am sure we will never convince either side they are wrong, so further discussion to convince each other is pointless, and completely circular considering the questions and answers so far provided.

Does anyone have an opinion other than the three I have seen so far?

1) A fetus is not a person until it is born
2) The zygote is not human
3) Since it's legal, it's not murder

 

There is no written law of man that says that's a woman's duty. As there is no written law of man that says a fetus is not a person.

We are in circular argument here where one will not convince the other, therefore my last post to you on this unless you can provide me with the law of which you speak.

 

If there is no law saying it's a woman's duty then it isn't....

Yes, you have a circular argument with just about every poster in this thread since you can't accept the facts they presented you with.

If you claim the fetus is a person the onus is on you to prove it and you haven't....and as I have pointed out even if it was deemed a person that has no effect on abortion....only strengthens the argument

 

"When the man and the woman joined together, willingly, they agree to the natural right to life of their offspring." This is a false statement. You only know what you have agreed to when you joined with your mate. You have no idea what any other man or woman agreed to.

"Once the two cells join, it is a human life." It is a living human organism but not a person until it is inhabited by a mind/spirit/soul. You have offered no evidence that the fertilized egg is any more inhabited by a soul than the sperm itself. If you consider the zygote a person, why not consider the sperm a person as well? If you just allow it to follow its nature and invade an egg cell, it will merge with the DNA it finds there and grow into a person nine months later. Therefore, you are killing hundreds of potential persons by passing up opportunities to fertilize the available eggs.

 

Alas....I tried.

Yes, it is a circular argument ALSO because others can't accept the facts that I have presented to them.

By reverse, since you claim a fetus is not a person, and said there was a law that said so, the onus on you is to prove it. If you cannot, there's one argument down(by law at least, the opinion would still count).

Circular....circular....circular. Really, last one unless someone has a different opinion on why it's not murder or a citation of said law for fetus must be born to be a person.

 

I have never seen anyone claim a human zygote is not "human" (adjective), but it is not A human. Most believe that A human has a working brain.

 

False.

Example: A hungry man enters your home uninvited and you tell him he as to leave. You escort him, without ever touching him, to the front door and he leaves your home. He goes outside and later starves to death. You are not guilty of any crime. Remember that a fetus has no rights whatsoever to the "food" the fetus is receiving from the woman anymore than a hungry man has to the food in your pantry. The fetus has no rights whatsoever to the oxygen that the woman breaths. The fetus has no right to endanger the life of the woman or to even make the woman sick. The fetus has no rights to anything the woman is forced to provide to the fetus during pregnancy.

No. A man and woman having sexual relations are not consenting to having a child anymore than a person driving their car is consenting to having an automobile accident. In fact the odds against having a child due to unprotected sex isn't even very high. Additionally it's an absurd proposition because the man can't consent to a pregnancy because the man can't get pregnant.

Finally the fact that the fetus cannot possibly have a "right to life" as long as it's dependent upon the woman for it's existence because that violates two fundamental criteria of natural rights (not dependent upon another person and because it's imposing an involuntary obligation upon another person) cannot be disputed based upon logical reasoning. Whether it lives or dies it cannot be "murdered" because a "right to life" has not been violated.

The ultimate criteria in the United States is whether it can be considered "murder" (the unlawful taking of a person's life) under the Constitution and under Constitutional law, that reviewed the entire written history of legal precedent related to what a 'person' is, the "fetus is not a person" and can't actually be murdered. Republicans have passed "fetal homicide laws" that creates a criminal offense related to the death of a fetus but Constitutionally they're only valid because the death of the fetus results from a violation of the woman's rights and the woman is a person.

Roe v Wade was a very progressive decision because it created "potential personhood" that does not exist in the Constitution. Had it not been for this progressive interpretation then all laws that prohibited abortion at anytime would have been struck down as an unconstitutional violation of the Woman's rights as a Person. Anti-abortionists typically condemn the Roe v Wade decision calling it "progressive" but the only "progressive" part of Roe v Wade is "potential personhood" that allows restrictions and some prohibitions against abortion.

 

Interesting view point. However, if both are consenting adults, they both know the potential consequences.....therefore by mating they are agreeing to accept any of said consequences.

I did, but if you do not believe in God or His word then you feel that evidence is invalid. Understood, but neither has anyone presented me evidence that it is not. If it is a living organism, then what species of organism is it?

I do not have a stopwatch on when exactly the soul inhabits the human....but, I suspect it is when "life" itself begins, immediately after fertilization? Certainly after first replication I would think.

 

We will simply have to disagree....I believe a fetus is a human person and they have the right to life, or at least the opportunity to live.

Thank you all for your participation and the sight you've given on your side of the matter.

 

The real problem for anti-abortionists is that their arguments fail based upon Natural Law and Natural Rights. Their arguments fail on Constitutional grounds. And finally their arguments fail on historical precedent.

The only argument that anti-abortionist can potentially win is the irrational "opinion without foundation" argument because they lose all logical arguments that require a foundation in Natural Law, Constitutional Law, or historical precendent.

There's no problem with their "opinion" but that opinion only relates to them and no one is going to force them to have an abortion that would violate their "opinion" but they can't force their "abortion opinion" upon other people because that would also empower other people to impose an "abortion opinion" on them that could force them to have an abortion. The "opinion" card plays both ways.

 

Thank you, Left.

As FreshAir asked you earlier...why would you want to question your god's plan?

If your god decides it wants to end the life of a particular "person" by having it die in abortion even before being born...why are you questioning it? Why would you possibly want to thwart the god's will?

Perhaps the god feels that the "soul" of that "person" is saved by the "early death." If actually born, perhaps your god sees that "person" becoming a Hitler, with a soul deserving of eternal punishment rather than "salvation."

So...why do you question what may very well be your god's decision to end that life (or potential life) and give the soul a free pass into Heaven?


By the way, we could have that discussion about the difference between killing and murder...but I'd rather leave that for now. When we get to it, one of the things you will have to explain to me is why orders of your god to slay babies...totally innocent, actually born babies...is just killing, rather than murder.

 

It's only circular because you just deny the facts that others post and never present any of your own......you haven't even read the posts ...

 

We have available safe and inexpensive ways to change the said consequences. The only reason you can deny a woman those changes is the desire for punishment.

It is questionable whether a zygote IS an organism.

"Life" does not begin after fertilization. "Life" is present in both eggs and sperm. Human life. So why aren't you assigning the same value to all human life?

 

See, you "simply disagree" with no facts to refute anything that poster said.

That makes a "circular" argument.

..and you keep insisting that the fetus, as a person, has more rights than anyone else....with nothing to back up that claim...

 

YOU: ""therefore by mating they are agreeing to accept any of said consequences.""

Show the law that says that.

No, having sex is only agreeing to have sex, it isn't agreeing to not seek medical aid if you fall of the couch and hurt yourself while having sex....

 

Regarding item 2: The zygote is not a person (since the vast majority of zygotes have DNA that falls within specs for human DNA it seems unlikely that anybody would dispute that it is a human organism... the dispute is that it is a moral agent with rights and responsibilities... I.e. a person).

Item 4 has been suggested by some, that even if we pretend zygote/embryo/fetus is a person (a moral agent) then it cannot occupy a host without the consent of the host. The host still has a right to self-defense in the event of feared potential injury.

 

It is of course your right to your personal opinion but we also know that it's not supported by precedent during the recorded history of mankind. That was explored by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade and the defense lawyers for the existing anti-abortion laws conceded that there were no recorded instance in history where a civilization ever established "personhood" prior to birth.

But as I also noted even if we grant "personhood" to the preborn they still don't have a Right to Life until they're born because their life is dependent upon the woman. The rights of the person cannot be dependent upon another person. Roe v Wade did take that into account in establishing "potential personhood" because all that was standing in the way of the Right to Life of the fetus at viability was a few millimeters of the mother's body. As an advocate for the Natural Rights of the People/Person established by Natural Law I highly agree with this very progressive interpretation of the Constitution's addressing of the Rights of the Person.

That's why it's always been strange that Republican's oppose Roe v Wade calling it a "progressive" interpretation of the Constitution. They're correct of course but the only thing progressive is the Court's creation of "potential personhood" in legal precedent that allows some restrictions and prohibitions on abortion to exist under the Constitution.

Finally I will again state that I fully support your opinion but you don't have a right, and it would be dangerous for you, to Impose your opinion on others. Live your life based upon your opinions. That's what it's for. Just remember that the moment we impose our opinions upon others that gives them the power to impose their opinions upon us.

 

A great analogy.

 

Wrong, the consent to taking a risk is not consenting to injuries that occur due to that risk being taken. .. furthermore consenting to a risk that may result in injuries is not consenting to a third party injuring you.

God is pretty much silent on abortion, though he does advocate it for unfaithful wives - numbers 5: 11-22

Life does not begin at fertilization unless you are suggesting that the sperm and ovum are not alive?