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

A bit extreme but you do lead to another specific belief of mine. Why not return the rights to decide on all items that are not specifically in the constitution to the states? Therefore I lived in a state that the populous agreed that abortion was murder, they could outlaw it, and those states that agreed it was not, were free to do so. Although I still think it would be morally wrong, at least unborn children would not be killed where a cohesive populous agreed to it.

 

The law says you have to be born to be a person....as it should be.

And yes, I'm sure you have only thought of what a child's suffering can do for YOU.

And bible verses mean nothing to me or the law. And your bible verse says nothing about abortion.

 

Again, just because it is a law does not make it right. Could you site me your source for the legal definition that says you must be born to be a person? And, should the law be changed, eliminated, repealed etc., and it is legally decided you do not have to be born to be a person, that would make it right then, correct?

Interesting, considering most of our laws originate from Bible versus.

Yes, it does, it says God says you are a person even before you are born, he "knew" you.....

 

Patronizing, condescending and sexist..

No, if you hire a hitman and he is successful you are both charged with murder.

You've had it explained to you by another poster.......it is necessary only under certain circumstances. It does not happen in most abortions.

The law: You have to be born to be a "person".

A human being = a noun.


Human fetus= human as an adjective.

We weren't discussing children.

But children do have the same restrictions, they cannot use another person's body to sustain their life without that other person's consent.

YOU want the fetus to have the rights of a person but not the restrictions everyone else has.

,

Yes, you do. You want their bodies to become property of the government by taking away their choice (right) to have an abortion.

Right there you stated you want to take away women's rights.

She isn't. No woman can make a fertilized egg implant in her uterine wall.

 

LOL so only those who do not have the ability to travel across a state line can not have a safe and legal abortion? At least you are reducing the overhead cost of getting a legal and safe abortion from a plane ride to the EU or South American to an overnight bus trip.

One law for the very poor and one law for everyone else.

footnote I am old enough to remember when, I think it was NY state, that was the first state to allow abortions on demand before Roe ver Wade and travel agents was selling package trips to NY abortion centers.

 

No, "most of our laws" are NOT based on bible verses....nor should they be.

The Constitution says it gives rights to all BORN persons.



IF a fetus is ever deemed a "person" with rights then it would also have the same restrictions that other persons get with their rights.

One restriction is that you cannot use another person's body to sustain your life without their consent.

IF a fetus is ever deemed a person then the woman it's in can use self defense to stop the unconsented harm it's doing to her. And YES pregnancy harms women.

 

A woman who is an American citizen is an American citizen in ALL the states. States cannot take rights away from groups of people.

The majority of Americans agree it should be legal.



Or are you planning to demand a pregnancy test for all women leaving the US? Crossing a state line?

 

Now that is interesting...a woman who disagrees with you is patronizing, condescending, sexist. Again, insightful.

Charged under the law and punished are two different things. That the duped/coerced individual is actually punished is a completely different matter.

And again, that makes it OK just because it doesn't happen in "most"?

Can you site the legal source please? And, should the law be changed that you do not have to be born to be a person, that would make it correct then?

Earlier you said a fetus was "human"....in the webster's definition it does show "human" as a noun and synonymous with person.

You are not, but I am, a fetus is simply an unborn child in my eyes.

No I stated I feel she does not have the right to commit murder.

But she can decide to not put herself in the highly likely category of creating an unwanted baby in the first place. She has the choice long before she becomes pregnant, yet the child has no choice and once created, should be protected....by the mother as that is her duty since she made the choice to participate in the first place. Just like it's the father's duty to provide for and protect both the mother and unborn child. But we have created a society with convenient abortions, sex without thought to consequences (both physical and psychological), and men and women who give up on their responsibilities caused by their choices.

 

No, one law for each state, equal to both poor and rich. It would just be governed by each state instead of one centralized government.

 

Well, history will disagree with you there. Our founding father's based the foundations of our laws on the ten commandments, hence them being displayed in courthouses all throughout our country.

Please cite your specific legal reference where a human must be born to be a person....exact reference please.

 

I do nit belive that you are being honest in your OP thread therefore you are not deserving of a response from those of us who are here to gave an honest open duscussion. Your aporoach is that of someone who states thatvwife beating is wrong and then asks the rest of us to say why wife beating is good.

You cannot insult people who may not think as you do and then expect them to engage in a civil open discussion. You gave up you chance for an open duscussion.

 

Again, just because the majority agrees does not make it right. The majority agreed in slavery in the 1700's. The majority is simply mob rule.

Correct, but the centralized government has no authority to control any laws beyond the constitution. If local governments decide they do want abortions, the central government cannot legally do anything about it....and....vice versa.

 

I was honest in my first thread, I posed the wording as politely as I could for the passion and pain that exists in the subject. I chose poorly and I apologize. I would like to hear the reasons why, and so far most boil down to fundamental "abortion is not murder because a fetus is human but not a person" and "abortion is not murder because cells are not human" (though would like to hear when those that believe this feel they are human).

I would like to hear other views if those who have them are willing to point them out. If you wish to have your pound of flesh because of my initial wording and do not accept my apology, then so be it. To the others, enlighten me if you have a different view from the two abridged ones I have mentioned.

 

Not very for you. It's quite sexist to think women must feel a certain way. Women are quite capable of being as patronizing, condescending and sexist as you were...

No, it isn't. No one can be forced to hire a hitman. Why are you so desperate to exonerate what you consider a murderer??

Yes. If it's a medical necessity, yes.

I already told you the Constitution....and make what correct?? I see you didn't bother to read what you don't like, the ramifications of what would happen if the fetus was deemed a person.

I used "human" in that context as an adjective, (that's a word that describes something, maybe you should look up the definitions of "noun" and "adjective" since they seem to give you problems with comprehension)

And you have a right to your opinion but you can't force others to feel the same way (and they have the law on their side)

She doesn't. But you don't know what "murder" is.



Ignored by you :
But children do have the same restrictions, they cannot use another person's body to sustain their life without that other person's consent.

YOU want the fetus to have the rights of a person but not the restrictions everyone else has.

,

Yes, you do. You want their bodies to become property of the government by taking away their choice (right) to have an abortion.




Right there you stated you want to take away women's rights.

No, women don't have to give up sex to please you.

OK, show me that law.

.


She chose to have sex, that is not choosing to get pregnant(an impossibility)

.

To you maybe but not to everyone.

)

No "we" did NOT create it, it was always there.

Which isn't a crime.

And a woman who feels she doesn't want and/or can't support a kid IS being responsible if she decides to abort.

YOU don't get to decide what other people's responsibilities are.

 

A woman who is an American citizen is an American citizen in ALL the states. States cannot take rights away from groups of people.

The majority of Americans agree it should be legal.



Or are you planning to demand a pregnancy test for all women leaving the US? Crossing a state line?


Making abortion illegal is NOT ""equal to both poor and rich." Rich women have the money to travel to get an abortion, poor women don't.

- - - Updated - - -

RvW gave the states some right to limit abortion but they have no right to outlaw it completley

 

Obviously we will never convince the other and both think we are right. I see your points, and though vehemently disagree with you, I do thank you for sharing with me your opinion and giving me your justifications of why you feel abortion is not murder..which was my original question, though poorly worded.

Do you or anyone else have reasons why they do not consider abortion is murder that they would be willing to share?

 

Here's some reading you probably won't like

From the Constitution:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws


Personal Autonomy









right of privacy: personal autonomy

The right of privacy has evolved to protect the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject themselves to certain experiences. This personal autonomy has grown into a 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, this liberty is narrowly defined and generally only protects privacy of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing. There have been attempts to further extend the right of privacy under the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; however, a general right to personal autonomy has yet to take hold beyond limited circumstances.

The personal autonomy dimension of the right of privacy has been overwhelmingly developed in cases dealing with reproductive rights. The Supreme Court first recognized an independent right of privacy within the 'penumbra' (fringe area) of the Bill of Rights in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In this case, a right of marital privacy was invoked to void a law prohibiting contraception. Later cases expanded upon this fundamental right, and in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the right of privacy was firmly established under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court classified this right as fundamental, thus requiring any governmental infringement to be justified by a compelling state interest. Roe held that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, it was held, the mother's liberty of personal privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

 

Yes, I love the Constitution....but nowhere does that say you must be born to be a person....it says you must be born to be a citizen. So if you do find the law siting you must be born to be a person, please direct me to it.

 

You're just being obtuse.

You have not shown any laws that I asked you about.

You have not refuted a single fact other posters showed you. It wasn't their opinions it was facts.

You didn't come here to learn anything but to present your opinion which has been blown to bits by other posters.

 

A large percent of our major founding fathers such as Jefferson and Madison and Paine was deists not god fearing Christians and our government was more a reflection of the late Roman Republic model then anything else and that go for the ten commandments also.

 

No, not obtuse, I just am requesting you to show me the law that says a fetus has to be born to be a person. Please just show me that law. You were the one who said that was "the law and rightly so" (paraphrasing). What you showed in the constitution says nothing about a fetus is not human until it is born.

What law did you ask me about and I will do my best to find you a reference.

I have refuted opinion with opinion, no one has shown me fact that a fetus is not a person until born. Just because it is a law does not make it right and then, I am still looking for said law.

I did come here to see the other side, as well as present my opinion, I thought that what's this board was for. You, nor anyone else have "blown me to bits"....I'm still her asking you the same question you have yet to answer.

 

Agreed, a percentage, but certainly not the majority. If it had been, you would not read "God" in the Declaration of Independence.

And still, men knew that the ten commandments were a valid and valuable tool for civilization since their revelation. If the majority of the founding fathers did not believe that, then why do we have the commandments prominently displayed in courts? Why do the laws we have established from the beginning of our country parallel the commandments, which predate that event by thousands of years?

 

You haven't replied to my comment.

Whether the fetus is a person or not actually does not impact on your question...IS ABORTION MURDER?

Murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of a human life by another human.

Since abortion is NOT the unlawful taking of a human life...IT IS NOT MURDER.

That is why I do not consider it murder.

Any comments on that?

 

Also, interesting dichotomy Thomas Jefferson eh?

""God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

And then there's John Hancock:
"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

And then Benjamin Franklin:
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

"That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

"But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
--Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.

I bore and post all of them.

But, this was an original post regarding why you thought abortion is not murder. Again, poorly worded as such for which I apologize, so BillRm, do you have an opinion on why it is not?

 

How does our law parallel the commandments any more then Roman laws parallel the ten commandments??????

Valid!!!!!!!!!! by the bible story the first time Moses came down from the mountain top with the commandments he got so (*)(*)(*)(*) off due to the behaviors of his people while he was on top of the mountain that he had the members of his personal tribe and his closest followers go on a killing spree of men women and children until they got so worn out that they could no longer swing their swords.

The commandment concerning not killing seem not to had apply to Mosses and Mosses was hardly a role model for any society in many other ways.