Is Abortion Murder?

[nonconformist]

Would you eat a fetus?

Chickens and humans are not on the same level. If a car is about to run over a human or a chicken, I would save the human.

That's doesn't correspond.
I'd eat either an egg or a chicken.
I wouldn't eat a human of a fetus.

However, we have laws against animal cruelty.
An egg has the potential to be a chicken.
Therefore, breaking an egg, without intention to eat, is animal cruelty.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Im a mass murderer!

You also have to consider that each time you have walked past a woman and HAVEN'T had sex with her you have killed unborn people.

Continuing with the great logic:

A woman commits murder at least once a moth.
Each second hundreds of millions of people lose a chance to be born.

 

[shadowdude]

Is this cruelty to animals?

Is that fertilized? Will it grow up as a fetus would?

 

[Godwynn]

Therefore, breaking an egg, without intention to eat, is animal cruelty.

But I don't break eggs for no reason, I see that as a waste. If I break it, I plan on frying it and sticking it next to my hash browns.

So why kill a fetus?

 

[Uiler]

On an added note, we should consider St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas as accessories to murder as they all thought abortion was OK early on in the pregnancy. The truth is even within the Christian church the attitudes have abortion have see-sawed through the centuries. In the 2nd-4rd century they were dead opposed. In the 5th-7th led by St. Augustine who believed in the Greek belief of "delayed ensoulment" and that a soul cannot live in an unformed body, the Christian Church allowed abortion early on in the pregnancy. Later, in the 7th century, sins that prevented conception became important. However, at this point, abortion was still considered less serious than oral sex (abortion - 120 days pentience, oral sex - 7 years to a lifetime). Then in the 13th century a fetus was only human once the woman felt a "quickening" (i.e movement). St. Thomas Aquinas at this time wrote in favour of abortion early on. As an example of the see-sawing,

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

The idea that the soul enters the body at conception become popular during the 17th century,

In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation" gained acceptance within the medical and church communities in Western Europe. 9 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church was teaching. In 1658 Hieronymus Florentinius, a Franciscan, asserted that all embryos or fetuses, regardless of its gestational age, which were in danger of death must be baptized. However, his opinion did not change the status of abortion as seen by the church.

Pope Pius IX reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 and to refer simply to "the fetus." The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended. The church requires excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

The point is, the Christian church has been entirely inconsistent on abortion. It has see-sawed from allowing it to not allowing it to various degrees many times throughout its history. Even the idea that the soul enters the body at conception, known as "simultaneous animation" only appeared in the last couple of centuries. Before that, when the soul entered the body? Who are you talking to, when and where? Let's not forget that all these people were all reading the same book. And some of these people were very noted Bible scholars. I don't think the Bible can be said to take an absolute position on this matter. You can't really wave the Bible around and say it proves that God opposes abortion. St. Augustine and other famous Biblical scholars and noted saints read the same Bible and thought that it didn't. If the Bible was obvious there wouldn't be all this see-sawing throughout the history of the Christian church. Therefore, pro-abortion Christians have every right to claim that they are following the Bible as fundamentalists. Don't you love ambiguity?

Sources: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

 

[nonconformist]

But I don't break eggs for no reason, I see that as a waste. If I break it, I plan on frying it and sticking it next to my hash browns.

So why kill a fetus?

If you drop an egg, or one is thrown at you etc. you don't get into hysterics. If you "drop" a chicken, or someone throws a chicken at you, then there are some communication problems.

 

[Mark1031]

So why kill a fetus?

So that it does not develop into a baby when you are not ready to care properly for a baby at the time.

 

[Godwynn]

If you drop an egg, or one is thrown at you etc. you don't get into hysterics. If you "drop" a chicken, or someone throws a chicken at you, then there are some communication problems.

As I said before, chickens are not on the same level as humans. Humans are much more important than a chicken could ever dream.

 

[Godwynn]

So that it does not develop into a baby when you are not ready to care properly for a baby at the time.

Last I heard, there were families on a waiting list to adopt.

 

[classical_hero]

Remember that a chicken egg is not fertalised. That is the real issue, fertalisation. Once that has happened, in humans, then I believe that it is murder.

 

[Masquerouge]

I do believe abortion is murder.

I do not believe it should be illegal. It's a woman's choice, not mine.

So you are saying there are different kinds of murders. And the murder of a fetus is less serious than the murder of a grown-up. Why ?

 

[nonconformist]

As I said before, chickens are not on the same level as humans. Humans are much more important than a chicken could ever dream.

None the less, you can't compare throwing an egg to throwing a chicken.

 

[Mark1031]

Last I heard, there were families on a waiting list to adopt.

OK then so that you do not have a baby developing in your body with all the associated sacrifices and discomfort.

 

[Godwynn]

So you are saying there are different kinds of murders. And the murder of a fetus is less serious than the murder of a grown-up. Why ?

Just because I do not agree with something does not mean I want it outlawed and everyone who does it thrown in jail. I may not agree with people buying huge humvees to drive it, but it is still their right.

There was an article published, on civfanatics I do believe that since the legalization of abortion, the crime rate has dropped. Why? Because those who have abortions are usually from the lower classes and are more likely to commit crimes. Nothing I can do about it, just a fact of life.

To me there are positives and negatives to both sides. I still cannot think about a fetus being killed. Hell, that could have been you or me. Would you have liked that? Remember kids, you only get one shot at this life, and for some its over before they can see what a tree looks like, or smell the country air, or even meet those who are about to kill them.

Or maybe its just the Southern Illinois in me.

Edit: the big 4 digit post count.

 

[WillJ]

Godwynn, what in the world? Don't you think the murder of a 20-year-old should be illegal? So why is that? Why don't you see that as nothing more than the murderer's choice?

Would you eat a fetus?

I think they did that on Fear Factor once.

 

[Masquerouge]

Just because I do not agree with something does not mean I want it outlawed and everyone who does it thrown in jail. I may not agree with people buying huge humvees to drive it, but it is still their right.

No, I'm sorry, but very explicitely you said abortion is murder (post 17 in this thread). That's not saying you disagree with it, it's saying it's an act similar to killing a grown-up.
There is a different between not agreeing with people buying huge humvees, and saying what they are doing is murder.

So my question is, since you see abortion as murder, why don't you want to enforce it with the same punishment as the murder of a human being ?

See, this is the whole point of this thread. Pro-lifers are really keen to use the big murder word when they are talking about abortions, but somehow they realize it's not really murder because they, as you are currently doing, do not want to punish people undergoing abortions with the death penalty, as should be the case when a human being is cold-bloodedly killed.
So to be consistent, either stop saying abortion is murder, or admit fetuses are not human beings, or require the death penalty for people commiting abortion.
But you can't get away by saying abortion is murder and not facing the consequences of your analogy.

 

[Yom]

I don't see why 'genocide' is being used here.

genocide
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

How does abortion fall under that definition?

It's mass murder, but not genocide (provided that abortion is murder).

Abortion is only murder if the fetus is sentient.

 

[newfangle]

Is stomping on an acorn arboricide?

 

[Yom]

I do believe abortion is murder.

I do not believe it should be illegal. It's a woman's choice, not mine.

That's a horribly indefensible position. Killing my kid would be infanticide (murder), and therefore it should be illegal. It's not my choice whether or not I can kill my kid.

 

[Mark1031]

My main point is really to focus on the rhetoric and the use of the term murder. I agree that abortion is killing something. I agree that that something whether a fetus, or a zygote or a blastocyst is human in the same way that one of my hairs is a human hair rather than a cat hair. I agree that this something is morally different than a hair in that left to its own devices it has a reasonable, although surprisingly low (especially in older women), chance of developing into a baby. I agree that you can oppose abortion on moral grounds be they religious or based on some other philosophical premise. I agree that you can seek to have the government prohibit abortion through political means if you oppose it for whatever reason. However, I don't think is that it is fair, accurate or logical to use the term murder. This is a rhetorical tool to put the other side in the position of arguing in favor of something heinous. I also think that the actions of the pro-life community belie the fact that they do not believe abortion is murder in the same way as killing a 10-year-old is murder. I mean really if your country was randomly killing hundreds of thousands of 10-year-olds every year for 32 years would the only action that you take be to petition government for change and maybe protest a bit? Seems to me obvious that those who say it is murder even if sincere do not believe it is the same as killing a fully formed human being. We need a new word (well not really we could just continue to call it abortion). I also think the use of the term murder is irresponsible and that it incites some unstable people to violence.