Thread: Abortion: split from stem cell research

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

If you're pro-life and believe that human life begins at the moment of conception; and that abortion is literally the murder of a human being, then would you support and want to see the death penalty applied to any woman who has an abortion, and well as all the medical personnel involved in the procedure? And would any laypersons who counseled the woman to have an abortion and lent any type of assistance in facilitating its performance (for example, driving the woman to the abortion clinic knowing the abortion will be performed) be subject to, if not murder charges, lesser charges such as manslaughter or aiding in the commission of a crime?
If your answer is "no", why not, if abortion is literally the murder of a human being?

I am a pro life person, however, I do believe in abortions for certain situations. Incest, rape, or where the life/physical health is in jeapordy. To me abortion is a late stage birth control. Accidents do happen on birth control, but there are so many people out there who cannot have children that want to become parents that to me I would rather give the child up to parents who will love and care for it than to dispose of a life for my convenience.

That being said, my teenage daughter became pregnant and when I talked to her she had the option to keep the baby and I would do what I could to help her, or give it up. Abortion never was an option.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Your argument is flawed, as it assumes that the death penalty should be applied.

If it is murder, then yes, murder charges should be applied. That doesn't necessitate that the death penalty be applied though.

I agree with your point. Murder does not always implicate the death penalty. However, whether the punishment be death or life in prison, my point remains--if abortion is truly the murder of another human being, then how does the pro life movement avoid the logical conclusion that the mother and those involved in the performance of an abortion of murderers, no different than if they had conspired to kill any other innocent human being?

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

if abortion is truly the murder of another human being

How can it be proved that it is murder if every party involved claims ignorance of the individual humanity of the unborn that was aborted?

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

I agree with your point. Murder does not always implicate the death penalty. However, whether the punishment be death or life in prison, my point remains--if abortion is truly the murder of another human being, then how does the pro life movement avoid the logical conclusion that the mother and those involved in the performance of an abortion of murderers, no different than if they had conspired to kill any other innocent human being?

I don't see what the issue is, other than the fact that currently it is not legally defined as murder, so charges cannot be brought.

If it was legally defined as murder, then yes, I agree that all involved should be charged as such.

Why is that illogical?

Originally Posted by Hutch

There are classes of killings that are legal they are justifiable homicides.

Of course. But no one said "Abortion is a justifiable homicide." What was said is "abortion is murder." If those who said that MEANT "Abortion is killing a human, and should be dealt with as such on a moral basis, but not be illegal" I trust they would have said so.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Let me try this another way. If you believe human life begins at the moment of conception and/or relatively soon thereafter, then abortion is the act of killing a human being, no different from the killing of a human being outside the womb. And since abortion is planned and the goal is termination of life, it squarely fits within the definition of murder, particularly in terms of the premeditation aspect. I believe this accurately states the position of the pro-life movement.
If we follow this line of reasoning, those who advocate this position, to be consistent, would have to hold the position that any pregnant woman who elects to have an abortion, and those involved in the process, are engaging in a premeditated act of murder.
Now if your position is that there are countervailing considerations that operate to either justify or mitigate the interest of not killing a human being who just happens to be inside rather than outside the womb (for example, the mother doesn't want to go through childbirth or is too young to have a baby), then why wouldn't those same considerations apply to an already-born child? Yet we certainly would never say it's ok to terminate the life of a toddler, or an adult for that matter, due to the type of "considerations" that are argued in the context of abortion. As far as I know, there are NO set of circumstances that are recognized in our society for terminating the life of an "out of the womb" human life (other than acts of self defense in a criminal setting).
My point if that if your a strict pro-lifer, and you believe life begins at conception, there can never be any circumstances justifying the murder of a human being, even in instances of rape, incest, etc. Because if there were SOME set of circumstances that provided moral justification for the killing of a human being inside the womb, those same circumstances would justify the killing of a human being outside the womb.
Anyone care to respond?

Interesting arguement.

10 week old fetus = 5 year old child. If 10 week old fetus was conceived by rape then its ok to have an abortion. If the 5 year old was conceived by rape then it would be ok to terminate his life, as both have the same rights, according to the strict pro-life movement. So really its an all or nothing scenario, the appeasement by some pro-lifer's who admit there are circumstances that justify abortion negates their whole argument that embryo's and fetuses have the same rights as those outside the womb.

By not considering embryo's or fetuses the same as children, but as something of great value that belongs to the parties involved, the pro-choice argument face no such conundrum. As such laws can be passed that protect the unwanted termination of a pregnancy without infringing on individual rights.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Of course. But no one said "Abortion is a justifiable homicide." What was said is "abortion is murder." If those who said that MEANT "Abortion is killing a human, and should be dealt with as such on a moral basis, but not be illegal" I trust they would have said so.

My response was to Hoglahoo's question. Not the general context of this discussion, hence why he was quoted. So it is meant in that context not to be taken on its own.

Originally Posted by Hutch

My response was to Hoglahoo's question. Not the general context of this discussion, hence why he was quoted. So it is meant in that context not to be taken on its own.

But smokelaw was quoted, not me - Hutch are you trying to confuse us?

Originally Posted by Hutch

Interesting arguement.

10 week old fetus = 5 year old child. If 10 week old fetus was conceived by rape then its ok to have an abortion. If the 5 year old was conceived by rape then it would be ok to terminate his life, as both have the same rights, according to the strict pro-life movement. So really its an all or nothing scenario, the appeasement by some pro-lifer's who admit there are circumstances that justify abortion negates their whole argument that embryo's and fetuses have the same rights as those outside the womb.

By not considering embryo's or fetuses the same as children, but as something of great value that belongs to the parties involved, the pro-choice argument face no such conundrum. As such laws can be passed that protect the unwanted termination of a pregnancy without infringing on individual rights.

The argument for "in cases of rape, incest" is often the one championed by the pro-abortion side as a monkey wrench to throw into the works.

It is a difficult position, to be sure.

But I ask this: why is the fetus of such circumstances the one to pay the capital punishment for the crime? They are not the ones who made the offense!

If you instead want to put to death the actual perpetrator of rape and incest, not the child created, who is blameless, then you'd have my support for such a measure.

Beat me to it. I just went back to look, i thought I was confused, but it turns out I was wrong, I was not confused then. Now I'm confused.

Wait, is this the "Yankees are a better franchise than Manchester United: Discuss" thread?