Abortion is murder

[ding]

Let’s be clear about something. Ending or overly restricting legal abortion will not end abortion and may not even significantly reduce the number of abortions. Rather, it will force the practice back under ground to be performed by the back ally butchers who will endanger women’s health and even their lives, and escape any restrictions on late term abortions which may well increase in numbers

I think a good starting point is for everyone to acknowledge:

1. Abortion end a human life.
2. It is wrong to end a human life.

As to your point that changing the law won't end it, you are probably right, but I do believe it would reduce it. It would probably force people behave more responsibly. Raising standards and holding people accountable usually does change behaviors.

No, a good ‘starting point’ is for everyone to acknowledge the fact that prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person,’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections:

‘After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

This is confirmation of the fact that – as indeed a fact of law – abortion is not ‘murder,’ it is not the unlawful taking of a human life, where to refer to abortion as ‘murder’ is ignorant demagoguery.

Abortion may be perceived as the ending of a human life in the context of subjective religious or personal belief, and ‘wrong’ in the context of subjective religious or personal belief, but to seek to make the practice ‘illegal’ through force of law is un-Constitutional, a violation of the right to privacy.

DNA says that it is not only a human being, but a specific human being. That makes it a specific person.

 

[ding]

Let’s be clear about something. Ending or overly restricting legal abortion will not end abortion and may not even significantly reduce the number of abortions. Rather, it will force the practice back under ground to be performed by the back ally butchers who will endanger women’s health and even their lives, and escape any restrictions on late term abortions which may well increase in numbers

I think a good starting point is for everyone to acknowledge:

1. Abortion end a human life.
2. It is wrong to end a human life.

As to your point that changing the law won't end it, you are probably right, but I do believe it would reduce it. It would probably force people behave more responsibly. Raising standards and holding people accountable usually does change behaviors.

No, a good ‘starting point’ is for everyone to acknowledge the fact that prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person,’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections:

‘After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

This is confirmation of the fact that – as indeed a fact of law – abortion is not ‘murder,’ it is not the unlawful taking of a human life, where to refer to abortion as ‘murder’ is ignorant demagoguery.

Abortion may be perceived as the ending of a human life in the context of subjective religious or personal belief, and ‘wrong’ in the context of subjective religious or personal belief, but to seek to make the practice ‘illegal’ through force of law is un-Constitutional, a violation of the right to privacy.

We know it is wrong to abort a human life because the mothers who do it agonize over the decision. Why don't you know it is wrong?

 

[ding]

Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. Abortion end a human life.
2. It is wrong to end a human life.

Idolatry ends a human life.

It is wrong to end a human life.

But not always illegal.

When human life is taken in self-defense, or as authorized by an act of war, that taking is not illegal, and by most not considered immoral or wrong.

When those hostile to the privacy rights of others incorrectly refer to abortion as ‘murder,’ they’ve crossed the line from religious/philosophical debate as to the nature of life and when life begins into the legal realm where as a fact of law abortion is not ‘murder,’ it is not the unlawful taking of a human life, and in the context of the law not ‘wrong.’

 

[ding]

You are a eugenicist. Hitler would be so proud of you.

To a delusional person like yourself, a convicted murderer is no different than an unborn baby.

How does one get so f**ked up?

And note the Liberal meme....another false one....that the world is overcrowded.

They are so easily duped by the left elite it is truly amazing to watch. Over population is a myth that only lives on in the minds of fools. America has way too many fools.

Is it any wonder the left has such along murderous history, when dupes like this exist. I bet some on the left would love a nuclear war, so as to eliminate millions of human beings. What sick f**ks they are.

It's interesting to see what's going on here. I responded to the simplistic and inflammatory OP with ideas as to how unwanted pregnancies and abortion can be reduced through public policy, and why simply banning abortion is not going to work. The OP author must have fled in terror because there has been no response. Neither he nor anyone can deal with it.

However, you guys a quick to jump all over one thing that was said that is arguably erroneous and is it as an excuse to call liberals stupid, while not dealing with the very real issues that have been raised. Why is that? I asked others this and I will ask you.......are you really pro life or just pro fetus.?

Is a fetus a living thing?

Yes it is a living "thing" So is a begonia.. Is that all that you can say in response to my post? Is it laziness or a lack of intellect I wonder.

It is a living human being and each point along the continuum it has the full human properties appropriate to that point.

 

[ding]

1. Abortion end a human life.
2. It is wrong to end a human life.

Idolatry ends a human life.

It is wrong to end a human life.

But not always illegal.

When human life is taken in self-defense, or as authorized by an act of war, that taking is not illegal, and by most not considered immoral or wrong.

When those hostile to the privacy rights of others incorrectly refer to abortion as ‘murder,’ they’ve crossed the line from religious/philosophical debate as to the nature of life and when life begins into the legal realm where as a fact of law abortion is not ‘murder,’ it is not the unlawful taking of a human life, and in the context of the law not ‘wrong.’

There was a point in time when it was legal to own another human being and there was a legal ruling that found that they were not human beings but property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. So much for being legal, right. What we are discussing is right and wrong. Do you believe it is right to end a human life?

What do you call the premeditated act of someone ending the life of another human being?

 

[ding]

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”

Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are a eugenicist. Hitler would be so proud of you.

To a delusional person like yourself, a convicted murderer is no different than an unborn baby.

How does one get so f**ked up?

And note the Liberal meme....another false one....that the world is overcrowded.

They are so easily duped by the left elite it is truly amazing to watch. Over population is a myth that only lives on in the minds of fools. America has way too many fools.

Is it any wonder the left has such along murderous history, when dupes like this exist. I bet some on the left would love a nuclear war, so as to eliminate millions of human beings. What sick f**ks they are.

It's interesting to see what's going on here. I responded to the simplistic and inflammatory OP with ideas as to how unwanted pregnancies and abortion can be reduced through public policy, and why simply banning abortion is not going to work. The OP author must have fled in terror because there has been no response. Neither he nor anyone can deal with it.

However, you guys a quick to jump all over one thing that was said that is arguably erroneous and is it as an excuse to call liberals stupid, while not dealing with the very real issues that have been raised. Why is that? I asked others this and I will ask you.......are you really pro life or just pro fetus.?

Is a fetus a living thing?

Yes it is a living "thing" So is a begonia.. Is that all that you can say in response to my post? Is it laziness or a lack of intellect I wonder.

On what basis does a 'mother' have the right to killing another human being?

In truth....abortion is the lazy, unethical person's birth control.

Liberalism's dispensation for murder.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland

And again, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person,’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections, where abortion is not ‘murder.’

 

[PoliticalChic]

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland

And again, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person,’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections, where abortion is not ‘murder.’

On what basis does a 'mother' have the right to killing another distinct and unique human being?

 

[ding]

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner

"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again. The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point." - Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland

And again, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person,’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections, where abortion is not ‘murder.’

Science and DNA say otherwise. You are making a legal argument and not a scientific argument. And when it comes to legal arguments let's not forget the Dred Scott case.

 

[ding]

Shettles, Landrum, M.D., Rorvik, David, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, page 36, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983

“… Conception confers life and makes you one of a kind. Unless you have an identical twin, there is virtually no chance, in the natural course of things, that there will be “another you” – not even if mankind were to persist for billions of years.”

 

[ding]

Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association (p 74)

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

angrypatirot, alexjones, usbacklash. Grow up, alt right.

Abortion is a medical term. Murder is a legal term. Abortion may be immoral or not. The act itself is not murder.

I want the right to determine life or death.

Jake you would be in big trouble, if I had that right.

Ignorant nonsense.

The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the ‘right’ to determine life or death.

The issue concerns the fact that prior to birth, a woman’s protected liberties and right to privacy is paramount:

“It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.” ibid

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To me abortion is not murder because you're alive the moment your mother "popped you out"
So if you're inside your mom's body there's no murder
That doesn't mean a woman could abort anywhere and anytime.
Strict regulations are needed in every country

So you're not alive when in the womb? You must be dead then. Why have strict regulations if you are dead?

You need to think about this and not regurgitate the lies promoted by the abortionists and leftists.

Prior to birth, you’re not a ‘person’ entitled to Constitutional protections, where again, as a consequence of that fact of law, abortion is not ‘murder.’

You might consider it ‘wrong’ from a subjective personal or religious perspective, but it is not ‘illegal.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion is a medical term, only.

Murder is a legal term, only.

not to the radical religious right who hate gubmint except when it tells women what to do with their bodies.

Actually we don't give a hoot what women do to their own bodies. It's what they do to the bodies of unborn children that we take exception to. We are simply against one individual having a legal right to murder another individual.

You don’t care about the Constitution, its case law, or the rule of law – you have nothing but contempt for the rights and protected liberties of others, the consequence of your ignorance, stupidity, and hate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

John is thirty years old. One day his mother took a hammer and bashed John's brain in. John is dead.

John is within his mother's womb. John is thirty weeks inside his mother's womb. John's mother aborts John. John is dead.

Which is the more dead? John at thirty or John at thirty weeks? I say both are dead. I say in both cases John was made dead by his mother. John's mother murdered John in both instances.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy – an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person.’

 

[JakeStarkey]

Abortion is a medical term, only.

Murder is a legal term, only.

not to the radical religious right who hate gubmint except when it tells women what to do with their bodies.

Actually we don't give a hoot what women do to their own bodies. It's what they do to the bodies of unborn children that we take exception to. We are simply against one individual having a legal right to murder another individual.

You don’t care about the Constitution, its case law, or the rule of law – you have nothing but contempt for the rights and protected liberties of others, the consequence of your ignorance, stupidity, and hate.

being has no concern what other people think, only about what he thinks

 

[JakeStarkey]

John is thirty years old. One day his mother took a hammer and bashed John's brain in. John is dead.

John is within his mother's womb. John is thirty weeks inside his mother's womb. John's mother aborts John. John is dead.

Which is the more dead? John at thirty or John at thirty weeks? I say both are dead. I say in both cases John was made dead by his mother. John's mother murdered John in both instances.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy – an embryo/fetus is not a ‘person.’

It is set up as a confirmation bias argument

 

[Vandalshandle]

Since the law is clear that abortion is not illegal, and the word, "murder" is the illegal taking of life, then we know that abortion isn't murder and is not illegal.

As to someone's moral objections to abortion, I simply couldn't care less. I can point to things that go on every day that I do not consider moral, including a lot of religious practices and beliefs, such as the Catholic ban on birth control in overpopulated, impoverished countries. But, that means nothing to anyone but myself.