"Abortion is murder"

[Cow Poke]

Why it's "necessary" is because it's the law. In many states, murder in the first degree includes anyone who intends to cause the death of a (potential) victim. That means if you take out a contract on a person, and a hit man kills him/her, you're guilty of murder. For example, here's a link to NY state penal code stating this.

If you're consistent, then the mother who aborts her fetus is just as guilty of murder as is the doctor who performs the abortion.

The abortionist knows exactly what he/she is doing -- the woman does not always. Many times, she is completely misled by the abortion industry. Note the use of the word "intends".

If that's unduly harsh, then your complaint is with the law, not me.

Please feel free to begin a campaign to prosecute women who have made bad choices.

[KingsGambit]

For how we should deal with this from a Christian perspective, we should look at the early church. Christianity was a major social force in ending the Roman practice of leaving newborn (usually girls) out to die. Abortion existed back then as well; it was condemned in the early church writings, even though it wasn't specifically mentioned in the Bible. Some of the earliest believers probably had had abortions. Some of them were thieves or worse. Paul mentions thieves directly in 1 Corinthians 6:10.

That identity doesn't matter anymore once one has become a Christian. So while I'm not saying that we should just ignore all crimes, especially serious ones... I think we are justified in not being overly fixated in hunting down everybody who has ever done something, because God prefers mercy over sacrifice.

(This is also one reason why I don't agree with tracking everyone down who ever entered the US illegally and kicking them out whether or not they've subsequently broken other laws, but that's really a different conversation.)

[Cow Poke]

Why it's "necessary" is because it's the law. In many states, murder in the first degree includes anyone who intends to cause the death of a (potential) victim.....

Here's a big problem for you to deal with WM..... the left has spent decades and millions of dollars foisting the notion that "it's just a clump of cells".
Is there a law against "removing a clump of cells"?
Is there "intent to cause the death of a (potential) victim" if the actor believes she is only "removing a clump of cells"?

Of the 450+ 'clients' our pregnancy center has seen over the past 12 years, only ONE has gone on to have an abortion after counseling with our doctors and healthcare providers.
Why? Because we, utilizing modern technology and science, such as sonograms, and actual doctors, help them realize that this "clump of cells" is actually a human being in development.
Convinced that they were contemplating the immoral taking of a human life, they choose to accept our prenatal and birth care, instead.

In order for you to prosecute a female for "removing a clump of cells", you first have to prove that she (legal term here) "knew or should have known" that the 'victim' she was "contracting to kill" was, indeed, a human being.
Our education system has, from very early on, worked hard to convince her that "it" is not, indeed, a human being.

[Christianbookworm]

This is probaby a stilly analogy, but lets say a "pest control" company tells a woman they are getting rid of pests and they kill her toddler bevause toddlers are sometimes called pests. I don't think the woman is responsible for that happening. They didn't tell her they werekilling her child.

[Cow Poke]

....Of the 450+ 'clients' our pregnancy center has seen over the past 12 years, only ONE has gone on to have an abortion after counseling with our doctors and healthcare providers....

And let me hasten to concede (because I've seen this accusation numerous times) that this phenomenal success rate considers the fact that the very REASON they came to us in the first place is because they were having doubts.
Some of those women had already concluded that murdering their baby was not an option, and were seeking help dealing with their crisis.
Some of them were looking for support for the decision they knew they needed to make.
Some of them honestly didn't know, and wanted to be assured "it's just a clump of cells".

[Cow Poke]

I think I murdered this thread.

[Leonhard]

I think I murdered this thread.

I think DivineOb got more reasonable answers than he expected and had nothing more to say.

[Whateverman]

Here's a big problem for you to deal with WM..... the left has spent decades and millions of dollars foisting the notion that "it's just a clump of cells".
Is there a law against "removing a clump of cells"?
Is there "intent to cause the death of a (potential) victim" if the actor believes she is only "removing a clump of cells"?

Of the 450+ 'clients' our pregnancy center has seen over the past 12 years, only ONE has gone on to have an abortion after counseling with our doctors and healthcare providers.
Why? Because we, utilizing modern technology and science, such as sonograms, and actual doctors, help them realize that this "clump of cells" is actually a human being in development.
Convinced that they were contemplating the immoral taking of a human life, they choose to accept our prenatal and birth care, instead.

In order for you to prosecute a female for "removing a clump of cells", you first have to prove that she (legal term here) "knew or should have known" that the 'victim' she was "contracting to kill" was, indeed, a human being.
Our education system has, from very early on, worked hard to convince her that "it" is not, indeed, a human being.

This isn't my problem, because I'm not arguing that women who get abortions should be charged with murder.

I'm arguing that those pro-lifers who insist on calling abortion "murder" - and who work towards establishing that in US law - must also treat the mother as guilty of the same crime the abortionist is.

[Whateverman]

For how we should deal with this from a Christian perspective, we should look at the early church. Christianity was a major social force in ending the Roman practice of leaving newborn (usually girls) out to die. Abortion existed back then as well; it was condemned in the early church writings, even though it wasn't specifically mentioned in the Bible. Some of the earliest believers probably had had abortions. Some of them were thieves or worse. Paul mentions thieves directly in 1 Corinthians 6:10.

That identity doesn't matter anymore once one has become a Christian. So while I'm not saying that we should just ignore all crimes, especially serious ones... I think we are justified in not being overly fixated in hunting down everybody who has ever done something, because God prefers mercy over sacrifice.

(This is also one reason why I don't agree with tracking everyone down who ever entered the US illegally and kicking them out whether or not they've subsequently broken other laws, but that's really a different conversation.)

I'm sorry I missed this before, because it's a nuanced pro-life position I haven't often heard.

Being pro-choice myself, I've never had a problem with Christians who are vocally-against abortion. It's a good thing for there to be social pressure against that extreme form of birth control, because while I believe it should be a viable option, it really should be an option of last resort (in my opinion); there are other ways to avoid pregnancy which should be being used more often.

Your position above is a pragmatic one, and seems more consistent with scripture than the positions of other Christians who claim abortion is a sign of the end-times, or that Satan is indeed the master of this world, etc.

[MaxVel]

To what degree is someone who hires a killer to murder someone else - complicit in the murder?

Pretty complicit, wouldn't you say?

The implication is that the women getting the abortions are murderers. Right?


Duly noted and welcomed. Yet if you're not talking about an illegal killing, the word "murder" isn't appropriate. Why not just call it an "immoral killing", rather than going for the low-hanging and emotionally-charged "murder"?

Does the state murder prisoners on death row if someone disputes the justification for the killing? People interested in hyperbole will say so, yes, but the rest of us know that "no" is the correct answer.[/COLOR]

I hope to see you equally question the "low-hanging and emotionally-charged" language used in other threads here on Civics, such as "Ahmad Arbery: racist killing and attempted cover-up" - a thread title, no less.

[Leonhard]

I hope to see you equally question the "low-hanging and emotionally-charged" language used in other threads here on Civics, such as "Ahmad Arbery: racist killing and attempted cover-up" - a thread title, no less.

To be honest though, it did take 70+ days for the two men to get arrested. Cover-up is not quite an unreasonable charge. It shouldn't take this long to get men who killed a person in broad daylight to get arrested.

[MaxVel]

To be honest though, it did take 70+ days for the two men to get arrested. Cover-up is not quite an unreasonable charge. It shouldn't take this long to get men who killed a person in broad daylight to get arrested.

'Racist killing' completely begs the question, though. As does 'cover-up'. Both might be true, but the title is prejudicial and biased.

We have over 1000 posts and no solid evidence (yet) that the motivation for the pursuit was racist, let alone anything about an intent or motivation to kill.

[Cow Poke]

This isn't my problem, because I'm not arguing that women who get abortions should be charged with murder.

I'm aware of that.

I'm arguing that those pro-lifers who insist on calling abortion "murder" - and who work towards establishing that in US law - must also treat the mother as guilty of the same crime the abortionist is.

I believe I've addressed that.

[Leonhard]

'Racist killing' completely begs the question, though. As does 'cover-up'. Both might be true, but the title is prejudicial and biased.

We have over 1000 posts and no solid evidence (yet) that the motivation for the pursuit was racist, let alone anything about an intent or motivation to kill.

I agree on the charge of racism, but so far I haven't heard a single good explanation that accounts for the 70+ days.

[Cow Poke]

I'm arguing that those pro-lifers who insist on calling abortion "murder" - and who work towards establishing that in US law - must also treat the mother as guilty of the same crime the abortionist is.

Negatory.

The problem with that is, as I said, when "society" works hard to make women "understand" that "it's just a clump of cells", and provides an atmosphere where the woman is actually coerced into "removing the clump of cells", you can't really blame the woman who has been convinced she's simply "having a procedure".

This is one of the dumbest (with all due respect) arguments I've ever encountered, and I've encountered it more than a few times.

In order to charge somebody with murder, there needs to be cause to believe that the person knew, or should have known, that the action they were taking would (or reasonably could) result in the death of another human being.

See the problem? You can't convict somebody for murder who's simply "removing a clump of cells". Else, when fat ladies get that "fat scooped out", they gotsta hasta go to prison, too!