Is direct abortion the murder of an unborn human?

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
In my view direct abortion, termed termination by its advocates is in fact murder.
It is the deliberate taking of human life.

Those advocating pro choice are actually advocating that a woman should be allowed to murder her unborn infant.

Many pose this issue as somehow connected to a womans freedom to do what she likes with her body.
She indeed has that freedom but only in relation to her body and not in relation to the body of the unborn child which is distinct and separate from although within her.

Others say this is a womans only issue as though it only affects women.
This is not true as aborted babies are both genders.

Others say it is a human rights matter.
Of course it is and the primary issue is the right to life of both mother and child.

It really confounds me that rational people can not see what is at stake in this debate other than a right to life.

Life begins at conception .
This is scientifically proven.

Therefore to end that life deliberately and directly can only be a crime.

What do other posters think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
Re: Re: abortion is murder... | Big Think.
 


Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
Let's ask the site's resident experts on what defines "murder".

Supporters of SF/advocates of the Provisional cult.....in this instance, what defines the term "murder" ?
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
Let's ask the site's resident experts on what defines "murder".

Supporters of SF/advocates of the Provisional cult.....in this instance, what defines the term "murder" ?
Well murder is the unlawful killing of a person.
Sometimes it is lawful to kill as in necessary self defence.

Presently somebody who kills an unborn child outside the very restricted scope of current abortion legislation could i think be charged with murder.

The effete irish govt wish to allow the killing of unborn children on a virtually unrestricted basis should the constitutional partial protection be removed.
 

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,211
The humanity of the unborn is the issue the pro choice side are studiously avoiding.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
The humanity of the unborn is the issue the pro choice side are studiously avoiding.
It is quite absurd to describe the unborn child as a non human.

Indeed all the elements of a human are present from the moment of conception.

Science has proved this.
 

Ruff says Flaherty

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
1,503
In my view direct abortion, termed termination by its advocates is in fact murder.
It is the deliberate taking of human life.

Those advocating pro choice are actually advocating that a woman should be allowed to murder her unborn infant.

Many pose this issue as somehow connected to a womans freedom to do what she likes with her body.
She indeed has that freedom but only in relation to her body and not in relation to the body of the unborn child which is distinct and separate from although within her.

Others say this is a womans only issue as though it only affects women.
This is not true as aborted babies are both genders.

Others say it is a human rights matter.
Of course it is and the primary issue is the right to life of both mother and child.

It really confounds me that rational people can not see what is at stake in this debate other than a right to life.

Life begins at conception .
This is scientifically proven.

Therefore to end that life deliberately and directly can only be a crime.

What do other posters think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
Re: Re: abortion is murder... | Big Think.
You could say that it is the case when the foetus is healthy and there is no risk to the mother. I am voting yes, but what you are saying is the ugly truth of the matter. Risk to baby, risk to mother, rape, incest, all reasons why the current situation we have doesn't work though.

Contrary to extremes on both the yes and no sides, this is a far from black and white issue. No celebrations should be had by either side when this is over.
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,633
No it is not.

Many pregnancies spontaneously abort before the mother is even aware she is pregnant.

The Foetus is not capable of external life until 23 weeks - and even then only with great levels of support. 40 years ago births at 23 weeks often resulted in death very shortly after delivery.

Before the 23 week point it can be argued that the foetus is effectively a parasite i.e. dependent on its host (the mother) for survival.

It is nothing but semantics to refer to a foetus of less than 23 weeks gestation as an 'unborn child'. It is nowhere near fully developed and many of the sentient brain functions we have are not even started let alone developed. Just because it moves does not mean it is alive in a true sense.
 

Ruff says Flaherty

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
1,503
No it is not.

Many pregnancies spontaneously abort before the mother is even aware she is pregnant.

The Foetus is not capable of external life until 23 weeks - and even then only with great levels of support. 40 years ago births at 23 weeks often resulted in death very shortly after delivery.

Before the 23 week point it can be argued that the foetus is effectively a parasite i.e. dependent on its host (the mother) for survival.

It is nothing but semantics to refer to a foetus of less than 23 weeks gestation as an 'unborn child'. It is nowhere near fully developed and many of the sentient brain functions we have are not even started let alone developed. Just because it moves does not mean it is alive in a true sense.
It is definitely alive
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
No it is not.

Many pregnancies spontaneously abort before the mother is even aware she is pregnant.
That is not the same as a direct abortion where doctors kill the child in the womb directly.
But you know that already.

The Foetus is not capable of external life until 23 weeks - and even then only with great levels of support. 40 years ago births at 23 weeks often resulted in death very shortly after delivery.

Before the 23 week point it can be argued that the foetus is effectively a parasite i.e. dependent on its host (the mother) for survival.
No quibble there except the term parasite is not appropriate.
But you know that already.

It is nothing but semantics to refer to a foetus of less than 23 weeks gestation as an 'unborn child'. It is nowhere near fully developed and many of the sentient brain functions we have are not even started let alone developed.
The foetus is unborn.
It has all the elements that make a child present.
It is therefore an unborn child.


Just because it moves does not mean it is alive in a true sense.
But it does.
It is fully alive in the conventional meaning of the term "having life"

Therefore to kill it directly is to end that life , that human life , and therefore commit a crime.
 

Apple in Eden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,718
In my view direct abortion, termed termination by its advocates is in fact murder.
It is the deliberate taking of human life.

Those advocating pro choice are actually advocating that a woman should be allowed to murder her unborn infant.

Many pose this issue as somehow connected to a womans freedom to do what she likes with her body.
She indeed has that freedom but only in relation to her body and not in relation to the body of the unborn child which is distinct and separate from although within her.

Others say this is a womans only issue as though it only affects women.
This is not true as aborted babies are both genders.

Others say it is a human rights matter.
Of course it is and the primary issue is the right to life of both mother and child.

It really confounds me that rational people can not see what is at stake in this debate other than a right to life.

Life begins at conception .
This is scientifically proven.

Therefore to end that life deliberately and directly can only be a crime.

What do other posters think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
Re: Re: abortion is murder... | Big Think.
Murder is too strong a term to use but clearly abortion is the taking of life or potential life.

In an ideal world there would be very limited danger for the unborn and almost all pregnancies would go to term. But we do not or never have lived in an ideal world people for many reasons will choose to the end the life of their unborn child. Some of these reasons will be sound and others spurious.

Prohibition in general and in this particular case does not work and it falls to the people and the state to impose regulation. There are some good reasons to argue for removal of the 8th amendment and valid reasons why it should be kept.

I have a personal distaste for abortion but I am realistic enough to know it will not go away. It needs to be regulated but in relation to this I like many others would have concerns as to how politicians might go about this after any Yes vote.

With respect to the issue of rationality lots of people don't act rationally in relation to many issues and abortion is no different. It may seem strange that some women who would love a child can't get pregnant and others who are don't want it under any circumstances. There is nothing rational about that but unless you are in the place of a woman desperate to have an abortion I guess you will never know.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
You could say that it is the case when the foetus is healthy and there is no risk to the mother. I am voting yes, but what you are saying is the ugly truth of the matter. Risk to baby, risk to mother, rape, incest, all reasons why the current situation we have doesn't work though.

Contrary to extremes on both the yes and no sides, this is a far from black and white issue. No celebrations should be had by either side when this is over.
The govt plan almost unrestricted abortion access right up to birth.

This issue concerns the protection of future unborn children.
1 in 5 children are aborted in the UK.

That is what the Irish govt want brought in here.

The only protection for the unborn is the 8th amendment .

Remove that and the floodgates will indeed be opened.


On principle how can you give a superior right to one pregnancy over another based on the circumstances causing that pregnancy?

Surely every unborn child deserves the right to to be born and try to live.?
 

OrderoftheDragon

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
1,927
The carry on of the likes of Amnesty International is disgusting, they should really fold up the tent and slither off.

Whatever about the people in actual difficult situations but Amnesty are an embarrassment to real human rights activists, promoting killing those who have no say whatsoever for themselves, lowlife pond scum.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
Murder is too strong a term to use but clearly abortion is the taking of life or potential life.
It becomes murder when the taking of life is unlawful.
That is the situation in relation to most directly procured abortions in ireland.

In an ideal world there would be very limited danger for the unborn and almost all pregnancies would go to term. But we do not or never have lived in an ideal world people for many reasons will choose to the end the life of their unborn child. Some of these reasons will be sound and others spurious.

Prohibition in general and in this particular case does not work and it falls to the people and the state to impose regulation. There are some good reasons to argue for removal of the 8th amendment and valid reasons why it should be kept.

I have a personal distaste for abortion but I am realistic enough to know it will not go away. It needs to be regulated but in relation to this I like many others would have concerns as to how politicians might go about this after any Yes vote.

With respect to the issue of rationality lots of people don't act rationally in relation to many issues and abortion is no different. It may seem strange that some women who would love a child can't get pregnant and others who are don't want it under any circumstances. There is nothing rational about that but unless you are in the place of a woman desperate to have an abortion I guess you will never know.
The irish govt have stated they plan to introduce virtually unrestricted abortion legislation if the 8th is removed.

That is why it was put there in the first place.
To prevent future govts from denying the right to life of the unborn child.

It is a human right.
The unborn child is a human being and entitled to rights subject to law.

That is what we have at the moment.

The irish govt want those human rights taken away from the unborn child.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,430
Fine Gael intend to get around any allegations of "murder" by an as yet unpublished piece of legislation making it a capital crime to be unwanted.
First to come under the new law will be the unborn and then the State will move on to the old and the disabled.

It will all save the State a small fortune and that's what's important here.

Genius!
 

Fr Peter McWhinger

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
896
Certain considerations are extended to a Mother killing a Child under 1 year of age.


1.—(1) On the preliminary investigation by the District Court of a charge against a woman for the murder of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, the Justice may, if he thinks proper, alter the charge to one of infanticide and send her forward for trial on that charge.


(2) Where, upon the trial of a woman for the murder of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, the jury are satisfied that she is guilty of infanticide, they shall return a verdict of infanticide.


(3) A woman shall be guilty of felony, namely, infanticide if—


(a) by any wilful act or omission she causes the death of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, and


(b) the circumstances are such that, but for this section, the act or omission would have amounted to murder, and


(c) at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child


and may for that offence be tried and punished as for manslaughter.


(4) Section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, shall have effect as if the reference therein to the murder of any child included a reference to infanticide.



Infanticide Act, 1949, Section 1
 

PBP voter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
9,429
Of course it's not murder, it's a foetus! You bunch of freaks.
When the day comes that a 12 week old foetus can be kept alive and be allowed to fully develop in an artificial womb would you make it illegal to have an abortion?

Or will you want it killed?
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top