Mandatory abortions in case of rape

Post Reply New Topic

sorry, but that is just plain wrong.

according to you anyone that disagrees with abortion being murder is simply lying to themselves??

the reason i disagree with calling a blastocyte or an early stage fetus, for a human person is not that i dont think of it as human, i simply aknowledge that it has its limitations.
but we all have different opinions and the biology suggests that the consciousness deosnt appear till after the 1st. trimester;
which is why you will find a lot of people disagreeing with you, people that actually has the science to back them up.
but if you want to continue dramatizing this issue, sure go ahead.

and it isnt murder
The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

"The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies."

it might fit under reason nr 3. if the woman was actually sexually active with several men without protection, then she proceeds to abort;rinse and repeat.
but it requires EXTREME recklessness, not a woman fearing for her own life or not having the possibility of providing for that child.

and i just had a deja-vu of writing this message, now i feel like my step mother is gonna walk trough the door any moment, so weird.

(*edited brainfart*)

Last edited by Oodain on 25 Mar 2011, 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have a suggestion. PC aside, before making an argument, you should think to yourself "What stops the other side from making the same argument?" For example, what if I said that saying abortion is murder is simply "knuckling under to peer pressure instead of being honest"? After answering that question, ask yourself if the other side would look very stupid to you for using that argument. Then ask yourself "Why would that argument make them look stupid but not me?"

Why don't you look up what homicide means sometime...


If you view a child in the womb as a alive and human, then abortion does equal murder, period.

I beg to differ, Inuyasha.

Homicide is defined as

This definition includes the widest range of actions including:

murder (where the homicide has an intent to kill, or recklessness as to whether death is a consequence of an intentional action);
manslaughter (where death is a result of negligent action on the part of the homicide);
infacticide (where an infant is killed by its mother when she is under a mental disability);

as well as legally excused circumstances where the killing of the other human being is legitimated (capital punishment; authorized use of deadly force in military or police activity) or privileged (killing by means of the use of reasonable force against a threat).

Your premises--that the fetus is both human and alive (which are correct)--do not lead to your conclusion. To fall within the definition of murder, the action must incorporate all of the elements of murder. The one that you have yet to prove to any legally acceptable standard is that the fetus is a person.

You have a strong moral position, and one with which I will not disagree. But do not try to equate your well formed moral view with a legal view.

@ visagrunt

If the child in the womb is defined as a human being, then abortion is homicide.

But not all homicide is murder.

We're not talking self-defense, nor are we talking accidental death.

We are talking the deliberate pre-meditated ending of a human life, that sounds like murder.

Murder also includes malicious intent. Abortion isn't about doing so for a thrill or in retaliation to what the baby did. Punching a womb would be murder, and although I find abortion morally repulsive I still recognize it as a medical procedure.

I think the child in the womb would consider it malicious.

It doesn't have a mind to consider anything.

Yeah but malicious intent is passionate, like if you kill someone who owes you money or if you kill someone just to get a thrill out of it or perhaps respect. Abortion is a matter of whether you view the fetus/embryo as a human life, and it is a much more controversial issue than say murdering a homeless person in an alley.

"Sounds like" is not good enough at law. Murder is a term defined in statute (I don't know of any jurisdictions in which the common law definition of murder is still good law, but I would be interested if there are any). An act or an omission is only murder within a given jurisdiction if that act or omission meets each an every element of that definition.

I will speak to the thirteen Canadian jurisdictions.



In Canada, the Criminal Code specifically draws a distinction between culpable homicide and non-culpable homicide, and then goes on to distinguish between murder, manslaughter and infanticide within the rubric of culpable homicide. Accordingly, no act or omission can properly be classified as murder unless that act or omission is first classified as homicide, and then not excused as being not culpable.



Subsection 223(2) of the Criminal Code makes it abundantly clear that in order for injury to a child in utero to be classified as homicide, the child must be born alive and subsequently die. If the child is not in a living state when it leaves the body of its mother, it has not become a human being within the meaning of subsection 223(1) and cannot, ipso facto be the subject of homicide.

Now, I grant you that this is the state of law in Canada, and not in the jurisdiction in which you find yourself. But you cannot uncritically use the word "murder" unless and until you have exercised the minimal effort required to ensure that the act or omission you complain of properly falls within the definition of that term, and you limit yourself to the jurisdiction(s) in which that is the case.

It seems to me that you are foolishly adhering to rhetoric. You do not need to call abortion murder in order to make your argument--your argument is strong without it. But when you use hyperbole to strengthen your argument you expose yourself to rebuttal. You have presented me with a perfect opportunity to call you on your rhetoric, and the merit of your argument gets lost in the dust.

I do not deny that abortion is a challenge of values--the mother's security of the person and the fetus' life. I believe that in Canadian law the former is a crystalised right under the Charter and the latter is most clearly excluded as an actionable right. But I also recognize that my view is neither universal nor unassailable.

So instead of trying to demonize abortion as something that it isn't (at least in some, if not all jurisdictions), let's instead acknowledge that:

1) Abortion is, unequivocally, the termination of a life.
2) Abortion is an exercise of a woman's security of the person.
3) You and I give different weight to these two irreconcilable values.

I will not be moved to accept that the former trumps the latter; you will not be moved to accept that the latter trumps the former.

And there is an end to it.

Exactly. Although it's Canadian law, murder pretty much means the same thing in all countries: Killing someone with malicious intent and a degree of premeditation. Malice means "feeling a need to see others suffer" and abortion is certainly not done to fulfill a need to see the baby suffer. If that was the case, it would be a lot more logical to punch the womb rather than wasting time and money going to a clinic.

I'll take a wild guess that homicide means to kill a man, which I guess also applies to women. Note however, that homicide is not the same as murder. Besides, killing a fertilized egg is not homicide because fertilized eggs are not human.

This post was unnecessary because the other guys already elaborated on that topic much better than I.

Maybe you should take your own advice as to why saying "Killing a fertilized egg is not homicide cuz they're not human" looks ridiculous to us instead of pretending to be balanced. At least I acknowledge that murder is a legal term that doesn't pertain to abortion despite the fact that I'm very pro-life, so maybe you should hold your own end of the bargain.

what about sperm?? they are also technically human.