Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is abortion considered murder?

Page 6 of 12 [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

It is the killing of an unborn chld
It is not considered murder 68%  68%  [ 40 ]
It is somewhat considered murder 32%  32%  [ 19 ]
Total votes : 59

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,302
Location: Pacific Northwest

11 Jan 2012, 3:18 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
Image



So does that mean I am not un pregnant after I gave birth to a child? :P



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

11 Jan 2012, 3:31 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Image



So does that mean I am not un pregnant after I gave birth to a child? :P


Obviously not; you still have cells in your body :P



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

11 Jan 2012, 3:59 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
Murder requires intent, so no it is not murder.

The goal of an abortion is to remove the baby from the mother's body. If it were possible to remove the baby and place him in some sort of device to allow him to continue to grow and develop, and the mother refused to allow that, then that would be murder.

The only way to remove a nonviable fetus is through abortion. If it's after the age of viability then performing an abortion instead of an induction or c/section would be murder.

At the most it's homicide or depraved indifference.

Yes, the woman's actions (except for rape) allowed the baby to form in her body, but unless her actions were specifically intended to cause a baby to form, she should not be held responsible for keeping the baby alive in her uterus. Birth control does fail, and yes many times people just don't use it and some do use abortion as a backup. I think that is irresponsible, but it's not illegal.

I am pro choice, and I do believe that the fetus is a human being. I think abortion is a very unfortunate choice and I wish no one would choose abortion. However, the right to remove an unwanted person from your own body should be a basic right.


Well, since I've hit one side for poor legal reasoning, it's only proper that I do the same on the other side.

In Canadian law (and most Common Law jurisdictions), the mens rea for murder is not exclusively the intention to kill, per se but can also include an intention to cause bodily harm. Further, inderect intention--the intention to commit an act of which death or bodily harm is a virtually certain result. In either case, death must actually ensue. If I hit you with a baseball bat, intending only to injure you, but that blow winds up killing you, the necessary intention for murder is made out.

Thus, if the intention is to remove a foetus from the uterus of the child's mother, death is virtually certain to result before the threshold of viability--even with medical intervention. I see no basis to argue that murder is excluded on the basis of intent.


_________________
--James


OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

11 Jan 2012, 4:11 pm

visagrunt wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
Murder requires intent, so no it is not murder.

The goal of an abortion is to remove the baby from the mother's body. If it were possible to remove the baby and place him in some sort of device to allow him to continue to grow and develop, and the mother refused to allow that, then that would be murder.

The only way to remove a nonviable fetus is through abortion. If it's after the age of viability then performing an abortion instead of an induction or c/section would be murder.

At the most it's homicide or depraved indifference.

Yes, the woman's actions (except for rape) allowed the baby to form in her body, but unless her actions were specifically intended to cause a baby to form, she should not be held responsible for keeping the baby alive in her uterus. Birth control does fail, and yes many times people just don't use it and some do use abortion as a backup. I think that is irresponsible, but it's not illegal.

I am pro choice, and I do believe that the fetus is a human being. I think abortion is a very unfortunate choice and I wish no one would choose abortion. However, the right to remove an unwanted person from your own body should be a basic right.


Well, since I've hit one side for poor legal reasoning, it's only proper that I do the same on the other side.

In Canadian law (and most Common Law jurisdictions), the mens rea for murder is not exclusively the intention to kill, per se but can also include an intention to cause bodily harm. Further, inderect intention--the intention to commit an act of which death or bodily harm is a virtually certain result. In either case, death must actually ensue. If I hit you with a baseball bat, intending only to injure you, but that blow winds up killing you, the necessary intention for murder is made out.

Thus, if the intention is to remove a foetus from the uterus of the child's mother, death is virtually certain to result before the threshold of viability--even with medical intervention. I see no basis to argue that murder is excluded on the basis of intent.


But, if you were in my house causing damage or causing me to feel threatened and the only way to get you out of my house was to hit you with the baseball bat, then my primary intent would be to get you out of my house not to just hit you with the ball bat because you were bothering me. Being in my house and refusing to leave on your own is the factor that changes it. The baby is in the mothers body. Her intent isn't to kill the baby, but to remove it from her body.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

11 Jan 2012, 6:15 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
But, if you were in my house causing damage or causing me to feel threatened and the only way to get you out of my house was to hit you with the baseball bat, then my primary intent would be to get you out of my house not to just hit you with the ball bat because you were bothering me. Being in my house and refusing to leave on your own is the factor that changes it. The baby is in the mothers body. Her intent isn't to kill the baby, but to remove it from her body.


Nope, your reasoning is still faulty. It is important to understand the difference between, "intention," and, "motive."

Your arguments go to the question of motive, but they do not change the fact that you fully intended to swing the bat and that death or bodily harm was a virtually certain result of that swing. You still make out the mens rea for murder.

However, you have circumstances that allow you to present defences of self-defence, defence of property and of necessity. Whether any of these would be accepted is a question of fact to be presented to a trier of fact, but none of them serve to negate intent.


_________________
--James


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

11 Jan 2012, 11:22 pm

Telekon wrote:
LKL wrote:
Yeah, actually it does. 'Life support' is something that is physically attatched to the patient and maintaining basic homeostasis for the patient: respirators, heart-lung machines, etc are all physically attached to the patient. Without them, the patient dies. A patient on life support, unlike a sleeping infant, cannot lie quietly alone and sleep without being attached to the machine. What an infant needs is basically what is provided in a skilled nursing facility, not life support.


That's one definition. Here's another:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life-support

Quote:
3. of or pertaining to anything that fosters or sustains life, success, or continued existence, as of a person, thing, or nation: the life-support system of the economy.


In that sense the newborn child is on life-support. Its guardians are its life-support.

That definition is so broad as to be meaningless for the purpose of this discussion. My effing dog is my life support, by that definition.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

11 Jan 2012, 11:56 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Murder is the killing of innocent humans.


No. Murder is unlawful killing with malicious intent.


Quote:
The unborn are innocent humans.

* Huh? If even the most biased sites can't find any sign of mankind until the 7-th month, we can be safe and sure that until the 8-th month, it is not a human. 8-9-th month is blurry area and after-birth is "definitely human" area.
* The unborn can't be innocent, just as much as a rock can't be innocent.


_________________
.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

12 Jan 2012, 12:44 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
* The unborn can't be innocent, just as much as a rock can't be innocent.


For some some reason, that made me :lol:

I want an innocent rock.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

12 Jan 2012, 12:50 am

puddingmouse wrote:
I want an innocent rock.


Image


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

12 Jan 2012, 12:52 am

Oh yes!

The smell of geology without the sinfulness.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Jan 2012, 3:46 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
The unborn are innocent humans.

* Huh? If even the most biased sites can't find any sign of mankind until the 7-th month, we can be safe and sure that until the 8-th month, it is not a human. 8-9-th month is blurry area and after-birth is "definitely human" area.
* The unborn can't be innocent, just as much as a rock can't be innocent.[/quote]

The genome of the fetus is human from the instant of fertilization of the egg.

What is blurry is this: When does the fetus become a person. My estimate is about two months after birth. Opinions on this matter differ from person to person.

ruveyn



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

12 Jan 2012, 8:52 am

ruveyn wrote:
Quote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
The unborn are innocent humans.

* Huh? If even the most biased sites can't find any sign of mankind until the 7-th month, we can be safe and sure that until the 8-th month, it is not a human. 8-9-th month is blurry area and after-birth is "definitely human" area.
* The unborn can't be innocent, just as much as a rock can't be innocent.


The genome of the fetus is human from the instant of fertilization of the egg.

What is blurry is this: When does the fetus become a person. My estimate is about two months after birth. Opinions on this matter differ from person to person.

ruveyn

an early a fetus is Human (adj), it is not a human (sustantive) or person if you wish.


_________________
.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Jan 2012, 10:02 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
an early a fetus is Human (adj), it is not a human (sustantive) or person if you wish.


Genomes do not have rights. Persons have rights.

ruveyn



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

12 Jan 2012, 1:20 pm

Yes.


_________________
.


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,593
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

12 Jan 2012, 3:00 pm

I don't get the premise of the initial question. Its like turning a TV to a dead channel (pure snow), and asking them 'is that back or is it white'?

It depends on whatever religious or philosophical outlooks the person your asking has? That's it. There really isn't anything closer to an objective answer that you're going to find.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

12 Jan 2012, 4:04 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
Oh yes!

The smell of geology without the sinfulness.


:lol:
is that even possible? Everyone knows geology is the most sinful of all sciences


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do