The Great Abortion Debate

[RW]

Further, science does not know at what point , initally? ...  after x number of days?, after xx number of days? it is a baby / human life / or whatever they wish to call it



I admit that I don't know ... Everyone seems to think they know, but I have never heard any of them  scientifically establish when.

Why? Because science cannot ... at least to date it cannot



"Science as a whole" does not even know the criterion to use, let alone know

Life begins at conception..



Ant attempt to stop it after that is murder.

I understand why you say that and respect that. And your reason works for you.



however, I'm asking in scientific terms only



If anyone can tell me "when" ... "in absolute scientific terms", please do so now.

Science is actually pretty clear on the matter.  Life begins at fertilization/conception.



http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html">http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/artic ... otes2.html">http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

[RW]

So if abortion is not murder, then why when a pregnant woman is tragically killed in a homicide, the perpetrator runs the risk of being slapped with double murder or manslaughter charges?



It seems to me that as a society we want it both ways. Is one form of murder okay and sanctioned by the state while another isn't? Doesn't exactly sound right, does it?

 It's murder if you want the baby. It's a terminated clump of cells if you dont. This, of course, makes zero sense.

Technically it's not murder.  It's not "murder" because murder is a legal term defined as "unlawful killing".  Since abortion up to a certain stage is lawful, it cannot be called murder.

[RW]

Also note that 10 to 15% of KNOWN pregnancies end in miscarriage.  



Mother Nature is the original baby butcher.

[Anonymous]

So if abortion is not murder, then why when a pregnant woman is tragically killed in a homicide, the perpetrator runs the risk of being slapped with double murder or manslaughter charges?



It seems to me that as a society we want it both ways. Is one form of murder okay and sanctioned by the state while another isn't? Doesn't exactly sound right, does it?

 It's murder if you want the baby. It's a terminated clump of cells if you dont. This, of course, makes zero sense.

Technically it's not murder.  It's not "murder" because murder is a legal term defined as "unlawful killing".  Since abortion up to a certain stage is lawful, it cannot be called murder.

That is so sick.

[RW]

So if abortion is not murder, then why when a pregnant woman is tragically killed in a homicide, the perpetrator runs the risk of being slapped with double murder or manslaughter charges?



It seems to me that as a society we want it both ways. Is one form of murder okay and sanctioned by the state while another isn't? Doesn't exactly sound right, does it?

 It's murder if you want the baby. It's a terminated clump of cells if you dont. This, of course, makes zero sense.

Technically it's not murder.  It's not "murder" because murder is a legal term defined as "unlawful killing".  Since abortion up to a certain stage is lawful, it cannot be called murder.

That is so sick.

Why is it sick?  Because definitions don't match your word choices?

[RW]

So if abortion is not murder, then why when a pregnant woman is tragically killed in a homicide, the perpetrator runs the risk of being slapped with double murder or manslaughter charges?



It seems to me that as a society we want it both ways. Is one form of murder okay and sanctioned by the state while another isn't? Doesn't exactly sound right, does it?

This does fall under the definition of murder because its unlawful.

[Anonymous]

So if abortion is not murder, then why when a pregnant woman is tragically killed in a homicide, the perpetrator runs the risk of being slapped with double murder or manslaughter charges?



It seems to me that as a society we want it both ways. Is one form of murder okay and sanctioned by the state while another isn't? Doesn't exactly sound right, does it?

 It's murder if you want the baby. It's a terminated clump of cells if you dont. This, of course, makes zero sense.

Technically it's not murder.  It's not "murder" because murder is a legal term defined as "unlawful killing".  Since abortion up to a certain stage is lawful, it cannot be called murder.

That is so sick.

Why is it sick?  Because definitions don't match your word choices?

Murdering babies before they are even born?



Anything that sick does not need an explanation.

[RW]

So if abortion is not murder, then why when a pregnant woman is tragically killed in a homicide, the perpetrator runs the risk of being slapped with double murder or manslaughter charges?



It seems to me that as a society we want it both ways. Is one form of murder okay and sanctioned by the state while another isn't? Doesn't exactly sound right, does it?

 It's murder if you want the baby. It's a terminated clump of cells if you dont. This, of course, makes zero sense.

Technically it's not murder.  It's not "murder" because murder is a legal term defined as "unlawful killing".  Since abortion up to a certain stage is lawful, it cannot be called murder.

That is so sick.

Why is it sick?  Because definitions don't match your word choices?

Murdering babies before they are even born?



Anything that sick does not need an explanation.

As I said, it's technically not murder and no level of indignance is going to alter the definition.

[Anonymous]

This is one of the methods used to murder unborn babies.



Suction-Aspiration

In this method, the cervical muscle ring must be paralyzed and stretched open. The abortionist then inserts a hollow plastic tube with a knife-like edge into the uterus. The suction tears the baby's body into pieces. The placenta is cut from the uterine wall and everything is sucked into a bottle.

[RW]

They do that for miscarriages as well.

[Wulf]

So if abortion is not murder, then why when a pregnant woman is tragically killed in a homicide, the perpetrator runs the risk of being slapped with double murder or manslaughter charges?



It seems to me that as a society we want it both ways. Is one form of murder okay and sanctioned by the state while another isn't? Doesn't exactly sound right, does it?

 It's murder if you want the baby. It's a terminated clump of cells if you dont. This, of course, makes zero sense.

Technically it's not murder.  It's not "murder" because murder is a legal term defined as "unlawful killing".  Since abortion up to a certain stage is lawful, it cannot be called murder.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act passed by the US Congress in 2004 defines a fetus as "a child in utero" and as a person. It makes no distinction regarding term of the fetus. However, It does have a provision that exempts abortion.



It is a fucked up double standard where murder of a unborn life by the state is sanctioned BUT injury or killing by someone other than the state or state regulated personnel is not. This is just sick. It all boils down to the fact that it is okay for the government to give permission to their pet flunkies to kill the unborn but if Joe Asshole Wife Beater pushes his prego bitch down a flight of stairs and she miscarriages, he is in a whole new world of shit. It just went from domestic assault to fucking murder faster than the fat bitch could roll down the stairs.

[cc]

Ya, go figure. Let's call it what it is really about . It's all about getting votes. And that's it!!

[asal]

Further, science does not know at what point , initally? ...  after x number of days?, after xx number of days? it is a baby / human life / or whatever they wish to call it



I admit that I don't know ... Everyone seems to think they know, but I have never heard any of them  scientifically establish when.

Why? Because science cannot ... at least to date it cannot



"Science as a whole" does not even know the criterion to use, let alone know

Life begins at conception..



Ant attempt to stop it after that is murder.

I understand why you say that and respect that. And your reason works for you.



however, I'm asking in scientific terms only



If anyone can tell me "when" ... "in absolute scientific terms", please do so now.

Science is actually pretty clear on the matter.  Life begins at fertilization/conception.



http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html">http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/artic ... otes2.html">http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Life does not mean sentient.  All living cells are alive.  Single cell algae, bacteria, fertilized eggs, amoebas / they don't have brains or any kind of sentience.  Lower intelligence than a lobster.

[RW]

So if abortion is not murder, then why when a pregnant woman is tragically killed in a homicide, the perpetrator runs the risk of being slapped with double murder or manslaughter charges?



It seems to me that as a society we want it both ways. Is one form of murder okay and sanctioned by the state while another isn't? Doesn't exactly sound right, does it?

 It's murder if you want the baby. It's a terminated clump of cells if you dont. This, of course, makes zero sense.

Technically it's not murder.  It's not "murder" because murder is a legal term defined as "unlawful killing".  Since abortion up to a certain stage is lawful, it cannot be called murder.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act passed by the US Congress in 2004 defines a fetus as "a child in utero" and as a person. It makes no distinction regarding term of the fetus. However, It does have a provision that exempts abortion.



It is a fucked up double standard where murder of a unborn life by the state is sanctioned BUT injury or killing by someone other than the state or state regulated personnel is not. This is just sick. It all boils down to the fact that it is okay for the government to give permission to their pet flunkies to kill the unborn but if Joe Asshole Wife Beater pushes his prego bitch down a flight of stairs and she miscarriages, he is in a whole new world of shit. It just went from domestic assault to fucking murder faster than the fat bitch could roll down the stairs.

I'm only telling you why one is illegal and one isn't and it has to do with the legal definition of murder.  One is lawful (abortion) and one isn't (homicide).

[RW]

Further, science does not know at what point , initally? ...  after x number of days?, after xx number of days? it is a baby / human life / or whatever they wish to call it



I admit that I don't know ... Everyone seems to think they know, but I have never heard any of them  scientifically establish when.

Why? Because science cannot ... at least to date it cannot



"Science as a whole" does not even know the criterion to use, let alone know

Life begins at conception..



Ant attempt to stop it after that is murder.

I understand why you say that and respect that. And your reason works for you.



however, I'm asking in scientific terms only



If anyone can tell me "when" ... "in absolute scientific terms", please do so now.

Science is actually pretty clear on the matter.  Life begins at fertilization/conception.



http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html">http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/artic ... otes2.html">http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Life does not mean sentient.  All living cells are alive.  Single cell algae, bacteria, fertilized eggs, amoebas / they don't have brains or any kind of sentience.  Lower intelligence than a lobster.

You don't need to have a brain to be a living organism.



I understand all living cells are alive.  The question is at what point does new life begin and that's at fertilization.  Like I said, science is pretty clear on this.