Wait On That Abortion

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

I believe life is a continuum, as sperm and ova are alive, and no, I do NOT see that as murder. Neither do I see 1-2 month human abortions as murder, and I have seen several aborted (spontaneously) 2-month-old fetuses in my life.

The conceptus is an aggregation of rather undifferentiated cells, not yet developed, not yet capable of going forward in development independent of the mother's body.

That is your belief, unfortunately it is not scientific proof. One thing is for sure the process which begins at conception will evolve eventually into a birth if not interrupted. We lack the knowledge necessary to say at what point in that process life begins.

[Mike]

Here's a link to the Nebraska bill giving the thumbs up to abortion causers murder:
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/F...ntro/LB232.pdf

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Mike

Here's a link to the Nebraska bill giving the thumbs up to abortion causers murder:
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/F...ntro/LB232.pdf

First off, why can't politicians write a bill using plain, easy to understand English? I know many are lawyers but geesh!
This is an attempt to bypass "Roe" by referring to an "unborn child" and I can see someone taking this as permission to murder abortion providers...dangerous and unnecessary legislation.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

That is your belief, unfortunately it is not scientific proof. One thing is for sure the process which begins at conception will evolve eventually into a birth if not interrupted. We lack the knowledge necessary to say at what point in that process life begins.

The potential for a new "life" obviously begins at conception (although I think that is a moot point, as the egg is alive, the sperm is alive, the live sperm fertilizes the live egg which simply begins the process that leads to cell division and differentiation) The single-celled fertilized zygote is never dead and inert (and neither can dead eggs be successfully fertilized) - although differentiation can certainly be readily arrested.

IMO a bunch of cells with the beginnings of primitive neural tube formation is not "a baby", and it's death is certainly not "murder". A fetus doesn't even have all major organs necessary for life until about 2 months of gestation.

The question, for me, is when can that life be sustained independently (with medical support) from the mother's body.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

IMO a bunch of cells with the beginnings of primitive neural tube formation is not "a baby", and it's death is certainly not "murder". A fetus doesn't even have all major organs necessary for life until about 2 months of gestation.

The question, for me, is when can that life be sustained independently (with medical support) from the mother's body.

If the fetus (or collection of cells, however structurally organized) is alive, then active measures to destroy it have to be considered murder. You can't have death through active means of another be anything but murder.

That's why, as we all know, we have degrees in the law. First degree -- you sat down, planned it out, and killed the victim. Second degree - you got so pissed off that you killed someone in anger, when you might not have done it otherwise. Third or manslaughter - accidental, possibly negligent. Then some states have "involuntary manslaughter" - maybe you never got your brakes checked and you slid through an intersection and killed some little old lady with your car. You certainly didn't want that to happen, didn't plan it, weren't angry - but involuntary since you couldn't stop it once the car was moving.

So I can't agree with your "there was a death but no murder" argument.

Your standard for the permissability is what the Supreme Court called "viability" which is probably more legal than biological terminology. Funny thing about it is that as medical technology gets better, we can save children at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy. Consider the goings on in Italy, where there is debate about "terminating the pregnancy" but saving the baby. Up until now, terminating the pregnancy was synonomous with killing the fetus. In the future, it might not be. It may be possible shortly that the baby can be removed from the mother and hosted artificially or in another willing woman. Now, what happens? For those who saw the abortion as a way to evade the responsibilities of parenthood, it might not work out that way, when, years after, someone knocks on their door looking for their "biological" parents.

What we have now is that premature delivery of wanted children results in medical measures used to save their lives - pretty successfully. But unwanted children at the same level of maturity can be left to die or aborted through "partial birth abortion". Which one of these two identically aged children is alive? Wouldn't the answer have to be the same for both? The mother doesn't get to decide like Solomon who lives or dies.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If the fetus (or collection of cells, however structurally organized) is alive, then active measures to destroy it have to be considered murder.

No. Your use of the deliberately misapplied and inflammatory term "murder" to a fertilized egg is ridiculous in my eyes. Sorry.

And, again: if that is your position, why are you not trying to make illegal in-vitro fertilization doctors?