Tlaloc:
Abortion is the removal of a fetus from a woman thus ending a pregnancy. Whether this is seen as murder depends entirely on how we define a person. In this case i would not define a fetus before a scertain stage of pregnancy as a person for the simple reason that they are not a separate living organism. They are an extension of the mother’s body. And hence removing them is no more unethical than removing a mole, or a cyst, or a damaged kidney.
Faulty logic.
Say I don’t like my legs. I want them removed. My reasons are my own. NOt only do I want my legs gone, I want the govt to pay for said removal and rehibilitation.
My legs are just cells, they are not really alive, and will not survivie without me.
My body, my choice. Now, where’s a doctor who will not have any ethical qualms about performing said procedure.
Once a fetus has developed to the point that it would survive removed from the mother it can be said to be an actual person. It is at that point a separate living thing (althought temporarily still located within the mother). Where that point comes i couldn’t say, thats up to medical science to determine.
You will not find the term “person” in any medical text, simply because “person” is a purely semantical term with no basis in science or medicine, it’s one of those terms some lawyer with too much time on his hands cooked up.
Murder is also a semantical term.
Murder is the illegal killing of a human, whereas homicide is just thekilling, therefore, abortion is not murder, but it is homicide.
Personhood can not be defined by development as personhood is not a medical term.
It is also purely subjective to allot said term of personhood to a foetus from x point onwards. In some places a child born at 19 weeks can survive with medical intervention, other places 28 weeks. HOwever, from 8 weeks post conception the foetus is fully formed. What then, other then size, is the difference between those three foeti? What makes one more of a “person” then the others?
The foetus, as mentioned before, by others, is not the mother, but in the mother.
Shooting a dead body isn’t murder because we define murder as taking a life. Removing a cyst isn’t murder because while individual cells die the host organism lives on. Abortion (again before a certain point) would again not be murder because the fetus has no life of its own and the mother (the host) lives on after the operation.
Now that really shows the illogic in the pro-choice movement.
What defines life? Personhood does not define life. MRS GREN does.
Movement = The foetus moves.
Respiration = This is on a cellular level. Yes the foetus respires.
Sense = The foetus will sense and respond to introductiosn into the womb.
Growth = That’s a no brainer. The foetus grows.
Reproduction = Again, cellular level.
Excretion = Yes, the foetus does this also.
Nurtion = It takes this from the mother.
From 6 weeks the foetus has brain waves. If we measure death as when the brain waves cease, then shouldn’t we measure life as beginning at when they start. Although, I beleive abortion is completely immoral at any and all stagers for any and all reasons, but that’s a moot point.
The foetus is alive.
You cannot compare semantics with medical science. The foetus can be whatever you want to call it, ‘non person’, ‘baby’, ‘foetus’, ‘blob’, ‘zombie’ whatever. The “uterine entity” is biologically alive, removign it, will kill it.
Logically the argument hangs together. Its a matter of what premises we start with. Obviously if you contend that a fetus is a separate living thing at conception then your conclusions will be different.
Not really.
penWindow(‘cr/2258.htm’)
"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56
I hear crickets
:ehh: Looks like Truth ran him off
God Bless
