A Writing on Abortion... Share Your Thoughts

[Tourmaline]

I wrote this some time ago. It is written from an American perspective. Please share your opinions.

Abortion is a hot topic in many households in today’s society; many husbands refuse to discuss openly this topic with their wives. There are people who will physically fight dissenters. The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Roe v. Wade was supposed to end the debate on abortion; however, the controversy rages on. Let us examine the issue from multiple angles. Then we may be able to discern a possible stance that fits within the values of society, as a whole, and each of us individually.

In our society, we do not, and cannot, condone the killing of another individual except under very specific circumstances. Even more horrendous to virtually every member of our society, regardless of political affiliation, is the killing of an innocent child. In fact, few other types of crimes, if any, motivate police more than crimes against children.

It is clear to understand why the killing of a newborn child is murder. The perpetrators would almost certainly be tried and sentenced, in short order. Similarly, the killing of an unborn child just moments before death would be considered murder in the minds of virtually every living American. This rules out the possibility of abortion prior to a birth. Assuming we allow abortion, in general, we have just introduced a governmental law or regulation regarding abortion, in order to prevent abortion seconds before birth.

Neither ova nor sperm cells are not considered to be alive by the scientific community. This is because they fail to meet all four requirements for living beings: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. However, when both the ovum and the sperm combine, they produce a zygote, which is biologically alive. Moreover, it is a form of human life, due to its possession of human DNA within it. There is broad agreement in the scientific, pro-life, and pro-choice communities of these ideas. Therefore, this statement would seem to settle the argument between the pro-life and pro-choice camps. Nonetheless, there is a simple belief: the laws of our nation does not protect a human they only protect a person. Thus, it is argued that a zygotes and embryos are not people, and should not be protected under our laws.

We must define when a person is formed in a logical manner; otherwise, confusion and chaos will ensue. For example, some Aboriginal people believe that a newborn only becomes a human when it is named. This is obviously not very scientific, and introduces a great deal of variation, inherently. Equally easily dismissed are seemingly random timeframes. These seem odd, because no two babies form at exactly the same rate. If the average fetus becomes a person at 21 weeks then what stops a mother from killing a person in the case her fetus formed much quicker than the average. We need to have a set standard if we are going confront these very serious matters– those of life and death.

Peter Singer of Princeton University argues the forming of a person can take up to 18 weeks after birth. Singer makes his determination based on the capacity for a newborn to have rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness. He further states that, killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. Further, Singer defines a person as a being who is capable of anticipating the future. This is some attempt on Singer’s behalf to introduce a sense of morality into the subject of abortion. With people who lose their sense of future we are to be guided by what we think they would want, according to Singer. This seemlessly ties together any loose strings that someone may have pondered. Nonetheless, we are to understand that if a person loses their sense of future, their personhood, we still treat them as people when they are not, according to this definition. However, we never anticipate whether or not a fetus or newborn would want to live. This seems to be an odd contradiction. Either we treat all non-persons as less than the rest of us, or we do not. Thus, I conclude that this definition seems very impractical and incomplete.1

Any argument based on appearance is ludicrous, due to the fact that biology is not based on looks. It tends to be the other way around. We have the technology to examine the biology; thus, we owe it to the potential person to utilize it, for the sake of their life.

Using the limit of when a fetus is viable outside the womb seems to be on the right track. It sets a clear time that can be adjusted based on biology. However, as medical technology changes that point becomes much sooner, potentially. If we do not utilize medical technology then a great majority of Americans would disagree that a premature newborn is so much less a person than a full term baby. Therefore, even this definition is not complete and uniform.

It seems that the only timeframe left is based on some stage of early development. However, what makes one form of development more of a person than another. We can easily conclude that conception, the earliest form of human life, is when a person also begins. This definition of personhood includes any possible description of personhood listed previously. Moreover, it is the only definition that seems logical, not based on religion, personal belief, or philosophical views. It is unbiased.

In the past, I was the type of person who would assert that a woman’s body is hers to do what she wishes with. How was I, as a male, to instruct a female on matters that I have never, and will never, endure? After speaking with many individuals on the subject, both males and females, I have determined that the matter warranted further pondering. I owed it to myself to at least be able to state logically the reasons behind my position, even if I felt it was correct. Abortion is not something to be taken lightly, even by those who wish to have it performed. Moreover, I feel, personally, that the psychological damage that an abortion has on a person is massive. It may take years in order to conquer these giant emotional tortures, if that ever can happen. As a society, we have the responsibility to protect the individuals among us who cannot protect themselves. This awesome responsibility exists even if some of us choose to ignore it. The only logical choice on the beginning of human life and personhood is at conception. Therefore, we must also conclude that the case Roe v. Wade is also a fallacy, and must be overturned.

1 Singer, Peter. “Peter Singer FAQ”, Princeton University. May 30, 2009.

[Midas]

The only logical choice on the beginning of human life and personhood is at conception.

I totally disagree. A foetus might be composed of living cells, however it is not life in the sense of a self-supporting, self-aware entity until that time of around 24 weeks after conception when it might be able to live following a premature birth. Up to that point abortion is absolutely acceptable, both morally and legally, and should remain the totally free and unencumbered prerogative of the mother, period.

[Barry]

I would not say that any abortion is wrong but I do think that using abortion as a form of contraception is horrible and mostly avoidable.

[Tourmaline]

Midas,

Let me start off by saying that I cannot understand your point of view. It seems to make no sense at all. I base my point of view off of what I feel is logic and science. I would very much like for you to convince me of the flaws in my thinking, so that I can understand your point of view.

it is not life in the sense of a self-supporting, self-aware entity until that time of around 24 weeks

Where does this statement come from. I have never heard of a study (in a peer reviewed format) concluding that a fetus is self-aware at 24 weeks. As far as I am aware, neural science is not advanced nor precise enough to determine this. There are numerous disagreements on what constitutes self-awareness. For example I have read that a baby cannot pass a mirror test (to determine self recognition) until about two years old.

A foetus might be composed of living cells, however it is not life until that time of around 24 weeks after conception when it might be able to live following a premature birth.

If technology improves the entity can live at earlier and earlier stages of development, will your time of 24 weeks remain or change? In other words, what is it about the 24 weeks that makes it moral as a deadline?

Second, I think we both agree that at conception a new human life begins. One of the fundamental roles of government is to protect human life. Thus, it should be outlawed at all levels. Governments get around this by stating that the unborn child is not a person, is not self-aware, etc. These are flimsy arguments at best. I ask that those who use them define a person, or define self-awareness. I ask that these definitions be concrete, backed up by science, and not arbitrary.

Here is another tidbit to ponder. If an arsonist sets fire to a building and four people are in it. They all die in the blaze. Later it is learned that two of the original four were pregnant. How many people died? The answer in the US is six. This seems to be the method regardless of the stage of development. If someone punched a woman's stomach while she was a two months pregnant the assailant does not get assault charges. They get manslaughter or murder charges. If a mother kills her own unborn child at two months it is an abortion.

I honestly don't understand why it is moral to kill an unborn child. By having an abortion a person is killing a human life, period.


Barry,

I totally agree; however, I would say that abortion should be totally avoided as a form of contraception. I cannot understand why anyone would think differently, especially in today's society.

[Midas]

Midas,

Let me start off by saying that I cannot understand your point of view. It seems to make no sense at all. I base my point of view off of what I feel is logic and science. I would very much like for you to convince me of the flaws in my thinking, so that I can understand your point of view.

We obviously have a fundamental difference in perception. To me it makes absolute sense, however abortion is one of those topics which people seem to be either for or against, however I will certainly expand on my reasoning in what I'm sure will be a vain attempt to convince you there are two sides to the issue.

Where does this statement come from. I have never heard of a study (in a peer reviewed format) concluding that a fetus is self-aware at 24 weeks. As far as I am aware, neural science is not advanced nor precise enough to determine this. There are numerous disagreements on what constitutes self-awareness. For example I have read that a baby cannot pass a mirror test (to determine self recognition) until about two years old.

The very fact there are no studies which show self awareness at this point in pregnancy, nor indeed any that I'm aware of which show more than autonomic responses to external stimuli, is rather indicative. Of course I accept it's very difficult to conduct much other than passive observational tests on a foetus at this stage, however at our present stage of knowledge this is the case, and we cannot base the law on future ifs and maybes.

If technology improves the entity can live at earlier and earlier stages of development, will your time of 24 weeks remain or change? In other words, what is it about the 24 weeks that makes it moral as a deadline?

24 weeks is the generally accepted stage in pregnancy at which, if a premature birth can take place, the foetus might live. Even then only a small percentage will do so despite significant medical aid. That surely is the practical point at which we can consider the foetus to be 'a baby', i.e., an independent life form which is no longer attached to and totally reliant on its mother for its own life. Any foetus which is at an earlier stage in its existence is not life in the sense that it can live on its own; I cannot therefore see there's any question as to either the legality or morality in terminating that existence up to that point. I will of course add that I quite agree with Barry's remarks that abortion shouldn't be used as a means of contraception, however it is the mother's inalienable right to choose whether what's basically an integral part of her body which at that point could not otherwise exist independently, should be removed or not.

I don't see that an argument based on any future improvements in medical technology which might enable a premature birth before the point at which it might do naturally and unaided to succeed as being valid. The 24 week point is the natural one at which this can (sometimes) occur, and is the logical point at which a foetus can be considered a baby, i.e., a self-supporting life form.

Second, I think we both agree that at conception a new human life begins. One of the fundamental roles of government is to protect human life. Thus, it should be outlawed at all levels. Governments get around this by stating that the unborn child is not a person, is not self-aware, etc. These are flimsy arguments at best. I ask that those who use them define a person, or define self-awareness. I ask that these definitions be concrete, backed up by science, and not arbitrary.

Conception is the point at which there is a potential new human life in the making. Until the point at which the resultant foetus can be self-sustaining outside its mother's womb it remains a foetus; I really can't see there's an issue with this.

Here is another tidbit to ponder. If an arsonist sets fire to a building and four people are in it. They all die in the blaze. Later it is learned that two of the original four were pregnant. How many people died? The answer in the US is six. This seems to be the method regardless of the stage of development. If someone punched a woman's stomach while she was a two months pregnant the assailant does not get assault charges. They get manslaughter or murder charges. If a mother kills her own unborn child at two months it is an abortion.

Here if a pregnant women dies, it would usually reported along the lines of "four people were killed in a fire which swept a building ...... It was later discovered that amongst them were two women who were pregnant". As far as I'm aware the fact of pregnancy is not considered material in any subsequent murder charges relating to the number of people killed. I'm unsure as to what the law here says about a woman being punched at an early stage in pregnancy, initiating a natural abortion, however I suspect it would be considered as simple assault. I will however check this with a friend who's Chair of the Bench of a local Magistrates Court where such a case would be heard.

I honestly don't understand why it is moral to kill an unborn child. By having an abortion a person is killing a human life, period.

Because up to the 24 week point it remains a foetus and is not 'a child' for the reasons I've given above, period.

[Midas]

I've just had a conversation with my Magistrate friend about the assault situation you outlined and he said that as far as he's aware under present UK law if an assault on a woman who is pregnant under the current 24 week limit results in a miscarriage and the death of the foetus, it is not considered either murder or manslaughter; in other words it's still treated as either simple or aggravated assault, depending on the circumstances. This is still the case even if the assailant is aware of the pregnancy, however such an incident can give rise to a civil case for damages. Should such an assault take place beyond the 24 week stage of pregnancy, a charge of involuntary manslaughter can be brought, although there's no guarantee that it would succeed.

My friend quoted a case (sorry, I don't have the citation) where a man stabbed his 24 week pregnant girlfriend in the abdomen and back three times, resulting in a subsequent premature birth two weeks after the attack and the death of the baby about 3 months beyond that. In addition to the charge of malicious wounding on the girl, the police subsequently charged the man with the murder of the baby, however the judge at the trial directed the jury to acquit the man since there was no case to answer on either a charge of murder or even on the lesser charge of manslaughter.

I also asked about the arson scenario you posed and exactly the same situation applies. If the women who died were under 24 weeks pregnant, their pregnancies would not be considered when the arsonist was charged, if they were more than 24 weeks pregnant, there might be a case for charges of involuntary manslaughter, however in the face of charges of causing the deaths of four adults (either by murder or manslaughter depending on the circumstances surrounding the arson attack) it's likely that the lesser charges would be dropped.

It therefore seems a fairly clear-cut situation under UK law; if a foetus is killed as a result of a criminal act when it's under 24 weeks of age there's no case to answer, if it's beyond 24 weeks maybe there's a case for a charge of involuntary manslaughter being brought.

[Tourmaline]

You are correct, we have a fundamental disagreement; however, I do understand your point of view much more now. Thank you very much for your time on this issue, and please thank your magistrate friend, as well. In the US it seems to be similar to as I described in fact here is a link NewsOK (the length of pregnancy has not been reported). I have seen charges of murder/manslaughter brought multiple times (although, I can't quote exactly how far along the woman was in each case as it is frequently not reported).

I seem to be arguing based on biology, specifically DNA.
You seem to be arguing based on biology, specifically stages of development.

I still prefer my outlook, but I do understand yours more. Thank you again.

[pauli007001]

Well Today i was looking in the mirror(you would too if you were as strikingly handsome as me) and i noticed that i was a male, the testicles were a sign but it was the huge penis that was the dead givaway.

This got me to thinking that as i would never actually get pregnant that i had no right to make decisions about issues such as this, so instead of getting all opinionated and judgmental i went and made myself a Nice Gin and Tonic.Then i went to Sonneys Pub and Grill in Dorchester and got hit on by dozens of beautifull women(as is the norm), then i went home to the wife who was aways better looking than all the Pub girls!!!!

Next year we may start a family, not something im interested in at my age, yet a good Hubbie keeps his wife happy(and vice versa) so i will oblige its called teamwork!!

[Midas]

Well Today i was looking in the mirror(you would too if you were as strikingly handsome as me) and i noticed that i was a male, the testicles were a sign but it was the huge penis that was the dead givaway.

This got me to thinking that as i would never actually get pregnant that i had no right to make decisions about issues such as this, so instead of getting all opinionated and judgmental i went and made myself a Nice Gin and Tonic.Then i went to Sonneys Pub and Grill in Dorchester and got hit on by dozens of beautifull women(as is the norm), then i went home to the wife who was aways better looking than all the Pub girls!!!!

Next year we may start a family, not something im interested in at my age, yet a good Hubbie keeps his wife happy(and vice versa) so i will oblige its called teamwork!!

Is there actually any relevancy to abortion in that Pauli???

[Kiwi 1691]

Is there actually any relevancy to abortion in that Pauli???

Isn't he saying that as he is a man and cannot have children he has no right to say a woman can't have an abortion?

Which is a good sentiment.

[pauli007001]

Is there actually any relevancy to abortion in that Pauli???

Yes, the fact that as a Male who will never get Pregnant or be in a position to decide if an abortion is right for me, i have no right to judge those who do choose to have abortions, i go about my life.

[pauli007001]

Isn't he saying that as he is a man and cannot have children he has no right to say a woman can't have an abortion?

Which is a good sentiment.

Yeah! What He Said!!!

Ta Very much Kiwi!!!

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Well Today i was looking in the mirror(you would too if you were as strikingly handsome as me) and i noticed that i was a male, the testicles were a sign but it was the huge penis that was the dead givaway.

This got me to thinking that as i would never actually get pregnant that i had no right to make decisions about issues such as this, so instead of getting all opinionated and judgmental i went and made myself a Nice Gin and Tonic.Then i went to Sonneys Pub and Grill in Dorchester and got hit on by dozens of beautifull women(as is the norm), then i went home to the wife who was aways better looking than all the Pub girls!!!!

Next year we may start a family, not something im interested in at my age, yet a good Hubbie keeps his wife happy(and vice versa) so i will oblige its called teamwork!!

Nothing to do with the debate, but funny as hell.

On topic: I guess the fundamental point concerning abortion is when does life begin: at conception when human cells begin development that hopefully results in a child or when the 'child' is capable of independent life.

For many of us, logically life begins at conception, it may not be independent life or even sentient life, but life it us.

[Midas]

Yes, the fact that as a Male who will never get Pregnant or be in a position to decide if an abortion is right for me, i have no right to judge those who do choose to have abortions, i go about my life.

OK fair enough, but it would have been easier just to say so in the first place

[DC]

My view on this is fairly simple. A living person is not just a collection of bilogical material. It has to have self awareness and essentially a development of conscious thought. The argument that aborting a foetus is fairly strange, considering what you are killing is no more than the equivalent of a plant in terms of biology. While living, it isn't a person, nor does not have a 'life' in the way many would see it. People who are against abortion must also be against killing in every other way, and so they would starve (because every time they eat, they're either eating 'murdered' animal or vegetable, or 'aborting' possible fruit trees).

EDIT: On the male's role in abortion, I think it is somewhat overlooked. For example it's possible for a woman to lie to a man about being on the pill, get pregnant, and then have him forced to support the child.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

My view on this is fairly simple. A living person is not just a collection of bilogical material. It has to have self awareness and essentially a development of conscious thought. The argument that aborting a foetus is fairly strange, considering what you are killing is no more than the equivalent of a plant in terms of biology. While living, it isn't a person, nor does not have a 'life' in the way many would see it. People who are against abortion must also be against killing in every other way, and so they would starve (because every time they eat, they're either eating 'murdered' animal or vegetable, or 'aborting' possible fruit trees).

EDIT: On the male's role in abortion, I think it is somewhat overlooked. For example it's possible for a woman to lie to a man about being on the pill, get pregnant, and then have him forced to support the child.

So in your view, when does a foetus actually attain the moment of self awareness, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, 30 weeks? It seems an illogical argument to assert that self-awareness is developed in the few hours over which the foetus passes from womb to outside world (during the birth process).

As for people who are against abortion, the reasons vary, and to compare a human foetus with fruit demeans any rational debate, unless of course you equate human life with an apple or such like.

[Midas]

So in your view, when does a foetus actually attain the moment of self awareness, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, 30 weeks? It seems an illogical argument to assert that self-awareness is developed in the few hours over which the foetus passes from womb to outside world (during the birth process).

Given that there's no reliable way of assessing self-awareness whilst still in in the womb, that on its own isn't exactly a useful benchmark, although as far as I know the 24 week time is around that at which self-awareness develops. The key factor is surely the earliest date at which whether a foetus can be self-sustaining outside the womb, self-sustaining in the sense of disconnected from its mother and without medical intervention.

As for people who are against abortion, the reasons vary, and to compare a human foetus with fruit demeans any rational debate, unless of course you equate human life with an apple or such like.

Well, yes in a straight sense it does, but I suspect that DCFGS3 was implying, perhaps badly, that until a certain point in its development a foetus is little more than a collection of living cells without an independent life, in much the same way that a fruit can no longer continue to live once detached from its parent plant/tree.

[pauli007001]

OK fair enough, but it would have been easier just to say so in the first place

I did, in my own particular fashion, you should read the post in its entirety, all will become clear!!

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Given that there's no reliable way of assessing self-awareness whilst still in in the womb, that on its own isn't exactly a useful benchmark, although as far as I know the 24 week time is around that at which self-awareness develops. The key factor is surely the earliest date at which whether a foetus can be self-sustaining outside the womb, self-sustaining in the sense of disconnected from its mother and without medical intervention.

My point exactly re: assessing self-awareness.

I disagee with you regarding the key factor being when the foetus is self-sustaining; are babies born requiring medical assistance to keep them alive self-sustaining?

Well, yes in a straight sense it does, but I suspect that DCFGS3 was implying, perhaps badly, that until a certain point in its development a foetus is little more than a collection of living cells without an independent life, in much the same way that a fruit can no longer continue to live once detached from its parent plant/tree.

I understood DCFGS3's general point, but many of us view those small cells as a living organism which will continue to grow to a foetus and, God willing, a baby. The fact that they are cells does not, in my opinion, detract from the point that they constitute life - they're just at the most basic stage of the development process that ends in the complete package.

[DC]

My point exactly re: assessing self-awareness.

I disagee with you regarding the key factor being when the foetus is self-sustaining; are babies born requiring medical assistance to keep them alive self-sustaining?



I understood DCFGS3's general point, but many of us view those small cells as a living organism which will continue to grow to a foetus and, God willing, a baby. The fact that they are cells does not, in my opinion, detract from the point that they constitute life - they're just at the most basic stage of the development process that ends in the complete package.

Yes but you can't call it murder, in the same way those who have gone brain dead can be euthanised without it being called murder.

[Midas]

My point exactly re: assessing self-awareness.

I disagee with you regarding the key factor being when the foetus is self-sustaining; are babies born requiring medical assistance to keep them alive self-sustaining?

That depends on the baby concerned and why it needs medical attention. But as a rule of thumb, if it's born before 24 weeks it stands virtually no chance of survival without any medical attention, if it's born after 24 weeks, it stands an increasing chance of doing so, disregarding any specific medical conditions which might affect that.

I understood DCFGS3's general point, but many of us view those small cells as a living organism which will continue to grow to a foetus and, God willing, a baby. The fact that they are cells does not, in my opinion, detract from the point that they constitute life - they're just at the most basic stage of the development process that ends in the complete package.

There's a big difference between potential life and actual life. As long as the foetus remains totally dependant on its mother it is not independent life. Once it reaches the point in its development where it can survive independently without intensive medical intervention, it is. A very big difference.

[Barry]

James Elgin Gill was 21 weeks and 5 days gestation.
He is now 22 years old.

He could have been aborted at 24 weeks, that would have been akin to murder, wouldn't it?

Let's be honest, many babies aborted late could live if looked after properly. The whole point is not whether they are viable, as all would be viable if we wanted them to live. No, the real point is that they are unwanted, and become disposable.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

That depends on the baby concerned and why it needs medical attention. But as a rule of thumb, if it's born before 24 weeks it stands virtually no chance of survival without any medical attention, if it's born after 24 weeks, it stands an increasing chance of doing so, disregarding any specific medical conditions which might affect that.



There's a big difference between potential life and actual life. As long as the foetus remains totally dependant on its mother it is not independent life. Once it reaches the point in its development where it can survive independently without intensive medical intervention, it is. A very big difference.

Midas, you call it potential life and much of you pov is based around this standpoint (and fair enough), yet those clusters of cells, that still developing foetus it is a growing, ever developing organism, a work in progress if you will, surely that is a form of life and more importantly, a form of human life.

In terms of the difference between an independent baby and reliant foetus, if one has the belief that from the moment of conception those cells are a developing human and consequently is a form of life, then logically and emotionally there is little difference between the two.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Yes but you can't call it murder, in the same way those who have gone brain dead can be euthanised without it being called murder.

Hmm, a difficult one this....I know that many believe that abortion is effectively murder, personally I'm in two minds on that particular subject, but I do believe that in all but the most extenuating of circumstances it is a terrible wrong to kill a developing foetus, a developing baby.

I am not having a pop at anyone of this site, this is more a personal observation, but I dislike much of the politic rhetoric, both from the left and the right, concerning such a sensitive subject. I don't believe that abortion is a political issue or one of medical science, it is a question of morality and personal opinion. Kudos to the members of this site who have put their views across in with the hysteria or bile that is so often present on other sites. Enough said by me I think.

[Midas]

James Elgin Gill was 21 weeks and 5 days gestation.
He is now 22 years old.

He could have been aborted at 24 weeks, that would have been akin to murder, wouldn't it?

Let's be honest, many babies aborted late could live if looked after properly. The whole point is not whether they are viable, as all would be viable if we wanted them to live. No, the real point is that they are unwanted, and become disposable.

If we're being honest we can all find exceptions to virtually anything, and for those people who want to use those exceptions to make their own point heard, the more, well, exceptional, they are, the better. We cannot use isolated incidences to 'prove' anything; 99% of births before 24 weeks or thereabout will not survive without significant and expensive medical intervention. Of those that do, I believe something around 80% will go on to suffer from some significant, and again expensive, disability or medical problem at a later stage in their life as a direct result of their premature birth - is that what you'd want for them simply because of a moralistic stance? Just because we can do something does not mean that either we should do something or even that it's a good idea to do something.

On the wider question of abortions though, don't you think that they are carried out because of the mother's own wishes or needs? Aren't they as important, even more so, than the often woolly moralistic desires of people who have nothing to do with the people concerned? Abortions carried out simply because they're possible are very few, the vast majority are carried out because the mother doesn't feel she can cope with a child for a wide range of reasons running from social to psychological to medical to financial, all equally valid. I've yet to hear a mother say "I had an abortion simply because I wanted to"; there's always a reason, even if you as an individual don't agree with it.

Frankly the decision on whether any individual woman should keep or abort a foetus which cannot sustain its own life and is still physically part of her own body is something which is of total irrelevance to the rest of the world, perhaps partner and even less of a perhaps, immediate family, apart. In all honesty why should someone bring an unwanted life into this world when there's no need to do so, especially into a world which is already overcrowded beyond sustainability, and doubly so when a significant number of those babies so born have to be supported by the state, i.e., you and me, for perhaps decades!

Midas, you call it potential life and much of you pov is based around this standpoint (and fair enough), yet those clusters of cells, that still developing foetus it is a growing, ever developing organism, a work in progress if you will, surely that is a form of life and more importantly, a form of human life.

In terms of the difference between an independent baby and reliant foetus, if one has the belief that from the moment of conception those cells are a developing human and consequently is a form of life, then logically and emotionally there is little difference between the two.

I think my reply to Barry just about covers it.

[uncon]

I'm often surprised by the sheer number of people (not all) who are so pro-life, providing that life is in the womb, yet are pro-capital punishment and guns once it is out.

I fear it is like breeding pheasant for sport to these people. They don't get a chance to killl it until it is released!

In fact part of me is concerned that a few of them are to be found outside a delivery room muttering about whether it is past 'the glorious twelfth'

[Tourmaline]

I'm often surprised by the sheer number of people (not all) who are so pro-life, providing that life is in the womb, yet are pro-capital punishment and guns once it is out.

Being pro guns does not have anything to do with being pro "shooting people because I can." Being pro-capital punishment, most likely, has more to do with allowing others to make a choice (even a wrong one) and imposing consequences on them. Whereas being pro-life has more to do with protecting life that is truly innocent.

I believe you see this trend, perhaps, because the people who support protecting the innocent also wish to hold people to be responsible for their own actions. (I am not attempting to start a capital punishment debate.)

I am, by no means, attempting to imply anything toward you directly, on this issue.

[uncon]

Being pro guns does not have anything to do with being pro "shooting people because I can." Being pro-capital punishment, most likely, has more to do with allowing others to make a choice (even a wrong one) and imposing consequences on them. Whereas being pro-life has more to do with protecting life that is truly innocent.

I believe you see this trend, perhaps, because the people who support protecting the innocent also wish to hold people to be responsible for their own actions. (I am not attempting to start a capital punishment debate.)

I am, by no means, attempting to imply anything toward you directly, on this issue.

Guns kept in the suburban home are not done so unless the person envisages a situation whereby they may have to use it and quite possibly kill them. Capital punishment involves killing people. These people have no problem with the death of fellow human beings...they advocate it!

I have never met a person who has undergone an abortion because the foetus appeared in their bedroom when they didn't expect it or believed it should die for a crime. I have met people who have been deeply troubled by the decision they made. I have actually met a lady who smothered her child at birth because she felt she had no support, but a lot of judgement.

Anti-abortionists claim to provide support...that is support to do what they want, not support for the mother whatever. For most women this is a terrible choice and one where they do not feel they have another option, even while prevented with what others say is one.

I can appreciate (if not agree with) someone who views abortion as murder....providing they don't condone murder elsewhere.

[Tourmaline]

This got me to thinking that as i would never actually get pregnant that i had no right to make decisions about issues such as this...

There was a time when I held this same viewpoint; however, upon further pondering I discovered that the issue is slightly more complex than this. The issue here is less about men making decisions for women, and it is more about when the government should protect innocent life.

A fetus is life and it is innocent of any wrongdoing. The questions on self-awareness, survivability, independence, etc. are simply different ways of illustrating the different degrees of when the government has the inherent right to begin to protect innocent life.

It has been argued, for example, that a baby is not self-aware until several years after birth. There is actually experimental evidence for this, as well. Although, very few people would argue that a person should be able to "abort" a baby at 6 months after birth.

Midas has used the term self-awareness several times in relation to self-awareness at 24 weeks. This is incorrect. It has been shown that a fetus is aware of its surroundings after a time, but is not self-aware until sometime after birth.

It can be argued that a fetus cannot feel pain prior to a certain point (this may be 24 weeks, I am unsure). Does this make it any more humane? I guess it does somewhat, but we are still killing a human life. Although, it is not legally a person, the term in the US.

[uncon]

There was a time when I held this same viewpoint; however, upon further pondering I discovered that the issue is slightly more complex than this. The issue here is less about men making decisions for women, and it is more about when the government should protect innocent life.

A fetus is life and it is innocent of any wrongdoing. The questions on self-awareness, survivability, independence, etc. are simply different ways of illustrating the different degrees of when the government has the inherent right to begin to protect innocent life.

It has been argued, for example, that a baby is not self-aware until several years after birth. There is actually experimental evidence for this, as well. Although, very few people would argue that a person should be able to "abort" a baby at 6 months after birth.

Midas has used the term self-awareness several times in relation to self-awareness at 24 weeks. This is incorrect. It has been shown that a fetus is aware of its surroundings after a time, but is not self-aware until sometime after birth.

It can be argued that a fetus cannot feel pain prior to a certain point (this may be 24 weeks, I am unsure). Does this make it any more humane? I guess it does somewhat, but we are still killing a human life. Although, it is not legally a person, the term in the US.

You do know that you just wrote that in response to a man saying he woudn't get pregnant don't you?

I'm not calling you an idiot, maybe a little worked up and confused?

[Tourmaline]

Guns kept in the suburban home are not done so unless the person envisages a situation whereby they may have to use it and quite possibly kill them. Capital punishment involves killing people. These people have no problem with the death of fellow human beings...they advocate it!

I have never met a person who has undergone an abortion because the foetus appeared in their bedroom when they didn't expect it or believed it should die for a crime. I have met people who have been deeply troubled by the decision they made. I have actually met a lady who smothered her child at birth because she felt she had no support, but a lot of judgement.

Anti-abortionists claim to provide support...that is support to do what they want, not support for the mother whatever. For most women this is a terrible choice and one where they do not feel they have another option, even while prevented with what others say is one.

I can appreciate (if not agree with) someone who views abortion as murder....providing they don't condone murder elsewhere.

I would argue that guns are needed by the populous as a last ditch effort to keep the government in line. I would further argue that anyone would defend themselves by killing a fellow human if their life depended on it (and it is their right to do so). That would not be murder, but a protection of one's self or another. The idea of capital punishment centers around the idea that there are some crimes that are so horrible they must be dealt with in the most severe fashion. The threat of punishment by death is also a deterrent, many argue. They do not advocate the willy nilly killing of innocent people, as abortion is seen to be.

I view abortion as murder (although it is not, legally). I also don't condone murder anywhere be it a battlefield, home, etc. I do condone the possession of firearms by civilians (provided they have proper training), and I have some reservations about capital punishment.

I do not want to kill any human being, nor do I want to harm them. In certain circumstances I can see more good than harm from the death of another. An example is a war against an invading nation or in order to defend another.

Capital punishment is not meant to be for protection per se. It is seen to be more of a deterrent and punishment in order to bring justice. Abnormal psychology affects the deterrent issue somewhat. The question is how effective of a deterrent is it, and how much justice is really imparted by this practice.

As far as the support thing goes, I am personally aware of a woman (who I grew up with) that began an organization in order to assist women who desire to have an abortion. She advocates adoption as an alternative. Her primary concern is for the mother, from before the birth and after the adoption. The result seems to be women who are happier about themselves, and what they have done.

I have met and know several women who have had an abortion, and that fact does them more harm now then any good that came from it.

[Tourmaline]

You do know that you just wrote that in response to a man saying he woudn't get pregnant don't you?

I'm not calling you an idiot, maybe a little worked up and confused?

What he said was an very interesting (trying not to be rude here) paragraph about why he cannot tell a woman what to do. In essence, he said that as he is a man and cannot have children he has no right to say a woman can't have an abortion?. [taken form kiwi]

[uncon]

What he said was an very interesting (trying not to be rude here) paragraph about why he cannot tell a woman what to do. In essence, he said that as he is a man and cannot have children he has no right to say a woman can't have an abortion?. [taken form kiwi]

I feel like I am taking part in the life of Brian here. Should we agree that he has the right to have babies even though he can't? Shall we name him Loretta and have done with it? Let the foetus gestate in a box?

You replied to a statement from a man stating that he would not have babies. It isn't exactly a grey area here

[uncon]

I would argue that guns are needed by the populous as a last ditch effort to keep the government in line.

You plan to shoot the government? They were foetus' once too you know you heartless person!

I would further argue that anyone would defend themselves by killing a fellow human if their life depended on it

Apparently the government are your target of choice.

(and it is their right to do so).

so you agree that humans have the right to kill others? (actually it isn't a right in England...it's a crime.

That would not be murder, but a protection of one's self or another.

Killing people isn't murder. You said it sweetie and you just know where I am going here.

The idea of capital punishment centers around the idea that there are some crimes that are so horrible they must be dealt with in the most severe fashion.

ideas are centering around ideas? What ideas are they...Oh killing people!

The threat of punishment by death is also a deterrent, many argue. They do not advocate the willy nilly killing of innocent people, as abortion is seen to be.

No it isn't, proven fact, but lets get back to you saving unborn babies because life is sacred shall we?

I view abortion as murder (although it is not, legally). I also don't condone murder anywhere be it a battlefield, home, etc. I do condone the possession of firearms by civilians (provided they have proper training), and I have some reservations about capital punishment.

I do not want to kill any human being, nor do I want to harm them. In certain circumstances I can see more good than harm from the death of another. An example is a war against an invading nation or in order to defend another.

Capital punishment is not meant to be for protection per se. It is seen to be more of a deterrent and punishment in order to bring justice. Abnormal psychology affects the deterrent issue somewhat. The question is how effective of a deterrent is it, and how much justice is really imparted by this practice.

you have advocated murder all through your post love.
Hippocrite springs to mind

[Tourmaline]

You plan to shoot the government? They were foetus' once too you know you heartless person!



Apparently the government are your target of choice.



so you agree that humans have the right to kill others? (actually it isn't a right in England...it's a crime.



Killing people isn't murder. You said it sweetie and you just know where I am going here.



ideas are centering around ideas? What ideas are they...Oh killing people!


No it isn't, proven fact, but lets get back to you saving unborn babies because life is sacred shall we?



you have advocated murder all through your post love.
Hippocrite springs to mind

I do not plan to shoot the government; however, if my government becomes too oppressive I am prepared to correct the issue. I guess in England you don't have to right to protect yourselves or others. In America we can. Further, murder is an illegal killing not just a killing. That is why soldiers do not murder, in general, but they kill. So, I guess in the England you are being beaten to death you just sit there and take it until you die from your wounds? I guess that's your business. I didn't advocate capital punishment I was stating what I feel the proponents would argue. Moreover, it is not proven fact, at least according to sociologists in America.

I haven't advocated murder I only have said that in certain situations people are left with no other choice then to take another life.

[uncon]

I do not plan to shoot the government; however, if my government becomes too oppressive I am prepared to correct the issue. I guess in England you don't have to right to protect yourselves or others. In America we can. Further, murder is an illegal killing not just a killing. That is why soldiers do not murder, in general, but they kill. So, I guess in the England you are being beaten to death you just sit there and take it until you die from your wounds? I guess that's your business. I didn't advocate capital punishment I was stating what I feel the proponents would argue. Moreover, it is not proven fact, at least according to sociologists in America.

I haven't advocated murder I only have said that in certain situations people are left with no other choice then to take another life.

You are terrifying!

You want to shoot people and execute them.

Do you not understand that?

Seriously you frighten the living **** out of me.

Mainly because after all this you want to save tissue yet would kill people.

You terrify me.

[Patriot1]

I agree with Midas in the fact that an embryo has no self-awareness and would not survive if it was born.

There are many many women who get abortions because they cannot actually cope with a child. I feel it would be better to terminate it before it actually becomes a child instead of letting it be born into a poverty stricken family etc.

my only concern with the matter is the time limit. 24 weeks is very high (highest in Europe?) and at this age, from new types of scans we can see the feotus sucking on its thumb and yawning etc showing very human signs of life. Reduce it to 20 weeks or less.

[uncon]

I do not plan to shoot the government; however, if my government becomes too oppressive I am prepared to correct the issue. I guess in England you don't have to right to protect yourselves or others. In America we can. Further, murder is an illegal killing not just a killing. That is why soldiers do not murder, in general, but they kill. So, I guess in the England you are being beaten to death you just sit there and take it until you die from your wounds? I guess that's your business. I didn't advocate capital punishment I was stating what I feel the proponents would argue. Moreover, it is not proven fact, at least according to sociologists in America.

I haven't advocated murder I only have said that in certain situations people are left with no other choice then to take another life.

You are happy to advocate death of people born and advocate the life of foetus' unborn.

Perhaps if you spent more time with the people you are happy to see murdered in your name, then you would take a different view

[uncon]

I agree with Midas in the fact that an embryo has no self-awareness and would not survive if it was born.

There are many many women who get abortions because they cannot actually cope with a child. I feel it would be better to terminate it before it actually becomes a child instead of letting it be born into a poverty stricken family etc.

my only concern with the matter is the time limit. 24 weeks is very high (highest in Europe?) and at this age, from new types of scans we can see the feotus sucking on its thumb and yawning etc showing very human signs of life. Reduce it to 20 weeks or less.

24 weeks has survived, but never when it has already been diagnosed as severly abnormal. I can't imagine an abortion where a woman has to give birth...It must be devestating.

Nobody considers abortion as a contraception and most have a reaction to it mentally.

and just so we are perfectly clear an abortion is a miscarriage too and actually a period

[pauli007001]

Guns kept in the suburban home are not done so unless the person envisages a situation whereby they may have to use it and quite possibly kill them. Capital punishment involves killing people. These people have no problem with the death of fellow human beings...they advocate it!

I have never met a person who has undergone an abortion because the foetus appeared in their bedroom when they didn't expect it or believed it should die for a crime. I have met people who have been deeply troubled by the decision they made. I have actually met a lady who smothered her child at birth because she felt she had no support, but a lot of judgement.

Anti-abortionists claim to provide support...that is support to do what they want, not support for the mother whatever. For most women this is a terrible choice and one where they do not feel they have another option, even while prevented with what others say is one.

I can appreciate (if not agree with) someone who views abortion as murder....providing they don't condone murder elsewhere.

No you are quite wrong there, whilst i have NO OPINION on abortion and am against the death penalty i do own a coupla guns, i use em for hunting, target practise and self defense.I figure that if a criminal enters my home that i have to shoot him, if nothing else it will remind him to read the BIG NOTICE on my front door that clearly states that people found in my home who are there without permission will be shot, it is clear and illuminated, i guess that anyone attempting to burglarise my home for whatever illegal reason wishes to be shot, i am happy to oblige.

[pauli007001]

There was a time when I held this same viewpoint; however, upon further pondering I discovered that the issue is slightly more complex than this. The issue here is less about men making decisions for women, and it is more about when the government should protect innocent life.

A fetus is life and it is innocent of any wrongdoing. The questions on self-awareness, survivability, independence, etc. are simply different ways of illustrating the different degrees of when the government has the inherent right to begin to protect innocent life.

It has been argued, for example, that a baby is not self-aware until several years after birth. There is actually experimental evidence for this, as well. Although, very few people would argue that a person should be able to "abort" a baby at 6 months after birth.

Midas has used the term self-awareness several times in relation to self-awareness at 24 weeks. This is incorrect. It has been shown that a fetus is aware of its surroundings after a time, but is not self-aware until sometime after birth.

It can be argued that a fetus cannot feel pain prior to a certain point (this may be 24 weeks, I am unsure). Does this make it any more humane? I guess it does somewhat, but we are still killing a human life. Although, it is not legally a person, the term in the US.

Bums on welfare should also be protected, they are an innocent life also arent they?

The paedophile Michael Jackson was also sweet and innocent.

I have no opinion because i will never have to make the decision, t5hat is it, here ends my interest.
If it is wrong to have an Abortion then that DOG fella that the anti abortion crowd always go on about will sort out the people who have commited some wrong, if no DOG fella exists then they get away scott free but they still will be dead, as eventually we all will.
I disagree with the ritualised killing of people because it is silly, the death penalty imo is ritualised killing, just like Stonings in the Mid east etc.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

On the wider question of abortions though, don't you think that they are carried out because of the mother's own wishes or needs? Aren't they as important, even more so, than the often woolly moralistic desires of people who have nothing to do with the people concerned? Abortions carried out simply because they're possible are very few, the vast majority are carried out because the mother doesn't feel she can cope with a child for a wide range of reasons running from social to psychological to medical to financial, all equally valid. I've yet to hear a mother say "I had an abortion simply because I wanted to"; there's always a reason, even if you as an individual don't agree with it.

Frankly the decision on whether any individual woman should keep or abort a foetus which cannot sustain its own life and is still physically part of her own body is something which is of total irrelevance to the rest of the world, perhaps partner and even less of a perhaps, immediate family, apart. In all honesty why should someone bring an unwanted life into this world when there's no need to do so, especially into a world which is already overcrowded beyond sustainability, and doubly so when a significant number of those babies so born have to be supported by the state, i.e., you and me, for perhaps decades!

It might be easy to try and dismiss moral on abortion, or anything else for that matter, as "woolly" morality; personal and collective morality and social bonds build in part on moral codes are the basis upon which society functions. Abortion, capital punishment, wars, healthcare and more, these are all moral issues or at the very least issues requiring moral considerations and all have an impact upon the society in which we live.

I agree that women have abortions for a variety of reasons, and as a man I am very uncomfortable with the idea of forcing women to carry a developing child for 9 months and go through the pain of childbirth. However, what is the greater moral evil, putting a woman through a fair degee of pain and discomfort or ending a human life, I do not find that a matter of "woolly" morality.

I imagine that very few women will ever openly state that they ended a pregnancy simply because it was inconvenient, but undoubtedly for at least some that it was a matter of convience, or the lack thereof, that was a prime motivator in their decision.

As for supporting unwanted children, is that a good enough reason for ending a human life? I know from friends who work in social care that there is a surplus of prospective adoptive parents all wanting to adopt babies. Finally, look at Denmark; children in residential care live in small 'family units' of 6-8 children, with the same care and support staff to ensure continuity. 6 in 10 of these children go onto to university and, presumably, become net contributors to the Danish state (its closer to 1 in 100 in the UK, which operates a somewhat different system).

[Midas]

I agree that women have abortions for a variety of reasons, and as a man I am very uncomfortable with the idea of forcing women to carry a developing child for 9 months and go through the pain of childbirth. However, what is the greater moral evil, putting a woman through a fair degee of pain and discomfort or ending a human life, I do not find that a matter of "woolly" morality.

But it's not just a matter of "forcing women to carry a developing child for 9 months and go through the pain of childbirth" though is it? There are many more things to consider, some of which could have significant and damaging effects on both the mother and child. As for "ending a human life", if it's still a foetus, it's not "life" is it, it's still just potential life.

I imagine that very few women will ever openly state that they ended a pregnancy simply because it was inconvenient, but undoubtedly for at least some that it was a matter of convience, or the lack thereof, that was a prime motivator in their decision.

No, they probably won't, but you obviously don't consider that a woman's well being, for whatever reason, is more important than that of a foetus, at the time most women have an abortion, a foetus still in an early stage in its development and no way representative of 'life'.

As for supporting unwanted children, is that a good enough reason for ending a human life? I know from friends who work in social care that there is a surplus of prospective adoptive parents all wanting to adopt babies. Finally, look at Denmark; children in residential care live in small 'family units' of 6-8 children, with the same care and support staff to ensure continuity. 6 in 10 of these children go onto to university and, presumably, become net contributors to the Danish state (its closer to 1 in 100 in the UK, which operates a somewhat different system).

Apart from the fact that we're not in Denmark, I see no reasons at all why women should be made to produce unwanted and often unloved children into an already overcrowded society, especially when a significant number of them will have to be supported by the state, i.e., you and me. I'd say that the real life of a woman comes before the potential life of a foetus any day.

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

But it's not just a matter of "forcing women to carry a developing child for 9 months and go through the pain of childbirth" though is it? There are many more things to consider, some of which could have significant and damaging effects on both the mother and child. As for "ending a human life", if it's still a foetus, it's not "life" is it, it's still just potential life.

There are a whole host of things to consider, but for me the whole debate boils down to if one accepts that life is created at conception then I find it morally wrong to terminate that life unless for exceptional reasons (threat to the mother's life, severe disability of the child, conception from rape, etc.). I also find the argument that a growing developing foetus as not constituting being alive or not being a 'human life' illogical, for example, at 30 weeks most babies are effectively fully formed, can survive outside the womb and for the next few weeks will mainly be fattening up. Are they not alive? They merely have to be removed from the womb and their dependence upon their mother ceases.

No, they probably won't, but you obviously don't consider that a woman's well being, for whatever reason, is more important than that of a foetus, at the time most women have an abortion, a foetus still in an early stage in its development and no way representative of 'life'.

I do consider the woman's well being, and in some instances consider the woman's right supercedes that of the foetus. However, for me this is a moral issue involving assessment of a woman's right to control her body vs the right of a developing human life to exist. As I wrote earlier, I am far from comfortable with the consequences of preventing abortion.

Apart from the fact that we're not in Denmark, I see no reasons at all why women should be made to produce unwanted and often unloved children into an already overcrowded society, especially when a significant number of them will have to be supported by the state, i.e., you and me. I'd say that the real life of a woman comes before the potential life of a foetus any day.

My point is that there can be is a positive and loving future for many of these unborn children and whether they are or are not supported by the state is surely a moot point, should the state not support children, not educate them, ensure they are healthy and able to contribute positively?

On your second point, I guess we agree to disagree.

[Midas]

There are a whole host of things to consider, but for me the whole debate boils down to if one accepts that life is created at conception then I find it morally wrong to terminate that life unless for exceptional reasons (threat to the mother's life, severe disability of the child, conception from rape, etc.). I also find the argument that a growing developing foetus as not constituting being alive or not being a 'human life' illogical, for example, at 30 weeks most babies are effectively fully formed, can survive outside the womb and for the next few weeks will mainly be fattening up. Are they not alive? They merely have to be removed from the womb and their dependence upon their mother ceases.

I've never said, or even implied, that "a growing developing foetus as not constituting being alive or not being a 'human life'". What I have said is that up to 24 weeks or thereabouts (not 30 weeks) a foetus is not able to sustain its own life outside the mother's womb without significant medical attention, and even then with only very limited success right at the end of that 24 week period. Up until that time it is a potential human life. Please don't twist my words.

I do consider the woman's well being, and in some instances consider the woman's right supercedes that of the foetus. However, for me this is a moral issue involving assessment of a woman's right to control her body vs the right of a developing human life to exist. As I wrote earlier, I am far from comfortable with the consequences of preventing abortion.

We'll just have to disagree then. I put a mother's well being, regardless of what constitutes that well being, way above the life of a foetus which cannot sustain its own life and which might otherwise be born into a life of misery for both it and the mother.

My point is that there can be is a positive and loving future for many of these unborn children and whether they are or are not supported by the state is surely a moot point, should the state not support children, not educate them, ensure they are healthy and able to contribute positively?

There might be a positive and loving future for a few of those potential children. However there are just too may ifs, buts and maybes along the way for a woman who doesn't wish to have a child but who finds herself pregnant for whatever reason to do other than what she and she alone considers right for all concerned.

[Tourmaline]

You are terrifying!

You want to shoot people and execute them.

Do you not understand that?

Seriously you frighten the living **** out of me.

Mainly because after all this you want to save tissue yet would kill people.

You terrify me.

Good, I hope I terrify my government too. That may keep them in line.

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

-Thomas Jefferson

You are happy to advocate death of people born and advocate the life of foetus' unborn.

Perhaps if you spent more time with the people you are happy to see murdered in your name, then you would take a different view

I doubt it. If I spent any more time with those who should be killed (murders, tyrants, etc.) I would do it myself, most likely.

There is no inconsistency in my views. I promote the freedom of an individual's right to live, provided they do not encroach on another individual's rights. If a person breaks into my home... he made the decision to break in knowing that I just might shoot him. That is not inconsistent with promoting the life of an individual that has had done no wrong except have an unlucky choice in a mother.

[Midas]

This debate is full of emotive red herrings. For example I think the following issues are irrelevant

[ ... ]

The fact remains the real issue here is not whether or not it is murder but whether it is justified murder!

Following a remark about this debate being "full of emotive red herrings" your last remark strikes me as being somewhat disingenuous!

The legal view taken in every country where laws on abortion have been formulated and approved of when a foetus becomes human is that time at which it could survive outside the womb without medical attention. Murder is defined as the willful killing of another human, therefore abortion prior to that time cannot by definition be classed as murder, period.

[Midas]

No Midas in British law murder is the killing of "any reasonable creature" does not say human, look it up!

Quote the whole thing please MN, not a selective part to suit your argument! "The defendant must cause the death of a reasonable creature in rerum natura (the whole phrase is usually translated as "a life in being", i.e. where the umbilical cord has been severed and the baby has a life independently of the mother)." This was last clarified in AG's Reference No. 3 of 1994, actually the case I referred to earlier in this discussion. Prior to being able to sustain life independently of the mother, i.e., 24 weeks or thereabouts, an abortion howsoever it occurs, cannot be considered as murder.

[Kiwi 1691]

I do not plan to shoot the government; however, if my government becomes too oppressive I am prepared to correct the issue. I guess in England you don't have to right to protect yourselves or others. In America we can. Further, murder is an illegal killing not just a killing. That is why soldiers do not murder, in general, but they kill. So, I guess in the England you are being beaten to death you just sit there and take it until you die from your wounds? I guess that's your business. I didn't advocate capital punishment I was stating what I feel the proponents would argue. Moreover, it is not proven fact, at least according to sociologists in America.

I haven't advocated murder I only have said that in certain situations people are left with no other choice then to take another life.

I do remember a case in the USA, where a man saw his neighbors being robbed, he didn't actually know his neighbors.

So he rang 911 and the operator told him police were on the way, then he told the operator he was going to kill the robbers. The operator tried to change the mans mind. The man told the operator again that he would kill them and the operator can't stop him (because of some law passed in Texas). He placed the receiver down, but didn't hang up. A minute or so later the operator could hear gunshots. He shot the robbers in the back as they fled the neighbors house.

The police wanted to charge the man, but did not because of the massive protests against the idea of charging him. The reporter then talked to one of the widows, who was very sad and angry. This man took two lives, the men did not threaten him or go near him or his property, and they were running away at the time. That was murder and he got off Scott free. Can you defend that?

[Tourmaline]

I do remember a case in the USA, where a man saw his neighbors being robbed, he didn't actually know his neighbors.

So he rang 911 and the operator told him police were on the way, then he told the operator he was going to kill the robbers. The operator tried to change the mans mind. The man told the operator again that he would kill them and the operator can't stop him (because of some law passed in Texas). He placed the receiver down, but didn't hang up. A minute or so later the operator could hear gunshots. He shot the robbers in the back as they fled the neighbors house.

The police wanted to charge the man, but did not because of the massive protests against the idea of charging him. The reporter then talked to one of the widows, who was very sad and angry. This man took two lives, the men did not threaten him or go near him or his property, and they were running away at the time. That was murder and he got off Scott free. Can you defend that?

It was more like 10 seconds not a minute. As some additional information, if someone has committed a felony, in Texas, and attempts to flee the scene deadly force is authorized in order to prevent their escape. In this case, the man left his home in order to prevent the robbers escape. As he left his home he was confronted by the two escaping burglars. He knew they were armed with at least a crowbar (and it is prudent to assume they also have a gun). One of the two burglars ran at him, and he shot him. The second attempted to flee and was shot as well. Both burglars were shot on the man's property (the law you referred to allow deadly force to protect property). Moreover, they were clearly committing a felony and were attempting to flee the scene. They actually did threaten him by their actions. This was not murder; it was justifiable homicide. The local police were not the one's who decided on charging him with a crime that was the district attorney. He was eventually cleared by a Grand Jury.

On a side note, the criminals were illegally in the United States and have committed criminal activity in the US as well (including several drug convections). The family of the criminals were claiming they were good people, honorable, etc. The picture painted by the family is completely false.

We are, most likely, simply not going to agree that this was justifiable. I have noticed a trend in the posts on this forum that suggests that Europeans do not have the right nor desire to protect themselves or their property. In the US, we take that right very seriously, and in most of the country you simply don't break into a house and expect to walk out alive. In part of the country that I frequented as a child, if you climb a fence onto someone else's property you will be shot at.

The moral of the story is don't break the law, at least in my part of the country.