At what stage does abortion become murder?

LikeAnOcean wrote:

But why if its 7.1 weeks and the girl is intent on having it done?.. when does her need outweight the need of the baby?

Well you can't stop people from doing anything...period. As a doctor I would make an assessment of her emotional condition and choose to tell her the implications of her decision and that yes, something inside her is going to feel a great deal of pain, and suffer greatly (unless humane injections can be used).

It's a wide, wide ocean of where to draw the line. However the bottom line is that she can chuck it in the trash bin after, if she decides to. Or kill herself, or the traditional coathanger method...

You just can't make decisions for people on this stuff. The question was when is it murder? I say anything after 6-7 weeks is murdering a sentient life form.

LikeAnOcean wrote:

But what if its 7.1 weeks and the girl is intent on having it done?.. when does her need outweight the need of the baby?

I don't think the intent of the girl factors in here (unless it is life threatening). You're question was when is it murder. For example, killing a one-year old child would be murder. This is because for various reasons a one-year old child is considered a human being. Now, if the mother kills a one-year old, it would be murder, regardless of her intent, right? Just because she really doesn't want the child, it doesn't mean she isn't guilty of murder. So, for a one year old child, the intent of the mother does not factor into whether or not it is murder. So why should it be any different for an unborn baby considered human?

For example, if the criteria for a fetus to be a human is said to be met at 7.1 weeks (which was your original question), then killing it after this time, regardless of intent, would be murder. Reason being we are saying the fetus is just as much a human at 7.1 weeks as it is as a one-year old.

IWillLiveForeve wrote:

Bush just used his first 'Veto' to negate a bill that would have allowed stem cells to be pulled from embryos. He said it was robbing from a life. I believe he even dragged out kids that were adopted as embryos. He said, and this is the precise quote: "These kids are not spare parts." Weak.

Yeah and somone pointed in another thread out that Bush should then abolish all animal testing then on the same principle of robbing from life. There are three types of stem cells

as per wikipedia:
* Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells found throughout the body that divide to replenish dying cells and regenerate damaged tissues. Also known as somatic (from Greek Σωματικóς, of the body) stem cells, they can be found in children, as well as adults.

* Embryonic stem cells are cultured cells obtained from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of an early stage human embryo (sometimes called a blastocyst, which is an embryo that is between 50 to 150 cells).

* Cord blood stem cells are derived from the blood of the placenta and umbilical cord after birth.

Embryonic are the most controversial due to the fact that fetuses are harvested. Some people cannot handle the concept. However if they are throwing life in the garbage can anyway, why not at least achieve some level of benefit from it.

To just throw away life instead of learning and benefitting from it is more retarded. I mean we shouldn't start harvesting babies for organs but there are always people that will freak out the situation. Gilrls will start getting knocked up and selling their fetuses or something wierd like that and the whole thing will roll over again...

Sigh what to do.. I say yes to stem cell even though.

IWillLiveForeve wrote:

Actually, it doesn't make me wonder. This man is a fucking embarrassment. You know that last 'shit' sound bite that made news? What really scared me is not the fact he said 'shit'. What scared me is the sentence he used it in.

For those who haven't heard it, Tony Blair is talking/whispering to him about how to get another leader to talk/manipulate another leader (this is called politics, don't be shocked) in an effort to ease up aggressions in the mid east. bush looks up at him, and off-handedly says, 'we need to get Hezbollah and Israel to knock this shit off and we'll be OK.'

OH REALLY DOCTOR? YOU ARE TRULY THE PEACE MAKER. HOW DID WE NOT THINK OF THAT BEFORE? I AM SO FUCKING EMBARRASSED.

You know what? The funny thing is I think he was all out lying. It was a total bullshit fabrication. This new war is perfectfor the US gov't. It is progression for them. More bargaining chips and angles to swing that mighty axe of power, and carve up the region further.

There is no fucking way the pentagon and the whitehouse is going to allow the president of the united states to look like a complete ass on national television like that. Mind you he looks like and ass the rest of the time though.

Think about it. It's a perfect case scenario for the US gov't right now. They are sitting pretty and shit is getting done. sit back and watch and strike deals and keep dangling that carrot or support, and aide, like big brother helping you win a fight from the neighborhood bully. They know the area was ripe to hit and what to do. Don't underestimate a thing.

Their plan is progressing nicely as intended. Including this little G8 summit thing to appear more UN friendly. Keep your eyes WIIIDE open right now. This is where the plot is given away if you look closely. That's how you can tell a good driver from a bad one - the changing of the gears.


oh shit sorry this is rediculous Off Topic now....sigh...see what you did?

IWillLiveForeve wrote:

Dude, it was an open mike. That fucker doesn't have the ability, nor does his staff, to manipulate an 'accidental' situation. He sounded like a man that doesn't understand a situation, states a solution after looking at a problem for 2 minutes, and doesn't understand why it isn't easy. Remember, this no talent ass clown actually lost money running a MLB team. YOU HAVE TO BE FUCKING RETARDED TO LOSE MONEY OWNING A MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM. THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SHERMAN ACT. THIS MEANS THEY FUNCTION OUTSIDE THE US ANTI-MONOPOLY LAWS. SERIOUSLY, GEORGE W. BUSH DOES NOT HAVE A SINGLE SUCCESS ON HIS RESUME. FIND ONE, AND I WILL DIGRESS.

yeah I know. I could expand on the open mike thing, but were hijacking this thread like gangbusters.

Hit one of the current bush threads they're everywhere I'll be there

bootlegger10 wrote:

I don't think the intent of the girl factors in here (unless it is life threatening). You're question was when is it murder. For example, killing a one-year old child would be murder. This is because for various reasons a one-year old child is considered a human being. Now, if the mother kills a one-year old, it would be murder, regardless of her intent, right? Just because she really doesn't want the child, it doesn't mean she isn't guilty of murder. So, for a one year old child, the intent of the mother does not factor into whether or not it is murder. So why should it be any different for an unborn baby considered human?

For example, if the criteria for a fetus to be a human is said to be met at 7.1 weeks (which was your original question), then killing it after this time, regardless of intent, would be murder. Reason being we are saying the fetus is just as much a human at 7.1 weeks as it is as a one-year old.

Why 7.1 weeks?

Where does the sanctity of sperm itself come into the equation?

Am i murderer if i 'kill' sperm when masturbating on to a tissue or withdrawing and letting them flounder on a bedspread? If not, why not. It's alive, it's 'human' by your above mentioned standards.

Am i murderer?

Isn't it weird how a country of people that so vehemently opposes abortion and stem cell research to protect the sanctity of human life, so easily promotes the destruction of thousands of actual living human beings.

It's psycopathic, if you ask me.

Bootlegger10, do you support the war in iraq, the war on terror, or the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Gaza?

And to confirm a point a made above, this is a picture of a dead child, killed by the people (Israel) who are sponsored by and permitted by the people who so vehemently defend the rights of unborn foetuses, to unleash actual destruction on living human beings.

http://www.videos.informationclearinghouse.info/ragdoll.gif

Is it becasue these children ARENT americans?

LikeAnOcean wrote:

But what if its 7.1 weeks and the girl is intent on having it done?.. when does her need outweight the need of the baby?

Never.

keeponrockin wrote:

Did anyone watch the Daily Show?
"Every Life is Precious..."
(skips to another interview)
"How many Iraqi civilians died in Iraq"
"30,000 more or less"

Makes you wonder

This is very true and the hypocrisy is amazing. That being said, it's not an argument for keeping abortion legal. It's an argument for banning abortion and stopping war.