Can anyone truly believe that abortion is murder and yet be pro-choice?

[dolstein]

Frankly, I have a hard time with politicians like John Kerry, who say they personally accept the teachings of the Catholic church on abortion, but that abortion should remain legal because they don't want to legislative their own moral beliefs on others.

Puh-leeze. We legislate morality all the time. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly reflected a moral judgment on racial discrimination. Would ANYONE here find it acceptable to for someone to say "personally, I think racial discrimination is wrong, but I wouldn't want to enforce my own moral beliefs on others." Don't laugh -- many conservatives who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made this very argument. Thankfully, they lost.


Personally, I support legalized abortion during the early stages of pregnancy. But then agian, I don't consider this to be murder, so it's easy for me to accept this position. If I genuinely believed that abortion was murder, then I couldn't in good conscience support legal decisions and legislation that permitted abortion, exception in "justifiable homicide" type situations.

[dorktv]

1. It is a matter of who is more important:

The woman or the fetus.

I believe that when you have an abortion you are actually killing something alive but the woman ultimately is more important in my book. If you ban abortion you are going to kill women and they are more important then a collection of cells.

[dolstein]

But like me, you believe a fetus isn't a human being

If, on the other hand, you truly believe that a fetus is a human being, then you can no more tolerate the killing of a fetus six months before it is born than six months after it is born.

[dorktv]

10. wait a minute.

There is a difference between a three month fetus and a six month baby. One cannot live on it's own but the other can.

A fetus at 3 months is a human person in potentia, human in DNA but not a human person like a six month old baby.
For me it is a difference between the woman who <i> is </i> and the fetus who might become a person. Being pregnant is no guarentee that fetus will become a baby. And I hate abortion, I wish it was never done but since I am a realist and know it will be, I value the woman more then the fetus and feel it should be legal.

[Warpy]

13. It doesn't matter. It's self defense.

Any woman who faces carrying a pregnancy to term is facing death.

I know you don't like to think about that, guys, but there it is.

It's up to her to decide whether or not she wants to take the risk.

Deciding not to is the purest form of self defense.

[AutumnMist]

58. Most Women Who Carry A Pregnancy Full Term

can face death. But the chance of it leading to death is very slim. We face death everyday. Period. Death of the mother or death of even the baby is usually from lack of medical/midwife care during pregnancy. My point is the risk of dying doesn't increase by two fold because of pregnancy in this day and age. Maybe 100 years ago. But not now. Its not an argument for pro-life. Its just a medical point that women who are pregnant shouldn't feel like they are being attacked and therefore it should lead to self-defense by termination because they could die simply from being pregnant. It's not terminal.

[dorktv]

89. Did you know that because of fear of lawsuits doctors will do

more invasive techniques when not needed (such as C-sections)there by increasing the danger level of dying from birth? This country also has a higher rate of maternal death then our counterparts in Europe because they are less like to intervene unneccessarialy.

[GreenPoet64]

96. I think there is an error in this reasoning . . .

Many women with medical conditions that would result in death often opt to abort--so any statistics that you are relying on today would not include women who might have died had they not had an abortion.

I have a medical condition which greatly puts my life in danger during labor or any type of surgery.

Forced reproduction as the only solution for an unexpected pregnancy is unconstitutional--and I hope it stays that way.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

115. Even though I largely agree with your position,

I don't think the argument you give to support it is valid.

Even if, in carrying a pregnancy to term a woman is "facing death" then that doesn't give her carte blanche to abort, any more than I have the absolute right to kill somebody else to save my own life (and the law makes it very clear that I don't). It's certainly a factor to be taken into consideration, but it's not overwhelming. And nowadays the risk of death in childbirth in America is very low indeed.

I think that in the last few months of pregnancy, abortion should probably only be legal on special grounds - if the fetus has some major disability, or if the birth would place the mother's health at greater that normal risk, for example.

[barackmyworld]

2. Pro-Choice isn't the same as Pro-Abortion

Abortions are gonna happen no matter what--the choice is between having them done in a hospital, and having them done in an alley.

[dolstein]

5. Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are labels that are intended to obfuscate

Bottom line, the issue is whether or not you believe abortion should be legal.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

116. Almost.

The issue is under what circumstances you believe abortion should be legal. There are an awful lot of people who give answers other than "always" or "never".

[leyton]

113. Exunckly. Sadly noone ever uses that argument.

I agree 100% - I hate abortion, and I am not comfortable with the argument that a fetus is not a human being. But I'm a pragmatist, and I say whatever set of policies reduces abortions the most is the best one. So on the one hand we can outlaw the practice, pat ourselves on the back, and never give those women who go to back alleys or overseas a second thought. Or we can promote the economic policies that will help more women be able to raise the child, and we can ensure that the abortions that do occur are safe for the mother.

Alas, I'm still waiting for the day when the Democratic nominee says this in the Presidential debates. Sadly, Kerry went with the old "hey, I believe A but I'm going to legislate B" which seems like the answer that most Democratic politicians have resigned too. I think this is part of what contributes to the perception that Democrats have weak values, because most people are going to see the "not enforcing my beliefs on others" argument as a cop-out.

[Dookus]

3. this is exactly why

I prefer to keep religious arguments out of our public affairs.

The notion that abortion is murder is a religious idea, not a legal one. There is nothing to be gained by trying to out-christian the christian right on this and other issues.

We SHOULD be arguing that whatever your religious beliefs are, they don't have anything to do with the law.

[dolstein]

4. So all the abolitionists should simply have shut up, eh?

Don't you understand that most of the liberal advances in the 19th and 20th century were rooted in religion? The arguments against slavery, child labor, Jim Crow, etc. were often couched in religous terms.

[illflem]

7. Prohibition?

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. And there were equally religiously based arguments favoring

all those things.

Practical, secular morality had as much to do with those advances as anything.

It's only natural that the religious give religion credit for all the good things that happen. That doesn't make it true.

[Dookus]

11. That's ridiculous

abolitionism was a movement to OVERCOME Biblical support for slavery. People would have come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong, despite religion.

In fact, it was the Bible itself that supported slavery for a long time. If slavery was so bad, why isn't proscribed by the bible? Why didn't the 10 Commandments declare it wrong, rather than waste half of them on how God likes to be worshipped?

The Jews had JUST been freed from slavery - it was fresh on their minds, yet God didn't think slavery was more important to proscribe than taking his name in vain.

The idea that it was christianity that abolished slavery is akin to saying it was a virus that cured smallpox.

[dolstein]

15. As ridiculous as the suggestion that we shouldn't legislate morality?

Sorry, but there's a moral basis for nearly everything we do in public life.

[Dookus]

18. thanks for ignoring

every point I made my in post.

The idea that it was christianity that put an end to slavery is laughable, considering it was christianity that endorsed it all along.

Morality has nothing to do with religion.

[eridani]

125. But WHEN do we legislate morality?

Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't. Adultery is commonly held to be immoral, but jailing people for it would be seriously stupid. Murder, robbery and assault are illegal as well as immoral.

So what is abortion more like--adultery or murder?

[mandyky]

34. Logic also played a part in the abolitionist movement

If black people were indeed 3/5 of a human, what was the 2/5 parts missing. They had a heart, soul, reason, human emotions and intellect.
Scientificcally, Blacks are Human. Does not our Constitution say ALL men are created equal? Nothing religious there - pure constitutional logic.

[Zynx]

109. Most of the abolitionist leaders were highly religious.

[Solar]

6. thats exactly what I believe

I believe that the Bible says life begins at conception. What proof of that do I have? Absolutly none, its just a belief. Therefore I have no basis for trying to make it a law.

[dolstein]

12. The Bible also says "thou shalt not kill"

Apparently, nobody has raised much of a fuss regarding the religious basis for prohibitions against killing.

[Old and In the Way]

27. One must be born first, before one can be killed.

The Pro-Lifers would dearly love to move the goalposts to define birth as conception, so they can make abortion murder.

[dolstein]

43. Only if you believe a fetus isn't a human being

You seem to have completely missed the point of this thread.

[New Democrat]

25. Not necessarily

I am a athiest, and I have huge problems with abortion, cleary this has nothing to do with religion.

[forgethell]

29. Actually, I think

murder is a legal concept. After all, many homicides are not murders. Self-defense, acts of war, accidents. None are considered to be murder.

[LoZoccolo]

8. I think it may be a matter of getting screamed at that makes some do this.

Certainly not all pro-choice people do this (myself included), but much of the rhetoric in response to someone declaring it murder is just so much screeching, yelling, and accusation. The stance you point out might look contradictory simply because the other side jackhammered it into that place.

[tsuki]

14. I don't know. Personally I support choice, but would not have an

abortion.

[Warpy]

16. I support a government that doesn't think it has a place in that

decision. I support a government that has no place probhiting them or compelling them.

[tsuki]

21. That is where I am at. I understand Kerry's position.

[Dhalgren]

49. So you can hold abortion as being "murder",

yet still advocate its legality? I do not think that abortion is "murder", therefore I have absolutely no qualms about supporting its legality - there is no question. But how do you consider abortion "murder" and support it at the same time? I really don't see that.

[tsuki]

78. I don't know. And that's the truth, I don't know if it is murder.

I would not have one, but I can't make everyone's decision. I can only speak for me.

[keith the dem]

17. If you feel abortion is wrong--DON'T HAVE ONE!!

Abortion is a personal decision. Past laws did little to prevent abortion, it only killed a lot of women in back alleys. I believe that if "pro-life" people were really against abortion, they would do ever thing to alleviate the reasons women have abortions, like lack of day care and lack of adequate finances, etc. Abortions sharply decreased during the Clinton boom years and have SHARPLY INCREASED during the * years.
We could make it a law that roofs shall not leak even as roofing materials are only available to the rich. A better way to stop roof leaks would be to make roofing materials cheaper and more available.

[dolstein]

22. "If you think lynching is wrong -- don't lynch anyone!"

Don't you realize how ridiculous that argument would sound to someone who actually believes that abortion is murder?

[keith the dem]

28. Lynchings were illegal

They only stopped when the power structure in the south was changed and lynchings were seen as the barbaric murders they were. If better alternative to abortion were available, abortions would be sharply reduced. The RW wants it both ways right now, they control the religious poor people with there rhetoric about abortion, but their budgetary attacks on those same poor people encourage abortions.

[dsc]

37. No they weren't

It literally took decades to pass an anti lynching law. In most southern states it wasn't illegal for a white to kill a black.

[Guaranteed]

65. You're totally missing the point of the thread.

He's saying that IF someone thinks that abortion is murder- whether or not you think it's murder- can that person then defend its legality?

Your posts show that you're not even listening to what he's saying. You don't respond to that with, "If you think abortion is murder, don't have one."

[Zynx]

110. Abortions were largely illegal too for a long time.

The principle you are applying doesn't make much sense.

[tinanator]

130. just tell them it was a preemptive strike

and move on to a more important topic.

[Old and In the Way]

19. 1st, it is a hypothetical for any male....so it really doesn't matter

what we males say or think on the subject. We can never be pregnant, so our opinions are meaningless. Sorta like asking women their position on vasectomies.

I believe one can hold 2 mutually divergant stances on this:

(1) Abortion is not for me.
(2) Abortion may well be justifiable and an acceptable choice for others.

I make value choices all the time. But that does not mean the rest of society has to share my exact set of value choices.

What I do find morally contradictory is how a person can hold the abortion of life potential as immoral, but accept state sanctioned killings and war that kills 10s of thousands as acceptable.

[dolstein]

26. Someone who believed abortion is murder wouldn't accept your argument

Seriously, if you believe a fetus is a human being, there's absolutely nothing hypothetical about abortion. And a man who believed a fetus was a human being wouldn't readily accept the idea that a woman carrying his child has the right to abort it any more than he would accept the idea that a babysitter has the right to kill his two-year-old.

[Old and In the Way]

30. I believe a fetus is a human potential, not a human "being".

So I don't agree on the conditional you posit, therefore I can't agree on the conclusion.

[dolstein]

46. Exactly, so what you say is beside the point

The point I made is whether someone who actually believed that abortion is murder -- i.e., the deliberate killing of a human being -- could possible adopt a pro-choice position. That is, can any rational person say "I believe abortion is murder, but I think abortion nonetheless be legal." To me, that statement makes about as much sense as "I believe infanticide is murder, but I think it should nonetheless be legal for people to kill their children."

[Scout]

104. if his 2 year old was INSIDE the babysitter's uterus....

she damn well would have a right to kill it.

Since a two year old is not a fetus, your analogy does not hold up.

There is NO other situation comparable to pregnancy when it comes to rights.

edit:typos

[KerryOn]

82. I second that!

>>What I do find morally contradictory is how a person can hold the abortion of life potential as immoral, but accept state sanctioned killings and war that kills 10s of thousands as acceptable.

Finaly someone else that agrees with me!

Take Care
KerryOn

[Dhalgren]

20. dolstein is making a valid point.

If you believe that aborting a fetus, even at one day old fetus, is "murder", then you could not in good conscience support legalized abortion. He isn't saying that it is murder, he is saying that "if you believe it is". I think he may be right on this...

[dolstein]

23. Glad to hear at least one person might agree with me :-)

I'm not sure any of the people who have posted so far actually believe that abortion is murder. Some believe it's objectionable. But that's a very different story. You can believe that abortion is wrong, just find the alternatives to legalized abortion equally or even more objectionable.

Personally, I can't really argue with someone who has a sincere religious belief that abortion is murder. If I were raised to believe that, I'm sure I'd want to see abortion banned as well.

[Dhalgren]

32. I don't consider it murder, and I support womens freedom of

choice completely. But if someone thinks that abortion is murder, then I can't see that person supporting legal abortions. That just would not make sense, at all.

[Old and In the Way]

35. But that's the problem. No one can agree on the definition of the fetus.

Pro-lifers want to call it a human being. Pro-choice people define it as human potential. We have a set of laws that govern the way human beings live in this world, but pro-lifers want to ascribe those same laws to fetuses. The laws of unintended consequences will open the door to all kinds of big brother intervention.

Heck, maybe even daily federal pregnancy checks. You can't protect those human beings, if you don't know they exist.....

[Dhalgren]

45. But every individual must have an opinion on

whether abortion is "murder" or not. I do not think it is. But if I thought that it was "murder", I would have a hard time thinking it was ok to legalize it. That is the point. Do you think that there are people out there who believe that abortion is "murder', yet support its being legal? If Kerry said he believed in the same stance held as official by the Catholic church, yet thinks it should be legal, then I can't see how he holds those conflicting views.

[KerryOn]

83. I can. Church and State. n/t

[ulysses]

24. I think a lot of people

go through most of their lives deeply conflicted about certain things - it's part of the human condition. While I understand your point, abortion and civil rights don't exactly correlate.

I think it's possible, sure.

[Disturbed]

31. Slavery

Slave Quotes

Psalm 123:2
As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

btw a fetus is a parasite.

[ulysses]

36. odd post.

And no, I don't buy that a fetus is a "parasite". And yes, I'm fully pro-choice.

[Mnemosyne]

128. definition of parasite:

Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Afraid he is technically right.

No, you can not believe abortion is murder and be pro-choice, seems rather hypocritical.

Personally I believe in a woman's right to choose what goes on with her own body.

[KerryOn]

84. And you point?

Who is speaking in these bilbe versus that you post?

Is this God speaking?

Is it Jesus speaking?

or

Maybe just a man is speaking?

[Finding Rawls]

33. yes, but he/she would be an awful human being nt

[kentuck]

38. Can it even be discussed rationally with someone.....

who believes it is murder? People believe it and no one or no argument is going to change their mind. If men had babies, abortion clinics would be as plentiful as McDonalds.

[alcuno]

39. I don't believe that the Church has called it murder.

Like John Kerry, I consider abortion to be the taking of life and therefore a sin. It may be a matter of semantics, but it's different from killing a human being. This is the question that most Catholics wrestle with all the time. John Kerry is no different.

[rhino47]

42. As a catholic I agree abortion is wrong

As a liberal female I believe my choice should not be forced on others.I feel uncomfortable eating meat on fridays during lent.That doesnt mean I want that written into law.
I can really understand kerrys stance on abortion.
Its what most catholics wrestle with.I never really took a stance on abortion until I was living for a short while in alabama.
I went to get a pap smear as an 18 year old.As I was walking up a crowd of very frightening people started yelling WHORE WHORE WHORE, DONT KILL YOUR BABY!YOU WILL BURN IN HELL...etc etc.That gave me the incentive to look more closely at the issue.
Would I choose an abortion for myself.No.
Would I go into the streets to fight for someone elses right to do so?Yes.
I chose my religion.I did it of my own free will.
Would I want to impose my belief system on anyone else no.
That is the most unchristian thing I could do.
That would place me in judgement of others.That I feel is a major sin.To assume judgement of others is to say you are God.
I want my goverment totally free of religion.I no more want catholic laws passed then I would want another religions laws forced on me.

[KerryOn]

85. Excellent Post!

You have said everything very well in this post. Somehow you have posted my feelings on this matter to a "T", and have said it much better than I ever could.

Well Done!

[seabeyond]

40. rape incest womans health, right there conditions are put out

on the "murder". this is from the people that believe abortion is murder. exceptions are rape, incest and womans health. so right there you answered your own question and this is from the anti abortion group

now to answer the question as far as kerry sees it. i could not abort myself. not at this age, this thinking. if i was 15 i may have felt differently. what maturity and age and raising children does. so no, i personally do not agree with abortion. nor will i be a hypocrit and say i can decide when an abortion is alright. under rape incest or womans health, all those things warrant murder. because then i ask myself, who am i to decide, who am i to decide a 14 year old that gets pregnant and isnt about to tell her parents, and she kills herself, isnt as in high of an emotional drama as someone who is raped, incest or health concerns

so for me, it doesnt make sense the right wing arguement on abortion

at least if you are going to say abortion is murder, then surely it covers rape, incest and the womans health. under no circumstance is an abortion ok. but then that would take balls, and the anti abortionist dont have balls. they dont have the answers to k, we make it illegal, does the woman go to jail. not a single one will answer. do we take away exsisting kids and put them in foster homes. no answers. does the man go to jail too, no answer

[TriMetFan]

41. Abortion is murder.

I say this as a women and a mother of 2 plus also a Catholic. Now here comes the big But. I couldn't personally tell another women what to do with her body. So does that make me pro-choice? Yes it does. I'm not God and neither is any one else to be able tell a women what is right for her own life.
What I don't like is seeing all the kids that have died in this "Iraq War". To me this is more of a sin then abortion is. I say this because now we are talking about living and breathing kids that are dying for no reason other then just greed and lies.

[dolstein]

50. You make a distinction between fetuses and "living and breathing kids"

Does Catholic doctrine make this kind of distinction? I wasn't aware that it did.

[TriMetFan]

54. No it doesn't.

But the thing is just because I'm Catholic it doesn't mean I should try and make others believe in my ways. Religion is a choice. Like I said I'm not God. What a women does to her own body is her thing. What I find is how any one that is so damn against Abortion is not against this war that is killing all these kids. Again I do believe Abortion is murder but I couldn't tell another women what to do with her body.

[Guaranteed]

67. No, it's not.

This is the most famous pro-choice argument out there, and it is very strong:

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~cheathwo/Phil160%2CFall02/thomson.htm

The point is that it doesn't matter whether or not it's a fetus or a baby or a person or whatever. The woman has the right to remove it from her body, and it's not murder if she does. It's not murder any more than disconnecting yourself from a violinist whom you are keeping alive...

Think it over. :) This one took awhile to sink in, for me. But, it's true.

[fnottr]

86. we read this in my senior year in high school

I'm glad to see someone else familiar with it, because it's basically lays out the foundation of why I'm pro choice. The crux of the argument is that even if the fetus is a human, the state doesn't have the right to force anyone to use their body as a life support device.

The example she uses is basically this:

Suppose there's a famous violinist with a kidney disease. And of everyone in the world, only you can save this violinist by having your circulatory systems entwined for nine months. If you unplug the violinist, he will die. Now the question is: does the government have to right to force you to stay attached to the violinist? To which I would say, no, they do not. It might be selfish not to, but the government cannot force you to stay attached, and unplugging the violinist is not murder, as his condition is the cause of his death.

The way I think of it is:

The government cannot force you to donate a kidney to someone, even if by not donating the kidney that person would die, the government does not have the right to kidnap you and take your kidney. So it is with abortion; the government cannot force a woman to provide her uterus to the fetus.

[faithfulcitizen]

90. the problem with this arguement is very basic...

in the case of the violinist, you weren't responsible for the "dependent condition" that s/he is in. Except in case of rape, you you have a pretty big part in this "condition". Not saying I am a "pro-lifer" here , it's just, that arguement doesn't work for me. :shrug:

[Guaranteed]

92. You can also augment the argument, though, to fit that.

This argument is very pliable, I've found.

For example- in another post, I made the dying person the mother/father's son. You could also say that maybe the two people were in an accident, and the accident was the mother's fault, and thus her son's condition was the mother's fault. Could you then say that the son's mother has to connect herself to her son to keep him alive?

[faithfulcitizen]

93. for 9 months or forever?

:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

94. For nine months, sure.

For two months, even. I really don't think it matters- that's the thing.

The government just can't tell her what she has to do with her body like that.

[fnottr]

103. the main question I see behind that logic is:

Does the act of having sex imply a consent to become pregnant? Some groups (the Catholic Church comes to mind) would say yes. However, I would argue that humans ability to divorce the act of intercourse from procreation is one of the things that separates us from lower animals. It is (to be a bit cliche) one of the things that makes us human.

Pregnancy can occur from sex in the same way that becoming injured in a wreck can occur from driving/riding in a car. Even though both might be undesired outcomes, everyone knows that either can happen.

[faithfulcitizen]

105. i get what you're saying, but your comparison makes...

me wanna :puke: as someone who has tried for several years to become pregnant, i guess i just can't wrap my brain around comparing the miracle of pregnancy with an injury from a car wreck. Being the higher "animals" that we are, I think humans are able to acknowledge that sex can result in pregnancy. Of course, we can enjoy sex without desiring to become pregnant, but we know perfectly well that it's a REAL possibility.

[Guaranteed]

133. Absolutely. There's that, and, even if it was "consent,"

it doesn't matter.

[osiristz]

44. Govt should stay out of peoples bodies

I am pro-choice and anti abortion at the same time. Find it hard to believe? Let me explain.

FIRST and FOREMOST it is the right of a woman to govern her own body; what happens in it and/or to it, just as it is a mans right to do the same. I am male, by the way. If a woman choses to end a preg. it is because she retains the right to decide whether her body is to play host to another life. That said, it also needs to be said that it is the womans body which is solely responsible for the creation of that fetus. If I build a shed in my backyard, I can destroy it also. If I tatoo something on myself, I can remove it. If a woman accidentally creates a fetus (non-viable) in her womb, she has the right to decide whether to bring that fetus through gestation.

Whether you want to consider it murder gets into the 'religious' aspect of it all. Most will say murder is wrong because it is written that "thou shalt not kill". But that law has no qualifiers. It says THOU SHALT NOT, PERIOD. Killing comes in may forms, many of which are perfectly legal. Animals, flora and people (execution/ war) are forms of legal killing. So the 'commandment' is riddled with loopholes already. Loopholes we conveniently choose to ignore. For those who oppose abortion on religious grounds, I say you are hypocrites because you play along with the killing going on every day and dont protest. Unless and until the religious make a genuine effort to end ALL forms of killing (as their law requires), they have no grounds to oppose abortion.

Now we get to the sticky aspect; that of government legislating our bodies. Ask any man if he would support a law requiring vasectomy at age 35 and see what he says. Ask any man if he would support a law requiring prostate check-ups after age 40 and see what he says. How about the government requiring apendix removal or tonsilectomy or mandated blood tests or DNA sampling. Sound a bit too invasive on the part of govt? Why?

If you can tell a woman her womb is no longer her own and it is become a Government 'nursery' henceforth, then you can tell every man that he can only workout at the gym once a week, and after 35, it's "snip-snip" for you!

The government has no business governing bodily functions and anyone who thinks they should have that right is sorely misled on the functions of the US government as mandated by the Constitution. Providefor the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of LIBERTY. Those are the functions of the government. They've already overstepped their bounds considerably.

I support the womans right to govern her body. If I were a woman and I had to make the decision of aborting, I would not want a bunch beaurocratic religious zealots (fake ones at that) telling me what I can or cannot do with my body. If I choose to end an unwanted preg, for whatever reason, it should be left between myself and my maker (if I choose to believe in one) as to whether it is right or wrong. In the end no amount of legislation can touch the issue of gods judgment or even if there is such judgment.

No one with any amount of morality could oppose abortion and support the carnage in Iraq. but I'm sure there are thousands who do. They beat their chests about morality, but said nothing when 800,000 Rhuandans were slaughtered. Funny how adults are worth less than fetus' to some.

Once the government gets into our bodies, THEY WILL NEVER LEAVE.

just my 2 cents

[dolstein]

47. Sorry, but nothing you said suggests you believe abortion is murder

So it's entirely beside the point. The question I asked is whether anyone who truly believed that abortion was murder could be pro-choice.

Seriously, would anyone around here adopt a "pro-choice" position on infanticide? Lynching?

[Dhalgren]

51. This was the question I didn't have the guts to ask.

"Seriously, would anyone around here adopt a "pro-choice" position on infanticide? Lynching?" But everyone seems to arguing the wrong question.

[KerryOn]

87. It dosen't matter.

OK for the record.....

I'm a male, and I'm pro-choice.
I think abortion is murder.
Does that make abortion against the law? no.
Should abortion be against the law? no.

Its between the woman, her doctor and God. She can do what she wants.

[proud patriot]

48. Yes ...My mother in law

Believes abortion is murder and god will
not be happy with you on judgement day .

but votes pro-choice because "god gave us free will".

"So it's up to us to choose to sin or not ."

she wants to keep Government out of her religion.

[dolstein]

52. Does she support repealing murder statutes?

Sorry, but the free will argument doesn't elicit much sympathy from people when it comes to killing people AFTER they are born.

It seems to me that, whether or not she admits it, she makes a very real moral distinction between the murder of a fetus and the murder of human beings.

[sandnsea]

53. I respect other religions

A Catholic believe abortion is wrong in ALL cases. It can only be done if the mother is actually dying and not with any preference between the mother or the fetus. Almost nobody in this country supports that position, not even other religious people. Therefore, if Kerry accepted the Church's position on abortion, it wouldn't be acceptable to most Americans and something he shouldn't legislate. The Church also teaches against all contraception. And that the pill causes abortion so shouldn't be used. Should a President legislate all of that just because it's part of his/her faith?

When you fully understand Church teachings, it becomes pretty easy to separate religion from law.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. There is no one else in society who we say has a physical right

to inhabit someone else's body, is there?

If your cousin needs a kidney transplant, and you're the only one who can give him one, it might be the right thing for you to do to give him one, but he doesn't have the right to your kidney.

Likewise by criminalizing all abortion you are saying the fetus has more right to the woman's body than she does herself.

I'm with you- I'm pro choice, and it's worth remembering that most abortions take place in the first trimester. I do think there is a difference between a fertilized egg or a half-inch fetus at 6 weeks and a baby at 9 months... (which is why I'm not a Republican or a fundamentalist, because according to the GOP platform, there is no distinction) Late term or so-called "partial birth" abortions are rare enough that I don't feel criminalization is any kind of an "answer". I don't buy into the right-wing agitprop which says women are running around pregnant for 8 months and then getting abortions because they suddenly decide they "look fat".

Beyond that, there are ways to reduce the incidence of surgical abortion- universal access to birth control, a single payer health care system (which would include prenatal care for poor women), a liveable minimum wage, OTC availability of the morning after pill, etc. etc. Of course, any kind of "birth control" other than hectoring people to stop fucking is anathema to conservatives, which is why the putting prevention first act doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing congress... again.

[dolstein]

56. I wish more people would actually address the question I raised

I see a lot of people arguing that abortion ISN'T murder. My question is whether someone who truly believed that abortion WAS murder could nonetheless embrace a pro-choice position.

A few people have indicated that they believe abortion is murder, but in their posts they make certain moral distinctions that simply wouldn't be accepted in the case or murders involving children, for instance. I can certainly understand people believing, on the one hand, that abortion is wrong or objectionable, but that it shouldn't be outlawed. But saying that abortion is wrong isn't quite the same thing as saying that abortion is murder. There are many things that society finds objectionable but doesn't make illegal. But there are very few exceptions to the legal prohibition against murder.

[seabeyond]

57. post 40

if the right says it is murder, how can THEY allow rape incest and health of mother to dictate murder

[dolstein]

60. I agree -- if abortion is murder, there should be no rape exception

That's why I question the sincerity of people who claim abortion is murder, on the one hand, but that it should be allowed in cases of rape. One does not follow from the other.

I do think that allowing abortion where a continuation of pregnancy posed a substantial risk to the life of the mother can be justified, because the law allows you to kill in self defense.

[Old and In the Way]

63. Is a miscarriage then, accidental homicide? Or manslaughter?

Or criminal murder? Those that are so confident that abortion is murder need to explain the logical and legal implications of that position.

[dsc]

72. assuming it was a true miscarriage

it would be a natural death. Heart attacks, unless they are purposely caused, aren't murder either.

[Old and In the Way]

77. But, how to know?

To extend the same rights to the fetus as living, breathing human beings we will have to have autopsy's to determine this. Of course, that may be difficult on the 3 week old (conception-wise)...but if abortion is deemed murder, then the government will be forced to protect these unborn citizens no differently then we'd handle the death of a 3 week old (birth-wise).

[dsc]

79. Maybe

but not all death get autopsys. If a person was under a doctor's care at the time of death there is no autopsy. Fetuses can be under doctor's care as well. Similarly if a death takes place in an emergency room or a hospital and appears natural, there is no autopsy.

[Old and In the Way]

91. True....

But a Doctor is going to be mighty cautious about his analysis. He's not going to want to be an accessory to murder. He may well elect to get the DA involved. We may, in fact, need to have a whole new medical-police beaucracy formed to manage this. How many abortions and miscarriages are there a year in the US? That's a lot of paperwork, case management, and file reviews.

Brave New World, here we come.

[dsc]

101. that is absurd

Doctors declare natural death all the time without getting DA's involved. When my mom died last year, there was no autopsy. In fact, of all the relatives of mine only one was autopsied and he died at age 37 while addicted to drugs.

[Old and In the Way]

107. No more absurd than criminalizing abortion.

If you extend the same rights to a fetus that you extend to a breathing human being and make abortion murder, then the entire spectrum of possibilities are open. Did you have a drink last night and "kill" your fetus? Too bad, negligent homicide for you. You need to look no further than Kansas to see a religious wacko AG who's trying to open up files of women who've had abortions to see if there were crimes committed. If anything is absurd, it's the unintended consequences of where the "abortion is murder" lrgislation will take us.

[dsc]

111. Then have no laws against murder either

since those can lead to chases as well. The fact is that most deaths of people, just like most deaths of fetuses, require no autopsy.

[Old and In the Way]

112. I don't believe, today, fetuses are autopsied unless the mother

requests it.

Autopsies of born people who die natural deaths, i.e. from diagnosed/treated diseases or from easily understood causes, like the results of a plane crash, don't normally require autopsies. But causes of death, not understood, most definitely can be autopsied ...requested either by family or the courts. Again, it could well depend on the DA/AG and his zeal to protect
the unborn.

If we overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion criminal, the next logical step in protecting the little human being living in the mother's womb, is documenting that he/she is there. How can we protect that little person if we don't know it's there? Perhaps daily pregnancy tests will be required?

Then, if mom should miscarry....better call the police and get a coroner in who can determine the cause of death. Unfortunate natural occurance, reckless homicide, or premeditated murder? This will most likely require an autopsy to confirm. Mom may also have to undergo an exam/bloodtests to make sure she didn't contribute to the death or murder her little human being that was living in her womb.

[dsc]

118. can doesn't equal is

Yes autopsies can be requested but they usually aren't. Murder is already against the law but we don't autopsy most people. We also don't check if people buy arsenic which can be used to poison people. There would no more be daily pregnancy tests under abortion laws than there were daily checks of people's anus under sodomy laws.

[Old and In the Way]

127. I'm talking fetuses, you're talking people.

"We also don't check if people buy arsenic which can be used to poison people." No, but if a person is poisoned, we might check to see if it's arsenic.

Sodomy is not murder.

If we criminalize abortion so it becomes murder, the logical consequences of what I outlined are certainly well within the boundries of possibility.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. People who believe abortion is murder still manage to support war.

I don't see any great wall of philosophical consistency there.

[dolstein]

61. Well, the Catholic Church has a "just war" doctrine

And people distinguish between killing enemy soldiers and murdering an innocent fetus.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Number one, the Catholic Church isn't any bastion of moral consistency.

Number two, "enemy solidiers" are hardly the only people killed in wars.

[Sapphire Blue]

99. Please explain the church's stand on 'collateral damage'

[dsc]

73. Sometimes killing is justified

If a person is going to kill you, then you have a right to kill them. Similarly if a nation is out to exterminate your nation you have a right to attack that nation. It should be noted that 2 out of 3 of the spokesman against the Iraq war (Bonior, McDermit, and Kucinich) were pro life when they did that speaking out.

[eridani]

126. Kucinich had changed his position 2 years before that n/t

[Guaranteed]

68. I did. If it's murder, we can't defend it.

Luckily for us, it's not. And, again, it has nothing to do with the person-status of the fetus/baby.

See my argument below.

[Sapphire Blue]

100. As I read your question

... I see it phrased in a way to elicit a specific response – ‘no, a person who believes that abortion is murder cannot be pro-choice’. Abortion is in direct violation of their personal beliefs. It seems that everything is either black or white when they discuss abortion… outlaw abortion and impose criminal penalties on violators.

Abortion = murder... period

Such outrage over abortion, such blood lust for vengeance against those who would perform or receive an abortion, regardless of the circumstances... their hatred is palpable.

Yet these same right-to-lifers support war, support the death penalty, and are first in line to demand cuts in economic & social programs that would benefit the innocent unborn after their entry into this bizarre world. The innocent children in Iraq are nothing but ‘collateral damage’ in their eyes. The victims of genocide in Darfur are invisible, as are all those dying from disease and starvation throughout the world. I don’t understand why one life is considered more valuable than another. I never will. I never want to.

May God / Allah / YHWH / the Creator / Waheguru / the One have mercy on us and awaken our souls.

[Finding Rawls]

62. This is ridiculous

If you believe that abortion is legitimate, then you don't believe that the fetus is a person. Fine. If someone does believe that the fetus is a person, then of course abortion is wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with a woman's "right to choose". If the fetus is not a person, then it's like trimming your fingernails. If it is a person, then it's like taking a knife to your neighbors throat. It's all really very simple.

[Guaranteed]

66. Nope. Person or not, abortion is not murder. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

70. Does your neighbor live inside your belly?

Comparing a fetus to a human in any other situation in society, like the dude living next door, is absurd- because there is simply NO WAY to take the woman's body out of the equation. Therefore, I am comfortable leaving the decision -as well as the determination of the fetus's humanity- up to her, and certainly not government, the all-male church, or law enforcement.

[Guaranteed]

64. No, they can't say that. But it's not murder, in the least.

And it has nothing to do with whether or not it's a baby or a fetus, either.

It has to do with the fact that the woman has a right to remove the fetus/baby from her body, no matter what. It's HER body, and the government can't force her to take the fetus/baby to term. And, when she removes it, she's not murdering it. She's disconnecting it from its life support, which she has every right to do.

That "Abortion is Murder" phrase is EXACTLY what we have to attack if we're going to maintain womens' reproductive rights, because if it is murder, there's no way in hell we can justify it.

It's just not, though. People who think it is should take more time to think about what they're saying.

[Abelman]

71. I do

I don't think abortion is right, and I want to get rid of it. Making it illegal won't help.

If it's made illegal, a majority of average people will immediately put it out mind. It's not a problem, because its illegal.

I want it out there, in people's faces, so they know it's still going on. Until they finally realize that we need to do something about it, but making it illegal won't solve the problem. Until they begin to look into it and realize the real cause of abortion is not it's legality.

So many people want to attack the symptom, but ignore the cause. We've got a nation full of cold pills when we need a nation of vaccines.

[union_maid]

74. I think the whole argument shows how limited our thinking is

It's true on either side of the argument. A fetus is developing into a person during gestation. No one is arguing that, either way or at least not effectively. The physiological relationship of mother to fetus is different than anything else. You can't box it into a category where laws designed for something else work for that. To grant rights to a fetus is going to mean severe curtailment of civil liberties to the mother and not just regarding the right to abort. The real problem with the abortion argument is that it's a human riddle that we can't solve. I go with the theory that the fetus belongs to the mother for the duration of gestation. Her moral responsibilities to it don't have to match her legal ones.

[Malva Zebrina]

75. why does anyone use the term "pro-life" to describe their views

on abortion, and I do not mean personal preferences, I am talking about legislation and RvW and the politics of the debate.


Why has that label been picked up by those claiming to simultaneously be pro-choice or claiming to be concerned over the pregnancy resulting from rape and the "health of the mother"?

Why use the term "pro-life"?

I suspect because it is being taught in churches who use that term to describe it's views on abortion and it becomes an indentification with the group. Of course, one may be directed to use one's conscience and subsequently be fully supportive of a woman's right to choose as the law stands now, without applying one constriction, including that it be "rare", but the pull of the "pro-life" cult and membership in the group that uses that logo, is too strong, too guilt laden, and too connected to ever admit that one is actually pro-choice and not pro-life.

[IronLionZion]

123. it's Orwellian

in reality, we're probably all pro-life cause we all value life. The other side seems to value life only until it's born, then all bets are off. It's stunning how many "pro-lifers" support the death penalty, war, and are opposed to social programs that help sustain life.

[CWebster]

76. Kerry is just attempting to span all positions. nt

[KerryOn]

80. Yes, I can

It's not like we are talking about cold blooded murder of an individual. There is more than one life involved here. If we start making laws about what a woman can or can not do to her own body and the extension of her body, then it is no longer a free country, and our Democracy is at stake.

I'm against abortion, but as far as I'm concerned, a woman has the right do what she wants. It should be left up to her, her doctor and God. Simple as that. The woman that chooses to have an abortion will one day be judged by God.

What I don't understand is how anyone (Like Bush) can be against abortion, but yet support the death penalty? This makes no sense to me at all!! You can't have it both ways. If you are against abortion, then let the murderers sit in prison and be judged by their maker.

[KerryOn]

81. have to dd something here...

>>>Frankly, I have a hard time with politicians like John Kerry, who say they personally accept the teachings of the Catholic church on abortion, but that abortion should remain legal because they don't want to legislative their own moral beliefs on others.

Kerry is simply separating the church and state. If they are not separated then we do not have a true democracy. You must separate the two. If you do not separate them then what keeps our country from becoming a country like Iraq or Iran that is ran based on religion?

This is what Bush fails to see. He refuses to separate the church and state and by doing so he is shoving HIS religion on me. Well I don't want HIS religion, I have my own beliefs. If he takes my freedom of religion away then you and I will no longer live in a free Democracy. If we are to be free then we should be free to practice and believe as we chose.

Bush has called Iran part of the axis of evil, and by doing so he declared war on them. He does not believe in there strict religious dictator ship, yet he is trying to make our country the same.

Abortion is a tough subject and always will be. Laws are created to keep us civilized. The life of an unborn child does not effect me directly, but making murder legal does.

We as a society have to be careful when creating laws. Telling a woman she can not have an abortion takes away her rights. Yet letting her have the abortion takes the unborn child's rights away. Where you draw the line is a matter of opinion. People will always disagree.

be thankful that we live in a free society where we can discus these issues freely.

Take Care
KerryOn

[Blasphemer]

88. Yes, I think it's perfectly valid

I believe killing someone in self defense is murder but I also find it to be justified under certain circumstances. Similarly, terminating a fetus COULD be viewed as justifiable "murder". There are quite a few (generally non-Catholic) Christians who vote b/c of the abortion issue but also think murder in the case of the death penalty is perfectly justified.

[Czolgosz]

95. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with (1) believing abortion is murder and (2) believing in a woman's right to control her own reproductive fate.

I (1) believe that the KKK is immoral and its racist speech is an abomination but (2) I also believe racist speech should not be outlawed.

I understand that there are means of reducing abortions without outlawing them (abortion rates fell during the pro-choice Clinton administration and rose during the anti-choice Bush administration).

[Czolgosz]

97. You'd think Catholics, above all others, would want strong walls between

church and state.

I'm Catholic, and I cannot understand why any Catholic with even a vague familiarity of Catholic American history would want to mix church and state.


Historically, the distinctly American freedom of religion in the Constitution caused several of the colonies to repeal their laws embracing a specific religion.

The Constitutional guarantee that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" promised a real separation of church and state:

From a time prior to the American Revolution, the settlers of New England (outside of Rhode Island) were predominantly Puritans, who were notoriously intolerant of other religious views, and they had expelled Catholics and Quakers. Rhode Island was founded as a refuge for those who could not endure the religious intolerance of Massachusetts.

Virginia (and, to a lesser degree, Maryland and Georgia) had laws establishing the Church of England as the state religion, and it had banned Puritans, Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, and Presbyterians from preaching their faiths. While Georgia had laws establishing the Church of England as the state religion, it was more tolerant and there was even a sizeable Jewish community in Savannah, but even Georgia expelled Catholics. Maryland was founded as an early haven for Catholics until the Church of England was established as the state religion.

Pennsylvania and Delaware were founded as sanctuaries for Quakers.

New York and New Jersey were religiously tolerant and diverse, and laws nominally establishing the Anglican Church as the state religion (a vestigial artifact from their colonial origins) were not generally enforced. Among the Anglicans, Protestants, Quakers, and Jews lived in relative harmony.

Carolina was founded on the principles of religious toleration, but even North and South Carolina abandoned these principles and established the Church of England as the state religion.

How, you may ask, could these various states join into a union as one nation? All you have to do is read the very first words of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Historically, no group has benefitted from this right more than American Catholics.

[RaulGroom]

98. I personally believe that abortion is killing a person

"Murder" is a legal term; you can't believe something is murder and think it should be legal. If it's legal, it ain't murder.

However, I believe that abortion is killing a person, after a certain point which fortunately it is not necessary for me to judge because I

1) would not have sex with a woman who would have an abortion for something other than health reasons (fortunately it's not an issue anyway since I am married and multiplying)
2) do not believe that the laws of the U.S. government extend inside people's bodies.

IOW, to me it is a jurisdictional question. Abortion may be killing a person, but the only person who has jurisdiction over a person's body is that person, even if there is another person inside of them.

So I believe abortion is killing, but I oppose abortion prohibition (I don't like the nonsense term "pro-choice" any more than I like the nonsense term "pro-life.")

I think that's what you're asking.

Of course, I also oppose other forms of prohibition, i.e. drug prohibitions. In my opinion there is no morally consistent way to believe that abortion is killing but to oppose abortion prohibitions and not also oppose all government intrusion into a person's body.

Of course this post will never be read as it is not a one-liner. Oh well.

[cire4]

102. To answer your question.....Yes, it's both possible and plausible

You would have to ethically believe that the right to control one's own body is more intrinsically valuable than the right to life.

[cmkramer]

106. My definition of "pro-choice"

To me, to be pro-choice means that even though you may have your own opinion about something -- which may come from your religious background or personal morality, you understand that not everyone shares those feelings, so you're willing to let others make their own decisions.

So, yes, I think it is possible to be "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

[Spinoza]

108. I used to be

rabidly and totally pro-choice. As far as I was concerned, a woman had the absolute right to abort, right up to delivery, for any reason or no reason. (Yep, I was hardcore.)

Then my wife had 2 children. More to the point, we went thru her pregnancies together on a day to day basis. I can no longer believe that a (for example) 7 month fetus is not a human being. I can no longer believe that a 5 month fetus is not a human being. I do believe that a 1 month fetus should be considered a potential human being only. I don't know what the right cut-off should be, (perhaps first trimester)but I now believe abortion should be legal for part of the pregnancy and illegal for the remainder of the pregnancy. A "human being" cannot and should not be legally aborted. At some point during pregnancy, the fetus becomes a human being before birth.

[Cuban_Liberal]

114. Yes, one can.

The diference is that of something that is legal in nature vs one that is constitutional in nature.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

117. Arguably,

And I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent here, the difference between abortion and racial discrimination is that one doesn't affect anyone else, and the other does.

A lot of people take the position that legislation is only legitimate where it concerns actions that affect others - forcing people to do things for their own good isn't reasonable, but forcing them to do them for one anothers' is.

[hedgehog]

119. Yes

I find the very notion of abortion hideous beyond belief. But Ialso believe that society can not stop abortion with laws.

[_testify_]

120. Whenever this subject comes up, I am reminded of

what the great George Carlin said:

"Conservatives want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers."
Or words to that effect.

Personally I think it's wrong, but as I was born with a phallus I won't purport to tell a woman what she can and can't do...

Which is a cop-out, I know. But I feel better!

[kiraboo]

121. I believe that a fetus is human, and it is alive.

I view the prochoice argument as one of self defense. I think we can agree that there are occasions when, for a number of reasons, it is not a sin to terminate a human life. Take the Sciavo case, for example. And if you're a freeper, take the Iraqi war. We commit an intellectual error when we argue that the fetus isn't human, and I don't believe for a second that this assertion has ever persuaded prolifer to change his or her position. My nose is also human; if I remove it, does that constitute murder?

Along with my assumption above goes the belief that late term abortions for any reason other than serious consequences to the mother are at best a very bad idea and at worst immoral, if only because the option of an earlier abortion exists.

[IronLionZion]

122. yes, you certainly can

and it may have nothing to do with "legislating morality".

Yes, I'm Catholic and believe abortion is murdering human life. However, I won't advocate taking away someone's choice nor will I promote abortion. My reasons for this have more to do with the unthinkable consequences of outlawing abortion than with toeing the liberal line.

Think about the horrible things that would happen if abortion were outlawed:
children would be born to parents who don't want them leading to abuse or neglect
orphanages simply cannot take the unwanted children
desperate women would use unsafe methods for abortion
Pro-life Republicans still won't adopt children nor will they support social programs to help these children have health care and education.
and so on

Yes, of course we legislate morality, that's why rape, abuse, and murder are illegal in this country while being acceptable elsewhere. I bet John Kerry knows this too. Why pick a fight with people who are on your side? :shrug:

[izzybeans]

124. Yes you can but not on the premise that abortion is murder

which given Kerry is a bit more intelligent than the bible mimetic crowd this would not be the basis of his judgement. Would he rather have the child? It seems that way. Does that mean he can't respect your right to decide differently? Does he really believe that abortion is murder? I doubt it.

Perhaps him saying he would not legislate morality is a poor choice of words for him. But it gives you a hint that his views are much more secular on this issue than what his membership in the catholic Church says about him as a legislator. Maybe he means he doesn't want to moralize abortion in a way that universalizes the issue so that his decision becomes enforcable by law as everyone's decision-much like calling abortion murder does by reifying the procedure to the status of a collective morality=murder. But that's not a collective sentiment. We don't think like that even though the bible thumpers do. His moral choice needn't be your's given that "your choice" can't be reduced to his. There is a secular moral present in his position that finds material form in the bill of rights. It's the same right that should make you two allies no matter what his personal beliefs are. He's operating on the collective secular sentiment of freedom of choice, which is the moral that is being attacked, and not by him.

[gulliver]

129. It's aesthetics to some degree.

Abortion is ugly and murder is ugly, but they are not the same thing. A beating heart in a living entity with human DNA is still not a human being. It is ugly to destroy it, but there are often far uglier things that can happen if you don't.

I agree with those who say we should aim to reduce abortions and "choose life" whenever we can. I don't think a woman should be forced to bear a child she doesn't want and can't care for. The prospect of a living. breathing baby enduring daily resentment, neglect, and even abuse is an ugly thing. A life warped is an ugly thing. (But no one seems to talk much about it.)

[googly]

131. Abortion is MURDER ONLY under this circumstance=====>

yes, it is definately murder IF the "fetus" has
developed to a point where it can survive on it's own
outside the mother's body.

So long as the fetus can not survive outside the mother's
body if for example a C-section is performed, then it is
entirely the mother's decision what to do with it.

Usually by the 8th month into pregnancy, the fetus is
developed enough so it can breathe on its own if brought
out of the womb, and easily survive on it's own. In these
circumstances, I don't see how it is anything but murder
to kill the fetus.

If I was writing the law, I would make abortion illegal after
6 months into the pregnancy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

132. He realizes his religious beliefs aren't everyone's

And one action DEFINES a public interest, based on ACTUAL DAMAGES from said acts such as economic harm to minorites and women.
The other, based on a religious belief with no demonstrable damages to society.

I can drive down a street with you and demonstrate the economic harm from segregation, red-lining, and other acts of descrimination.

Demonstrate an actual damage to society from an abortion.

He also believes it's a big sin to miss church on Sunday if he's a Catholic, but do you want him legislating it?

It's consistent.