Remember that "abortion" means the premature termination of a pregnancy [or other process] without reference to how or why this happens. Miscarriages are included.
Yes, Mary, that's exactly what I said. My argument is that given the drastic differences between spontaneous and procured abortion, this terminology is outdated.
Like it or not, the secular, legal definition of a human being in the USA begins at birth.
Again, I know that. I believe it is unjust, and that's why I, and many others, are working to change that.
That means your statement "abortion is always murder" is simply not true, since murder only applies after birth in the USA. It's an emotive slogan, but quite ridiculous.
Actually, Mary, you are mistaken. Case in point is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, in which someone who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with two homicides.
Also, it's true that all abortion is not legally murder in this country. I have never disputed that. Morally, however, it is murder. Legality is not the same as morality. Black people were persons even when the law said they weren't. Jewish people were persons even when the law said they weren't. Unborn children are persons even though the law says that they aren't.
Please don't use such sloppy language, it makes the argument look either ignorant or deceitful, and I know that you would not want to give that impression.
Absolutely not, but I hope you've written to Representative Speier and said the same. It is very sloppy indeed to claim that you had a procured abortion when the baby actually died of natural causes and had to be removed from your body via a procedure that is also used for the purpose of procured abortion.
I understand that you believe that a zygote has a right to life, as does a fetus. So say that, clearly, without the "abortion is always murder" trope.
If a zygote, fetus, etc. has a right to life, then procured abortion is always murder. It's not "trope," it's truth.
My personal experience with abortion is second-hand and is limited to wanted pregnancies that were killing the mother, or where the zygote or fetus was already dead or dying (six months along, in two cases).
If the baby is already dead, then it's not a procured abortion. Spontaenous abortion is not murder. Procured abortion always is. Do you understand the difference between natural death and murder? Killing your grandmother is not the same as if she dies in her sleep, for example. Same concept.
As for a case where the pregnancy (not the fetus, the pregnancy) is causing a life-threatening medical condition, all treatments thereto would fall under the principle of double effect (for an explanation of how this applies to abortion, see here: Abortion and Double Effect). Simply put, if the fetus' death is an unintended side effect (not the result) of a treatment to save the mother (such as the removal of a diseased fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy) then it is not a procured abortion as the fetus was not directly killed.
These were terribly traumatic events, and I would hate to imagine the additional trauma these mothers (yes, these were all second and third pregnancies to married women) would have gone through in the USA.
Why, given the above? Check out www.benotafraid.net for stories of women who did not procure abortion in such cases and yet had wonderful, healing experiences.
I think abortion is to be avoided if possible,
but not by using a blunt instrument like an anti-abortion legislation. Would you support improved access to contraception to avoid abortions?
No, because it doesn't work. All contraception does is give people a false sense of security that they can have unlimited, irresponsible sex, and then when their birth control fails and conception occurs they resort to abortion. Actually read Leila's post that she linked in the comments, instead of ignoring it, for an explanation of why the stats you posted in the combox aren't an accurate representation of the problem.
Remember, this law would apply to non-Catholics, so the Catholic prohibition on contraception is not relevant to this argument.
Agreed. Again, read Leila's link. There are many non-Catholics who are beginning to realize the link between contraception and abortion.
One thing I am resolute on is that another woman's reproductive life is none of my business.
Unless she's committing murder (i.e., procured abortion), in which case it is everyone's business.
I do believe that if you want to take the proposition that "abortion is tantamount to murder" as true, then the appropriate action is to boost access to contraceptive options.
Unfortunately, reliance on contraception only leads to more abortion because it provides a false sense of security.
If you think differently, then why? Is it really the unborn that is your main concern? Or is it other women's sexual activity?
I want everyone (men and women) to be responsible adults. That includes not having sex if you're not prepared for a pregnancy. See my reply to SallyStrange in the previous post. Otherwise, the norm becomes procured abortion, which is murder, and I oppose murder.
Also, Mary, you never responded to my points about the dehumanization of unborn children.