Here's Your Constitutional

Good afternoon RJohnson,

Thanks for your comment. I couldn't find the story by Steve Waldman which you referred me to; I'm new to beliefnet. Could you kindly direct me? Much of what you said didn't make sense without me having read the article in question.

"The thrust of the story was that as social spending in several key areas increased, abortions decreased."

That's funny. You know I noticed in my multi-year study of weather and the calendar that statistically speaking the weather is nicer in the months when I have had the calendar turned to August, and worse when it's turned to December. You don't suppose I could leave it on August to have always nice weather, do you?

I felt younger when Clinton was president then I do now that Bush has been president.

I guess I need to see the article you're talking about, but according to this website (which google found for me at a moments notice) the per capita abortions went down during President Bush the current's time in office - as part of a continual decrease since the major peak in about 1980.
(http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)

So whether abortion is going up or down I do not know, but if it is going up there are numerous possible (even likely) causes besides Bush being in office. For example, as the childbearing-aged population grows, the number of abortions will too even if the per capita stays the same. Furthermore, as more time goes on, a larger and larger percentage of young women have been being taught since nearly kindergarten in school that "abortion is OK." And more and more abortion facilities are being built every year as well. And planned parenthood has been spending more and more on their PR campaign to convince people that abortions are safe. On their website they say "Abortion is a safe and legal way for women to choose to end pregnancy. ... Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old. "
(http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion-4260.htm) See? In other words: "Everybody's doing it. It's safe, legal, and common." There is an enormous widespread effort to "Normalize" it in the minds of children (so that it will be well learned for when they are in their 20s.) And they also work at it from another angle -- telling children how to experiment "safely" without getting pregnant.

So with the combination of more clinics, more PR that abortions are safe, a growing population, more PR from schools and PP encouraging kids to experiment (thus resulting in more unintended pregnancies) it would be no wonder that abortions are rising.

But as I pointed out, abortion is scientifically and legally the taking of an innocent human life - in other words, murder. So let's rephrase the question with the correct word:

''Studies show that increasing social spending helps decrease the number of MURDERS'' (Jesse's paraphrase of your statement.)

But wait a second! that sounds all wrong! - As if we're trying to pacify murderers somehow, rather then trying them for their crime!

"Are you willing to see your taxes go up as little as 35 cents a day if it could be guaranteed that about 2000 unborn children would not be aborted each day this year?"

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, but according to this website, there are 3700 abortions per day in the US. And you're saying that a small tax raise is guaranteed to drop that to 1700?
(http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html)

But if abortions are murders, then we're still in real trouble.

"Passing laws will do little to stop abortions."

Well now I disagree with you on that one, respectfully of course.
Laws may not stop all of them, but they sure could stop many of them.
First of all, passing a law that blocked federal funding of abortion providers sure as anything ought to reduce the number of abortions. We're not just talking about permitting something, we're talking about my tax dollars going to an organization that is the nations largest single abortion provider! There is a great step between permitting and condoning/supporting/funding!

Second, if the taking of an innocent human life were legally treated for what it is, there are a lot of abortion "doctors" who wouldn't do it anymore - or at least the prisons would be filled with actual murderers for a change.

You say that the women will just go in an alley and do it themselves - but they know that's not safe, and my observation of human nature tells me that a LOT of women wouldn't have an abortion if the only way to do it was not safe. Remember, the constant assuring PR plea from the abortion providers is "It's safe." Some still may have abortions, but hey some people will also get murdered in bank robberies - but my tax dollars won't be paying for them to do the deeds and I will not be supporting or approving.

Think of it his way - let us assume that abortions are done because the baby will be an inconvenience. But almost everybody has somebody in their life who's inconvenient. What if there was no age limit or familial ties requirements on abortions? This way anybody could go into a clinic, pay a fee, and go home, and the clinic would then send out their hitmen to kill whoever it was they had been paid to abort. (abort means to end early, for your information, so anybody's life can be aborted.)

It may be the that raising taxes and increasing social spending (by the way what is social spending?) may also reduce the number of murders, but it's not the correct answer to the problem. (And I doubt it will work.)

"Those who can afford it will go to other countries. Those who can't afford to travel that far will go to back alleys or do it at home abortions."

Some will. But I won't be condoning or funding it.

Remember, abortions are generally about convenience. Going to another country or doing something unsafe isn't going to be convenient. Many women just wouldn't have abortions if they couldn't go to a clinic within a few hours drive and get it done. And even if they did go out of the country - hey some people are bound and determined to commit murder - but at least it wouldn't be in my country, and it wouldn't be paid for or aided by my tax dollars.

My original point was and is that abortion is scientifically and legally the taking of an innocent human life, which is the very definition for murder.

I don't get the feeling that you agreed, but I'm not sure you really addressed it.

Either abortion is murder or it isn't - if it is (and I demonstrated that it is in my previous post) , then we're in a bad way because we've got many government aided facilities providing contract killing services.

So either it is or it isn't and we need to figure that out.

Sincerely,

-Jesse

Farcy,

Thanks for the comment. While several of the definitions of murder do indicate malice, I think you might be mistaken to say that if there's not malice then it's not a murder. I also think you might be mistaken to say that one can plan to, intend to, and then execute the taking of an innocent human life without malice to some degree. Just how far do you take that idea? Do you say that it's not murder to kill a bum on the street because he'd be happier dead and society would be happier as well - and that it wouldn't be murder just because you had no hard feelings toward him but was just trying to make things better for him and the rest of society? Wouldn't your same reasoning quite easily describe the killing of a bum as an act of benevolence toward the bum, society, and his mother who couldn't stand to see him out on the streets living in a cardboard box?

But since you call into question my terminology, I would like to point out that murder does not have to have malice in any case. You quote some definitions which do indicate malice - but not all of the definitions require malice.

http://thefreedictionary.com/murder reports that "Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006" lists "the unlawful intentional killing of one human being by another" as the first noun, and "to kill someone intentionally and unlawfully" as the first verb. Notice that it doesn't say anything about malice.

Furthermore, again according to The Free Dictionary, "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003" also defines (among other things) murder as "To kill (another human) unlawfully."

Do you see a theme there? "The unlawful intentional killing of one human being by another." Abortion is premeditated, intentional, and it is unquestionably scientifically the killing of an innocent human life.

There are many laws to protect an innocent person from being killed without a trial. But since we're discussing legal terms, let's see what a legal dictionary says about "first degree murder."

(from http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=754&bold=murder||)
"First Degree Murder [is] ... a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), .... It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter, which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill."

There's that idea of premeditation! If one can premeditate, plan, intend, and then kill an innocent human life - and it's not called murder, what is it called?

May I say that an abortion is the intentional premeditated killing of an innocent human life and that is almost a word for word copy of one of the definitions of murder - and abortion certainly qualifies for the spirit of the law as being murder.

You say "The reasoning behind performing an abortion is almost always intended as a form of benevolence toward an individual: A mother who would be better off without a child, and also the child who may be forced to be brought up in a very harsh situation if taken to term."

But where do you draw the line? What if, when the child is 5,or 15, the mother decides that the child is in terribly harsh situation and would be better off dead - or perhaps the mother decides that she would be better off without a child - do you think she ought to be able to kill her child ? Would that too be a form of benevolence and therefore not murder?

The reason for the act is not the question here. Whether it is first degree murder is the question; If it is first degree murder, (and I demonstrate that it technically qualifies), then it doesn't matter whether the mother would be better off or the child is in a harsh situation - it's still murder and it still ought to be illegal.

The difference between killing an unborn baby and a newborn baby are technically insignificant; both are human; both are alive, both are innocent: Either way it is the taking of an innocent human life and it is technically first degree murder.

Science has proven that an unborn human fetus is alive, human, is it's own DNA code and it's own individual (Dependant but not a part of it's mother) and it is legally innocent since it's never been tried in a quart of law, found guilty, and been sentenced to death.

Under no other circumstances does our legal system allow the intentional premeditated taking of an innocent human life!

I don't see how I let emotion weaken or otherwise influence my argument, as you claim. But I do notice that your argument was somewhat based on emotion, almost as if you were trying to excuse some murders in cases where the ends justify the means with the emotional appeal that the mother would be better off or the child would be in some "harsh situation." But ladies and gentlemen, the ends do not justify the means - this is, by technical definition, first degree murder we're talking about!

I did notice however that you didn't address my point - which is that under no other conditions (besides abortion) is it legal to intentionally kill an innocent human life with premeditation.

Thanks,

-Jesse

> All Christians should be alarmed.

Indeed - but not Christians only but all people who believes in the existence of right and wrong beyond "might makes right."

That's why we have a justice system!