This should be the second part of my response to Weapon)X's Poast No. 88. I'm encountering some technical problems posting to this Board right now.
You’re right that “murder” is a legal term, but whether abortion is morally equivalent to murder hinges on the science of what’s being ended. If science shows the unborn is a living human organism from conception... and it does... then abortion is the intentional killing of that human life. The law may not call it murder, but morality isn’t bound by legal definitions. Slavery was once legal, too.
And here’s the inconsistency: under federal and state law, if a pregnant woman is murdered and her unborn child dies, it’s often prosecuted as a
double homicide. The same life that counts as a victim in one context is dismissed as a “clump of cells” in another. That’s not a scientific or moral distinction... it’s a legal contradiction.
Saying the unborn is “just a collection of cells” ignores the obvious: so is a toddler, so is an adolescent, so are you. The difference is stage of development, not nature. From conception onward, we’re dealing with the same continuous human life. Dismissing the earliest stages as “not human” doesn’t align with science or logic... it’s just rhetorical cover to avoid the moral weight of the act.
You have already answered that question. Because the preemie was born alive. Birth has real significance, both physiologically and legally. Do government's issue Conception Certificates? No. They issue Birth Certificates. Do we celebrate a person's Conception Day? No. We celebrate a person's birthday. And a person's age is counted from their date of birth, not their date of conception. Existence in a womb does not come close to approximating human existence. Fetuses do not (with due apologies to Dickens) "take upon themselves the office of respiration" until they are born. Fetuses do not walk, talk, eat, see, or interact in any meaningful way with humans. Not until they are born. I have already conceded that fetuses are entitled to some measure of protection once they reach a certain stage of fetal development. The vast majority of Americans acknowledge this. My condolences that this is not sufficient for you. If it makes you feel better, you can always Join Operation Rescue and commence haranguing young women outside Planned Parenthood clinics
Birth is significant legally, yes... but law is not the measure of when life begins. Governments also issue death certificates when a heart stops beating, yet no one argues that legal paperwork is what makes someone alive. Birth certificates mark entry into society, not the beginning of existence. Scientifically, life begins at conception... that’s why embryology doesn’t say “development begins at birth.”
Your examples (birthdays, legal documents) are cultural conventions, not biological truths. We don’t celebrate “conception day” for the same reason we don’t celebrate “fertilization day” in a petri dish... but that doesn’t change what life is or when it starts. Even your own words concede that the unborn deserve “some measure of protection,” which undercuts your claim that they’re not meaningfully human until birth. If a fetus truly “does not approximate human existence,” why protect it at all?
And the claim that unborn children “don’t interact in meaningful ways” is simply outdated. Modern science shows fetuses respond to sound, light, and touch in utero; they recognize their mother’s voice and even show preferences. The womb is not a void... it’s the earliest environment of human life. To suggest existence only begins when lungs take in air ignores nine months of proven development.
The real issue is weighing it against a competing value: the interest in protecting fetal life and development. And by the way, do you have a daughter? If she is old enough to conceive a child, I hope she is on birth control, if you will allow that. No one argues people have the right to end another’s life for convenience, even if that person is dependent on them.I do. I absolutely do. But keep in mind that your use of the term "another's life" implies that a fetus has, even from the moment of conception, personhood. That's a (full) pantload. “Choice” ends where another life begins. And yes, abortion is legal in many places... but legality is not morality. You'll have to pardon me for not being in full accord with your standard of morality. Slavery was once legal, too. Slavery and abortion are two different things.
You’ve actually admitted the core point without realizing it... this entire debate hinges on whether the fetus is “another’s life.” Science has already answered that: from conception forward we’re dealing with a unique, living human organism with its own DNA, directing its own development. That’s not a “pantload,” that’s embryology. The only question is whether we, as a society, recognize that life as a person under the law.
The slavery comparison isn’t about identical circumstances, it’s about principle. Slavery and abortion are both examples of a stronger group defining a weaker group out of personhood to justify ending their rights or lives. Slaves were declared “not persons” for convenience; the unborn are declared “not persons” for convenience. The logic is the same even if the context differs.
And to your point about morality: legality doesn’t create morality. History is full of legal systems that enshrined grave injustice. The fact that abortion is legal in many places doesn’t settle whether it’s right... it only underscores that societies, like individuals, are fully capable of enshrining moral wrongs in law.
Yada, yada, yada, Pope Weapon_X. Are you expressing that opinion ex cathedra?
Sarcasm isn’t an argument. What I said isn’t “ex cathedra” or papal decree... it’s straight from Scripture and affirmed by the scientific consensus on when life begins. Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5, Luke 1:41... these aren’t my inventions, they’re God’s Word. You can dismiss it with “yada yada,” but that doesn’t erase the truth. A true follower of Jesus doesn’t get to redefine life or morality around cultural convenience.
Your opinions and disregard for human life don’t reflect Christianity... they reflect the world. That’s not discipleship, it’s play-acting. A true follower of Jesus submits to His Word, not reshapes it to fit convenience.
www.learning-mind.com
www.aol.com
