A medical procedure is not the same thing as poisoning a woman. It’s tunnel vision to see the fetus at the end of a course of a medical procedure and at the end of a course of poisoning a woman, and say they are the same.

Outside the tunnel is the woman, who’s choice to become a parent remains included in both events. In one event her choice is transgresses upon, killed. In the other event her choice is a vital factor to the fact of the event happening itself. Medical procedures are a choice. Being poisoned is not. Both events destroy the available possibility of the woman becoming a parent at that time by destroying a fetus.

You don't get to twist the situation around to make it sound different. The scenario is this. Imagine that a woman goes to a doctor in the first trimester and gets a drug given to her to kill the fetus. In the second scenario a man acquires the same drug and slips it in her drink, killing the fetus. The latter is an actual real life case from Florida, and the man who did it (who was also a doctor) was convicted of first degree murder.

In both situations we have a doctor, giving the same drug to a woman, to accomplish the same thing. The only difference between the two situations is that in the first the woman gives her consent and in the second she doesnt. But you're arguing that her not giving consent turns a fetus from a non-human being into a human being. That's ridiculous.

Really though, that's why the legal system often sucks. It's not about consistency or justice, it's about being highly paid to convince judges of logical contradictions on technicalities. The more money you have, the more likely you are to hire someone smart enough to make bad reasoning sound reasonable.

Examining the breadth of the circumstances involved in hypothetical events involves a lot of details to include. Or else the evidence doesn’t have breadth.

What a pathetic evasion. This is a perfect example why dogmatism is so dangerous. It's terrifying to me that people who are unwilling to face totally exposed flaws in their reasoning have a right to vote.

The outcomes of the available possibility of the woman to become a parent at that time being destroyed are predicated upon different choices.

A man who poisoned a pregnant woman killed her choice to become a parent. Killed the viability she can become a mother.

The woman doesn’t kill her choice, she used it. She decides not to become a parent. No possible person can become viable therefore based upon that decision.

Outside the fetus tunnel includes viability as well.

In other words, a fetus is a human being whenever the woman decides it is. Yikes.

Well, a woman’s choice isn’t going to leave the breadth of evidence of what occurs during such events . So if that’s what the evidence suggests, it’s fair to at least say it’s viable.

Can you imagine a situation where a woman consenting to an abortion would be considered her committing murder?

In the US, no. Legally an abortion is not murder in the US. Again, *Murder* is a legal term.

Yes. And murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. So the fetus is a human being?

Is a fetus a human being? Is banning abortion like coercing your own mother to give birth to you?

Since terminating a fetus is NOT unlawful, it is not "murder" by your definition above.

Whether or not a pregnant woman wants to bring that process to term is simply none of the government's business.

Consider that the human spirit/soul being enters into the fetus at around 28 days. The real human being, the spirit/soul being, had planned incarnating into a particular fetus, particular parents ; this planning began within the previous 400 years prior to conception( assumption is an 800 year sojourn throughout the spiritual world between lives).

Even ancient Hebrew conceptions knew of this period of time (28 days) but since our thought activities have become mineral bound the leaders of the men relate to a fetus as a mineral or through mineral thinking.

Its the time of change and bring ourselves into the conception that we have a "soul" to which all of our experiences are related. Likewise the fetus has a "soul" and from this conceptual ideation we can move on to a true scientific reality, that of the living soul .

You experience a "feeling", you have a "thought" or perform a willful activity; all is soul work , or the realm of sympathy/antipathy with spiritual guidance through the activity of the "I" or "Ego".

The human body (the sleeping body) is the paints and palette of the soul/spiritual being.

Dealing with the idea of abortion can only be ameliorated by education of the Mother and Father with respect to their supersensible nature within reincarnation and karma, and then they can make a "free consideration".

The government , in present times , is about coercion without portfolio , but we're hopeful for a love laden future, the future of Men, individual men, who act independently to knowledge of the "good" and the "true".

You're leaving out the human being part.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. It consists of three elements:
1)Unlawful
2)killing
3) human being

If one or more of those elements are missing, it's not murder. If a fetus isnt a human being, then noone should be convicted of murder for killing a fetus. If they are, then abortion is lawful killing of a human being when the pregnant woman does it and unlawful when someone else does it.

So is a fetus a human being or not?

A fetus is a symbiotic being; part potential human in the making, part appendage. A fetus can justifiably, given it's particular dependant/independat state, be either murdered or aborted, since it's not yet a human, but it is alive and it is headed towards human-hood, unquestionably. Killing a tadpole isn't exactly killing a frog even if it means there will likely be at one less frog as a result. Murdering a fetus doesn't have to have a different punishment than murdering a "person", since a person is what a fetus is in the eyes of a mother that wants it, and it's her appendage. That she decides to have an abortion means she did not chose to continue to gestate a wayward sperm or a future unwanted person when they are still in a larva-like state, which is her right as a baby making machine.

A frog and a tadpole are the same organism just different stages of development. Kill an American Tree Frog or a tadpole of the same species and you have killed an Litoria caerulea. Kill a man or fetus and you have killed a homosapien. A fetus is just a prenatal human being. I think you can credibly argue a fetus isn't a person, but claiming a fetus isn't a human being is the same kind of error as claiming the earth is flat.

Agreed. The relevant question is "when should legal protection by the government begin?"

This brings in the question of whether or not the legal definition of "human being" should be based solely on the fact of **** sapien DNA or on some other test, like viability outside the womb or sentience.

I think setting the legal bar any earlier than 3rd trimester is a huge judicial overreach. I think giving government dominion over this aspect of human life is extremely dangerous.

A human being starts by having a mother. So far, human beings arrive in no other way. So it makes sense a person becomes a human being when another person decides to become their mother.

And look, like it is on-demand- there is a period of discernible time for a qualified person to decide if it is viable for them to become a mother. Morals about this can almost write themselves.

If I recall correctly the basis for the Roe v Wade decision was that SCOTUS found the state had no compelling interest in protecting human beings until they reach a certain level of development.

When the mother takes a compelling interest in protecting her unborn child, does that give the state a compelling interest in protecting her unborn child that it might not have had otherwise?

Premise 1. You should not kill another human being unless you have too.
Premise 2. A fetus is a human being.
Premise 3. Most abortions are performed as matters of convenience.
Conclusion: Most abortions are morally wrong.

I accept the argument above. Its premises are simple and true. The conclusion follows. Interjecting ideas like "a human beings starts by having a mother" only seems necessary if I want to backward engineer my moral framework such that it is okay with abortion. I don't think backward engineering a moral frame work is a good idea for individuals or society. I do believe most abortions are immoral. But should they be illegal?

Roe was also based on an inferred right to privacy with respect to personal medical choices, and inferred rights are supported by Amendment IX.

The reason Roe allowed states to ban 3rd trimester abortions is it acknowledged that state interest in protecting an unborn child became stronger later in the pregnancy.

Does a mother's consent create personhood? I would say no. Lots of women didn't consent to being pregnant it doesn't make babies born of rape any less human than babies born of consent.

Regardless, respect to personal medical choices conflict with individual rights if fetuses are human beings.

If you are asking me if Roe V Wade makes any logical or legal sense my answer is no. I believe the state should take a compelling interest in protecting all human beings. Scotus takes the position that some human beings are not worthy of protection which is why killing an unborn child is sometimes murder and sometimes not murder.