So again, we have the classification of human life based on its dependence and cognitive abilities, which is immoral but convenient...
What makes you think that definition is immoral?
If that is immoral, then it is also immoral to force a woman to carry a fetus to full term.
All I am asking you to do is defend the rightness or wrongness of an action such as this, because it seems like no matter what the option there is an 'immorality' that is taking place.
Also, in order for something to be murder...there has to be an intent to kill. A woman having an abortion is not doing it to "kill a baby'. She is doing it to terminate her 'pregnancy'. There is not an intent to kill...it is more of an intent to not be pregnant. There is a huge distinction to be made here.
Isn't it immoral to call someone a murderer if you can't really know the person's intent?
Do you really think that many women get pregnant just so they can murder the fetus? Does that sound reasonable to you? Must be scary to walk down the street not knowing if the woman you just passed is a cold blooded murderer....
If human life is classified based on it's cognitive abilities and dependency then the life of an infant(dependent and cognitively undeveloped) is worth a lot less than the life of an adult. The life of a mentally handicapped person(cognitively impaired) as well. The life of a person in a hospital as well(dependent). It is immoral, in principle to classify human life like this..
If the woman was raped, she can end the pregnancy before it even starts(with a spermicide), if she was impregnated by accident then she has some responsibility, if she was impregnated intentionally she has full responsibility for the life that was created.
The murder charges should escalate from a)self defense (acquitted!), to b)criminal negligence or c)first degree murder!
(this is not my actual belief but a logical analogy for use in our debate)
If the option of 'extraction', that we have discussed, is present, then abortion seems to be completely immoral.
'Intent to kill' is only one of many legal clauses that classify manslaughter as murder. Some others are:
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine).
So abortion would still be murder under the above clauses.
Let's examine 'intent to kill'.
Since abortion cannot be performed without killing a baby, it is known by the female that is having the abortion, that the baby will die. So the act of having an abortion, intentionally, is intentional murder.
Women don't get pregnant to murder the fetus, of course!. It is after they get pregnant, that they decide to have an abortion. If i go in a notorious bar and end up in a deadly fight, i won't be acquitted on the grounds that 'i didn't go to the bar to kill'.
Look, i enjoy philosophical debate but i don't want to cause unpleasant emotions to you, as a woman, as a consequence of my arguments on this heated subject.
Consider it as a philosophical exercise, nothing more..Abortions will keep happening because they can't be stopped..basically. It is convenience that justifies them, not any moral code.
Goodbye and enjoy your day.