Political Crossfire Forums

[Prog]

cap'n queasy wrote: Protecting animals from second hand smoke is patently ridiculous.

Saving millions of innocent human lives is not.

Do you see now how come your analogy is not applicable?

What you consider 'patently ridiculous' is irrelevant to the "applicability" of the analogy.

(Note: it's not my analogy, its Richard Owl Mirror's)

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Lumina wrote: Prog wrote: Lumina wrote: Prog wrote: Lumina wrote: I really don't know what else to say to someone who equates human beings with animals and compares babies to pets.

It was an analogy not a direct comparison! **sigh**

Fine. Then learn the basics about analogy: There has to be more similar than dissimilar for an analogy to work. ***sigh***

Think some more about this analogy Lumina. What is analogous here, that is, what point is the analogy illustrating?

1. Babies are equal to pets/animals? OR......

2. The possible consequences involving the actions of that weekend's "Life Chain" compared to the hypothetical "People for the Protection of Pets from Passive Smoking"?

1 or 2 Lumina, your choice.

The point is that you're trying to draw an analogy between human beings and animals and that is doesn't work. Once again, for an analogy to work, there has to be more similar than dissimilar. So on the face of it, your analogy fails. Humans aren't animals; babies aren't pets. Get it?

If not, try Googling "analogy." Don't believe me; just study up.

:gdgf: And here I thought you to be an intelligent individual

The Analogy is: Forcing another to do what you believe.

Sheesh !

You really want to know how I feel about abortion?
I believe in accountability yet, I also believe young adolescents who are left without guidance will at times make huge mistakes that will effect their entire young lives.
I do not condone the "Oops I slipped up last saturday night" excuses.
The major point of contension comes in the determination of what constitutes HUMAN.
I say the zygot/fetus is not HUMAN until the brain becomes active.
Therefore i see nothing wrong with an abortion which is deemed neccessary under that threshhold.

[Lumina]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote:
:gdgf: And here I thought you to be an intelligent individual

Way to play, Richard.

[Obilisk18]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Lumina wrote: Prog wrote: Lumina wrote: Prog wrote: Lumina wrote: I really don't know what else to say to someone who equates human beings with animals and compares babies to pets.

It was an analogy not a direct comparison! **sigh**

Fine. Then learn the basics about analogy: There has to be more similar than dissimilar for an analogy to work. ***sigh***

Think some more about this analogy Lumina. What is analogous here, that is, what point is the analogy illustrating?

1. Babies are equal to pets/animals? OR......

2. The possible consequences involving the actions of that weekend's "Life Chain" compared to the hypothetical "People for the Protection of Pets from Passive Smoking"?

1 or 2 Lumina, your choice.

The point is that you're trying to draw an analogy between human beings and animals and that is doesn't work. Once again, for an analogy to work, there has to be more similar than dissimilar. So on the face of it, your analogy fails. Humans aren't animals; babies aren't pets. Get it?

If not, try Googling "analogy." Don't believe me; just study up.

:gdgf: And here I thought you to be an intelligent individual

The Analogy is: Forcing another to do what you believe.

Sheesh !

You really want to know how I feel about abortion?
I believe in accountability yet, I also believe young adolescents who are left without guidance will at times make huge mistakes that will effect their entire young lives.
I do not condone the "Oops I slipped up last saturday night" excuses.
The major point of contension comes in the determination of what constitutes HUMAN.
I say the zygot/fetus is not HUMAN until the brain becomes active.
Therefore i see nothing wrong with an abortion which is deemed neccessary under that threshhold.

The fetus is clearly a human. It may or may not be a person, but it's humanity is undisputable. I wonder though, when has it ever been the case that the government has been unable to proscribe someone's behavior simply because a "persons" life wasn't involved? Last I checked, dogs weren't persons. Also, the "this could ruin a young person's life" has never been a reasonable excuse for legalizing abortion. It conflates the law pro-lifers wish to enact, with results stemming from something, namely raising a child, no one has any intention of requiring. It's been said before and I'm quite sure it'll be said again: women are free to put their children up for adoption. No adoption agency can refuse to adopt a child. The moment a woman gives birth, any hardship inflicted upon her, by any measure or proposed measure, becomes entirely voluntary. To be honest though, despite the absurdity of the entire argument, I've always objected more seriously to the contention tacit in the argument. Namely, that women regret having their children. It's quite easy to discuss in the abstract the horrible lives women are likely to lead when "forced" (as if they had absolutely nothing to do with it and the fetus popped into the womb on a whim) to bear and raise (though as noted, this is never discussed) a child. It's another thing entirely to actually point to women who've experienced these horrors and who would, upon reflection, rather their children not be alive. I think pro-choicers do a very great disservice to the character of women seeking abortions. I think they would place them in a category of persons that are unique not merely for their extremely limited numbers, but for their callousness. Do pro-choicers imagine, I wonder, that ANY of the women who, since 1973, have birthed children and forgone an abortion didn't wonder at some point if they were up for the challenge; if their lives wouldn't radically change? The simple fact is, I'm quite sure every woman feels doubts. I'm quite sure every women has considered themselves not prepared for the task. But amazingly few women, after having their child, come to regret it and view their lives as "horrible". And I can't imagine why women seeking abortions should be unique in that regard. So stop all this nonsense about actual horrible lives. It is, at best, a perceived "horrible" life, created by an entirely absurd lack of foresight.

Edited to add: We codify laws forcing others to do what we believe quite often. In fact, that is ALL we do when we create laws. Seat-belt laws. An absolute travesty of a thing that fundamentally infringes on my right to take those measures I believe most likely to further my health and happiness and to summarily refrain from those actions I feel impede my health or happiness. Are they silly? Perhaps. Are they within the purview of the government to impose? Certainly. Do you have a right to, through your elected representatives, impose your will on me in this regard? It seems you do.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Lumina wrote: Prog wrote: Lumina wrote: Prog wrote: Lumina wrote: I really don't know what else to say to someone who equates human beings with animals and compares babies to pets.

It was an analogy not a direct comparison! **sigh**

Fine. Then learn the basics about analogy: There has to be more similar than dissimilar for an analogy to work. ***sigh***

Think some more about this analogy Lumina. What is analogous here, that is, what point is the analogy illustrating?

1. Babies are equal to pets/animals? OR......

2. The possible consequences involving the actions of that weekend's "Life Chain" compared to the hypothetical "People for the Protection of Pets from Passive Smoking"?

1 or 2 Lumina, your choice.

The point is that you're trying to draw an analogy between human beings and animals and that is doesn't work. Once again, for an analogy to work, there has to be more similar than dissimilar. So on the face of it, your analogy fails. Humans aren't animals; babies aren't pets. Get it?

If not, try Googling "analogy." Don't believe me; just study up.

:gdgf: And here I thought you to be an intelligent individual

The Analogy is: Forcing another to do what you believe.

Sheesh !

You really want to know how I feel about abortion?
I believe in accountability yet, I also believe young adolescents who are left without guidance will at times make huge mistakes that will effect their entire young lives.
I do not condone the "Oops I slipped up last saturday night" excuses.
The major point of contension comes in the determination of what constitutes HUMAN.
I say the zygot/fetus is not HUMAN until the brain becomes active.
Therefore i see nothing wrong with an abortion which is deemed neccessary under that threshhold.
I'm not forcing you to believe what I believe. Life is an unalienable right. You can't take that away.

Also, you need to take some biology classes :( From the moment of conception the unborn is a human.

[LostSoul3412]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Life is an unalienable right. You can't take that away.

You have no right to life, and it is quite easy to take another's life away.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: From the moment of conception the unborn is a human.

But it is not a citizen, and therefore not protected from government.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

LostSoul3412 wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Life is an unalienable right. You can't take that away.

You have no right to life, and it is quite easy to take another's life away.

Oh, yes we do. Read any self-defense legislation.

Quote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: From the moment of conception the unborn is a human.

But it is not a citizen, and therefore not protected from government.
Wrong.
Citizens are not the only ones protected under the law. I know you are refering to the 14th amendment. I'll give you a little history. The American Civil War started in 1861 and ended in 1865. When the Union won the war, the government wanted to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already given U.S. citizenship to those born in the United States .The framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to insure that this right would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would not be overruled by a simple majority vote in Congress in the future. This is why the first clause of the 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is to reinsure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was to give all those born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship. The second clause is to protect U.S. citizens from the power coercive power of the government and to afford every person equal protection under the law. This is law that protects illegal immigrants with U.S. laws. Since the illegal immigrants aren’t citizens, they should and they are afforded the protection of the U.S. government.

[Prog]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Life is an unalienable right. You can't take that away.

You have no right to life, and it is quite easy to take another's life away.

Oh, yes we do. Read any self-defense legislation.

Quote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: From the moment of conception the unborn is a human.

But it is not a citizen, and therefore not protected from government.
Wrong.
Citizens are not the only ones protected under the law. I know you are refering to the 14th amendment. I'll give you a little history. The American Civil War started in 1861 and ended in 1865. When the Union won the war, the government wanted to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already given U.S. citizenship to those born in the United States .The framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to insure that this right would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would not be overruled by a simple majority vote in Congress in the future. This is why the first clause of the 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is to reinsure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was to give all those born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship. The second clause is to protect U.S. citizens from the power coercive power of the government and to afford every person equal protection under the law. This is law that protects illegal immigrants with U.S. laws. Since the illegal immigrants aren’t citizens, they should and they are afforded the protection of the U.S. government.

Yes, we have heard this argument before. This protection was never intended to protect the unborn.

[Lumina]

Prog wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Life is an unalienable right. You can't take that away.

You have no right to life, and it is quite easy to take another's life away.

Oh, yes we do. Read any self-defense legislation.

Quote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: From the moment of conception the unborn is a human.

But it is not a citizen, and therefore not protected from government.
Wrong.
Citizens are not the only ones protected under the law. I know you are refering to the 14th amendment. I'll give you a little history. The American Civil War started in 1861 and ended in 1865. When the Union won the war, the government wanted to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already given U.S. citizenship to those born in the United States .The framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to insure that this right would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would not be overruled by a simple majority vote in Congress in the future. This is why the first clause of the 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is to reinsure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was to give all those born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship. The second clause is to protect U.S. citizens from the power coercive power of the government and to afford every person equal protection under the law. This is law that protects illegal immigrants with U.S. laws. Since the illegal immigrants aren’t citizens, they should and they are afforded the protection of the U.S. government.

Yes, we have heard this argument before. This protection was never intended to protect the unborn.

Now you're applying 20th-century sensibilities to the sensibilities of times gone by, and that just doesn't work.

[Lumina]

Obilisk18 wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Lumina wrote: Prog wrote: Lumina wrote: Prog wrote: Lumina wrote: I really don't know what else to say to someone who equates human beings with animals and compares babies to pets.

It was an analogy not a direct comparison! **sigh**

Fine. Then learn the basics about analogy: There has to be more similar than dissimilar for an analogy to work. ***sigh***

Think some more about this analogy Lumina. What is analogous here, that is, what point is the analogy illustrating?

1. Babies are equal to pets/animals? OR......

2. The possible consequences involving the actions of that weekend's "Life Chain" compared to the hypothetical "People for the Protection of Pets from Passive Smoking"?

1 or 2 Lumina, your choice.

The point is that you're trying to draw an analogy between human beings and animals and that is doesn't work. Once again, for an analogy to work, there has to be more similar than dissimilar. So on the face of it, your analogy fails. Humans aren't animals; babies aren't pets. Get it?

If not, try Googling "analogy." Don't believe me; just study up.

:gdgf: And here I thought you to be an intelligent individual

The Analogy is: Forcing another to do what you believe.

Sheesh !

You really want to know how I feel about abortion?
I believe in accountability yet, I also believe young adolescents who are left without guidance will at times make huge mistakes that will effect their entire young lives.
I do not condone the "Oops I slipped up last saturday night" excuses.
The major point of contension comes in the determination of what constitutes HUMAN.
I say the zygot/fetus is not HUMAN until the brain becomes active.
Therefore i see nothing wrong with an abortion which is deemed neccessary under that threshhold.

The fetus is clearly a human. It may or may not be a person, but it's humanity is undisputable. I wonder though, when has it ever been the case that the government has been unable to proscribe someone's behavior simply because a "persons" life wasn't involved? Last I checked, dogs weren't persons. Also, the "this could ruin a young person's life" has never been a reasonable excuse for legalizing abortion. It conflates the law pro-lifers wish to enact, with results stemming from something, namely raising a child, no one has any intention of requiring. It's been said before and I'm quite sure it'll be said again: women are free to put their children up for adoption. No adoption agency can refuse to adopt a child. The moment a woman gives birth, any hardship inflicted upon her, by any measure or proposed measure, becomes entirely voluntary. To be honest though, despite the absurdity of the entire argument, I've always objected more seriously to the contention tacit in the argument. Namely, that women regret having their children. It's quite easy to discuss in the abstract the horrible lives women are likely to lead when "forced" (as if they had absolutely nothing to do with it and the fetus popped into the womb on a whim) to bear and raise (though as noted, this is never discussed) a child. It's another thing entirely to actually point to women who've experienced these horrors and who would, upon reflection, rather their children not be alive. I think pro-choicers do a very great disservice to the character of women seeking abortions. I think they would place them in a category of persons that are unique not merely for their extremely limited numbers, but for their callousness. Do pro-choicers imagine, I wonder, that ANY of the women who, since 1973, have birthed children and forgone an abortion didn't wonder at some point if they were up for the challenge; if their lives wouldn't radically change? The simple fact is, I'm quite sure every woman feels doubts. I'm quite sure every women has considered themselves not prepared for the task. But amazingly few women, after having their child, come to regret it and view their lives as "horrible". And I can't imagine why women seeking abortions should be unique in that regard. So stop all this nonsense about actual horrible lives. It is, at best, a perceived "horrible" life, created by an entirely absurd lack of foresight.

Edited to add: We codify laws forcing others to do what we believe quite often. In fact, that is ALL we do when we create laws. Seat-belt laws. An absolute travesty of a thing that fundamentally infringes on my right to take those measures I believe most likely to further my health and happiness and to summarily refrain from those actions I feel impede my health or happiness. Are they silly? Perhaps. Are they within the purview of the government to impose? Certainly. Do you have a right to, through your elected representatives, impose your will on me in this regard? It seems you do.

Kudos, Obilisk. :clap:

[Prog]

Lumina wrote: Prog wrote:

Yes, we have heard this argument before. This protection was never intended to protect the unborn.

Now you're applying 20th-century sensibilities to the sensibilities of times gone by, and that just doesn't work.

The 20th century is a "time gone by". :roll:

What are you getting at Lum? Do we need to change the 14th to reflect the times?........well, that is the debate of the (21st) century now isn't it?!! :lol:

[Obilisk18]

Prog wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Life is an unalienable right. You can't take that away.

You have no right to life, and it is quite easy to take another's life away.

Oh, yes we do. Read any self-defense legislation.

Quote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: From the moment of conception the unborn is a human.

But it is not a citizen, and therefore not protected from government.
Wrong.
Citizens are not the only ones protected under the law. I know you are refering to the 14th amendment. I'll give you a little history. The American Civil War started in 1861 and ended in 1865. When the Union won the war, the government wanted to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already given U.S. citizenship to those born in the United States .The framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to insure that this right would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would not be overruled by a simple majority vote in Congress in the future. This is why the first clause of the 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is to reinsure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was to give all those born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship. The second clause is to protect U.S. citizens from the power coercive power of the government and to afford every person equal protection under the law. This is law that protects illegal immigrants with U.S. laws. Since the illegal immigrants aren’t citizens, they should and they are afforded the protection of the U.S. government.

Yes, we have heard this argument before. This protection was never intended to protect the unborn.

That's true enough. And you'd be hard pressed to find a single judge in the entire country who'd argue that the pre-born were, under the constitution, protected. Why? Because originalists don't create constitutional rights or protections out of whole cloth. The question isn't whether the constitution protects the pre-born (it doesn't), but rather, whether the constitution protects a women's right to abortion. If it doesn't, then the issue goes back to the states, where wonder of wonders, the people actually get to decide, through their elected representatives, what sorts of things they'd like enacted. It's this whole thing.

If you're going to twist the constitution to mean things it doesn't, then there's a far better case to be made for a fetal right to life then there is for a right to abortion. From the late 18th century onward, most doctors (including the AMA) in both the US and Europe had begun lobbying for bans on all abortions. So there's at least some basis to suspect that fetuses were accorded respect (if not citizenship or rights) under the original understanding of our constitution.

[Lumina]

Prog wrote: Lumina wrote: Prog wrote:

Yes, we have heard this argument before. This protection was never intended to protect the unborn.

Now you're applying 20th-century sensibilities to the sensibilities of times gone by, and that just doesn't work.

The 20th century is a "time gone by". :roll:

What are you getting at Lum? Do we need to change the 14th to reflect the times?........well, that is the debate of the (21st) century now isn't it?!! :lol:

Please reread my post. "Times gone by" obviously referred to times previous to the 20th century. Roll your eyes at me once you've realized that you misread a simple sentence. Thank you.

[Prog]

Obilisk18 wrote:
That's true enough. And you'd be hard pressed to find a single judge in the entire country who'd argue that the pre-born were, under the constitution, protected. Why? Because originalists don't create constitutional rights or protections out of whole cloth. The question isn't whether the constitution protects the pre-born (it doesn't), but rather, whether the constitution protects a women's right to abortion. If it doesn't, then the issue goes back to the states, where wonder of wonders, the people actually get to decide, through their elected representatives, what sorts of things they'd like enacted. It's this whole thing.

If you're going to twist the constitution to mean things it doesn't, then there's a far better case to be made for a fetal right to life then there is for a right to abortion. From the late 18th century onward, most doctors (including the AMA) in both the US and Europe had begun lobbying for bans on all abortions. So there's at least some basis to suspect that fetuses were accorded respect (if not citizenship or rights) under the original understanding of our constitution.

good, informative post. :tu:

[Prog]

Lumina wrote: Prog wrote: Lumina wrote: Prog wrote:

Yes, we have heard this argument before. This protection was never intended to protect the unborn.

Now you're applying 20th-century sensibilities to the sensibilities of times gone by, and that just doesn't work.

The 20th century is a "time gone by". :roll:

What are you getting at Lum? Do we need to change the 14th to reflect the times?........well, that is the debate of the (21st) century now isn't it?!! :lol:

Please reread my post. "Times gone by" obviously referred to times previous to the 20th century. Roll your eyes at me once you've realized that you misread a simple sentence. Thank you.

If is seriously cared....... "I would tell you to be less cryptic, (tone down idiosyncratic wit) and get more to the point"........but I don't.

[CursedLemon]

Lumina wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Today while driving to the market we saw, lined up along the roadway for an entire mile, a group standing along the side holding placards reading "Abortion is Murder" and other such slogans.

I wonder how many of the same people are only "Pro-Life ~ from Conception to Birth" :!?:

I don't know anything more about this group other than a whole lot of people donated their time to stand in protest.
Yet, with such an army of like-minded citizens I'm left wondering how else they could utilize that same time?
Are they willing to take in a young mother, support her during and after the birth?
Provide Medical and Dental Insurance for the child, make sure they get a first class education so they do not grow up and join a gang or sell drugs or steal for a living?

In my Opinion, if you want the power to tell another human being they MUST continue a pregnancy and raise the child all on your own, then you should also be willing to provide care and direction for the children for the next 18 years in conjunction with the mother.

You're right, Richard; you don't know very much about the pro-life movement. Let me assure you that those who are willing to take their time to pray in front of abortion clinics and to participate in this weekend's "Life Chain," which is what you saw, donate their treasure and talent as well as their time. What you saw was just a visible reminder of how many citizens are opposed to abortion-on-demand.

I realize that it would probably make many pro-choicers happy to believe that those who support life "only" carry placards or stand on the street protesting, but this simply isn't so.

Another insulting myth is that those of us who are pro-life care only about the unborn but don't give a damn about the babies who are born.
Put simply, this is a lie. Through Project Gabriel, which is the program my church supports (but there are many others) and what are called "crisis-pregnancy clinics," pregnant women are offered homes in which to live, job-training and jobs, child care assistance, and a host of other kinds of support.

My community has also begun a baby bank to help with money, cribs, diapers, formula, medical assistance, and etc. those mothers who choose to keep their babies. Physicians and lawyers donate their time to help with prenatal care and also the legalities of adoption.

Are you forgetting people that simply don't WANT the kids? Shouldn't you be working on supporting adoption centers?

[LostSoul3412]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Oh, yes we do. Read any self-defense legislation.

Self-defense legislation simply gives you the right to defend yourself, not with your right to life.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Wrong.
Citizens are not the only ones protected under the law.

Of course, but I'm not talking about protection under law, I'm talking about protection from government. Government can still pass legislation to terminate unborn persons under legitimate legal standing.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I know you are refering to the 14th amendment.

Not specifically, but it's part of American law.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Since the illegal immigrants aren’t citizens, they should and they are afforded the protection of the U.S. government.

:td:

They are granted the protection of the United States laws, but they are not protected from the government under the United States Constitution.

[The Grandmaster]

John Galt wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote:
In my Opinion, if you want the power to tell another human being they MUST continue a pregnancy and raise the child all on your own, then you should also be willing to provide care and direction for the children for the next 18 years in conjunction with the mother.

Why? Abortion IS the killing of a human being by another human being which has another name: murder.

Not necessarily. No one else has been able to conclusively demonstrate this, so it’s going to be in interesting to see how you go about it.

[Obilisk18]

The Grandmaster wrote: John Galt wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote:
In my Opinion, if you want the power to tell another human being they MUST continue a pregnancy and raise the child all on your own, then you should also be willing to provide care and direction for the children for the next 18 years in conjunction with the mother.

Why? Abortion IS the killing of a human being by another human being which has another name: murder.

Not necessarily. No one else has been able to conclusively demonstrate this, so it’s going to be in interesting to see how you go about it.

It may or may not be considered murder depending on whether you take a legal view, but abortion indisputably results in the killing of another human being.

[LostSoul3412]

Obilisk18 wrote: abortion indisputably results in the killing of another human being.

Two things:

1) That depends on your definition of "human being".

2) Even if the above is true, it isn't murder unless it is illegal. As is, under U.S. law, abortion is not murder.