On Sep 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, landmark wrote:
And why is abortion killing, but not murder? There's premeditation, no self defense involved in most cases. If you think it's killing, then it's murder one.

You are, of course, leaving out an element of murder.

Not to mention what I previously posted about the legal definition of "person" and "human being."

On Sep 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, landmark wrote:
And why is abortion killing, but not murder? There's premeditation, no self defense involved in most cases. If you think it's killing, then it's murder one.

You are, of course, leaving out an element of murder.

More than one actually. Not to mention what I previously posted about the legal definition of "person" and "human being."

On Sep 3, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, landmark wrote:
And why is abortion killing, but not murder? There's premeditation, no self defense involved in most cases. If you think it's killing, then it's murder one.

You are, of course, leaving out an element of murder.

Not to mention what I previously posted about the legal definition of "person" and "human being."

Actually, that's the element to which I was referring.

On Sep 3, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, landmark wrote:
And why is abortion killing, but not murder? There's premeditation, no self defense involved in most cases. If you think it's killing, then it's murder one.

You are, of course, leaving out an element of murder.

More than one actually. Not to mention what I previously posted about the legal definition of "person" and "human being."

Your a but except for all that stuff he nailed it.

On Sep 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
The US Code is the law of the land. Of that, lawyers and lawmakers are quite certain.

Legally, the abortion of a non-viable fetus is not murder.

On Sep 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
"Killing" and "murder" are not the same thing.

On Sep 3, 2014, tommy wrote:

Is it legal to execute a pregnant women sentenced to death and if not why not, if she is not carrying a “baby”?

On Sep 3, 2014, tommy wrote:

Is it legal to execute a pregnant women sentenced to death and if not why not, if she is not carrying a “baby”?

On Sep 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. Not all killings are unlawful, as in the case of military combat casualties, for example.

The US Code defines "human being" as follows. It trumps state law and is the law of the land. Unless a fetus is actually born as described in the USC, it is not a human being. Hence, abortion of a non-viable fetus is NOT murder and cannot be construed as such:

Quote:

U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

I am fairly certain I never disputed this. Am I right?

Yes, you are right. I actually posted that to support your position that ending the development of a life and murder are not the same thing.

It's acesover who regularly conflates legal abortion with murder.

Although abortion in the United Kingdom was traditionally dealt with in the ecclesiastical courts, English common law addressed the issue from 1115 on, beginning with first mention in Leges Henrici Primi. In this treatise, abortion, even of a "formed" fetus, was a "quasi-homicide", carrying a penalty of 10 years' penance. This was a much lesser penalty than would accrue to full homicide. With the exception of Bracton, later writers insisted that killing a fetus was "great misprision, and no murder", as formulated by Sir Edward Coke in his Institutes of the Lawes of England. Coke noted that the murder victim must have been "a reasonable creature in rerum natura", in accordance with the standards of murder in English law. This formulation was repeated by Sir William Blackstone in England and in Bouvier's Law Dictionary in the United States.

On Sep 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
You miss the point. "Person," "child" and "human being" all have legal definitions.

And where you ever got the idea that people just happily have abortions as a substitute for birth control and to make life "easier" is anyone's guess.