2) Measure the vital signs of the organism. You will confirm that it is alive.
3) Try the same with other mammals.
Please go ahead and try to falsify this. Have fun.
For an atheist, it's all life so ending the process at any point is technically death. Every sperm is sacred, so to speak.
For a Jew or Christian though, the Bible doesn't consider the unborn to be human until they are birthed. Instead they are considered potentially human. Since it is not human, killing it isn't considered murder.
Evangelicals wrongly believe their Bible considers the unborn to be human, thus their anti-abortion stance. If you look back to the 1960's, Evangelicals were not anti-abortion. That changed in the 1970's and here we are today.
This isn't true.
A fetus in the early stages of development is not alive in the regular sense because it is incapable of independent survival and lacks the requisite organs to sustain itself, experience pain etc.
Most elderly people including yourself some years from now will not be "self-sustainable". You will need help to move around, you will need medications to survive and all sorts of help.
There is a congenital disorder which makes you insensitive to pain. Does that make you not human?
It is a rather dumb argument.
Parents and Pharmaceuticals, that ought to be Raising Children, instead asking themselves daily all over the world, "How do we rid ourselves of our Offspring..."
Horrifying. Choose Chastity instead.
I didn't intend it in an ironic way, I am entirely serious.
But Genes demand Reproduction, so this wish is perhaps somewhat Futile.
They aren't.
The word murder commonly describes an unjustified killing.
That makes it incompatible with your specification as written.
So you'd have to use a different word here.
1) intervention + loss of life = killing
2) killing + of a human + by a human = homicide
3) homicide + premeditation + malice = murder
In the abortion case:
- an intervention takes place resulting in loss of life = an organism is killed (1)
- the organism being killed is human. the intervention is done by a human = a homicide (2)
Now, is it murder (i.e.: is it "wrong")? it's as homicide (human killed by human) and it's premeditated. But is there malice?
There are situations where loss of life is inevitable unless an intervention takes place, and there are other scenarios. This can be used to establish whether the abortion (i.e.: homicide with premeditation) is justified or not. But it's still technically a homicide with premeditation, regardless of whether it is justified or rightful.
I appreciate the way you lay out your argument but I refuse to agree because if you're right the consequences would be too much to grapple with.
Some abortions are justified, others aren't. A compromise was done that lets unjustified abortions take place, enabling a loophole for eugenics.
If we embark in this eugenics journey, where does it stop? Should everyone with a GPA of less than 4.0 be killed? Should everyone not capable of running a marathon be killed? Should everyone with less than 1000 followers on TikTok be killed? Should everyone not able to name at least 100 Pokemons be killed?
Eugenics is wrong and we should be able to say it.
For anyone who is not religious, the entire process of procreation through to birth is life. There is no point at which life begins because every part of the process is life. If any part of the process wasn't life, it wouldn't work. Everything the parent said is correct.
- There is an organism that is alive.
- The organism belongs to the human species.
- The organism is separate from the parents (different DNA).
- It's an intervention that results in loss of life.
- It's premeditated (regardless of justification).
Those are all irrefutable facts. The gestation phase doesn't change the facts above.
What do we call a premeditated intervention that results in the loss of life of an alive member of the human species?
Use any word you want. The semantics are the same.