My argumant is not circular.
A circular argument has a premise dependent upon the conclusion.

Premise: Embryos are human beings (proven above)
Premise: Killing a human is murder

Conclusion: Abortion falls under the criminal act of murder.

If you call that circular, you have some revision to do.

Now, 3 things.
1) You have failed to disprove my argument.
2) You have made a groundless supposition that I am doing nothing towards "stopping world poverty and war" (a drowning man will clutch at a straw).
3) You have made a groundless supposition that I don't have a life (another thing that you cannot prove).

Jose,
Embryos are human, yes.
Killing a human is murder, not always.

A few simple examples; war ( sanctioned by churches and religions for millennia), capital punishment, also often sanctioned by churches, though not by me. Self defence and, of course, euthanasia or mercy killings. Sometimes killing a human happens by accident, in car crashes for example and we don't judge that as murder, and, in my view, abortion. What if, Jose, the mother will die bearing the child? If that happens is the child guilty of murder?

Your argument may or may not be circular, but it is very black and white. In my world, jose, and I suspect, most peoples, we struggle with many more shades of grey. No-one likes the idea of abortion, but sometimes, some of us see it as the lesser of two evils.

An interesting question for you. If a woman dies from the result of a backyard abortion, is that murder too? Or has only the embryo been murdered? What if she stuck the knitting needle into her own uterus in desperation, did she murder herself? Or did we murder her by giving her no safe alternative? Saying that killing another human being is always murder is far too simplistic, it seems to me.

Enaj,
about war and issues like that which you raised,
The Object of war is not killing. However, in war, murder does happen. An hostile enemy with a loaded gun can be shot justifiably (because the threat is proportional). If the enemy is coming at you with bare fists, you cannot shoot him dead. The threat is not proportional.

Accidentals, like car crashes, if truly accidental, no worries.

Mother dies in childbirth, doctor did best effort, baby not guilty of murder because the baby did not perform an action. Murder is an action.

My argument you say is black and white. What I mean is this,
This is meta-ethical. This refers to how we determine what actions are murder, manslaughter, etc.
If the Object of an action is to end the life of a human being then it's murder.
You raised self-defence. Is the object of self-defence ending a human life? No.
The Object of self-defence is exactly that, self-defence.

"If a woman dies from the result of a backyard abortion, is that murder too? Or has only the embryo been murdered?"
No it's not murder, it's a combination of bad luck and stupidity. Only the embryo has been murdered because that death was the only death which was the Object of an action.

"What if she stuck the knitting needle into her own uterus in desperation, did she murder herself? Or did we murder her by giving her no safe alternative?"
No, she was just being over-dramatic. The object of her action was to kill her unborn child, not herself. There are always safer options for the 2 of them.

"Saying that killing another human being is always murder is far too simplistic, it seems to me".
-You are right. It is in fact like this:
When the Object of an action is to kill a human, it's murder.

enaj, I'm broadly in agreement with the comments in your last post but would like to put forward some observations/viewpoints from my "shades of grey" world.

- It seems to me that most people who support abortion oppose capital punishment and that most opposed to abortion support capital punishment. I understand the viewpoint of someone who wants to protect the innocent and punish the guilty and also from the idea of a foetus not being human but don't get the bit where an innocent human is less worthy of protection than a proven murderer.
- I'd regard the choice to use the knitting needle or a backyard operator as either risk taking behaviour or suicide not murder on the part of society. I'm having trouble putting together a brief justification for this view other than idea of personal choice and responsibility. There are other choices even if they may not be good ones.
- There are times when a lot of us regard some "accidents" as no better than murder. Those times when a person persues a course of action which had a clear risk of killing someone else. The habitual drink driver etc. There is a difference between manslaugher and murder but sometimes the line is very thin.

R0bert

Okay, so we're clear that killing a human is not always murder.

How you can quite claim that the object of war is not to kill people is a bit lost on me. When soldiers line up their sites to shoot someone in the head, seems pretty purposeful to me, same with dropping explosives from the sky on cities or laying, what are they called; "anti-personnel mines". I think anti-personnel is military speak for killing people.

As to your point Robert about capital punishment versus abortion, the difference for me is not guilt or innocence, the difference for me is being sentient, in other words conscious of what is being taken from you. A convicted criminal still knows and fears death, an embryo does not.

That's the trouble with black and white positions, most human beings have contradictory beliefs. Many right to lifers also support some wars (perhaps Jose does), and some support capital punishment. Many pro-choicers, like me, are opposed to capital punishment. I do agree, however, that just like abortion, going to war can sometimes be the lesser of two evils. Even though its object, like abortion, is to kill people. The difference is war kills people who do not want to die, abortion kills embryos who have no concept of life or death.

enaj, thanks for the answer. As I've previously mentioned I'm sitting on the fence to some extent on this issue.

I share the concerns of some that "choice" may be being treated too lightly. The suggested rates of abortion are much higher than I suspect reflect genuine need. In the end I agree that the woman needs to be the one to make the choice. At the same time the right to make the choice carries with it a responsibility. The issues around the foetus are not well enough understood for any foetus to be terminated casually (can an abortion ever be a casual decision?).

Not sure how we get that balance and I am hoping that discussions such as this help us find a way forward.

Cheers
R0bert