It could be argued that an objective of capital punishment is to send a loud and clear message to other potential perpetrators - the abortion message seems best served fuddled and muffled.

Jose “What we are trying to do is to show that an already criminalized act (terminating the life of a human being) encompasses something (abortion) which people have failed to recognise as falling into that category. It is science that proves that embryos are human individuals.”

“Death” is not necessarily an act of murder.

Police actions involving the death of violent and dangerous people who threaten the community is not murder.
Soldiers involved in military actions are not deemed murderers.
Robert Ryan was not the last man murdered by the state.

The above involve, to some an action perpetrated by one autonomous and separate individual against another.

Even when it does not involve another, the social classification of the act is not deemed “murder”.
Thus, someone who attempts suicide is not then charged with the attempted murder of themselves.

Similarly, abortion does not involve an action against a separate and autonomous individual.

It involves an individual exercising a decision regarding the deployment of their own body.

Jose, we are not “governed” by science. “Humanity” has evolved to recognise that reason and ethics exist to which the rules of science are subordinate.
Stem cell research has moved beyond scientific rules of possibility. It has become an ethical debate.
Likewise the main thrust of the abortion debate is an ethical issue, not a scientific issue.
Therefore, the “scientific evidence of human personage” is subordinate and irrelevant to the “ethical consideration of abortion.

Dealing with this superior ethical issue I observe-

Someone who is free is free to determine the disposition of their body and all its functions.
Those who are denied such freedom are, (in the matter of human gestation), a mere life-support system for the unborn. They are reduced to the level of a chattel or a slave.

I believe men and women are equal and as a man would never accept slavery as an option. Hence I will support every woman’s right to abortion and right to reject slavery to the will of prolife among their lifestyle option

Enaj,
Regarding war,
Firstly, we can distinguish that war is generally an action of a <state>. The Object of this action is not killing but usually economic.
Looking at Hitler’s invasion of the East, the Object was the acquisition of lebensraum. His movement West- the Object was the elimination of a threat. His decision to exterminate the Jews was an action with the object being killing, yes. This action was part of his big scheme (I do not stand for any of it, in case anyone is thinking that), of which there were many parts- the movement to war and the extermination of the Jews being related but separate actions.
In war, as we agree, the object of the actions of <individuals> can sometimes be murder- like shooting an unarmed man.
I don’t support wars, but sometimes it is necessary to get involved and I support necessary involvement- for example, the Second World War was, I believe, necessary to get involved in.

Col Rouge,
““Death” is not necessarily an act of murder.”
Read the discussion I have been having with enaj and you will see that this has already been explained.

Abortion is the direct killing of an individual. The fact that the unborn child is dependant upon the mother’s body does not mean that it is not an individual. This also has been dealt with.
Abortion is not- I emphasise, not- a decision regarding the deployment of an individual’s own body. The unborn child is not one in essence with the mother organism. There are two organisms- mother and child. Being connected does not make them one organism. They are two.
This is all science. You have argued a scientific argument- that an abortion is regarding the deployment of the mother’s body. I then refuted your flawed, science-based argument. You then went on to say that science is irrelevant in this debate. You have begun to hang yourself with your own rope.

Jose “This is all science. You have argued a scientific argument- that an abortion is regarding the deployment of the mother’s body. I then refuted your flawed, science-based argument. You then went on to say that science is irrelevant in this debate.”

I have put forward the notion that the embryo and mother share the resources of the mothers body I suggest you show us how an “individual embryo" can grow and develop beyond the confines of the mothers uterus. When you can you will have established the – science fact. – which you claim my post lacks. So show me the flaw in what I have posted.

I have promoted the view that the pregnant woman has first and foremost right, above and before the right of any embryo and any third person to decide how the resources of her own body will be deployed – further that the woman denied such right of decision is reduced to the status of a slave. - philosophical opinion.

I have suggested that “science” is subordinate to “ethical” or “philosophical” opinion. So what I am expressing derives not from scientific fact but from "philosophical opinion". This displays that you yourself are more given to misinterpretation of other peoples statements and have a tendency to rely of such misinterpretations and lies to support your own flawed opinions and claims (above).

As for “You have begun to hang yourself with your own rope.”

Hardly, Jose. Maybe you can illustrate to us all where you were given you the right to interfere in the private choices and decisions of people you do not know. I further suggest you read the dictionary (try dictionary.com) “abortion” and “murder” are two separate words. The definitions of each neither relies nor refers to the other.

Robert – I believe exercising the “choice” to have an abortion carries a huge personal responsibility and emotional burden. The point is, it is the woman’s own “choice” and own “burden” to decide and carry. “Society” is incapable of personal responsibility, except through the individuals who populate it

Although I often disagree with Col's ideas and the manner in which he expresses them, in this case I find myself in almost complete agreement with him. The decision to have an abortion or not will always ultimately rest with the pregnant woman, who will base her decision primarily upon her own assessment and understanding of her ability and willingness to give birth to a child. Ultimately this decision is based on her personal ethics and morality - which she has of course constructed on the basis of her education and experience.

I think it was enaj above who raised the very interesting example of the way that we regard miscarriages very differently from neonatal deaths, but it seems the 'right-to-lifers' have sidestepped her point, which was that a miscarriage, while undoubtedly grievous to the potential parents, is considered by others to be a misfortune of a much lesser order than is the death of a child that has been born.

This simply underlines the point, in social praxis and in law, that abortion cannot be murder, since no person has been born.

The pseudo-scientific waffling of some contributors to this tedious debate serves only to emphasise their ignorance of biology, rather than to add credence to the anti-abortion position. However, I suppose they are achieving some part of their tiresome agenda by perpetually drawing more enlightened people into reprising a debate that they lost in the 1970s.

You have said it yourself.
“…the embryo and mother share the resources of the mother’s body.”
Notice, that you have separated the embryo and the mother. You have referred to the embryo and the mother "sharing the same resources".
I have already explained that there are two organisms. Scientifically proven. Even your statement supports this. On top of this, (you can quote me on this one) "the fact that the embryo is a separate organism is what makes the mother a mother.”
What you are saying is, because the embryo is dependent upon the mother for life, this negates the individuality of the embryo.

Know this:
-Individuality does not mean Independence.
-Dependence does not negate Individuality.

Know this:
-Ethics is a Science.
-Ethics is a branch of Philosophy.
-Philosophy is a Science.
-Just as you cannot separate energy from matter, you cannot separate Science from Philosophy.

You misinterpret my posts. ie: you think I presume to have the right to interfere with private choices.
I do not have this right and neither do you. I have not even attempted this.
What I do have the right and responsibility to do is to create awareness of relevant issues, drawing solely from science and universally accepted laws (such as that against murder).