[thecavemaster]

1) A woman who kills her unborn baby is not a murderer, only if the same principle applies to someone who blows another person away with a gunshot.

2) The only judgment I am making is that all human life is valuable and should be treated as such.

3) No one should be killing babies, I don't care how much money they have or how important they are. It's still murder.

4) Of course unwanted preganancies should be avoided. But if they do occur, murder is not the solution, adoption is.

5) If the fertilized egg does have value as a human life, how can it be so flippantly disregarded just because it would be an "inconvenience" to the mother?



This situation happens all the time, but is not applicable to the abortion debate. The victim is never "sacrificed" for the purpose of harvesting organs, that is a disgusting thought. The organs are never harvested unless the person is already dead, meaning they have been declared legally dead by the appropriate medical personnel. When the decision to harvest organs is made, it's not because the victim's life has lost its value, it's because the victim no longer has life. To think that the decision to "pull the plug" is due to a comparison of the relative value of the lives of the patients is disturbing.

The "victim" has as much ability to live, in fact they keep the victim alive so as to harvest the organs, as does a fertilized egg: both depend upon life support (machine, umbilical cord). Whether in war or peace, human life is differently valued in many, many instances. While I can see this point as debateable when applied to this issue, I cannot fathom how the general point could be. A person who has a purposed miscarriage, and the person who performs that procedure is NOT a murderer. We may as well agree to disagree on that point. If you like "legal" definitions, then Roe v. Wade is legal. Thus, you are mixing a moral value judgment with a legal one to suit your own purposes.