> Use any word you want. The semantics are the same.
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.
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 or event + loss of life = killing
2) killing (1) + of a human + by a human = homicide
3) homicide (2) + 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? it's as homicide (human killed by human) and it's premeditated. But is there malice? It depends.
Sometimes loss of life is inevitable. Sometimes it is done as a form of euthanasia or eugenics. Sometimes the pregnancy was accidental or involuntary. Sometimes it's due to economic reasons. Sometimes it's simply due to personal preferences or a state of mind... etc.
You can analyze the situation to establish whether the abortion (i.e.: homicide with premeditation) has malice or not, and whether you want to call it "murder" from a moral standpoint. But it remains a homicide with premeditation and should not be taken lightly.
For example, if the reason behind an abortion is solely to kill someone with Down syndrome, I would say there's malice there (eugenics is wrong). A person with Down syndrome is as worthy of life as everyone else, yet they are a frequent target of abortions. Likewise, in some cultures, male offspring is associated with prosperity and are preferred over females, even resulting in abortions based solely on sex. That's also another form of malice.
But if you want to feel happy with yourself and engage into "terminology gerrymandering" (e.g.: it's not alive, it's not a human, it's not a separate organism) or "terminology laundering" (e.g.: it's too small to be a homicide = structuring/smurfing), you'll be only playing yourself. The earlier in life you accept that reality is messed up, and that unfortunate things happen, while valuing human life, the better.
If you want to mix politics, religion, society, medicine, economics, etc. into a big ball of spaghetti resulting in endless arguing in a limbo of unhappy yelling people, you can also do that, but beware that many clever people will take advantage of you in the process. Ultimately, it's your life and you can spend your days as you see fit.
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 legislative 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? Should everyone with a chess ELO below 1000 be killed? Should everyone not able to solve a Rubik's cube be killed? Who defines what the minimum threshold to be worthy of life and reproduction is?
Eugenics is wrong and we should be able to say it. I've met people with Down syndrome who are formidable and inspire me to be a better person. People who have to wake up every morning and be resilient in an unforgiving world. And it makes me sick to think how many of them are being killed.
Steve Jobs was once a homeless person who consumed acid and ate charitable meals at Hare Krishna temples. A hard-line eugenics moron would have probably declared him unworthy of life or reproduction. Likewise, among the brilliant scientists and engineers that once put a man on the moon there are descendants of poor immigrants that arrived to America on boats infested with rodents, fleas and lice, many of whom had low IQ from malnourishment and exposure to pollution, and were also illiterate and unable to read. Eugenics is a stupid doctrine.
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.