I wasn't talking about murder and your original post didn't mention murder. I was responding to the two points you addressed:
That's true - you never mentioned murder and neither did the original post. Why use words like "murder" when "legalized killing" will still convey the right meaning to the right people and keep the rest from calling you on your bullshit, right?
Still, you did not mention murder. And since you helpfully included the things that I was responding to you in your post, I'll answer there.
1. Whether it's debatable that PP "is in the business of killing babies." If you believe life begins at conception, that point is not debatable.
Even if life begins at the very instant of conception, when the ovum is fertilized by a sperm, what does that matter? The question shouldn't be "when does life begin", but should start with something more basic: "what makes a human being a human being?"
Consider, for example, the case of a fetus that does not develop normally. Such fetuses are, through complicated mechanisms that we need not go into, aborted but some do slip by.
Let's think about such a fetus with anencephaly - literally meaning "without a brain" - that was carried to term and was then delivered. Typically, if born, such babies are allowed to naturally expire without providing any medical intervention or assistance that would typically be provided to a newborn that is in even a hint of distress. It is, unquestionably according to you, "alive".
So should we try to keep this baby alive? Or allow it to expire? If the latter, is this a "killing" since the baby is alive? If not, why not?
And if it's acceptable to allow the baby to be born, only to then die, without making any effort to save it, would performing an abortion be acceptable or would it be considered killing it?
Which brings us to a more fundamental question: is the important distinguishing factor whether the baby is alive or not, or whether it is a
human being?
2. Whether "Roe v Wade provides for the legal killing of babies." That really isn't debatable either if you believe life begins at any point before viability, which was the benchmark in Roe.
Well, you've used this "isn't debatable" bit before, and I think I'm doing a pretty good job of showing that it
is debable, so humor me for just a bit longer...
Again, let's be good sports and assume that life begins at the very instant of conception - way before viability. For the first 24 or so hours after conception, the zygote is only a
single cell and that cell is inside the Fallopian tubes. It is undoubtedly alive, but we've already established that whether something is alive or not isn't the deciding factor. And although it has the potential to develop into a human baby it is not one yet.
Neither of the preceding points deal with "murder" or whether a mother should be "forced" to carry a pregnancy to term.
Considering that (a) you believe that life begins at conception, (b) murder is the premeditated killing of a human being, (c) the act of aborting a fetus will terminate it's life and (d) this requires premeditation, how are the preceding points not dealing with murder?
You have only two choices: either you must claim that a fetus, albeit alive, isn't a human being or you must agree that the killing
Regarding my views on life, I believe life begins at conception. When do you believe life begins?
When life begins is irrelevant, but if you must know the answer to that question, I believe that the fertilized ovum is alive. But, for the reasons I've explained, I don't think that means much.
Now, if you want my position on abortion, it hasn't changed since the last time you asked: I believe that there exists a point in time after which a fetus is close enough to a human being that it needs to be granted some of the rights and protections we affords human beings, but not at the expense of the rights and protections of another.
Frankly, I'd prefer a world where there were no abortions, however, I don't think that's realistic (or advisable) so I'll settle for as few abortions as possible.