336 Million

[patches70]

You consider Steve Forbes withdrawing his contributions or anyone withdrawing their contributions as persecution? Where is their right to free speech? If people do not agree and decide not to participate nor facilitate that is not persecution.

Was Singer imprisoned? No
Did he suffer fines? No
Was he barred from espousing his ideas? No, hell he's written books and books.

The mans free speech has not been impeded. Quite the contrary. But just because someone has free speech doesn't mean anyone has to agree, espouse, participate or financially support said speech.

Death threats aren't nice, but just like you there are many crazy people out there. You don't seem to be the violent type, though your pro infanticide is quite disturbing.
You believe like Singer does that having sex with animals is ok? Hell, everyone needs some companionship I suppose. More power to ya!

You don't really have a plethora of people here agreeing with your views either. Is your free speech being denied?
People tend to draw the line at killing babies and considering babies as "Not really people".

Your pro infanticide coincides with your world view. You think there are too many people in the world and that steps should be taken, however drastic, to eliminate populations as quickly as possible. Though I doubt you have the courage to start with yourself if you truly believe that. You lack conviction. But kill the babies, because after all they aren't really people yet.

As part of my exercise in free speech I say you are a complete loon.

[Metsfanmax]

On this issue, I've found evictionism most convincing, which for the sake of argument holds that the fetus is human and a person. However, given the constraint in current technology, we cannot safely 'evict' the fetus at such an early stage, so the second-best solution is simply elimination--for the mean time. In the future, as our technology progresses---we can assume that removing a fetus and keeping it alive would cost very little, so in such a case, abortion would be wrong--given the availability and low-price of the substitute.

Note that little of my argument has anything to do with the fact that the fetus is in a woman's womb. The fact that this is true is generally what lends the necessary justification to take the life of the non-person fetus. However, many on the pro-choice take this argument too far. The problem with theories like evictionism is that they aren't interested in being part of a self-consistent ethical theory; it's constructed just to answer the question of abortion. Similar, and presumably what Frigidus refers to, is that many on the pro-choice side just skip the formalities and simply argue that the benefit to the mother outweighs the harm done to the child. I assert that whether or not a fetus can survive outside the womb, it is still not a person, and that only personhood is relevant for determining whether a killing is murder.

Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion on this topic because the definitions vary and are easy to reject, so the solution seems tenuous.

I reject the claim that all definitions are easy to reject. I agree that most are, because they end up with things that aren't logically or ethically consistent. But it is quite possible to come up with definitions of personhood that defy an obvious rejection, and that is where the interesting ethical theory comes in.

So, for the sake of clarity, why is personhood the only relevant factor for distinguishing murder from justifiable killing?

(I'm trying to get an idea of your foundational premises, upon which you build your stance).

First, let's change the language a little bit. The killing of a person can be justified in utilitarian ethics, even an innocent person who does not want to die (consider the classic example of diverting a train speeding towards five people strapped to the tracks onto a side rail where a single person is strapped to the tracks). As a utilitarian I am of course not an absolutist. What I am getting at here is that there is a significant ethical difference in the seriousness of killing a person that does not want to die, and killing a non-person. A person, that is capable of seeing oneself as existing over time, generally lives his or her life with certain goals and aspirations for the future, and killing this person negates the meaning of, and lays waste to, what this person has done and accomplished over his or her life. Another reason why personhood is relevant in determining the seriousness of the killing is that only persons are able to be scared by the act of murder. If some person kills another person against their will, then the other people in the vicinity will become less comfortable because of the thought that they too might be killed, and the quality of their lives will therefore be diminished.

A sentient but not self-conscious being (i.e. a non-person) generally lives only from moment to moment, so killing such beings is a much less serious action, especially if the killing can be done painlessly. Additionally, other members of that being's species will not understand the implications of the death, and there is no lasting impact to the quality of their lives.

[Metsfanmax]

Your pro infanticide coincides with your world view. You think there are too many people in the world and that steps should be taken, however drastic, to eliminate populations as quickly as possible.

I actually have recently been changing my point of view on global population issues, because I am not convinced the evidence stands up to the idea that a drastic reduction in world population is necessary. One sees that fertility rates generally are inversely correlated with increasing GDP*. Many of the main effects of China's one child policy relate to overcrowding, but my primary concern in terms of global population relates to energy usage and climate change. Based on some of the things I have seen lately, it's probably better to push hard for technological improvement to alternative energy sources rather than for de-population. Indeed, the fact that increasing populations spur opportunities for technological growth seems to be the main reason why Malthus' prediction has not yet come true. At any rate, I'm still learning more about this, so I'll have to take a rain check on that discussion.

*Edited this sentence because I stated the argument the wrong way.

[BigBallinStalin]

@Mets, makes sense to me, and I don't find anything too objectionable--mostly because we agree on what a person is.

[AAFitz]

The Nazis also redefined murder to justify killing Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.

As do governments that initiate war, and institute the death penalty.

Personally, I also believe allowing children to die of starvation is also murder but I expect you will redefine it.

[premio53]

How would you respond in these situations?

1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

God is the author of life, and He has given every single individual supreme value. Each life—whether inside or outside the womb—should therefore be valued by us. God knows the plans He has for each individual and has written in His book all the days ordained for us before one of them came to be. When we presume to know better than God who should be given life, we are putting ourselves in the place of God and are guilty of idolatry. (The evidence Bible)

[BigBallinStalin]

The Nazis also redefined murder to justify killing Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.

As do governments that initiate war, and institute the death penalty.

Personally, I also believe allowing children to die of starvation is also murder but I expect you will redefine it.

Interesting. So, how many children have you murdered today?

[Metsfanmax]

How would you respond in these situations?

1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

Just going to be honest here -- in two of those cases the world might have been better off with an abortion!

[premio53]

How would you respond in these situations?

1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

Just going to be honest here -- in at least two of those cases the world might have been better off with an abortion!

You're a sick individual.

[Metsfanmax]

How would you respond in these situations?

1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

Just going to be honest here -- in at least two of those cases the world might have been better off with an abortion!

You're a sick individual.

Am I, though? If we take your approach, then we also wouldn't have aborted Stalin or Hitler given the chance. Do you condone the Holocaust?

[2dimes]

How would you respond in these situations?

1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

Just going to be honest here -- in at least two of those cases the world might have been better off with an abortion!

You're a sick individual.

Am I, though? If we take your approach, then we also wouldn't have aborted Stalin or Hitler given the chance. Do you condone the Holocaust?

Why do you hate music so much?

[Metsfanmax]

How would you respond in these situations?

1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

Just going to be honest here -- in at least two of those cases the world might have been better off with an abortion!

You're a sick individual.

Am I, though? If we take your approach, then we also wouldn't have aborted Stalin or Hitler given the chance. Do you condone the Holocaust?

Why do you hate music so much?

I only like rap.

[rishaed]

How would you respond in these situations?

1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

Just going to be honest here -- in at least two of those cases the world might have been better off with an abortion!

You're a sick individual.

Am I, though? If we take your approach, then we also wouldn't have aborted Stalin or Hitler given the chance. Do you condone the Holocaust?

Yes, yes you are. And no, the Baby is not responsible for the future decisions that s/he could or did make. Just because I might become a paranoid schizo, who then goes and tries to kill half of D.C. does not allow the government to arrest me because it could be a future action of mine. And as such your question on if he or I condone the Holocaust is obvious. No, the Holocaust or any other Genocide of people is not condonable. Which is what you are proposing, a genocide of infants. As such your time perspective is faulty considering that logically you could then say that every infant without fail could become the next Hitler, Stalin, or Nero (no offense BBS). One must put into perspective that the decision must be made while they have not yet made a choice, whether good/evil and as such they have neither forfeited their lives to imprisonment/death. If I may speak, I do believe that neither premio nor myself condone abortion at all. You will reap what you sow. In other words you will receive the consequences of your actions, no matter how great or small.

[Metsfanmax]

How would you respond in these situations?

1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

Just going to be honest here -- in at least two of those cases the world might have been better off with an abortion!

You're a sick individual.

Am I, though? If we take your approach, then we also wouldn't have aborted Stalin or Hitler given the chance. Do you condone the Holocaust?

Yes, yes you are. And no, the Baby is not responsible for the future decisions that s/he could or did make. Just because I might become a paranoid schizo, who then goes and tries to kill half of D.C. does not allow the government to arrest me because it could be a future action of mine. And as such your question on if he or I condone the Holocaust is obvious. No, the Holocaust or any other Genocide of people is not condonable. Which is what you are proposing, a genocide of infants. As such your time perspective is faulty considering that logically you could then say that every infant without fail could become the next Hitler, Stalin, or Nero (no offense BBS). One must put into perspective that the decision must be made while they have not yet made a choice, whether good/evil and as such they have neither forfeited their lives to imprisonment/death. If I may speak, I do believe that neither premio nor myself condone abortion at all. You will reap what you sow. In other words you will receive the consequences of your actions, no matter how great or small.

All I am saying is, if God "authors" every life, that means God was directly responsible for the conception of Hitler, and if you're saying God wants us to never abort babies, then you're also saying that God wanted the Holocaust to happen. Who are you to then say the Holocaust was wrong?

[rishaed]

God also allows us to have free will, and to choose which makes us humans and not robots.
As it is written, I present before you life and death. Choose life that ye may live. For why will ye die?
And it is written again, Be not deceived. God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.

[thegreekdog]

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time).

comatose and unconscious people meet neither of these criteria. can we kill them all?

No. In the case of someone who is temporarily comatose or unconscious, one would obviously reach unintended conclusions if one applied directly the standard of presently seeing oneself as existing over time. Therefore the theory may be modified to be made more explicit by saying that a person is any being that has at some time been self-aware, even if they are not presently in this state (this is what I meant when I said that an organism has the ability to see oneself as existing over time -- it may not be exercising that ability at every moment, though). It can be modified even more if one were to discuss cases of humans in persistent vegetative states that are no longer capable of being self-aware, in which case one might want to extend the definition even further by saying that a person must have at some time been self-aware and also must be capable of being self-aware at some point in the future. These are complications on the main issue at hand, but do lead into interesting questions about how to treat, for example, brain-dead patients.

At any rate, I choose this definition as a simple way to express self-awareness. If you do not like it, there are other definitions. For example, a crude definition would be that any organism capable of passing the mirror test is a person.

From the age of 6 to 12 months, the child typically sees a "sociable playmate" in the mirror's reflection.

So if you have a child, it would be perfectly okay for someone to kill that child before he or she reaches 12 months of age? Note, I'm not talking about a child; I'm talking about your child.

No, of course not. There are external reasons why it would be gravely wrong for someone to kill my newborn child -- namely, the distress it would cause to me (although this is largely hypothetical as I do not intend to have children). My argument is that it is wrong but it is not murder to kill a newborn child. Note that I specifically advocated a standard of one month after birth to be conservative, because there will certainly be some cases of children maturing faster than the norm.

Although there are plenty of reasons why the typical absolute right to life standard is flawed,

I would like to get into this. Why is the absolute right to life standard flawed if applied to your definition of a person?

My apologies again for the lack of clarity; I was referring to the traditional "absolute right to life of humans" standard that is often espoused by, for example, the Catholic Church. One reason it is flawed is, for example, the issue of twinning. Twins can be formed up to two weeks after conception, and this muddles the question of what it means for the newly conceived fetus to be a unique person. Another is that it demands that we can never actively terminate the life of a gravely ill patient in serious pain, yet doctors effectively (passively) do this all the time when they, for example, decide to stop treatment on such a patient that extends the agony. From the doctor's point of view, both decisions terminate a life, yet for some reason people call the first murder and the second being a good doctor.

One is either a person or not a person. Once a being is capable of forming memories and being self-aware, it is a person. You are not more of a person than when you were a young child, but you were not a person at all when you were a fetus. This is simply logically obvious. If you insist that you were a person as a fetus, then all you are doing is redefining "person" as "human being," in which case the entire meaning of the argument is lost.

Can you flesh this out some more? This is where I'm having trouble with respect to your definition. Let's ignore abortion for a second and focus on the idea of "personhood" and your definition (from what I can gather): namely, self-recognition. If a human being will eventually be a person, why is it okay to kill the human being?

Well, because we don't apply rights when the conditions for those rights have not been fulfilled. Prince Charles is next in line to be the head monarch of England, but we don't presently grant him the rights of the King just because he will someday hold that title. A President-elect has several months after being elected where we do not give this person access to the nuclear football.

I'm also a bit concerned about your use of logic in what can only be considered a desire (namely, the ability or right to live).

There is no problem with it; in fact, it's the basis for my system of ethics (preference utilitarianism). Ultimately, reason and logic do not dictate what people's desires are; those desires are inputs that must be respected in a system of ethics. Perhaps for that reason, I don't believe in an absolute right to life for persons, but do believe that such an effective right springs from the categorical imperative. Namely, it is my desire not to be killed, so a proper universalization of that principle leads one to the principle that one should not murder.

By the way, for those that care - Mets' definitions and reasoning are not the definitions and reasoning used in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

This is quite correct. My arguments are not accepted as any current legal doctrine; nevertheless, I find them to be compelling on philosophical grounds, even if I doubt that after-birth abortion will be accepted any time soon in this country.

Thanks. This was helpful. I obviously do not agree with you. I can't get past the idea that, of all the things we may call rights, the desire to live is the fiercest defended. Whether it is logical or not, most living organisms desire to live above all else.

I also cannot accept your definition of personhood (or your analogy - one that I thought of before posting, but thought I'd wait). It's not that we're treating a prince like a king in the event that he may become a king. It is not certain that prince will become king. It is virtually certain that a human being will become a person.

If we combine the two: a human being's desire to live plus that it is virtually certain a human being will become a person, it is unacceptable, to me, to hold your point of view. Logic and reason should not factor in to the determination of a "right" or "desire" to live.

It's disappointing that you don't want to have children. I cannot begin to explain how much illogical and unreasonable love I have for my own children.

[Metsfanmax]

I also cannot accept your definition of personhood (or your analogy - one that I thought of before posting, but thought I'd wait). It's not that we're treating a prince like a king in the event that he may become a king. It is not certain that prince will become king. It is virtually certain that a human being will become a person.

I will dispute this claim before PLAYER gets in here. Something like 50% of pregnancies are estimated to be spontaneously aborted (although often this happens before the woman knows she is pregnant). It is far from certain that every conceived life will eventually become a person. Although I admit that if you wait until, say, the second or third trimester, this argument becomes stronger.

It's disappointing that you don't want to have children. I cannot begin to explain how much illogical and unreasonable love I have for my own children.

I will still consider it, but you are right that I can't possibly understand those feelings before having children of my own. I try to factor it in the "plus" column of my whether to have children spreadsheet (metaphorical spreadsheet, so far), but I don't know if it's enough for me.

[thegreekdog]

I also cannot accept your definition of personhood (or your analogy - one that I thought of before posting, but thought I'd wait). It's not that we're treating a prince like a king in the event that he may become a king. It is not certain that prince will become king. It is virtually certain that a human being will become a person.

I will dispute this claim before PLAYER gets in here. Something like 50% of pregnancies are estimated to be spontaneously aborted (although often this happens before the woman knows she is pregnant). It is far from certain that every conceived life will eventually become a person. Although I admit that if you wait until, say, the second or third trimester, this argument becomes stronger.

It's disappointing that you don't want to have children. I cannot begin to explain how much illogical and unreasonable love I have for my own children.

I will still consider it, but you are right that I can't possibly understand those feelings before having children of my own. I try to factor it in the "plus" column of my whether to have children spreadsheet (metaphorical spreadsheet, so far), but I don't know if it's enough for me.

Sorry, wasn't talking about abortion. I'm not interested in legal definitions in this thread.

I also will say that child rearing is not easy, and I won't pry into your other reasons.

[tkr4lf]

(although this is largely hypothetical as I do not intend to have children).

That's a real shame. You should father many, many children. You know, do your part in balancing out all the stupid people that shouldn't breed.

[Metsfanmax]

(although this is largely hypothetical as I do not intend to have children).

That's a real shame. You should father many, many children. You know, do your part in balancing out all the stupid people that shouldn't breed.

Why do that when I can just kill all the babies of the stupid people?

[2dimes]

(although this is largely hypothetical as I do not intend to have children).

That's a real shame. You should father many, many children. You know, do your part in balancing out all the stupid people that shouldn't breed.

7

[tkr4lf]

(although this is largely hypothetical as I do not intend to have children).

That's a real shame. You should father many, many children. You know, do your part in balancing out all the stupid people that shouldn't breed.

Why do that when I can just kill all the babies of the stupid people?

Do both.

It's for the good of humanity, mets!

[comic boy]

How would you respond in these situations?

1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

God is the author of life, and He has given every single individual supreme value. Each life—whether inside or outside the womb—should therefore be valued by us. God knows the plans He has for each individual and has written in His book all the days ordained for us before one of them came to be. When we presume to know better than God who should be given life, we are putting ourselves in the place of God and are guilty of idolatry. (The evidence Bible)

Your morals are entirely your own business but you wont find any support for your views in the Bible , abortion is not mentioned at all . You will of course argue that it comes under the subject of murder but I would like to know from where you draw the definition of a living being . The Bible does not say , The Torah defines life as half way out of the birth canal ( and is specific in allowing certain abortions up to this point ) whilst current secular science is far more pro life in its guidance than Jewish law at the time of Moses.
Doesn't your good book mention something about taking God's name in vain ?

[oVo]

The Story: The Chinese government recently admitted that over the last four decades the country has aborted 336 million unborn children, many of them forcibly.

China and India both have populations that exceed one billion people.

It sounds like contraceptive methods haven't worked out very well there and require a renewed emphasis towards birth control. Your focus here is on the abortion of unwanted pregnancies that you refer to as "unborn children," consider the tragedy of children actually born in China who are abandoned on the side of the road because they are female.

[oVo]

How would you respond in these situations?

1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

Actually in all four scenarios there is no evidence at all that John Wesley, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Ethel Waters or Jesus Christ would not have come into this world anyways.
Even if all of these women had abortions.

In #4 you are speculating that "her fiancé is upset" because she is pregnant, but maybe it's because he doubts her story of "Immaculate Conception" and suspects infidelity or that someone else tapped that sweet thing before he did.