Response to pro choice outrage :

I can understand supporting a woman's right to do something regarding her own body, and that that is argued by many to be different than murder.

There is a paradox here that I have not resolved. Also, let me just state I'm not trying to comment here on my own personal views of abortion. Ok, moving on:

The pro-abortion position is generally the following: that abortion isn't really murder, and that a woman's right to choose regarding her own body is paramount.

The anti-abortion position is generally the following: that abortion is murder, which is unjustified for matters of convenience (whereas saving the life of the mother would be a different story).

So: if it isn't murder for a woman to obtain a late-term abortion, then it also isn't murder if someone else kills that same fetus at the same stage of development. A third-party killing that fetus without the mother's permission would be interfering with a woman's right to choose, but it wouldn't be murder by the definition commonly held by the pro-abortion camp.

Conversely: if it is murder for a third-party to kill that fetus without permission, it is also murder for a woman to have it done by her own permission.

To maintain a consistent position, neither side can have it both ways.

What CAN be both ways, and is consistent, would be the following view: if willful abortion isn't murder, then forcible killing of the fetus by a third-party constitutes an assault/battery/infringement on the woman herself, and does not constitute a murder of the fetus.

If the fetus is given independent status to the extent that it can be considered murdered, then abortion cannot escape that charge also, although abortion may have in varying degrees extenuating circumstances or even necessity (to save the mother's life) as an excuse.

The woman clearly has more right to decide matters than would a third-party have the right to kill the fetus absent her consent, but the categorization of murder (or perhaps something lesser such as manslaughter) must be consistently applied, or not, regardless or who kills the fetus.

I don't see how this can be thought of logically and consistently in any other fashion; thus the paradox of which I spoke, which appears to me to be inherent in the positions of those who would call it murder for a third-party but not for the mother. At least, SBR, you said you support the right of the mother to murder her own fetus until it can survive on its own. edit: So your position is not inconsistent in the way you categorize the fetus. (I'd wonder if you meant a young born infant too, as it clearly cannot survive on its own either, but I doubt you meant that. Also, many premature babies survive just fine with a bit of special care. But that's a different discussion).

The fetus either counts as a human being capable of being murdered, or it doesn't. Many factors can impact whether an act is considered murder or not, but the categorization of murder is never dependent on who does the killing.

At least, that's the way I see it.

Thanks for reading.