Abortion

I am not confusing things here. Perhaps Coat hangers aren't being used in abortion clinics, but other devices are. Which are in fact killing human beings in just as inhumane ways. please watch the following : (NOTE: these are cartoons because watching the real thing is just too unbearable for most people) ~ FIRST TRIMESTER ~ SECOND TRIMESTER It actually seems like you are trying to confuse things by coming up with these different definitions of A "right to life" that I have never even mentioned. In order to clear things up I will provide my definition of this "right to life" on which I base my arguments. Right to Life: The right of all human life from the moment of conception to not be killed/murdered by another human being. NOTE: this doesn't mean that everybody has to max out on the number of kids they can have... This just simply means once A human being is created (at the moment of conception) no other human being has any right to end that life. It seems you further try to confuse things by taking the definition of murder and applying it incorrectly to the situation by misconstruing the definition. Murder- the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority... Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. [1] Indeed this quote^ you shared does say that murder must be by A sane person to another, but does not specify that the person being killed must be sane. It merely states that the person actually doing the killing must be sane himself. The person being killed could be without "sanity". A good example would be someone going around killing people with autism or down syndrome, simply because one might say these individuals themselves are not completely "sane" does not change the fact that they are still human beings who deserve human life and have every right not to be killed. The man doing the killing ought to be put on trial for murder, and under our laws, would. You then add on to the end that since under the law it is not murder that it's not murder... but thats exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm saying that the law is wrong. So by saying that the law is the law and is just because it's the law really doesn't argue anything. It merely points out the law, which is exactly what I'm saying is wrong.... The fact of the matter is that these are human beings we are dealing with and no government can give the "legal authority" for one man to kill another, no matter how "sane" the second man is. He/She is still A person and does in fact have every right to life. You also say that because the website I shared is from Pro-Life advocates that makes it invalid. However, that is not true. The information I shared is still valid and the facts remain true. The fact that it comes from A Pro-Life website makes sense because once you learn that all human life begins at the moment of conception, as I have said many times, you generally tend to become pro-life. Below I will provide A link to A video that shows how human life begins from the moment of conception, and at the end of the video provides references to people who are not pro-life at all but still in fact admit that life does indeed begin from the moment of conception, ((so please watch the full thing)). THANK YOU