Abortion is murder
 

No two ways about. In order for the pro-choice argument to be taken seriously by an irrational, emotional public, it must omit this crucial reality.

Although a mass of non-sentient cells gestating in the womb is still human, one can feel less guilty about putting it to death and erasing its possible future than they can about an infant already born. It doesn't make it not murder simply because your victim cannot speak, hear, see or think.

"When does life begin?" is a misleading question. The answer that faux debate is actually searching for is, "when is a person formed?"

The moment a fetus is conceived, it consists of living tissue belonging to what will eventually become a person. It is alive and human.

A woman has every right to alter her body how she sees fit, including altering it to not be pregnant any longer. She does so, however, at the cost of a human life. Indeed, people who claim they value human life, but are fine with abortion, only value it conditionally.

The day that medical science figures out how to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb is the day the false dichotomy of choice vs. life will disappear.

As long as the child is still in the womb, I think it's a parasite. Every pregnant woman should have the right to have it removed.

Ashtray, although I agree with most of what you said, you're gonna have one hell of a time if you think you can change the minds of some people. Abortion has been an on-going issue that will probably never have a proper solution.

I wonder. Are there people here who are for abortion and don't care whether it's murder or not?

I'd like to see people who are for abortion confront the murder aspect, though I suspect we'll see the dehumanizing language common to pro-choice arguments being used.

(For the record: not being a woman, I'm rather indifferent to the issue)

It's not an aspect. A fetus, whether you like it or not, is NOT a child. A child is outside, a fetus is in. Saying a fetus is a seperate human being is like calling an egg a chicken.

I didn't say it was a child, but that it's human life.

Excluding vegans, we make omelettes because the lives of chickens do not mean much to us. Allowed to gestate, the egg will become a chick and then a chicken. That doesn't happen with our omelet, because we kill that life.

So is a single human cell.

That shows how much you don't know. Chickens lay eggs, even when they AREN'T fertilized. Imagine it as the hen's equivalent of a period. The eggs people eat won't hatch.

I'll reiterate if you want to be pedantic: Any cell alone coming from a human being does not constitute human life in the context of the discussion. A zygote does.

Not very relevant, but a wonderful factoid indeed.

No. A Zygote is a potential human. I'd like to see someone adopt a Zygote.

Better not waste sperm or eggs the potential for a human is there.

Perhaps you mean 'potential person' ? Zygote, fetus, infant, teen and adult all fall under the category of human in addition to being alive.

So does my skin cells.

What should have been posted before my edit time ran out due to interruption:


Perhaps you mean 'potential person' ? A zygote, fetus, infant, teen and adult all fall under the category of human in addition to being alive. There is no point in a human being's development when s/he is not alive.

I'll ask, at what point do you believe the cellular mass becomes a human, and is there a point at which abortion is unacceptable?

About 9 months.

Abortion may or may not be murder but a woman should always have the right to abort or not to abort. Fair enough eh?

Abortion is not a murder since we use a different word for it .
Think how much suffering was spared to this world only if women were free to have abortions through the history , without being called murders or whores , or even beaten just for making the atempt .
(Besides the forced marriages ...)

You've identified the correct question, or at least the closest thing to it that is likely ever to have a place at the table except among deeper thinkers. The problem is that you're doing exactly what you accuse the pro-choice people of - ignoring that question by pretending that it's already settled.

It's not that something is wrong with your argument. It's that you haven't even stated an argument, so there's no case to refute. You simply assert by fiat that a zygote is a person. I think we're entitled to at least some half-baked sophistry and flimsy lies. Hell, we could get that much from George W. Bush.

Simply asserting that a zygote is a person with a greater tone of conviction, or more often, or with a red face or tears in your eyes doesn't help anything.

Meanwhile in the real world, there's no magical line between human and non-human (or perhaps more to the point, person and non-person). So we're going to have to decide arbitrarily - not to say without basis - what operational definition we want to use. But we can't even have that discussion yet, because both sides are clinging to grossly oversimplified views of the issue, and venemously attack anyone trying to introduce common sense or genuine thinking into the picture.

His view is still more correct than pro-choicers who ignore the line of unlife and life.
A sperm and an egg merge. Bam, you have the forty six chromosomes that makes a human.
It seems to be the most logical assumption of when human life begins.

If pro-choicers decide to argue, they're the ones with the burden of proof to place an arbitrary line.

I'm a pro-choicer because I don't believe that human life has any value without interaction. The zygote's still a human, but that in itself has no intrinsic value that supersedes the mother's will.

Poppycock. Having a zygote isn't the same as having a baby. There are plenty of factors that could keep it from ever being one.

What's the difference between a zygote and a baby that make the former nonhuman that you can't use about a baby and an adult that make the former nonhuman?

A brain?
Conciousness?
The ability to feel pain?

Humans murder each other all the time just like animals kills each other, funnily enough it's because despite all our evolution and hype about our selves, we're still animals.

Murder is just another way of saying kill but aside from its' meaning it has an intention; trying to help convince us a collective species and community that we're above primal instincts and some higher form than the rest of nature.

In addition to:
Legs
Ability to survive outside the body
Arms
Eyes
Ears
Etc...

I think they're on the same page, actually. If someone here is a garden variety pro-lifer or pro-choicer they can correct me, but I believe that the generic pro-life line is that a zygote is a human, and the generic pro-choice line is that it isn't. Both of these are positive assertions which require support. Neither side provides any such support. Unless I'm missing something.

I see the appeal, but I think "logical" is the wrong word choice here. It's a gratifying way to draw the line, because at least it has the advantage of being tolerably clear-cut (although I could easily play hell with it using well known facts of biology). There is a difference, however, between what's emotionally gratifying and what's intellectually satisfying. The latter requires something stronger than there being no obvious better option.

You have to draw a line if you want to claim that any particular action, including the killing of an adult human being, is (or is not) "murder", in the ordinary sense of the word. Mere demurer to positive claims does not involve a burden of proof.

I've never ever expected this topic here.


Morally, It's murder.


Legally, If the parents allowed, it's not a murder.


Isn't it ?

Because of ...even if parents didn't kill their children while they're still in the wombs, Raised them without care and attention are considered to be a murder, too.

ps. Murder with further damage to the society.

If we didn't have abortion, where would we get the protein in shampoo? Look, even if you make abortion illegal, it's still going to go on. You may as well fully legalize it. After all, you're doing your part by not getting one.

The above post is TRUE.

Think about it. If $hade's parents had gotten an abortion he never would have been thrown out on the street, r@ped and cried about it online. Think of all the suffering it could have prevented.

This is a very good article about abortion.

http://www.overpopulation.org/abortion.html


ps. I think EtS tried to say something that is not related to the topic, as always.

My mom had an abortion once. She only had a 25% chance of carrying the embryo to term and about a 50/50 shot of living if she even attempted to carry it to term because it was an ectopic pregnancy in a particularly unfavorable position. I'm glad that she made the choice she did, though some people may not understand how she could do such a thing.

I personally don't agree with abortions as birth control but there are many cases in which I really don't see how it is anyone's choice besides the woman carrying the child. Even if you personally believe that abortion is wrong you must understand that no matter what the law is abortions will continue to occur. They have been around as long as long as there has been "civilized" society and are not going anywhere, all that can be done is to make them safe by allowing professionals to perform them.

There's little debate as to whether or not a 9 month old fetus is a living human being, since that same mass of cells can be born instead at 8 months and meet the criteria for being a person.

Regardless of when that life is a person or not, you believe terminating it is acceptable in order to for a woman to not be pregnant, yes?

(That first part raises another question, namely that if baby were born prematurely, would killing it not be murder?)

Ja, like I said in the first post. I just think intellectually honest people shouldn't sugarcoat the act.

By suggesting abortion is murder, you are suggesting that it should be illegal?
To make abortions illegal would be utterly absurd. Should a woman who has been ***** and as a result impregnated be forced to have that baby???
It is not murder until outside the body.

Yeah,


I'm really agaisnt abortion. I definately don't like it. I disagree with it. I understand why people view it as murder.

However, I do understand that a woman has the right to make the choice since the child is still in womb. Besides, some women who really want to get rid of the child, might get a back-alley abortion with a wire hanger. I don't want her to harmed either. Overall, as much as I really don't like the thought of killing a child, the choice is up to the woman.

Oh another thing, some people feel that they aren't killing a life. THat's the thing that bugs me about certain pro-life people. That's the ONLY argument they have! At least the one's I met.

Good point. Defining the moment a human being is created wasn't the original aim of the thread but that was an expected consequence of starting the topic.

I happen to believe that a zygote constitutes human life. Here's why:

It is alive.

It is genetically distinct human organism.

Most importantly, if permitted to carry out its living functions it will mature into a person.

At no point is its life interrupted. Now one might say that yes, it is alive, but not yet a human being, that it transforms into one later in its development. That's fine and a valid area of debate. But unless I'm mistaken, by current definitions it is a unique, human life form.

Well, since person and non-person are both arbitrary classifications in themselves, why can't there be a magical line? Provided the issue is approached logically. If you believe x to be true, then so must y be true etc. Agreed on the last bit.


That's a different can of worms. I think if it were established that it's murder it wouldn't make the practice less or more desirable.

Murder is illegal though. What are you trying to say if not to make it illegal?

As Raptor said, murder is illegal. Therefore if abortion were murder, it would be illegal.

Something all animals have, and yet we eat them, which leads to the conclusion that none of this are intrinsically valuable to be considered a human.
These ones, of course, are just irrelevant.

But yet both pro-lifers and pro-choicers keep trying to defend their stances based on only this black/white arbitrary line: where it becomes murder.
If pro-choicers choose simply to disregard the matter of 'murder or not murder' as a red herring (I do), then this becomes irrelevant.
But as soon as both try to fight only this one aspect of abortion, then it is pro-choicers who have the burden of proof.

Murder was an inaccurate choice of words on my part, since the killing of humans isn't necessarily illegal (such as in executions). Replace it with 'murder' with 'homicide.'

Murder is taking a life. Abortion's are generally done up until the 24th week of gestation. This is because after the 24th week, the foetus becomes viable. Which means that it has a good chance of survival with medical intervention. Before this it isnt viable and is only 'alive' because the mothers body is keeping it alive. Up until the 12th week, abortions are done for free on the NHS (no idea about other countries, so appologies). 12-24 weeks you have to pay to have it done privately in a clinic, UNLESS it is recommended by a medical team, usually because the mothers life is at risk. After 24wks it is classed as selective termination and usually related to multiple pregnancies.

The old abortion being murder issue is seriously outdated. Mainly because women have the right to do what they want with their bodies. The only time i disagree with them, is when girls go shagging around unprotected, get knocked up and then see an abortion as the easy way out. I dont agree with it being caled murder though

True, but you didn't ask what qualities made them unabortable or abortable, you asked for differences between a zygote and a baby.

Also, I'm not 100% sure I think eating humans is wrong.

I don't think I would be very interested in eating a person, most of them don't take very good care of themselves and you tend to be able to taste it when things haven't been well cared for. That and supposedly people taste a lot like pork, which I don't particularly enjoy.

Without the option of abortion, there would be twice as many unwanted children being left abandoned on door steps and in orphanages. Be they perfectly healthy babies or severely disabled ones. Look at articles on chinese orphanages and decide if abortion is wrong, but leaving living children in a room to die is humane. I know which i'd prefer to have happened

So you just want a different word?

Hmm fetuses can be used to mend bones or tissue. Very useful when a spine is cracked in some places.

Abortion should be a choice for the mother.

Are people on life support not alive?

If no harm is being done, what's wrong with it? I ask out of curiosity.



I'd like it called what it is, or could be. The current mishmash of arguments supporting abortion includes the assertion that no life is being taken, which I disagree with.

I assume they meant because it's paid for by the NHS. It comes out of everyone's taxes.

Everyone know that life is being taken to some degree, whether it's a ball of cells or an actual person is another matter. If everyone used the word murder or homicide that would just reflect your views.

Better to let people realise what's going on for themselves and form their own opinion.

Homicide refers to the act of killing another human being. Opinion has nothing to do with it.