If you assume that a being is a human being from the moment of conception, then yes, it logically must be murder. Which indeed is why the courts and the law have tied themselves up in knots since Roe v. Wade trying to avoid defining when life begins.
Hence why, at first, abortion was banned after the third trimester. Then the limit was refined to viability. Then, as viability has regressed to earlier and earlier stages of gestation, the limit has regressed to earlier and earlier in time.
It is also why, now, some states have begun to use the "heartbeat standard" as the point after which abortion is not legal. All human beings have a heart. If the law can be compelled to recognize a heartbeat as definitive of a human being - the point being that most women will not know they are pregnant till after the point in time when a heartbeat is detectable - then abortion will be effectively banned.
What the courts do not want to codify is the idea that the life of a human being can be taken - sanctioned by law - absent cause. A child being guilty of no crime save the fact of its conception, which itself it did not cause.
Suffice to say, embody that idea in law and the consequences would be profound - and very bad. So the courts - as Roe v. Wade effectively took the question out of the hand of legislatures - are turning intellectual handstands to set a standard while avoiding the central question of when a fetus is a person.
Indeed, the pro-choice argument is rooted in an intellectual conundrum. If the fetus is not a human person from the moment of conception, at what point - EXACTLY - does it become human? What, scientifically, legally, and morally, is the difference between the child one second before that EXACT moment, and one second after it? What are the implications if the law defines a date and then it turns out - after further scientific analysis - that it got it wrong?
The courts are using an evasion. The fetus - from the moment of conception - cannot be anything other than a human person. It will not be a duck or a horse. Logically, a thing cannot be other than what it is at any stage of its development. Because if it can be, then scientifically the fetus has an equal potential to become an elephant as a baby.
So the courts have fallen back on a semantic difference. We call a fetus a fetus, a baby a baby and a boy a boy and a man a man - even though, at every point in that continuum it is the same thing. An individual human person. The fact that we give different names to the same being at different points in time does not change the essential nature of the being. It is what it is and cannot be anything else at any point in that continuum.
This then being why the point at which abortion is permitted is, slowly but surely, falling back earlier in time. Again, it having started at the first trimester and having since, in law, been refined as "viability," as the courts have periodically rewritten the standard. (Again, also remembering, legislatures - Federal, state or local - since Roe v. Wade, are excluded from drawing the line.)
Long way around, yes, logically and philosophically, abortion is murder by virtue of it being the taking of the life of a human being who is not guilty of any crime at the will of another being. The law has only avoided stating that fact by relying on a semantic fiat - and a shifting point in time - that bears neither scientific, nor logical nor moral scrutiny.
Most Helpful Opinions
Yes. There's no good argument against that. You're killing a living human being.
Abortion is murder whether everyone likes it or not. Your womb has life inside it and you're ending it by aborting it, that's murder.
However, I personally won't get an abortion because I'm personally against it. If someone needs to get one they have the right to do so. I'd rather someone get it done safely then take matters into their own hands.
I think the laws are fair in limiting abortions to 24 weeks. It's not the fetus/child's fault.
Yes, don't fking do it. People are out there that can't have kids. Give them a chance to adopt instead of killing the poor unborn child. How would you feel if your mother didn't want you?
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
60Opinion
It depends on two things your viewpoint and your circumstances.
It also depends on your sensitivity, there was a movement last year that championed post birth termination, call it what you want but it's still murder, what I find shocking as that the people actually considering this stance were objecting to the Chinese dying rooms, children of the one child policy left alone in rooms just after birth to die, by starving to death.
There are circumstances though which I think it's cruel to ask a person to give birth to a child, rape or incest being two, the child is several deformed and will only know pain for a short life before dying are in my opinion circumstances that termination is tolerable.
There are other cases where women have then slept with somebody without protection and haven't bothered knowing that if they do get pregnant they can have a termination, we can argue as much as we want that women don't do that or they do, sadly some do. Some don't.
I personally don't think that it should be available in all cases where a pregnant woman just turns up and wants it done just because. Although that is somewhat polarising that is my personal thoughts on itThis is a complicated topic as scientifically and biologically at an early enough stage the human embryo is actually identical to embryos. Of many other life forms on earth and then there is the argument of is a fetus "alive. When it has yet to form any of its organs, muchless be able to independently live. In an abstract way babies for mammals are parasitic life forms that prey on their mom.
Would I call it murder... Yes.
But I would also argue is it right to force a kid to be born if the parents cannot care for their own kid? Is it right to force a kid into a system of foster parents and adoption that often doesn't work as intended. I'd say As much as everyone has a right to live. I'd argue we should also think about would said kid be able to handle how rough life really is. Is it ethically okay to put kids through the hardships of life if they ethically will not be able to keep up with society. Sure we can leave it up to survival of the fittest that still won't change the fact all those individuals still die if they can't keep up.
I'd say with this whole abortion topic we should look at the details that go beyond just who should get born but also what it takes to live. Cause mindlessly throwing people into the economic system does come with a cost. Who's going to take care of the kids if mothers just start mass abandoning kids post birth? Abortion is only one part of the larger problem at hand.It's hard to say. Take any philosophy class and the pro life/pro choice is put into play and you get a real clear view of the religious and non-religious quick. Then there were people like me that weren't totally against it, but at the same time, outside of rape and life threatening issues, why'd you fucking get pregnant then?
I mean if they didn't want a child, why'd they go ahead and do the full on act that makes one? Mistakes happen... but wanting to let a bunch of cells develop limbs and a sense of pain when an after morning pill would've done the job? Makes no sense. I mean I love sex, but if I have any doubts about a long term commitment to that woman and what may come out, I simply pull out, and shower her chest, back, or preferably have her swallow it.I won't comment on that - but will say that you can just tell a female that had an abortion by how angry she is. In 90% of the cases, the angry ones have had an abortion and never dealt with the psychological consequences of possibly murdering their own little baby, soul, flesh and blood.
It can be made as legal as you want, the consequences remain dire (I speak having grown up in a country where it was considered about as important as pulling a tooth - there never was any doubt it was just a medical procedure - it wrecked so many lives it's not funny)Nope, as long as the development isn't past a certain point. But on the subject of baby murder why do we care so much about human babies when we could give less of a shit about any other species in existence. What makes human babies so much more important than any other species on this planet? My opinion... reality don't give a shit about humans death is just as much a part of life as life is to death. it happens to everything even animals will abort if not kill their young to survive humans murder countless animal babies on a regular basis and parade them around as trophies. Life is both ugly and beautiful and as soon as people realize that we can have more respect for the true reslity and bring back balance to this planet's ecosystem
Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
So
If unborn babies are human beings, then abortion is murder. Science can prove that unborn babies are human beings. So, abortion is murder.
That doesn't mean I think all mothers who get an abortion should be treated like murderers. But abortion is a terrible thing in itself, regardless of who does it or why.Why is it that when someone is new they ask all the questions that have been asked here 100 times before? Put your question in Search at the top of the page and you can read all the previous answers. We need new unasked questions because the same ones asked all the time are getting a bit monotonous.
It is a surgical procedure to remove an unwanted growth.
yes abortion is murdering an innocent unborn baby ! thanks
This is a deep topic seek professional advice if you're in the process of making this decision.
It's not for me to say what you can or cannot do. I have friends with mixed beliefs and some have had abortion. I wouldn't have sex with someone to get pregnant just to tell me she is going to have an abortion. No sex !Yes, abortion is murder. I think abortion is only acceptable if the lass was raped, or if there is a chance that the lass or baby could die from the lass giving birth. If a lass wasn't raped, or if her life is not under threat from having the baby, and it was her choice to have sex without protection, she should be held responsible for her actions, and therefore she should not have an abortion.
I believe it is. At conception all the genetic information for life is there and the cells just divide. If left to natural process a person with a individual personality will be born. I think ending it just because the person doesn't have consciousness yet is murder. Sex always has a risk. I'm not ready to have a kid but I know if I got my girl pregnant I'll have to man up and own it. Take responsibility for your actions or think twice before in engage
Even as a person who apparently has far less regard for the "inherent value" of human life, my answer is yes. Its a person, no matter the level of development. The real questions for me are: is it wrong? And is it wrong for the government to fund it with money they forcibly take from people who don't agree with it?
Is it murder when you refuse to donate blood for someone in need and they die? It's failure to provide assistance at best but even that doesn't really apply cause we aren't forcing others to provide with their body to those in need.
Nope. It doesn't have personhood unless if the woman desires to carry it to term. If she doesn't, then it's not.
Science and religion both agree that life begins at conception, so there's not really any legitimate argument to be made against the idea that abortion is murder.
I think it is, since abortion means aborting/killing a human growing inside a woman's womb
I don't think so.
The abortion has to take place really early during the pregnancy when the fetus is only a bunch of cells, that couldn't survive on their own.Yes, Abortion is murder.
God will not hold the woman blameless. Nor will he hold blameless the "doctor" who performed the abortion. They will BOTH go to HELL.A fertilized egg is not human. Pretend it is as much as you want.
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions