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.

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?

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 it

This 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 !

Is abortion murder?

CJPartin

Xper 2 Age: 20

Updates

+1 y

Why is the thread still active it's like a week old😂 honestly I'm sorry for all the controversy over this topic I straight up thought it would be a few people having a civil conversation about their opinions. Also sorry for the people I got mad at I kinda said some uncalled for things. If y'all want keep updating this but I'm staying out of anymore conversations.😂

Post Opinion

91 Opinion

2 likes

Most Helpful Opinions

nightdrotInfluencer Follow
Master Age: 60

+1 y
3.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

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.

1

8 Reply
- Sixgun77
  
  +1 y
  It's terrifying how many people refuse to admit that that the human fetus is
  A alive
  Or
  B human.
  
  I also don't buy "part of the mother" argument because it's a unique human with its own genetic code.
  
  I have no interest in "telling women what to do with their bodies", but many people on the pro choice side need to understand and outright admit that they're ok with ending a human life for the sake of convenience (in essence trying to ensure that they can make choices and take actions without having to be responsible for the consequences of said actions) or risk not being honest.
  
  Reply
- nightdrot
  
  +1 y
  @Sixgun77 Well, you won't get any argument out of me. As a scientific matter it does not make much sense. As a philosophic matter the idea has its roots - as I alluded to - in the idea that freedom is not a means to an end but is an end in itself.
  
  The idea of natural rights then becomes distorted in a way that seems counterintuitve. Freedom unencumbered by any other moral predicates turns human beings into mere objects. Freedom is substituted for mere willfulness - and in that context, the baby, having no capacity to exercise its own will, becomes subject to the will of the "other."
  
  That, suffice to say, has some rather lurid predicates in history. It is also why the courts have been turning handstands to avoid defining when the fetus is human and thus worthy of the protection of law.
  
  Thus, the definition of when an abortion is no longer permissible keeps regressing in time. It started as the first trimester and then to viability and now some states are adopting the "heartbeat standard." That latter being both a tactic to bring the abortion question back to the Supreme Court and a philosophical and scientific statement to define humanity by a standard common to all humans.
  
  Reply
- Sixgun77
  
  +1 y
  If I were to look at it philosophically, then I'd put abortion on the same level as self defense. Ie: Killing someone is wrong, but sometimes unfortunately necessary in order to preserve one's own life. So, a woman would be justified in choosing abortion in the event that the pregnancy is likely ti kill her or leave her severely injured permanently.
  
  To those who argue that the baby isn't purposefully attacking the woman, I'd counter that no one is morally or legally required to die so that another may live.
  
  Reply
- nightdrot
  
  +1 y
  @Sixgun77 Except that - unless the woman is under some kind of physical distress such as her health is imperiled - the woman will not die from being pregnant. It is a normal biological function and, in that connection, is a consequence of a person's action.
  
  By your formulation, the child represents no threat and therefore the principle of self-defense is not in play. Further. you are obliged by law to conduct yourself in a manner that does NOT endanger others.
  
  Assuming the humanity of the child, then, a woman would not be at liberty to exercise her rights to the detriment of the life of another person - absent a clear threat to the life of the mother. You cannot kill someone on the supposition that they MIGHT endanger your life.
  
  Plus there is the consideration of what ethic abortion on demand represents in this formulation. The woman is absolved from the consequences - intended and unintended - of her actions. The principle being that others must bear the costs of our choices.
  
  Not unlike if you get drunk and crash another person's car, that is their problem. After all, you did not INTEND to crash your car.
  
  As you can see, the logic of the argument would lead to very bad results when applied in law and as a cultural principle.
  
  Reply
- Sixgun77
  
  +1 y
  @nightdrot I completely agree, i think you may have misread my reply. I think self defense is ONLY in play in the UNLIKELY event that the pregnancy puts the womans life in danger or is going to leave her with severe injury (outside of what's usually involved with childbirth). I'd like to further refine my stance by saying that self defense only applies if the threat can't be averted by c section birth.
  
  In addition, I think it's only ethical to employ birth control (which CAN fail), and double up on it if one is truly not ready for children.
  
  Reply
- nightdrot
  
  +1 y
  @Sixgun77 Sorry. Yes, I misread your last sentence and interpreted it differently than you intended. That then skewing my understanding of the whole of what you wrote.
  
  As to birth control and such, of course the Roman Catholic Church opposes it as a deviation from God's intended purpose for sex. That being that a couple, if they wish to have sex, must be open to the possibility of procreation. By then having sex thereby giving assent to God's purpose.
  
  Not all denomination of Christianity hold that view. Jews absolutely do not. However, that is not really a matter for the secular law. Particularly in a country where the establishment of religion is forbidden.
  
  As to C-sections, here too the variation is wide across the culture and cultures. The "life of the mother" being defined somewhat differently. The point being that the starting point is the principle is asserted - varying only in detail - that the life of the child is given priority unless the life of the mother is threatened.
  
  Reply
- Sixgun77
  
  +1 y
  "the life of the child is given priority unless the life of the mother is threatened" I agree with this principle wholeheartedly.
  
  Science tells me the fetal child is a human. The law says killing a human is called murder. Science and law combined tell me abortion is murder. Morality and philosophy tell me murder is wrong.
  
  On a side note, I'm finally reading Republic. Book one is good. I absolutely love book 2 where Socrates and Adeimantus are hypothetically building a state.
  
  Reply
- nightdrot
  
  +1 y
  @Sixgun77 On your first point, no disagreement from me. I just, in my explanation above, went a step farther and explained the sociological and cultural - and ultimately political - implications of taking the position favorable to abortion on demand.
  
  We shape the law and the law shapes us. When we encode in law the moral and philosophical suppositions that make abortion on demand acceptable. that does not stay as just a matter of individual choice but becomes the basis around which the society organizes itself. That is, at best, problematic.
  
  As to reading The Republic - EXCELLENT!!! However, I am an Aristotelian to my chromosomes. So when you finish Plato, pick up Aristotle's The Politics. Believe me, you'll be glad you did!!
  
  Pleasure chatting.
  
  Reply

Most Helpful Opinions

LordOfTheFries Follow
Xper 4 Age: 22

+1 y

Yes. There's no good argument against that. You're killing a living human being.

2

4 Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  I agree with that totally. You're probably one of the smartest people on this thread.
  
  Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  I can't believe how many people especially woman are using the argument that an egg is not a chicken. Once it's fertilized it's not just an egg anymore. If you don't believe me try some balut for dinner
  
  Reply
- DiscomfortZone
  
  +1 y
  Actually, there's no good argument FOR that, but you religion freaks love ignoring scientific facts. Thankfully you. are becoming a haunted minority, and eventually we'll outlaw your criminal ideologies.
  
  Reply
- Sixgun77
  
  +1 y
  @DscomfortZone how is there no good argument for the idea that abortion is murder? Murder is a legal term, and is scientific fact that a developing human in a womans womb is a human being. Those 2 facts have nothing to do with religion and make a very strong case goer abortion being murder. @LordOfTheFries comment doesn't even mention religion. You appear to be the one ignoring science, and piling on fallacious ad hominem attacks as well.
  
  Reply

collegestudent96 Follow
Xper 5 Age: 27

+1 y

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.

7

4 Reply
- collegestudent96
  
  +1 y
  The law was put in place because that's when babies can feel pain and no fetus/child should have to feel pain whatsoever.
  Though scientists and doctors are not 100% sure on that because they can't test the theory - it's unethical. This theory is based on when the neurons in the brain and the receptors can work together to register pain, around 20-23 weeks. The fetus could feel pain as early as 7 weeks when skin receptors first start developing. For example, you hurt yourself and you feel it but the pain doesn't register to your brain until seconds later. Are you in pain when you feel it or only when it registers to the brain? Think about it.
  I do believe if you have sex you should be able to deal with the consequences of your actions.
  Contraceptives are available. Male condoms are cheap and sometimes even free and 98% effective. Birth control is available in many different forms and are sometimes covered by health insurance and 91-99% effective. Doctors say to use BOTH to be most protected against unwanted pregnancy. If you don't want to use both then the onus is on you. Rape is rare and only 5% of unwanted pregnancies. The morning after pill can be used 5 days after sex and is more effective the sooner you take it.
  
  A little sex education lesson for all of you.
  
  Reply
- collegestudent96
  
  +1 y
  For those of you thinking about affordability... how about you think about accountability. You know you can't afford a child, you know sex creates a child and you don't want a child. So why are you having sex then? Because you're in a relationship? Because you're horny? Because you want to? You know what the is? Selfish
  
  Reply
- collegestudent96
  
  +1 y
  The 24 week abortion limit is just in my province within my country other places may have different laws.
  
  Reply
- madgoat
  
  +1 y
  It's only murder if its unlawful.
  
  Reply

Anonymous
(25-29)

+1 y

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?

7

8 Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  Why don't they adopt the kids that are already there?
  
  Reply
- Hazelstar
  
  +1 y
  If my mother would have killed me if she had to face bad consequences in her life. I would chose to be killed by my mother.
  
  Reply
- Opinion Owner
  
  +1 y
  Nobody told them to not use protection if they didn't want kids stupid. Who tf wants to kill an unborn child that is a gift.
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  You think it's a gift. I see it as a burden. And they can do whatever they want because it's their life. Keep out of it.
  
  Reply
- Opinion Owner
  
  +1 y
  Whoever has an abortion that isn't caused by a medical reason is going to hell. That's what I believe and God doesn't like that.
  
  Reply
- Opinion Owner
  
  +1 y
  Then they need to close their mfing legs hoes.
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  God doesn't like people who make judgments on other people either, Pharisee. 'Judge not lest ye be judged'.
  
  So see you in Hell. :)
  
  Reply
- Opinion Owner
  
  +1 y
  God doesn't like baby killers. B***h
  
  Reply

What Girls & Guys Said

Opinion

akihon Follow
Xper 6 Age: 46 , mho 57%

+1 y

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 it

0

0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)

+1 y

This 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.

0

2 Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  A lot to unwrap there. I mostly agree with you and think that the fact that we live in a society where women would ever abandon or abort their own child sure makes us sound like a sorry lot indeed
  
  Reply
- Opinion Owner
  
  +1 y
  @coolhandroo I arguably was abandoned. Adoption can be a fickle subject.
  
  Reply
D_Bone_Steak Follow
Guru Age: 41 , mho 42%

+1 y
712 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

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.

0

4 Reply
- Sixgun77
  
  +1 y
  Id say it separates the kantians from the utilitarians. Or the informed and misinformed.
  
  Reply
- D_Bone_Steak
  
  +1 y
  I'd say you're onto something there exactly. Personally I'd separate them into 3 groups because there are the ones that view abortion as utilitarian when it comes to detrimental terms, but becomes the moralist once it's totally preventable yet unavoidable by their own vice.
  
  I mean... seriously, my stance is just why have that cream pie? Yet... in 2019 they wanted to push abortion past given birth... vice or wtf is going on at this point? People don't seem to have control until it comes to avoiding the consequences. And as always, they will avoid them if they can.
  
  Same reason we don't pay before they do the work... because they'll get paid and not work.
  
  Well, I probably sound crazy now to normies.
  
  Reply
- Sixgun77
  
  +1 y
  My stance is that it's wrong because it's murder. I don't buy into "personhood", human life is human life. I have zero interest in telling women what they can and can't do. My stance isn't based on religion, I'm an agnostic. I have no patience for people who claim that an undeveloped fetus isn't human yet. Even worse are those who claim that it's not even alive. You seem to make more sense than many who comment on the topic.
  
  Reply
- D_Bone_Steak
  
  +1 y
  I respect that stance. I think the biggest difference between people like us and the others... we thought about it, if even for a little bit, we thought about it before we got into the position of making that choice.
  
  People thinking about abortion once they already made the baby seem to have not even considered the implications. Moral stances aside, save yourself 400 to 600 bucks by not getting there.
  
  I think it's wrong that they even got to that point. 1 bad choice just leads to a choice of bad choices.
  
  Reply
soleil2666 Follow
Xper 7 Age: 46

+1 y

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)

0

0 Reply
dragoblack Follow
Yoda Age: 31

+1 y
318 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

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

0

0 Reply
Account2 Follow
Xper 5 Age: 34 , mho 34%

+1 y

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.

0

0 Reply
Daniela1982 Follow
Master Age: 36 , mho 53%

+1 y
1.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

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.

0

0 Reply
Duckysback Follow
Yoda Age: 28 , mho 49%

+1 y

It is a surgical procedure to remove an unwanted growth.

6

26 Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  That unwanted growth also happens to be a living being
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  It's a collection of cells. Do you have any idea how many cells I "murder" every time I shave my legs?
  
  Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  Can the cells on your legs become a human being? I don't think they can... how about we go past the collection of cells to a full fetus that resembles a child.
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  Yeah, they can. Every single eukaryotic cell has the full set DNA to produce the organism it is from. From the microscopic works to a big ass whale. And if "resembles a child" is what makes a thing immoral in your mind wait till you hear about what I did to my dolls as a kid.
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  Besides, you ever actually see a new born baby? Things look like a fucking potato covered in goo
  
  Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  There is a huge difference between dolls and a human being😂
  
  Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  And what does a newborn have to do with anything? It's still human😂
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  You were the one putting so much emphasis on a things appearance. Or did you already forget your own flawed argument?
  
  Reply
- Pink2000
  
  +1 y
  Lmao a potato covered in goo 💀
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  @Pink2000 have you seen one? They are fucking nasty.
  
  Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  But it's a doll, unless dolls are living humans I say fuck them. Also I'm pretty sure you have the flawed argument because you're straight up comparing a baby with a doll and talking about the goo that comes out with newborns. I dont think your argument is valid😂
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  Dude, a glob of cells isn't a fucking human either. Keep up with the conversation already.
  
  Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  A glob of cells isn't human, a whole damn fetus is! Y'all can't see that because y'all can't get that through your thick skulls! Damn I'm good with getting it out before the fetus starts to form but just cutting a damn baby out? It's just cruel asf especially after 20 weeks when it feels pain. I'm pretty sure if it feels pain its damn well are that it exists. Y'all just can't register that for some damn reason!
  
  Reply
- Pink2000
  
  +1 y
  They do look gross... 😂
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  Really, have fond memories of being in the womb do ya?
  
  Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  Did you even read that right? Or can you even read at all?
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  @Pink2000 and some of them never improve.
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  Now now, keep it civil.
  
  Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  I'm pretty sure killing babies isn't civil🤦‍♂️😂
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  What does that have to do with anything?
  
  Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  Abortion is killing a baby, really you should only use abortion when your life depends on it or you get raped at a young age. Any other purpose is complete bullshit! Something like using it as birth control should definitely be illegal.
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  We have already established that abortion is a simple medical procedure where a licensed physician removes an unwanted growth. There aren't any babies at all involved. Do you need to go back up and read the conversation again?
  
  Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  It shouldn't be removed as a form of birth control though, it should only be removed if your raped at a young age or if your life depends on it. If you're just screwing somebody and get pregnant then you should wait the whole nine months for the growth to come out by itself.
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  What "should" happen is irrelevant. What does happen, and what needs to happen matter.
  
  Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  Damn, I'm just a sophomore in high school and i really feel like I'm smarter than most. My grades are shit as well but at least I'm smart when it comes to this stuff!
  
  Reply
- Duckysback
  
  +1 y
  “Smarter than most” and yet you can’t go a single day without backtracking and repeating your own misunderstandings? Lol okay… shall I explain to you just how dumb that statement was?
  
  You start of by taking the stance that abortion is murder because they are human cells. You ignore my point about any eukaryotic cell containing the genetic blueprint for the whole organism and focus on the resemblance of a thing to a child… which you promptly ignore my response to once again.
  
  You then say that abortion is perfectly fine before it start to look human when you say “damn I’m good with getting it out before the fetus start to form…” which kinda shoots your initial argument in the foot. And put emphasis on how a fetus is a fully sustainable independent organism which you once again (3rd time now) ignore my response to.
  
  Then you try to insult me a few times which didn’t work out so well for you. And you run around full circle saying that abortion is once again murder, but that murder is okay in some situations which is just a weird fucking position to take up. You then made a statement about how your own personal beliefs should dictate how the rest of the world operates despite the fact that you clearly know very little about how the human body develops.
  
  And then you make the statement that you are “smarter than most” without ever having provided any evidence to support such a statement. Kid, if you can’t even formulate a proper argument you aren’t even going to graduate high school. Tell you what, print this whole thing up, save it, and if you ever do graduate go back and read it again. I love seeing people cringe at the stupid shit they used to think.
  
  Reply
MissDawn7961 Follow
Guru Age: 62 , mho 45%

+1 y
573 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

yes abortion is murdering an innocent unborn baby ! thanks

7

1 Reply
- CJPartin
  
  New +1 y
  You are smarter than a lot on this thread thank you
  
  Reply
Substantialman Follow
Xper 3 Age: 37

+1 y

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 !

0

0 Reply
gazza_of_cyzicus Follow
Xper 5 Age: 24

+1 y

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.

2

0 Reply
Sorryinadvance1 Follow
Xper 1 Age: 26

+1 y

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

1

0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)

+1 y

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?

1

0 Reply
HedwigInABox Follow
Xper 6 Age: 28 , mho 44%

+1 y

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.

1

6 Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  Do you think that not planting a seed is the same as cutting down a tree? Or that not giving to charity is the same thing as stealing?
  
  Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  Have you ever had your IQ measured just out of curiosity? I'm thinking instead of hedwiginabox you should stick with smartasaboxofhair
  
  Reply
- HedwigInABox
  
  +1 y
  @coolhandroo not planting a tree is not the same as cutting down a tree. But an undeveloped fetus isn't equal to a whole grown tree. And If that tree was located in your Backyard you'd ve allowed to cut it down. If we don't force others to safe lifes by donating blood because we value bodily autonomy more than the life of others why should we force women to safe potential lifes with their bodies? A pregnancy is much harder than donating blood or organs once you're dead. But we don't force people to do these either.
  
  Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  Would you support the right to abortion one day before delivery?
  
  Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  If not then why not? If your child is born one month premature and can't breathe on his or her own can you have an abortion for the next month before it's murder? What if the child is breach and born feet first can you kill it as long as the heads not out before it's murder? Whats the day that I'm we become a person?
  
  Reply
- arefin
  
  +1 y
  first of all tree is not human human is human. and the baby did not plant itself into her mother the mother and father did. then why would the baby getting killed? if anyone to blame then the father and mother is to blame. if the girl being raped then kill the guy. why would the baby get killed?
  
  Reply
Anoniemus Follow
Yoda Age: 33 , mho 47%

+1 y

Nope. It doesn't have personhood unless if the woman desires to carry it to term. If she doesn't, then it's not.

1

25 Reply
- Sixgun77
  
  +1 y
  Still human. Personhood is an argument used by utilitarians.
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  Doesn't matter. She determines if it's human or not by her actions which is why it's not considered murder (or shouldn't). Otherwise I would expect her to be charged with murder.
  
  Reply
- Sixgun77
  
  +1 y
  No she doesn't. It's a human life. She decides wather or not to end it. Once you accept the fact that it's a human life even before it has limbs and organs then you have to decide whether or not you're ok with killing an unborn human for convenience.
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  Again, it doesn't. Due to it being her body, she controls if she wants the life that is feeding off her to continue or not. She decides if that life is going to granted personhood (by her intent on keeping it) or being nothing more than a collected mass of cells that would not be able to survive on its own outside the womb.
  
  We disagree.
  
  Reply
- Sixgun77
  
  +1 y
  We disagree on whe the concept of personhood is a valid argument for depriving a human of their life or rights.
  
  If you deny that it's a human life growing in a women's womb (even when it's just a few dozen cells), then you are just plain incorrect. That's not a matter of opinion, it's fact.
  
  Reply
- CJPartin
  
  +1 y
  So are you saying that it's a person depending on if they're wanted or not?
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  When that entity is parasitic and came about due to unwanted circumstances or simply because the host tires of it? Sure. It does not have rights unless if it's granted personhood (if the woman wants it).
  
  To give the zygote/fetus rights takes away from HER rights which is unfair since it's inside her body. She shouldn't have a responsibility that she does not want: she has the right to body autonomy. Sure, there are consequences for actions (unprotected sex--> unplanned pregnancy) but she shouldn't be punished by being forced to go through birth. It's her life (not to mention the possibility of the child being raised in an unforgiving home because of it or sent to an orphanage which is similar).
  
  I also don't understand why men are even allowed to have anything to do with it (via legislation) when it does not affect their bodies. Focus on infant circumcision.
  
  Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  So can you have an abortion one day before due date with a clear conscience? How about 2 ? Do you think that vinegar and baking soda are the same stored separately as they are when mixed?
  
  Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  And the male questionon my dear is that we are as much a part of procreation as women and it seems like you're defending it because you're too lazy to have a dude wrap up pull out or take a pill and for sure aren't going to stop whoring it up but if you abort the child of a person like me then we will be hearing a lot less from you afterwords
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  @coolhandroo Assumptions. What's new? It doesn't matter what you say or think. It is her body. She is free to do with it what she desires and no man should have anything to do with the legislature of it. It shouldn't even be an issue since it's an intrusion to body autonomy.
  
  If I wanted to abort one day before emergence, I would do it and there are reasons for that to be done (such as if they know the child will not survive). It's illegal because the fetus can feel pain after 21 weeks (that is when the nervous system is fully developed). Anyone that wanted an abortion that late should be free to do what they want but I would hope they wouldn't carry almost full term before realizing what they want to do.
  
  Anything else?
  
  Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  Is abortion murder the day before the due date?
  
  Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  In your eyes I mean. It obviously is to me and anyone with any sense. But you're really smart so hit me with that woman brain logic of yours
  
  Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  Damn bitch. You are a tuely fucked up piece of shit. We don't have enough common ground to begin to debate.
  
  Reply
- arefin
  
  +1 y
  the baby did not plant itself into her mother the mother and father did. then why would the baby getting killed? if anyone to blame then the father and mother is to blame. if the girl being raped then kill the guy. why would the baby get killed? the baby is not her body. if she doesn't wanna get pregnant then she should have used protection or not having sex at all. the baby did not cause the sex the mother and the father did.
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  @coolhandroo There is no debate. She should be allowed to do what she wants. You’re committing a fallacious argument by appealing to emotion. That’s illogical. If she wants to abort at any time, she should be allowed to. Again the reason why late term abortions are outlawed is because the fetus has developed enough sensory neurons to feel pain. But some women still go through it.
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  @arefin You’re blaming this all on the woman which is irrational and you’re using fallacious arguments. It’s not a baby: it’s a fetus—a mass collection of specialized cells that would not be able to survive outside the womb. Thus it is a parasite feeding off the host (mother).
  
  No one should make the decision for any other woman about what to do in this situation.
  
  Reply
- arefin
  
  +1 y
  i did not say it is women fault. the father and mother is the reason the baby exist. you are just a collection of cells feeding of earth. just like a parasite. i guess it would be ok to kill you if you ever can't breath or do any kind of bodily function without machine which is critical to live. i guess it would be perfectly ok to kill you if you drown then rescued but can't breath without chest compensation. in your mind someone can kill if one fall into coma and doctor says he will wake up in 9 month
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  You Said if she didn’t want to get pregnant, she shouldn’t have sex or used protection. It goes both ways.
  
  But it doesn’t matter. She is free to do whatever she wants to do irrespective of what you or anyone else thinks.
  
  ... What do you not comprehend? We are all a collection of cells that have combined and formed a being which can exist outside the womb. Fetuses cannot until they are fully developed (which is why early labor is dangerous).
  
  Yes, humans are parasites to the Earth. We don’t have a symbiotic relationship with it as we should. We use and abuse it.
  
  Now use your brain even though it’s not fully developed (you have until 25). The law dictates that if someone in a coma has a DNR, they can pull the plug. No one knows around what time someone will come out of a coma (use common sense). Your arguments are irrelevant because the people are BORN. That’s the difference between a fetus and baby. One is born and has better survival odds outside of the womb while one is truly doesn’t as long as they aren’t fully developed.
  
  Get over yourself. No man should have any part of the decision of what a woman wants to do with her body unless if she gives him that.
  
  Reply
- arefin
  
  +1 y
  even with your fully developed brain you can't even comprehend the fact is that anyone can have a logical discussion. what a moronic idea that one can't say anything without having a womb. and i guess you never took a biology class or slept through it. i guess you would kill a baby before giving birth. i guess people who did not stay in the womb 9 month also don't count as human or people who born ( sorry got out from womb ) by c section also not human. because they did not come regular way. you would think these way because you believe your brain developed instantly after the midnight of your 25th birthday. well i am just an undeveloped brain i have to wait exactly one year so that my brain get instantly developed in a second.
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  Listen loser.
  
  Logical discussion would require logic, which none of you have since you’re promoting fallacious arguments.
  
  No one cares about your idiotic opinion. You shouldn’t have the right to control another person’s body because of your infantile beliefs.
  
  As I’ve said, retard, early labor is dangerous because usually the fetus is not fully developed and the survival rate is low. Those born usually have complications because they aren’t fully developed. But if they were able to be born and can live, they are no longer a fetus. Understand that, idiot?
  
  What a fuckwit making assumptions. Science shows that men’s brains aren’t fully developed until 25. No one said anything about midnight or it being done instantly. What should have been gleaned from it is that you’re not there yet.
  
  Anything else, worthless kid?
  
  Reply
- arefin
  
  +1 y
  o%k winner. you called me undeveloped brain. so if it is not developed over night then i am 24/25 part developed meaning 96 % developed. got it genius? and to your point thats what i am saying you can't control others body. you can't hurt other people you can't kill other people. just because someone is inside someones womb which the baby did not choose or force himself to her womb. got that genius?
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  You’re still not there yet and that missing percentage clearly is the part where you’re lacking reasoning and logical thinking skills rather than deciding from emotion.
  
  The whole point of my argument is that the fetus does not have personhood unless if the woman carrying it decides that it does.
  
  One thing I do know is that your mother should have aborted you. Too many stupid men out here that think they should control what a woman does based on their beliefs. Hypocrites.
  
  Reply
- arefin
  
  +1 y
  oh i am emotional. good to know. it's not like i am saying that if someone decide you are a person then you would be person. oh wait you are saying that. oh and my mom is not a baby killing monster like you. i am glad that there are women like my mom who does not kill human. i am great full to her. if she wanted to kill me she could have and would not be defend myself. thats why i and most people here defending the life of innocent babies that can't defend themself from the monster like you who thinks that you have the power to say who is not human or not. . even i would not want your mother to abort you when you were baby inside her. even though you think you have the right to kill a baby.
  
  Reply
- Anoniemus
  
  +1 y
  Lol. You can’t even type English properly. I’m sure she realizes you’re a mistake.
  
  Reply
- Sixgun77
  
  +1 y
  Claims others are promoting fallacious arguments, then proceeds to use ad hominem 5 times in one comment.
  
  Reply
BCA6010 Follow
Master Age: 32 , mho 37%

+1 y
5.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

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.

1

0 Reply
Y_Misty Follow
Xper 1 Age: 18

+1 y

I think it is, since abortion means aborting/killing a human growing inside a woman's womb

7

1 Reply
- coolhandroo
  
  +1 y
  Funny how all of your likes have come from men so far. I'm really surprised by the girls on this issue
  
  Reply
Astarlessnightsky Follow
Master Age: 37 , mho 36%

+1 y
2.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.

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.

0

0 Reply
AbleLearner Follow
Xper 6 Age: 43 , mho 47%

+1 y

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.

0

0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)

+1 y

A fertilized egg is not human. Pretend it is as much as you want.

6

1 Reply
- CJPartin
  
  New +1 y
  But it is a human when its developed into a fetus, also that egg is potential for life
  
  Reply
Show More (67)

Home > Society & Politics > Questions > Is abortion murder?

Is abortion murder?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.