Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Given 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 tied themselves up in knots when Roe v. Wade was in effect, 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, again before Roe was overturned, some states began 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 - while Roe v. Wade effectively took the question out of the hand of legislatures - turned 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 - until the overturning of Roe - resorted to 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 fell 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 began, 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 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.
I can't vote... I sort of agree with abortion, but the government gave the right to give abortion up to the 3rd trimester... libs started pushing for abortion whenever... even after birth. They also started pushing for taxes to pay for it... not the citizens. How does the upper government avoid dealing with the issue? They kick it back down to the state governments. Deal with it yourselves basically.
Then I see retards rioting in places where you'll get your 8 month abortion... but just like before it will cost more. If you've actually dealt with getting an abortion, you know what I'm talking about. The price goes up the further along you are. It's even more retarded because rape, incest, and medical complications are still allowed even in the restricted states, and many of them still give a 6 to 9 week leeway. They're only restricting sluts that use it as birth control for no reason when I don't know, maybe not fuck all the dudes in town and can't decide if you want to keep it or not fast enough? Maybe, just maybe.
So why do I agree with abortion? Look at crime statistics. It's been going down since it was legalized. Unwanted kids = unwanted children, which obviously will... = criminals.
Things were fine and the damn libs had to push for abortion at any time and for the taxpayers to pay for it. Perhaps you will pay for it in those states now through state taxes, which includes mine.
... and of course, the libs will pretend they hate this decision to overturn Roe. The truth is they like it because they won't have to shell money out to it from the upper government level and it might provide them with a wedge issue to get some votes. Obama could've codified it and so could've Biden... nope... they kept it there as a wedge issue instead of making it unchangeable. The retarded religious right is all about it like it's a big win because of their religious beliefs.
Most of the retards screaming "my body my right" are the same ones that were like "wear your mask and get the shots because we're scared of getting sick" and that's the bullshit... no... hipocracy of these "I support current thing" people. It's irritating to watch.
Personally... kill your fucking kids for all I care. Quit coming up with shit for me to pay for though through taxes! Fuck you. You're the damn slut that sleeps around and doesn't bother with condoms, birth control, after morning pill, or decide to kill it or not within 6 to 9 weeks in most of the states that get reported on mainstream news as banning abortion completely. I don't feel bad for the dudes either... pull out nugga. You get taken for child support, well, you didn't judge her correctly did you! You should've talked her in to an abortion.
It's all just really annoying because some people will listen to reason and then you have two sides... one side believes it's a womans right to kill a baby even if it could survive outside of the womb... and another side, that just thinks they're holier than thou and that mistakes don't happen.
Where the fuck is the reasonable center on these issues? Yeah, thanks for giving me a chance to rant... to summarize what I think, this is a distraction from something. Gas prices... which means this month start watching prices of everything go up. Have fun fighting over irresponsible pregnancies though. Democracy doesn't work in mental institutions.
Its not a yes no case
This is life there is shit ton of grey in the middle
If someone got to that case by mestike, passed talks, explations about it
Really giving out the proccess to feel and know what may or may not happen, what they may be doing, I think its not murder
If someone got to the case with the very idea of doing abbortion, then I think its injustifed
And depending on the baby stage how much it may or may not be murder
Regardless Its a terrible thing, even more cosidering all that are unable to do so at all
This is exempting pepole that do try to avoid it or unaware they will be in life danger to give birth
Yes, is it. Is it murder because its a human fetus thats is in the process of growing, to become a human baby. Yet those who are pro choice refuse to acknowledge it. Or they try to make their consciousness better by saying that it’s not human because it’s not breathing.
Opinion
25Opinion
u Whether abortion is murder depends on yur decision about when does life begin. Logically, that is an arbitrary matter of definition and the definition depends upon the emotional response of the person deciding the question. If you are a young girl and want to ensure that abortion is available to you (and that you don't feel too guilty about it,) then life does not begin at conception but it begins at some point after you had your abortion. For religious people, life begins at conception.
Human life begins at conception. Termination of a pregnancy must therefore result in death. However, this alone is not sufficient grounds to say that termination of a given pregnancy is murder; you need to analyze it on a case-by-case basis, just as it tends to be for other kinds of deaths and the circumstances around which such deaths occur.
Consider a situation whereby a businessowner is tending to his duties when he's suddenly confronted by an armed individual; that individual demands money. If the businessowner is willing to bank on sheer chance and comply, then perhaps he'll live through the encounter - although perhaps not. There are several documented cases of people being shot, despite having fully complied with robbers' demands. Meanwhile, incapacitating the robber guarantees survival. This is called self-defense, and any death resulting from such self-defense would be legally justified. There is a term for death resulting from self-defense, in fact: "justifiable homicide." (Yes, it's homicide. But it's justifiable, because the robber posed an extreme threat to the businessowner's life and safety.)
Likewise, you have justifiable termination of pregnancy: That is to say that birthing the baby would cause the mother to die, if not suffer abnormal injury. One example of this is called ectopic pregnancy, which occurs when an egg becomes fertilized outside of the uterus. Uteri are designed to expand throughout gestation, namely to accommodate the size of the child; fallopian tubes, not so much. When a fetus forms inside of the fallopian tubes, it can cause a whole number of medical problems up to and including death.
But are all homicides justifiable? No; of course not. If you kill someone because their existence is or will soon become a burden on you, is that justifiable? Most would say no. Yet so many people's opinions on the last question will change drastically when that "someone" is still in the womb. My advice to those people is that if you're going to engage in mental gymnastics, then you'd best be able to at least stick the landing.
Legally it depends on the law, if it is murder or not. Killing someone if there is no law against it, is not murder.
I have always thought it odd that someone could attack a pregnant woman and kill her and the baby and its a double murder, but that woman could get a abortion herself and its not murder.
The legal laws make little sense in some aspects... imagine a case where a woman is murdered on her way to get an abortion or merely attacked and loses the baby as a result but the attacker is either charged with double murder for both or single for the lost baby she was about to abort.
That makes no sense at all.
I certainly don't think that the morning after pill is abortion like a lot of people do, as for murder it is now up to states in the US to make that legal call.
If abortion was murder you wouldn't be happy that a woman who considered abortion chose to go through with the pregnancy and raise the child, you would be horrified.
If I told you I had an elective abortion, if you thought I was a murderer you would be very uncomfortable around me, terrified for your own safety. But in reality you're probably just going to be disgusted or have strong feelings about it.
If abortion is murder then logically miscarriages (which happens in 1 in 8 pregnancies) are involuntary manslaughter.
If you think abortion is murder then you would be against IVF pregnancies. They throw out thousands of viable embryos a year.
Considering a fetus is essentially a parasite feeding off of the woman, usually has no name, isn't registered by the government, doesn't hold citizenship of any nation and not considered a human being until born and takes its first breath... No.
But the "potential" mother has all those things covered and therefore holds more rights to protect herself and her well being, all rights and protections go to her.
Thats what it boilds down to. Emotional and moral arguments are irrelevant because both are subjective.
Doesn’t matter what i think. Every state in the US has some legislation or precedent that makes killing an unborn child a crime. Additionally, if killing a pregnant woman results in the death of an unborn child, that’s typically double the charges. So legally we, as a society, already agreed that unborn children are alive. The real reason the original Roe v Wade decision was unconstitutional is because it created a class of people for whom killing an unborn child was a “right”, but for everyone else it’s a crime. That’s an unconstitutional interpretation by any reasonable standard. Curiously, even the radical left currently arguing that unborn children are nothing more than “parasites” never challenged the original laws and precedents covering killing unborn babies. Apparently babies only have rights when mothers decide so, and if they decide not then they don’t. That’s no way to govern.
No. if it was, it'd be against the law and classified as "murder." An embryo or fetus is not an actual human baby; it's something *that will develop* into a human baby later on. You'd think I'd be explaining quantum physics with how hard this is for some people to understand.
I don't have enough medical expertise to make a judgement as to when you can claim it is murder. But I do think it is wrong.
I just can't support taking away a woman's rights based upon my religious or moral beliefs. Because I don't know definitely when you can say a fetus is "alive". Or judge when that life is more important than the mother's.
The deliberate ending of a human life is usually classed as murder when it involves a person who has already been born, but is there really that much of a difference between a someone who has been in the womb for 9 months, and someone who has just been born? Babies are often born prematurely, so does it make any amount of sense to have this particular distinction? If so, why?
No it’s not.
if a doctor advises a woman they have detected severe medical issues with the foetus and they advice Abortion as it will be born with severe issues and 99% be a neonatal death.
interesting to see the divide between men and women votes. See how people are willing to impose restrictions on others when they themselves are not directly affected.
Yes it is with the exception of the baby and/or mother dying from the pregnancy. That is called a theraputic abortion which is usually done in a hospital.
Call it whatever you want. The parents weren't prepared and had to get rid of it. I can't make parents sacrifice their lives for the sake of morality. This includes my parents too, so don't even play the "it could have been us" card.
Before they don’t have a functioning organ, I’d argue no. This is the same reason I use thinking 8-12 weeks should be the limit. Before that, it’s just cells. Cells are dying inside us all as we speak.
Its basic logic. If you can't grasp that its murder then you must be very dumb
Yep it is a eugenics strategy to kill off the dumb, poor, minorities.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UmZLIbiW3ak
Abortion is not murder and I don’t feel like supporting my answer rn 😊
If abortion is murder than is cum swallowing cannibalism?
I used to think that, but then I knew people who abort others 18 years old and up, and I don't give people wanting abortions much grief anymore. lol.
No, because a fetus is not a person. The preceding stages even more obviously not.
You can also add your opinion below!
