Abortion. Right or Murder?

When the fetus is old enough to be a fully formed person, it would be justifiable to call it murder. When it is young enough to still be forming, it is not yet a person. Otherwise, we have to decide where the incomplete person being killed is murder. Back to sperm and egg, or what?

Very few persons "like" abortion, but they will always happen, in unsafe conditions with no doctor, or in clean clinics with doctors. Why not let a woman and her physician decide and lets butt out?

So then to clarify, it is murder when the child is a fully formed person and up until then it's just tissue?

What justification says that just because a baby isn't fully formed, it has no human value?

I tell you it is an issue between doctor and woman and the law. Not your business at all.

So the mother has the right to decide whether her child lives or dies?

Yes, and you do not have the right to require a woman be a human incubator.

Edit: you said "child". It isn't.

Isn't that all arbitrary though? It's ok because one second the child is not a human but if we do it 15 minute later than the child is?

Question: Are you a vegetarian ?
If not, you are agreeing with the killing of lifeforms with 'consciousness' less then that of 'a human person'. The morality of 'abortion=murder' is a half baked religious notion based on a chauvinistic concept of 'humans as a special case'.
All 'morality' ultimately tends to equate to 'social expediency' as evidenced by its variance in times of 'war'. Moral decisions are made with an eye on being able to 'live with oneself' - that self being a product of parochial socialization and shifting contexts.

No one 'likes' abortion. Just as the term pro-life is misguided distortion and a misnomer. Both sides of the debate are pro-life.

Because what the definition of 'child' is where you err. What is in the womb is a fetus until a certain point in the development (near the end of second trimester).

If you are talking about USA, understand that there's a legal distinction when and if the contents of the womb are/were removed and it can sustain life on its own ... is the legal definition of what ends the status as a fetus.

Perhaps your interest is to ignore legal matters and only discuss the religious portion of this debate. I can't help you there. You may continue to believe and follow what your religion tells you. Calling the end of a pregnancy the act of murder is more often than not an inflammatory attempt and a tactic of religious anti-abortionists .

Going by that logic masturbation is murder.


You have no right to tell anyone else what to do with their body.

Sorry that it kills you to do it mate

Only on public transport.

With that logic, you must be a member of PETA. A human life is potential. It's not just a body, it's a a soul. How is it that if someone went into a panda and killed it's young, the entire western world would be outraged, yet we do the same on a daily basis with humans who are infinitely more valuable. Humans should be more important to us if only because we're human. Animals don't give us that benefit so why should we give it to them?

Shouldn't the law and morality be connected? We can't separate them and retain order can we?

You only have 1 piece of the puzzle there dude. Life starts at conception.

And by that logic we cannot tell a man he can't do drugs, we can't tell a woman she can't be a prostitute, we can't say that it is wrong to lie, we can't make any claim about morality because a person has the right to do what they want with their body.

Reasonable people do not support killing a child.

The controversy is whether you believe a fetus is a child or not. If one believes a fetus is not a child, but the potential to become a child - it is not killing a child. If you believe a fetus is a child then obviously abortion would be wrong.

Yes they do. People make their own decisions in life, just like you chose to be what you are. What gets me about you godsquad is that you go on and on about the rights of the unborn child without giving a monkeys about the welfare of the born child.

What's the real scandal is the children dying of starvation and preventable diseases, not a few cells being terminated.



http://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_bigpicture.html

Your false morality is all about telling other people what to do, it has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of women and children.

Your question reflects your own misunderstanding of our form of government.

Our nation is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. In other words, you may not use (or abuse) the power of the state to impose your morals on everyone else in society.

If you experience an unwanted pregnancy, then you ... as an individual ... have the right to determine for yourself whether you will end or continue that pregnancy. In making that decision, you may consider your own sense of morality. If you believe terminating the pregnancy is immoral, then that belief will be an important consideration when you determine your own course of conduct. You don't have the right, however, to impose your sense of morality on your fellow citizens.

Years ago in a "60 Minutes" interview, Justice Scalia said the following:



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-scalia-on-the-record/2/

Thus, the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to term belongs to the pregnant individual. Only when the fetus is viable, i.e., capable of surviving outside the womb, then the State has a legitimate interest in preserving that life.

If the law was otherwise ... if the state had the power over procreation ... then the state would have the power to prohibit abortions or require abortions depending on the legitimate interests of the state. It would be a power pendulum that swings both ways. Thus, like China, a state could have a legitimate concern for over-population and institute a one-child only law.

But, the state does not have that power.