Here's my stance on abortion. Firstly, I am not pro life. Neither am I pro choice. I am pro education. I believe that in order to properly educate possible recipients of this procedure, the unrestrained truth about abortion must be taught, not that beat-around-the-bush nonsense that Planned Parenthood writes.
The baby's heart starts to beat around 6 weeks after conception (http://www.Mayoclinic.Com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112). At that time most women have just found out they are pregnant. Later on they will be getting abortions, stopping the heartbeat of an innocent child.
Some late term abortions have failed and the babies have survived. If the baby had the chance to survive outside the womb, is it not a human being yet?
Everyone keeps talking about "equality" but the ones who preach equality only want equality for themselves. When do the rights of an unborn baby start?
Think it should be illegal. People keep trying to tell me that a human fetus, a human being is not a person because they have not achieved personhood. This is a completely ridiculous concept to me. First of all who gets to make these determinations and how can anyone tell me that ANY human being is not a person? Unless, they are some kind of murderer or person who hurts children or...You get the idea. You know that during the Holocaust they gave the Jews and the Roma non-person status. They did the same thing with the slaves. The reason they did that was so they could do with those people whatever horrible things they wanted to do. I know everyone says that the fetus is not a person yet we do have legislation that regards the fetus as an "unborn child" and then it goes on to define this as "...Member of homo sapiens at ANY stage of development" The legislation basically states that if you assault a pregnant woman and her unborn child gets injured or killed as a result then you would face separate charges for that crime. This legislation does safeguard anyone doing abortions however.
It is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. It's been around a while. I'm just trying to point out here that there is no mention of any problem with personhood status. It doesn't say if you lose your baby as a result of an assault we're not going to help you, because your baby was not self aware. The aborted babies get no protection.
What's the difference? Unborn babies that are protected are wanted babies and aborted are not so they are non-persons just like the Jews and Roma in the Holocaust and the slaves here in the US, so people can distance themselves from the whole thing and justify the killing.
Not having full self awareness or the pre determined level of consciousness as determined by(?) which is truly achieved by age (?) doesn't make you a non-person, it makes you a less mature person. As far as I am concerned this is still no justification for the senseless killings of unborn infants today.
Before we decide if abortion is murder, we must determine an official stance as to when life truly begins. I believe that life begins at conception. That is the moment when the cells begin to arrange and a baby begins to grow. Since I believe that life begins at conception and also that the destruction of any human life should be considered murder, I believe that abortion, in whichever state of development the fetus resides, is murder. Therefore I believe abortion should be illegal.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If this is not evidence that abortion is banned by the Constitution I don't know what is. Constitutionally you must be brought to trial in order to be executed for the crime. The only crime of the fetus is that is in the way of the mother. Yes rape is bad but statistically it only makes up 1-2% of abortions people. Http://www.Abort73.Com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
Murder is mainly dismissed because a fetus isn't considered as being a conscious person realizing his self-existence or fate. How about killing a living thing? We kill them all the time, they are called bacteria and our immune system destroys them. Are they not living? Or the ant that we crush and we unaware of? It definitely dies. It seems unquestionable that living things come from living processes, we can not create life. But if we consider it unimportant enough, for example an ant, then it is acceptable to take it. We have no problem with plants either. Now is murder to be judged upon according to what we consider important or not important? Who decides? I don't think that either Church or Science can decide. Can our logic? If we limit murder only as something pertinent to humans and exclude the "mass execution of Turkeys" at Christmas (joke), then I propose that we can not logically rationalize the start of "Life" any more than we can imagine what will happen to us after death. It seems that both questions are interconnected. If we can expect to keep on living after death in another form, doesn't this imply that it is possible to be"living" in a different form before birth? If we accept that nothing comes after death, then nothing was before birth. But is this logical? Can "Something" what we have now come out of "Nothing"? If we believe that, how come and we don't commit suicide? If we respect the process of life while we are alive work hard to remain alive, then why should we pick and choose in that part of the chain we are in. I mean, we were born out of our mother, and so on, without this connection we wouldn't exist. Other animals kill their offspring after birth, but they all protect the birth giving female. Even in reproductive systems based on luck, such as fish, we have to accept that this isn't how we reproduce. I stop here...
At the point in which a sperm enters an egg and becomes a zygote, it is beginning development into a human being, that means that killing off a zygote is taking away someones life that more than likely would have occurred being that most pregnancies are carried to term, the argument that a fetus is not yet a human is sort of like saying since a toddler isn't an adult it's not a human yet, because you are setting an arbitrary line that science does not support, infact if you go based on science a fetus is a human being, it feels feelings, it has senses, it has thoughts (not coherent but they are there), the brain is working, and even if it isn't yet, it doesn't change anything if the brain hasn't fully developed, a new borns skull isn't fully developed when it is born, yet we somehow say that even with that it is still a human being, so the argument that a fetus still in development isn't a human doesn't add up, it's a logical fallacy.
Is an egg a chicken? Is an apple seed, an apple tree? Is a caterpillar an butterfly? Is a leak in a pipe a flood? Is a sperm half a baby, is an egg half a baby? Does a gun plus a bullet equal murder. Does stopping the development of every living thing equal murder? I believe when any living thing is at its Full state of development and you end its ability to live, you killed it. But in a developmental stage it is what it is. Example: a leaky pipe is a leaky pipe not a flood. An egg is an egg not a chicken. A zygote is a single cell not a human being. I do believe that in the 38th week of a pregnancy, a baby is in a womb, I feel it is wrong to end the life at that point. I think a better way of asking your question would be to ask, at what point from conception to birth would ending a pregnancy be considered murder? Only God is the judge. Pro "choice" is free will, God gave us that.
The fetus isnt even alive yet. It isn't alive until it actually takes its first breath. Murder is the killing of an actual live person. Is a fetus an actual live person? NO! Abortion is just removing tissue, thats what the fetus is anyways. Is removing tissue or donating an organ murder? NO it isn't!
If stopping the development of a fetus is murder, then having the choice to use a condom knowing that the egg in the woman's system was going to be fertilized, is just the same, meaning contraceptives are the same as abortions, like preemptive strikes. For that matter, not having sex at all would be considered murder. Every egg a woman doesn't fertilize is a child she has stopped the development of. Maybe not every sperm, but it's tracing the source of "life" back that's the real problem.
Murder is defined as the illegal killing of a person with forethought. Since abortion is neither illegal nor does it involve killing a person, abortion is not murder. Personhood is a legal definition that does not apply to fetuses of abortable gestation age, as they have no consciousness, no sentience, and no ability to feel pain. They show none of the characteristics of a person.
The fetus is not yet born. If a person is raped or doesn't want a child, they should be allowed to get an abortion. It is not considered murder because the fetus is not, technically speaking, a person yet. They are not yet born and are not walking around on Earth.
(This argument assumes the poster meant in the USA, as abortion is illegal in some countries). By definition, murder is illegal. Abortion is legal. Therefore, abortion cannot be murder. Case closed. We need more words? OK, well, of course in some countries - abortion is illegal, so there it could be considered murder. But, not in the USA. It is really not.