I'm pro life and therefore anti abortion. However I don't believe that abortion is murder, rather either a justified or unjustified termination of life. For example if the mothers life is in danger or rape or incest then it's justified. In all other cases I would argue it's not justified and should be illegal. Terminating a life by using abortion as birth control but it doesn't rise to murder. Especially since it's currently legal. We can't shoot people because we've decided that they're criminal. We have to work to change the law and make most abortions illegal.
Two wrongs don't make a right, you can't just kill someone to stop them from killing someone else, it's still illegal.
Besides its the mother who is choosing to have the abortion, not the abortionist. If someone walked in and told the a or tiniest to stop and not carry it through, they probably would. They are not dangerous, unstoppable criminals.
I cannot believe this question. The author was obviously a conservative, someone I would normally agree with, but to suggest that the murder of another human being for their own views, however wrong, is justifiable seems absolutely revolting. An abortionist is someone who agrees in abortion-- I believe that abortion, the elimination of an unborn child, is killing a real person, but to say that its supporters deserve to be murdered for that viewpoint is totally unjustifiable.
If you kill the abortionist, which is the mother and father, you basically are killing the unborn child because if host is dead, who's going to give birth to the child? This question doesn't make sense unless if you are saying to kill the dad because if you kill the mother you are killing the child at the same time. You are not "protecting" nor stopping the kill. Also going to kill the abortionist is going way too far, you can stop them but not kill them. It's their choice after all.
Comparatively speaking there isn't much logic behind killing an unborn child versus: Pulling the plug on medical patients thereby inducing death at the discretion of a relative or willingly and purposefully killing someone at the consent of the law.
The criteria for being killed by what is known as the Criminal Justice System (Accepted idea of applying treatment that is morally right and fair) is that you commit a crime that is equal to that punishment. To that extent, no one may be sentenced to death for causing less than the same. So if a person kills another, he/she may be subject to the death penalty based on the circumstances. That is what someone must do in order to be legally killed by the criminal justice system.
In medical practice, in order for one to be deemed acceptable for death, one must be in pain; the pain must be majorly untreatable; the cause of the pain must be life threatening; the life threatening illness must be rooted deeply enough into one's body to cause substantial doubt of recovery or survival; and lastly one must have a family member willing to give the order to kill them.
Don't take it the wrong way, I'm not judging either practice and I don't necessarily take a side in either case, but patterns of sugar coated words and phrases emerge and surround these practices most of the time that serve the purpose of lessening the impact of what they truly are in the eyes of the American public. Words and phrases like "Justice was served" instead of "He was killed", "Pulled the plug" instead of "Ended his life" "Took him off the machine" instead of "Took his air away, and suffocated him".
With the above being understood, ask yourself, "What the criteria is for an unborn Child to be killed"? All it takes is some money and consent...That's it. Find the most violent, evil, wicked, murderous, child molesting, baby strangling, rapist, cannibalistic, horror of a Man...There's no amount of money or consent that will get the Criminal Justice System to kill him...But a few hundred bucks and your signature here and you can get an unborn Child mutilated and killed with surgical vacuum equipment.
Dr. Kevorkian was charged, tried and convicted of euthanasia. He received charges of 2nd degree murder for administering a lethal dose of controlled substances to a patient who consented and requested the assistance. Dr. Kevorkian spent 8 years total in prison and was continuously denied parole throughout the entire process. Upon release, his parole conditions included that he would not be allowed to comment on assisted suicide.
If a medical professional cannot receive consent from a dying patient who requests to be killed and in turn provide the lethal dose to end the patient's life...Then how is it we can kill an unborn Child who by definition is alive but cannot give consent? I dare say a Child cannot ask to be born.
In that one action (murder) is a violation of the human rights of another person, whereas abortion is an agreed upon action. No-one is violated in most abortions where the fetus is too undeveloped to feel pain. On the other hand, someone is hurt in a murder, and their human right to live without fear of torture and other fundamental rights are also violated. There is a world of difference between a hospital procedure stopping some form of life and a person stabbing someone to death on the street.
I would kill a serial killer to stop him if I knew that he was planning a murder and there was no other option for stopping him. That would be the only viable and moral option for me choose. An abortionist kills people everyday for profit and continues to do so without repentance day after day. I AM NOT CALLING ON PEOPLE TO KILL ANYONE OR HARM ANYONE. I am merely expressing my feelings. I have to admit that my own reasons for not killing an abortionist is my own selfishness and lack of courage. I don't want to go to prison. In my opinion, we pro-life people either believe what we say or we don't. If the child is a person from conception until death then defending their life at any point is no different than defending it at any other point.
Yes it is horrible ABORTION SHOULD ONLY BE NOT COUNTED AS MURDER IF THE BABY WOULD DAMAGE OR KILL THE MOTHER BADLY, IN WHICH CASE IT IS TECHNICALLY SELF-DEFENSE, though the baby may not mean to kill her she must fight for her life. Especially with obama care paying for all the birth control and making the bill higher whether you like it or not. (if you can get on before you get fined anyway) and all the new craze about birth control, why anyone even gets pregnant if they don't want a baby idk. So it is their fault and the mother's i think their should be a crime for the mother since she is murdering the baby too. If she was it was in self-defence then both parties walk free, and if she was against it she may be able to wallk free.
First, a reminder of the proposed question:
"If an unborn child is equal to a born human being; is it wrong to kill an abortionist to defend the helpless just like we would kill a killer in the act of killing to stop him?"
Next, an excerpt from the discussion between the prompter and "Install...":
We are to assume "1. An unborn child is equal to a born person. 2. And it is assumed that it's considered moral to stop a murderer from murdering another person even if you have to kill them."
The first assumption described is indeed presented clearly within the question, "if an unborn child is equal to a born human being...." However, the second assumption, that it is "considered moral to stop a murderer from murdering...." is never implied whatsoever in the original question. I would invite the reader to reread the question. You simply equate the act to "kill(ing) a killer in the act of killing to stop him". There is never an assumption that it is moral to do either of the killings, but rather an indication that this is the social norm.
Given that I know that an unborn child is considered human life but do not know whether killing a murderer in the act is moral, I cannot answer this question with anything other than a subjective answer. Thus, I'm left to answering based on opinion. If an unborn child is equal to a born human being then yes, I believe that it would be justified to kill the abortionist . The argument that the abortionist would be innocent in the situation because it is the mother's choice is erroneous. Society considers it just to kill a hired assassin, regardless of the fact that t was not his idea. You would be stopping murder, period.
Finally, the assumption that an unborn child is equal to a born being is a strange one. I don't believe that the controversial portion of the question is the morality aspect at all (since most of the human population would agree that killing in order to stop a murder is just). The controversy, and thus most interesting portion to debate, is whether or not an unborn child is considered a child. By asking us to assume that to be true, you have biased the question to favor answers of "yes." Our focus is drawn away from the real debate of when life begins to whether or not it is just to kill a murderer in the act. It would seem logical to answer "yes" if you didn't read the question carefully, which would make it appear as though most people ultimately conclude that "abortion must be wrong." In reality know body can know, at this point of scientific advancement, when life begins. So, my answer is no, it is not wrong because I have no evidence that it is.