Abortion is murder because at conception a unique human being is formed. This is because when the sperm and the egg combine, their is a whole new DNA formed. Every cell is different genetically from the mothers. Therefore, since the baby is completely different genetically, it should be given the right to have its life protected
Just because a child is the mother's womb, that does not mean that it is not entitled to the same rights as those who survive independently.
If you say that the child is not fully developed, so is not yet a human being, then is it right to murder a baby that is born prematurely before it reaches the nine-month mark?
If you say that the mother should have rights over her body, then it follows that some people have greater rights than others, to the point that their right to choice supersedes someone's right to life. Is this a moral view?
Unless there is EXTREME risk to both mother AND child, I cannot see an instance where murdering a child is logical or moral.
My question is who are aborted ? Is it humans or animals.Even an animal doesn't seem fit to abort its offspring even when there is famine,poverty,disaters and among others how much more we who are humans should abort unless maybe there is a medical background ,for in any case there is an exception.
The meaning of abortion, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is as follows, "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks." One word. Deliberate. Does the child not have rights, too, like the rest of us? You might say that the fetus is not fully developed, but does it not need oxygen, getting it from its mother via the umbilical cord? Of course it does. Fine, you might say an animal needs oxygen too, but I don't think an animal can be born out of a human woman, right? And, doesn't the word, 'termination' stir up something within you, something that sounds like...Murder? A murder ends, which is a synonym for terminate, a life, and so does an abortion. Face it. What if (and I only said what if) Thomas Edison's mother had decided to abort her baby, then where would we be today? No lightbulb, no electrographic vote recorder, etc,etc... Yeah right, we might as well be back in the stone age.
All right, the mother might be so ashamed of her unwanted pregnancy she wants an abortion, but too bad, that's the penalty of adultery.
The worst thing is that the mother would have to live with this on her conscience for the rest of her life. You might argue that if the child was born it might be a great burden to society, but I disagree. There are so many couples nowadays who have no children, so wouldn't she be giving a present to the couple the baby is adopted by?
I hope that mothers will think twice about abortion.
I don't think so. Besides, most abortions are conducted before there's even anything that even recognizes a fetus. If these unwanted children were born, think of the child abuse and all the abandoned children that become burdens of the state. It costs money to keep these children around you know. Even if you don't pay for them.
Actually, I think the entire discussion of abortion is going in the completely wrong direction when it's based around some arbitrary notion of when something can be considered a human being. I think what talking points really matter here is whether it causes suffering to sentient beings and what it contributes to the world.
So, does it cause suffering? Well, if you listen to the folks who shout that it's murder and then carry on explaining everything in explicit detail, then I guess it does. But, you know, speaking as the guy who brings up '56 billion' on virtually every single topic I visit, I can honestly say that I never have to resort to going too much in detail how animals suffer when I try and make my points and there's no reason for me to accept that these people who utilize appeal to emotion are credible.
Sorry, but if both sides claim something that's factually conflicting, I'm going with the one that doesn't have fundamentalist loonies which have done a lot to destroy their credibility with me.
Now, does abortion contribute anything to the world? Well, this whole notion of 'women being able to do what they want with their body' is a nice little sentiment, but if it causes suffering I honestly don't think someones sense of entitlement permits them to do 'whatever they want' simply because they happen to be a human being. So, if this being were to feel pain, I think we'd need a more legitimate reason.
Oh wait, I got one. Well, I mean, I've got a more legitimate reason than why all of you folks eat your hamburgers and your omelets do anyway - because abortion is a legitimate means to reduce our massive population of 7.7 billion people. This reasoning goes far beyond selfish whims, appeals to emotion and these ultimately pointless notions of humanity. We need to take measures in controlling our population; that is absolute.
Abortion is choice of woman and man that conceived, not anyone's else concern. They have to live with the choice they make. More contraception we have readily available for men and women less of abortions we will have ... So please keep your noses out of private lives of other people; if they already have to make that horrible decision they don't need some self righteous bigot telling them they are wrong. Thank you.
The vast majority of abortions are done before the 13 week mark, a staggering 91.9%. Of that majority 71.7% are done before the 8 week mark. Also an interesting point, 17.7% of all abortions in 2010 are medical abortions, meaning there was a real and present risk to the mother.
Interestingly enough, the more prevalent sex education and abortions become, we've seen a decline in the number of abortions per year. A 3% decline from 2009, and a 5% decline the year following.
Aside from the facts. There is a poor understanding of when something becomes human. Science cannot give a clear answer, and religion is scattered across the board on the opinion.
Is it on conception? That doesn't seem to make sense, as millions of sperm and eggs are wasted by bodily functions, or during sex that doesn't lead to pregnancy, either by contraception or simple odds.
Is it when the heart beats? That isn't quite accurate either. We have what we call "beating heart cadavers" that aren't considered living.
Brain activity? That's a possibility.
Surviving outside the womb, or independent of the "life support" of the mother? Another answer that's possible.
The concept of bodily integrity is an important factor coming into play. Did you know that a deceased person cannot have their organs harvested unless they previously gave permission? With this mindset being so vital, the concept of medical abortions are the same. One cannot be expected to choose another's life over the right to personal autonomy, unless they explicitly agree otherwise.
Is abortion murdering a child? Only if the abortion is done against all the regulations and legislation put forth to make sure things like that don't happen.