Is "killing" a fetus and murdering someone walking on the street the same?
Killing a fetus IS the same as killing someone that is walking on the street.
A human being starts to be made the moment it is conceived. Consider this, a bird egg. You stomp on it and crush everything inside killing the baby forming inside, (not to be confused with an egg that does not have a baby inside and only has yolk.) You wouldn't feel bad? That you just murdered an innocent animal that all it has done so far in life is develop? It's worse to do this to a human. Someone who can make a great difference in the world. What if President Lincoln had been aborted? Would people still be enslaved today? What if Martin Luther King Junior ha been aborted? Would African Americans still be considered inferior to Caucasian people? What the US focuses on the most is how to improve lives, save lives. Allowing abortion is going completely against the United States main focus. If we want to succeed as a country, we need to stop being so contradictory. And I highly doubt that anyone wants the United States to go in the direction abortion is pointing to. Which would lead to a "fact" that killing people on the street is okay. So really, they go hand in hand. They both kill people.
Posted by: MariahBreeAnnYES It very well is!
Hitler declared Jews as non-humans and that is what your saying when you say "It is not a baby until three months". What if your mother decided to kill you when you were just under three months old for selfish reasons? Such as "I can't take care of this baby". "I don't love the father of this baby anymore". "I was raped by someone so I've decided to murder my own child".
Posted by: Grace97Both are human
A fetus is just as much human as a human who is already born. Just how "child" and "adult" are words describing stages in a human's life, so is the term "fetus." It just describes an unborn life. If you look at scientific facts about the development and characteristics of an unborn baby, you would see that it is indeed a human life.
Posted by: christianprolifeYes it is very much the same
Both the fetus and the person walking on a street have a future. I think it would be more fair to kill the guy on the street because he's already had the chance to experience life. A fetus never will. And I hate how people say 'the fetus really isn't living until it is born" because that fetus' soul was made before the body. The soul is still alive. I have a very good friend of mine who was almost aborted. I can't imagine him not in my life; not ever even existing. His mom was in the room, ready to kill her own son. Then she changed her mind, regardless of how much it would hurt her own life because she knew that it would turn out in the end because she trusted God would help her through it. I just don't think that a woman should want to kill a child that does have a soul
Posted by: paisley14A victim is a victim, no matter the age.
As soon as we start to define when human life begins, we run the risk of justifying murder. In parts of ancient Rome, killing a child under the age of two was not considered murder because the law did not recognize them as fully human. A human is a human, no matter the age or level of development.
Posted by: AnonymousEssentially yes
There can be circumstantial differences but basically, the same idea applies in both cases.
Posted by: BennyWYes
A fetus is still a human, just really small, killing a fetus is murder. You are taking away an innocent human life. If you aren't able to take caste of a baby plenty of people are willing adopt, it is worth it to take the time to find the baby a new home.
Posted by: MoodsA Being is a Being
No matter if the being is full grown or if they are still a fetus, they are a living being. Murder is murder, that is factual. So if you are walking down the street, and you pull out a gun and shoot the first person you see, that is cold blooded murder. If you abort a fetus, it is also murder. From the very date of conception, that is a living being. So, yes, in my opinion, it is just the same to murder a fetus as it is to murder another person.
Posted by: BeautifulOblivion91Second one is life.
Second one is life. A human is a human. You cannot refuse life until the age of 3 month! I'm surprised how some people cannot understand that life starts before the age of 3 month for a foetus. Killing babies is not a human right. It is a crime against humanity.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, they are the same
Whether you kill someone randomly on the street or abort a fetus, you are ending a life. What's important is the fact that the fetus had a life ahead of it, a life that shared many things with a random person on the street. Killing a person or aborting a fetus is therefore the same.
Posted by: thatnerd2Not really, but YES!
A fetus can be argued as a human or not human, as alive or not alive, but that's not the question. No matter what you are killing someone in both situations. That fetus is hope. There is a future in the fetus. Nobody knows how the baby will turn out, and nobody knows how that random person walking down the street will turn out either. Both is murder. Both is killing hope. Both goes against the constitution and both isn't acceptable (but that's a whole other story).
Posted by: MarysSame
Murder requires intentional forethought to harm. So does abortion. Since there is no distinction between whether a fetus is living inside or outside a womb, I will assume that they do live inside. If it were merely a portion of the mother, then certainly a mother carrying a male fetus would have male genitalia? That is detestable. Not to mention illogical.
Posted by: MutedYes.
Killing a fetus is ending a human life that has yet to begin, but is still human life. It WILL become a life, almost assuredly.
Posted by: OberHerrYes it is.
A human fetus is simply a human being at an earlier stage in development than you or I. Nothing suggests that it is anything other than a human. What else would it be? What would cause it to change from something, into a human, simply by leaving the mother's womb? Suggesting as much makes absolutely no sense. Dog fetuses don't turn into cats. Chicken fetuses don't turn into Giraffes. And human fetuses are human, before and after birth. And because it is human, killing it is just as wrong as killing a fully developed, adult human being. So yes, killing a fetus is just as bad as killing someone walking down the street.
Posted by: EvanKA life is a life.
Since it's been confirmed that a fetus has its own unique DNA and is an identifiably different organism than its father and mother, it is a person. Taking that life a few months before its birth is as bad as killing the child a few months after its birth. The only reason its become traditional to count age from a persons birth onward instead of conception, is because in antiquity people couldn't tell when a child was conceived until the mother showed outward signs. We still have influences from this time even though we can tell conception times now. Its obvious that a fetus is a human life. Let's abandon the old, incorrect, "life starts at passage through the birth canal?" Which we know is wrong, and adopt the scientifically accurate?" Life starts at a unique DNA cod?" Which happens at conception.
Posted by: AnonymousYes they are.
Fetuses are humans, just in an earlier stage of development. However, this does not mean that the parents have an obligation to house said fetus. Since fetuses cannot survive outside of the mother, they can be killed to skip a step. Since the outcomes are the same it doesn't make a difference.
Posted by: bossyburritoThe age of the victim does not change the fact of taking a life.
A fetus is a small person who cannot defend himself. To murder an unborn person is no different than taking the life of someone already born - except, perhaps, that the person walking down the street has a greater ability to protect himself. Ending a life is murder. The age of the victim should not be a factor.
Posted by: FairMckinley99Morally, yes.
Both are humans, so killing a developing human and a developed (depending on the stage of life, children and teenagers are still developing in the same way) human are both murder.
Posted by: Nur-Ab-SalIt's Just Sad!!!!
No matter what the baby is it still a living organism. It's basically killing a baby. That baby wants a chance to live just like you would. Ever heard of adoption? If you don't want the baby then you should have fertilized it. That's how I see it and I'm a middle schooler. If you were responsible enough to fertilize the fetus then you should be responsible enough to carry it. It's just that simple.
Posted by: aaliyah.mcnealyAbsolutely.
If I was to kill a human vegitable, it would be no different than killing a fetus, from the Con point of view. Either way, I have ended a human life. The difference with the fetus, is that it has the potential to have happiness, love, and life, and depriving anything of that is philosophically wrong. Subjective lines are painted in these cases.
Posted by: TUFThe definition of murder does not change according to the location of the victim.
When a driver causes an accident that kills a pregnant woman, a gunman
kills a pregnant woman, or by whatever means the pregnant woman is killed,
the perpetrator of this crime is charged with the death of the unborn child. How is abortion any different? It is exactly the same as killing a
person on the street.Posted by: MarsBIueKilling a fetus is the Same as Murdering Someone on the Street
Yes, killing a fetus is exactly like murdering someone walking down the steet. In both situations, a human life is killed. When you kill a fetus, you kill a human. When you kill someone on the street, you kill a human. The only difference is that it is legal. Abortion is murder. Murder is a sin. Therefore, abortion is a sin. Abortion is wrong.
Posted by: jamesacopeFetuses have the inherent capacity for intelligence; therefore they are more than inanimate objects.
Are there any genuine arguments AGAINST this position?
Posted by: MouthWashBasically yes.
Although a mother's difficult situation that leads to abortion is quite different from randomly murdering a grown person, they are both human beings that equally deserve to live.
Posted by: martiansharkLord have mercy.
After seeing all the answers on the "No" side, I can no longer stand to count myself among those people, even jokingly. I note again there is still no reason for the quotation marks around killing, except to bias the question. While killing a fetus and murdering someone walking on the street are not exactly the same in terms of having the exact same outcome, they are moral equivalents, so I answer yes.
Posted by: AlwaysMoreThanYouScience proves that the fetus is just as human as you and me are
Scientifically speaking, an unborn human is unquestionably all of the following:
Alive: It's growing, not rotting or shrinking.
Innocent: Never been tried in a court of law.
Human: Every cell is stamped with a DNA code that proves it is human.
Unique: Its DNA is not identical to either parent.
This makes it an innocent human life - and under no other circumstances do we allow (much less federally fund) the premeditated intentional killing of an innocent human life.
Furthermore, an unborn baby is not "just part of its mother." (I am speaking scientifically and medically here. Emotionally, a child feels very much like part of its parents and grandparents. But I'm speaking scientifically here - not about feelings.) The baby is inside, and dependent on its mother - but neither being inside nor dependent on is the same as being part of. Every DNA cell in the baby identifies it as somebody else besides its mother -- and the baby's blood does not even mix with the mother's. The baby is sealed inside a special isolating shield.
Besides, if one intentionally leaves a grown man with no coat and no food on the north pole in the middle of winters long night with the intention to kill him, the perpetrator would probably be charged with first degree murder. Just because someone's dependent doesn't mean that they can be killed.
Again furthermore, there are certain cases where it is legal for a person to be killed. (By legal, I mean that the killer will probably not be charged with murder.) One is in self defense, another is just-war (which is corporate and personal self defense) and another is capitol punishment by proper legal process, and another is accidental.
But abortion is a case where the punishment is death, but the crime doesn't fit the punishment. Actually, we can't even really call it punishment because the baby isn't even said to have committed any crime. And it's not self defense, since the baby wasn't threatening anyone's life. And it's clearly not war. Nor is it an accident - indeed, it is planned by several people who conspired together to do it. There is only one scenario other then abortion for the intentional premeditated killing of an innocent human life - and that is first degree murder.
Let us not forget that abortion providers make millions of dollars killing for hire, and work hard lobbying congress to protect their trade and to continue to get federal funds as well. It is a sick world when these babies are killed because they are worth more dead (in abortion fees to providers) then alive. It is murder for hire! I realize that it's not politically correct to say that, but if you scientifically look at the facts, that is what it is: murder for hire.
"What is it" matters. A hundred years ago we could have feigned ignorance, but with the advanced technology of today, "what it is" has been answered for us.
Scientifically, an unborn human baby is unquestionably an innocent human life, and under any circumstances other then abortion, the intentional premeditated killing of an innocent human life is first degree murder. If your world view contains the concept of wrong, then surely the intentional killing of an innocent human life must be wrong. And these are the most innocent of all!
The facts of reproduction are straightforward. Upon completion of the fertilization process, sperm and egg have ceased to exist (this is why "fertilized egg" is an inaccurate term); what exists is a single cell with 46 chromosomes (23 from each parent) that is called a zygote. The coming into existence of the zygote is the point of conception--the beginning of the life of a new human organism. The terms zygote, embryo and fetus all refer to developmental stages in the life of a human being.
Four features of the unborn (i.e., the human zygote, embryo or fetus) are relevant to his or her status as a human being. First, the unborn is living. She meets all the biological criteria for life: metabolism, cellular reproduction and reaction to stimuli. Moreover, she is clearly growing, and dead things (of course) don't grow.
Second, the unborn is human. She possesses a human genetic signature that proves this beyond any doubt. She is also the offspring of human parents, and we know that humans can only beget humans (they cannot beget dogs or cats, for instance). The unborn may not seem to "look" human (at least in her earlier stages), but in fact she looks exactly like a human at that level of human development. Living things do not become something different as they grow and mature; rather, they develop the way that they do precisely because of the kind of being they already are.
Third, the unborn is genetically and functionally distinct from (though dependent on and resting inside of) the pregnant woman. Her growth and maturation is internally directed, and her DNA is unique and different from that of any other cell in the woman's body. She develops her own arms, legs, brain, central nervous system, etc. To say that a fetus is a part of the pregnant woman's body is to say that the woman has four arms and four legs, and that about half of pregnant women have penises.
Fourth, the unborn is a whole or complete (though immature) organism. That is, she is not a mere part of another living thing, but is her own organism--an entity whose parts work together in a self-integrated fashion to bring the whole to maturity. Her genetic information is fully present at conception, determining to a large extent her physical characteristics (including sex, eye color, skin color, bone structure, etc.); she needs only a suitable environment and nutrition to develop herself through the different stages of human life.
Thus, the unborn is a distinct, living and whole human organism--a full-fledged member of the species Homo sapiens, like you and me, only at a much earlier stage in her development. She is a human being.
This fact is confirmed by embryology textbooks and leading scientists, who could be cited here ad nauseam. In 1981 a U.S. Senate judiciary subcommittee heard expert testimony on the question of when life begins. The official subcommittee report reached this conclusion:
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
The report also noted that "no witness [who testified before the subcommittee] raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species. No witness challenged the scientific consensus that unborn children are 'human beings,' insofar as the term is used to mean living beings of the human species."
Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading Embryology Text books confirm this (TW Sadler's "Langman's Embryology", Keith L. Moore's "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology", and O'Rahilly,Ronand,and Muller, Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology. Just to name a few)Posted by: AnonymousYes
The second a sperm cell interacts with an egg cell it becomes alive, this is due to the eight characteristics of life: a zygote can respond to its environment, if there is alcohol it will change itself to cope with it leading to deformed babies, it grows, it creates more copies of itself which is reproduction, it absorbs energy, it evolves as in it will be the new evolution, and it creates more cells within itself. Zygotes may be like a human in a vegetative but unlike a human in a vegetative state it is known for sure that it will come out of it. Who are we to decide if its actually thinking? Maybe it does have a consciousness but we don't know. It has no ways to show its conscious so we can't really know if it is conscious. We don't even understand consciousness so we cannot determine that a fetus isn't the answer. We can't.
Posted by: htet.htut3
Both are immoral but no.
The intrinsic value of the human is more so than the fetus. Is killing an animal the same as killing a human? I believe killing an animal is also immoral but it's somewhat an issue of rights. Fetus's are not fully human. They do have the right to live but human beings have more rights than fetus's do so no, it's not the same.
Posted by: phantomOne is alive, the other isn't.
A fetus is a fetus, it is a not a person, it is not a baby, it's a fetus. A baby is a person, a fetus isn't. It needs the woman to survive, people do not rely on other people for survival. If a person needs a life support machine then disconnecting it would not be seen as murder.
Posted by: ddeeBlatantly not *facepalm*
The fetus has no brain, no consciousness, no personality, no friends, no enemies, no job, no past, no present, only a possible future, definitely possibility of being a miscarriage or stillborn and has no statutory rights until 23 weeks.
There is simply no way to make them seem the same at all.Posted by: TolerantSpiritFetuses are not people.
A fetus is a human, but not yet a person. It is not developed, it does not have emotions, and it cannot think. Terminating a fetus is preventing a life from beginning, much like spermicide or a condom even abstinence - in other words, perfectly acceptable and no murder occurring. Killing someone on the street is attacking a living, thinking individual, not a clump of undeveloped cells.
Posted by: AnonymousKilling a fetus and murdering someone walking down the street are not the same thing, because a fetus has not yet developed an emotional life.
Though a fetus does show signs of life in its early stages, it has not yet developed a mind with which to think logically, or to know right from wrong. A grown person has developed a life and attachments to certain things, making killing him carry more of a burden than killing a fetus, which has not yet developed any such attachments.
Posted by: HospitableEdgar46Abortion should be an individual right.
Growing up in a country where abortion is an individual right, I have never given it much thought whether it is "right" or "wrong". A fetus has no concept of life, no concept of thoughts, no concept of "right" or "wrong", no concept of anything. It is a mass of processing cells. For all it matters, it could be the most natural thing in the world that its life is ended 3 months after conception. Comparing that to killing a random person walking in the street is taking the abortion issue to a place it doesn't belong.
Posted by: AnonymousI agree with Phantom.
What phantom said.
Posted by: adontimasuAre you kidding?
Of course it isn't.
Let's see. A fetus has no consciousness, it has no experiences, no memories, no hopes, no dreams, no aspirations, nothing. Painlessly aborting it before it has any of those is not murder.
A person on the straight, be it a toddler, an old man, or anyone in between, they have. They have consciousness, they have memories, they have people they know, they have/had aspirations, and experiences. You're taking that all that away when you murder them.
So really, abortion and killing someone on the street are not the same thing. Murder is only comparable to murder, same goes for Slavery and the Holocaust, which is what I've seen Anti-Choicers compare to Abortion to as well.Posted by: AnonymousNo way
HUGE difference because the human is already alive! The fetus is as well but it's still in the woman stomach. Should the doctors start giving the birth certificates just because a woman has a fetus? No they wait till it's a human. If you go that far back and say "the fetus is a human because it's alive" than that must mean every time someone masterbates they're killing a human because the sperm is technically alive. A fetus is a part of the woman therefore she has the right to do whatever she wants to it. If I chop my penis off right now am I wrong because that sperm could have made a child? Come on now that's just stupid.
Posted by: b9kingNo.
No, no more than killing sperm or menstruating is the same as murder because it's killing a "potential life."
Posted by: vinnv226Heraclitus says no.
If you can't jump into the same river twice then you sure as hell can't consider these two the same. To say yes is to be so reductionist that it blinds you. To arrive at a conclusion that says yes has to ignore, circumstance, context, socio-economic factors... I could go on. To ignore these is to ignore very important facts about how the world actually is.
Posted by: jedipengiunRegardless of whether or not they are equally wrong, they're definitely NOT the same.
A fetus has no aspirations, no accomplishments, and no relationships. A fetus has no personality, memory or beliefs. By murdering a person walking on the street, you're stealing away a life--a life of aspirations, accomplishments, relationships, personality, memory and beliefs. By aborting a fetus you are stealing away none of those things, therefore the two are not the same.
Posted by: JessalynOf course not
Just because the fetus is a human doesn't mean that it has the same right to life that an adult has. Not to say it's O.K, but it obviously isn't morally equal. I have a life and memories, a fetus does not. To say that something that doesn't even have the ability to reason has the same moral worth as an adult is frankly stupid.
Posted by: natoastPartly yes, mostly no
If you are asking about the straight up killing part, then yes they are the same. What is important here is context. Morally, they are not the same unless the fetus is just about to be born. A fetus is NOT a baby. A baby is a human being that is at least remotely desired. A fetus is a conglomerate of cells attempting to become a baby. I see no problem in interfering with the cells. Now, some of the YES people will say it is the potential that counts. Now, that is where we differ. The people who say YES assume many things. They assume that the baby will be healthy. They assume the baby will have a loving, caring home. They assume the baby will survive childhood. And lastly, they assume that the baby will become a productive member of society. I try not to assume so much.
Posted by: AnonymousNot all humans are persons.
Personhood does not begin at conception. If a person always means the same thing as a human being and if we do not qualify personhood by means of consciousness, investment in the experience of the now, etc., we are left with at least one absurdity. A human in a persistent vegetative state would also have to be called a person by those who think there is no distinction between a person and a human. Thus, they must have all the same rights we would normally give people in a social context. One of these rights is presumably the right to determine how other persons treat you. But a person in a persistent vegetative state cannot state their opinion about how they want to be treated, so no action can therefore be justified. This is absurd and therefore there must be some set of qualities that distinguishes between persons and human beings, one of these being the ability to exercise some kind of consciously intended will. Fetuses are obviously not conscious and so they fail to meet the requirements of personhood. Therefore they do not have the same rights (if any) that persons do.
Posted by: CollegeRuledTwo completely different things
Seriously? The baby doesn't know if it wants to live or not, no human can remember the first two to three years of their life, more or less, all the things babies do are just naturally put into them at birth, the baby doesn't know if it's alive or not. A man walking down the street has lived a life, worked hard to stay alive, and earned his place in life, a fetus has yet to even leave the body, sperm cells are living things too, and the human body forces sperm out on a regular basis if not manually handled by the human, so the living organism nonsense is out of the equation. Also, what if they didn't WANT the baby, you know? rape exists, also, the last thing we need on this planet is more people, we can barely give jobs and food to the one's we have now, it would be shear luck if the baby actually amounts to anything by the time it grows up into the ever populating planet that we call home. You cannot provide for a baby forever, can you? you got to die eventually, and the grown up baby will have no place left because all the jobs it wanted was taken. Every country everywhere is in debt, and what if the baby was born into a bad area? Anything they do can get them killed, and putting them up for adoption and then telling the child they are adopted at some point is one of the most heartbreaking experiences anyone could have to go through. If they were killed before birth, there would be no pain, they wouldn't even know it happened because they weren't able to tell if they existed yet, they have no friends to lose like an adult would, people who love them, not everyone knows when and where a baby is being aborted, you didn't even know if it existed or not, not every aborted baby can amount to something, you could hope all you want, but the likely hood is rare. You don't care what happens to the baby after it's born, do you? you don't care what they do with their lives after their born. They could become another amazing hero or another mass murderer, or they could just be screwed with the life they are given now, in this merciless landfill called Earth.
Posted by: SteveCoronusKilling a fetus would be like killing semen.
Someone walking on the streets has a personality - a fetus does not.
Someone walking on the streets has the potential of doing good - a fetus does not.
Someone walking on the streets is more conscienscous. (there are exceptions, though)
A fetus has no real* social connections - nobody would miss his 'personality' where as a person walking down a street is very likely to.Posted by: DphectNo
It's the equivalent of killing a person who has been unconscious for their entire life.
Posted by: Frederick53The fetus is the woman's property
Although my statement may not be popular, as far as I'm concerned, until it leaves her body it's part of her. Then it becomes a question of would you want to get something removed from your body surgically to improve your happiness? In my opinion, if it's in her, then it's not the same as killing a stranger on the street.
Posted by: ZacharyDamonOf course not.
The former is an act of asserting one's bodily sovereignty, while the latter is cold bloded killing. What a ridiculous idea to compare the two. They could not be further apart. How sick is it, to compare someone who is choosing to not have their bodily sovereignty violated against their will with the act of going up to a stranger, who was minding their own business, and killing them. It is a comparison only thought valid by morons.
Posted by: The_Chaos_HeartWtf?
Okay seriously, if you think that it's ending a life before it's actually begun, then start pointing fingers at men who ejaculate for pleasure. All of that sperm contribute to possible human lives, yet nobody gets mad at them?!
Posted by: AnonymousNo, it's worse.
The person walking on the street has had their chance to live their life. The fetus, however, has been completely denied any true part of the experience. Someone is taking it upon themselves to play God and decide that this person, this fetus, will not get the chance to live, to breath. It will be a person, so it is a person.
Posted by: blasphemesSort of
Late term abortion could fit the bill, but regular abortion doesnt in my opinion
Posted by: imabenchNo, absolutely not
Whether or not abortion is murder, the person in the street has actual emotions, thoughts, memories, achievements, relatives, breath, etc, the list goes on. A fetus, not matter how you try to argue around it, does not "want" to live in the general understanding of the word "want." It does not know how to want something it hasn't experienced. It's like being saddened that someone lied to you even though you don't know they lied to you. I believe the abortion debate is a very, very legitimate debate, even though I am pro-choice. I can understand perhaps the reasoning behind why people would think it's "murder", but even then, you cannot compare "that" murder to killing someone on the street.
Posted by: WarmonkeyFunny
Well to all the guys on here that said yes .. that's like saying when your girlfriend gives you head, she's a cannibal.
Oh and if a microorganism is a human; we're all walking genocides. We kill off cells ALL THE TIME.Posted by: TheHitchslapNope
Nope
Posted by: eZminTNo.
This statement is completely false.
First, let me say that abortion is done in hospitals and not the streets (I know, now let's move on). The fetus really isn't living until it is born, but is still unfair because it doesn't have an opportunity to express life.Posted by: sjpsFetuses cannot survive alone
If it can not survive without its host, the host should have legal rights over its life or death. That's why the two are different.
Posted by: Anonymous