Murder is defined as "illegal killing with malice aforethought." Abortion fails this definition for two reasons. First, abortion is not illegal, and second, there is no evidence to suggest that expecting mothers feel malice towards their own flesh and blood. ABORTION IS NOT MURDER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-12-07 03:37:19 · 23 answers · asked by Laura W 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Well lets see how to answer this so you can understand. You do understand that there have been many illegal laws, right. Think slavery, women's sufferage...etc...So to say that a law has been passed that allows for abortion and therefore it cannot by definition be illegal is plain ignorant. Using that logic, if Roe V. Wade is ever overturned, then abortion immediately becomes murder, right?
Secondly you're not understanding the term malice aforethought. You see basically what that means is that you know what you're doing before you do it. It isn't accidental. I doubt that too many accidental abortions happen each and every year. You think that because you see the word malice that you have to have anger some type of emotion to call it murder. One only needs to think of a cold blooded hit man...someone who has no 'malice' (the common understanding of malice in the general public), but only kills coldly without any emotional response whatsoever. Using your thought process this individual cannot ever commit murder.
Now...on to the real question that you were trying to get to. Is the fetus human and therefore privy to the US Constitution to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Well one only needs to look at it this way. Scientifically...without passion. What makes you human? Shed everything else and you have to come to the conclusion that you are defined as human because you have 23 pairs of chromosomes lined up in a specific way. Then how do you define, scientifically what is alive...reponds to stimuli, grows, etc.
By definition an embryo is human life, no question scientifically. Next comes the idea of viability. Can a fetus survive without the mother as a conduit? Using this type of logic any time a human cannot survive without a conduit then they aren't viable. So anytime anyone SCUBA dives or enters space they are no longer viable because they cannot sustain life on their own. Obviously this is a ridiculous statement, so viability cannot be a concern.
Lastly is the issue of personal liberties, does a woman have a right to make choices over their own bodies if the fetus is actually part of their own body. This is probably the most compelling issue when it comes to abortion. And to show how weak this argument is...if the fetus is actually part of the womans body...and the fetus is male, that is it has testes and a penis (present at just 7 weeks of gestation) then is the mother both male and female? You see we define a female as having a vagina and a male as having a penis...if both are present in the mothers body then by definition she must be both male and female. An absolutely ridiculous conclusion, however, one which must be made if both are present and the fetus is actually part of the womans body. Obviously the fetus is a seperate entity...with it's own blood type (sometimes) and it's own genetic makeup (always).
So were have the arguements for abortion gone. There aren't any left. Take a more dispassionate look and you'll see that beneath all of the rhetoric are people who are just trying to rid themselves of personal responsibility. You decided to have sex and you then must therefore pay the consequences of your actions.
Plain and simply, abortion is murder. Deal with it.
2006-12-07 03:57:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
what ever happened to fore thought before most pregnacies occur?You can murder some one without planning it in a malicious way.Abortion may not be illegal according to man's law,but there are a lot of people{in the billions)who would disagree with you.The reason kids are not allowed to vote is because they do not understand the process,likewise,a baby doesn't understand it is being killed.I said that to say this,there is a living being inside of the mother and it was placed there by a man,how is it that a man have to pay child support for the kids that are born,but the ones that get aborted,he have limited or no say in the matter?I personally I think that it is wrong on top of wrong,that baby can hear,eat,and learn a lot while in the womb and it is scientifically proven.that womb is an evironment similar to the earth as it provide the proper nourishment,shelter and growth until the baby outgrows it,then you exit that environment for a new womb called earth-universe,so let's stop trivializing the abortion process and get down to serious teaching about values,morals,and the proper situations for sex to occur,that alone would help in decreasing the amount of abortions.by the way,slavery was legal at one time by man,and that did not make it right,something in the collective human nature rose up against it and the laws were changed.
2006-12-07 05:01:42 · answer #2 · answered by lolo rachi 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because we know that if a pregnancy is allowed to continue, a new human being will be born into the world. By ending that pregnancy, you are killing that human being.
I dont know if I'd call abortion "murder" in the legal sense, but I definitely do consider it the killing of an innocent and defenseless human being. And it definitely is premeditated.
By the way, I do not say this for religious reasons. I'm an atheist who is also a conservative libertarian. I view abortion as an utter abandonment of personal responsability. A woman makes a choice and commits an act that she knows may result in pregnancy, yet kills an unborn human because she's not ready to have a child yet. The unborn child pays for the woman's mistake with it's life.
2006-12-07 03:44:52 · answer #3 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Nice try, but you're dead wrong. For starters, the correct definition of murder is "the arbitrary taking of the life of another without just cause" where "just cause" is defined as defense of self, defense of family/loved ones, or acting within the scope of employment as a member of law enforcement or the armed forces. Secondly, how the hell can you say that an expectant mother who aborts her child feels no malice toward her own flesh and blood? A mother putting her own selfish wants and needs before those of her unborn child and killing said unborn child in the process clearly constitutes malice. Finally, the Supreme Court justices who decided Roe v. Wade forgot that our Founding Fathers unanimously declared that all men (human beings) are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among those are -- what's the first one? -- LIFE. The right to exist without fear of arbitrary extermination overrides all other rights. This whole idea of abortion somehow being OK is a sad attempt to justify one's actions when those people know for a fact that it's morally, legally, and societally wrong -- if it weren't, we wouldn't have as many whiny-@$$ed children like you trying to pass it off as an acceptable course of action.
2006-12-07 03:57:30 · answer #4 · answered by sarge927 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Semantics! If Murder is defined as above...what about all the other definitions of killing...manslaughter..genocide..infantcide..etc. You can call one thing many different things. DUI..DWI..DWUI..all the same thing.
I see it as, killing is killing. We spray weeds and they die, we say we killed the weeds. We forget to water our plant and we say..oops, I killed my plant. We shoot a dog..we killed it. A woman pays a doctor to interrupt the life of the child inside..she paid someone to kill it. If you cause something living to die, you have participated in killing it. People get upset about the demolition of forests ( for many reasons). A lot of people can't stand the thought of animals being neglected, abused or put to sleep. Shouldn't our own living human lives count more than those? Although it is all important and we are all connected, the human life and soul ARE different. Just because a woman doesn't have malice towards her unborn child when she has an abortion, doesn't make it any more right. The reasons for taking a human life can vary, but the unltimate act is still the same. Who cares what you call it.
2006-12-07 03:55:06 · answer #5 · answered by PennyPickles17 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a Machivellian ruler. He is duplicitous and cunning. I live in Turkey and saw how much he changed since 2002 election victory. As 2016, I can say with certainty that you should not really focus on what he says. Because he can give any speech if it serves his political agenda.
2016-05-23 03:42:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the people who say that abortion is murder are from the Christian right, a group notorious for taking very harsh stances and not always being logical or considering personal liberties. Whether you feel abortion is murder or not, it's still paramount that people have the liberty (which is defined as freedom from coercion) and the right to do what they see fit with their own bodies. You could argue that being overweight/ overeating is murder in that the eventual result is loss of life. The same for smoking and lots of other things. However, the bottom line is, as free people, do others have the right to tell us we can't?
2006-12-07 03:44:29 · answer #7 · answered by dominicansgoddess 1 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Abortion is not legal in all countries. And do not tell me that abortion should be allowed because women have the right to decide what's right for their bodies. This is not just about the woman, this involves another human being - one that is still helpless and unable to defend himself.
2006-12-07 04:07:20 · answer #8 · answered by politicalscienceandpsychology 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Abortion is still wrong. If you are not open to the posibility of life, then you should not be having sex. In other words, if you don't want to run around the bases, then don't step up to the plate.
Keep in mind that heart-beat starts at 18 days. If you stop a heart from beating then you kill.
2006-12-07 03:48:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
YOU ARE RIGHT! It is NOT murder, according to the Supreme court!.
What we want is the Supreme court to MAKE it illegal, which will then make it murder!
As to the second argument, if the mother really loved the child, I don't really think she would be killing it. Andrea Yates wasn't full of love and compassion when she MURDERED her children, so why do you think aborting mothers are?
2006-12-07 03:52:06 · answer #10 · answered by i hate hippies but love my Jesus 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋