Do you believe abortion is murder?

Question

then you really better be very strongly against the war in Iraq. Otherwise, you're just a racist HYPOCRITE who supports the murder of innocent children...just so long as they are Iraqi children.

or do you think it's OK to kill innocent children if you claim to have a good reason, or if it makes someone else's life better, or more convenenient? because if you do...you have to be pro choice, don't you?

Answer 1

a childish attempt to sound intelligent when your remarks display a ridiculous comparison. thats like the liberal argument made by air head cameron diaz, if youre pro life you must be pro rape. honestly........

Answer 2

Well I'll be honest, it's really hard to take a question like this seriously when it's written so brutally. Honestly, if you want to be taken seriously, then write the question as if you actually took the time to think about it, not just randomly threw it down in a fit of rage.
I think someone before me pointed out that you really need to make a more accurate comparison in your question. Comparing abortions to casualties of war doesn't work, because one is intentional and the other is not.
Also, and this is purely my opinion, I have a hard time imagining that an unborn fetus is alive; oh, for sure it is once it gets to a certian stage, but during the initial stages, I don't think so. It's no more developed than the actual sperm or the ovum are to begin with, so if you consider it murder at that point, then you must consider that all the sperm that don't make it or all the unfertilized ovum that are also getting "murdered". Granted, I'm not a doctor, but based on your statements, I'm guessing that you aren't either, so I won't bother trying to make myself sound technical
In regards to the war on Iraq....well, it seems to me that you're of the mind that abortion is grounds for murder, and is therefore punishable. What about the terrorists? What about the suicide bombers? Do you think that if the war stopped tomorrow, those people would stop too? No, of course they wouldn't. Nobody on this side wants those children to die, but even if this side stopped fighting, they would still be getting killed, but at least this side is trying to stop it from happening.
Basically, I'm presenting two arguments back at your question, because like I said, as I see it, you're talking about two totally different things

Answer 3

Is this a question or a political statement about Iraq?

I do not believe abortion is murder. I am not a racist. I do not support the murder of innocent children; and I still haven't figured out why we're in Iraq, and never believed we were there for the right reasons.

Nor do I think its okay to kill innocent children; and I do not claim to have any good reason to do so.

I am pro choice, but for none of the reasons in your statement.

And ... I am a Republican. Surprised?

Answer 4

Pro-lifers who support the war are generally religious, and that justifies anything. Don't forget God told Mr Bush to invade Iraq, just like he tells us the Death Penalty is moral.

Religion doesn't have to be logical- it's purpose is to reconcile the irreconcilable. You only have to take a look at those criticising your question and note how many of them pose a cogent argument. I advise you just take the course I take- ignore the hypocrisy of the religious right and do what you think is right. Then if there is an afterlife you've got a decent chance of going to heaven, whilst most of the god-fearers will be cast into hell for reading the wrong guide book.

And my position? I live by the words of Bill Hicks- "you're not a person 'til you're in my phone book"......

Answer 5

Next time claim that if abortion is murder, so is the death penalty. It is MUCH closer to a legitimate argument. It ignores the fact that unborn children have not been convicted of a crime, but its closer than your argument.

But you don't care about abortion or Iraq, do you? You just oppose ALL military force anywhere. That makes YOU the hypocrite.

Answer 6

For abortion, the proper word to use is "kill", as in "kill babies". Use it repeatedly, consistently, directly, often.

It is a non-judgmental, accurate, biologic description of what happens. We use it when we step on a roach. We use it when we spray crabgrass. Use it here also.

What of the word "murder"? Well, a much stronger word. But you cannot murder a dog or an insect, only a human being.

So to call him a murderer, clearly implies that he knows that this is a living human being and kills anyway. Therefore, use "murderer" with caution. It has its place, but sometimes it can be counter-productive. The word "kill", however, as in "kill babies", is always in order. This is Dr. John Willke.

Answer 7

I don't understand the comparison about abortion and the war having anything at all to being a racist. The word is over used and has become ineffective to make a point.

Answer 8

I disagree with Abortion it replaced into their option to have unprotected intercourse, so as that they'd desire to tackle the outcomes I do whether understand if the guy is a new child who replaced into raped, they of course could no longer look after a toddler yet even then they'd continually have it and positioned it up for adoption. i think of it is homicide to a pair degree, you're killing a toddler that would desire to be born. it is not undemanding I replied reason' i'm bored

Answer 9

There is a distinction between killing and murder. Murder is never justifiable, killing may be. If you believe that a marksman may shoot a terrorist about to take hundreds of lives, then you would not call him/her a murderer though he takes another life. It is legitimate to take an absolute pacifistic position, though in reality few do.

An abortion is not murder if it protects the life of the mother. Such a child was known in Jewish and early Christian texts as a pursuer and the abortion warranted. However, taking the life of a fetus for economic or cultural reasons has been understood as murder by most Christian and Jewish writers through history.

Answer 10

Even assuming that 'murder' is "the intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought" (which it is, according to Law dictionaries), the question still remains whether or not the fetus is a human being, and whether or not it is possible to have "malice" against what one does not believe is a human being.

Laying aside "malice", we're left with the question of who decides whether or not the fetus is a "human being".

Is that up to the individual, or government?

If the individual, why can't I abort a surly cabdriver?

If the government, should it be the legislature, or a judge?

If a judge or judges, how are any of us to know today what a "human being" will be tomorrow?

If the legislature, should it be state or federal?

If federal, why do they not also decide when that "human being" is competent to vote, drive, drink, work, leave school, marry, and precisely what "malice aforethought" means from sea to shining sea?