What is the difference between an abortion, and an "adult" taking the life of a baby already born?

Question

Can either of them fight for their lives? Did either get a choice of life, or death?

Yes, if an adult kills a baby, we all call it murder, do we not? Cells are alive, they grow, do they not?

So growing cells that will become a baby if allowed, are not worth anything. Do I get some of you right?

I never told anyone what to do, by the way. I am simply asking a question.

So because a possible child is not yet developed, and we call it something else besides murder, and the "law" says it's legal. That's okay. What about when the "law" said it was "okay" to punish a slave by whipping? Was the law right back then?

Answer 1

There is no difference. I'm still baffled by the lame argument that if someone harms a pregnant woman and the baby dies, it is murder. Meanwhile, if the same woman opted to have an abortion, it is not.

This would suggest that if an outsider kills an unborn child, the life had value. However, if the mother kills the same unborn child, somehow, that life has no value.

Answer 2

Those who support abortion who are answering this question stating that if you scratch your nose or your azz , you are killing cells ; then this is for you . What would the cells your scratched from your azz have gone on to become had you not aborted them ? At lastly for all you who claim "it`s just a glob of cells" and has no rights`, then will you deny that you were once " a glob of cells`" ? If you deny it , then please tell us how you got here , and by what right did you exercise as a " glob of cells " not to be aborted and to be allowed to be born ? By some of the answers` here it looks as if quite a few of you might have gotten here by an azz scratching !

Answer 3

Using your logic, we're all committing murder every time we scratch our nose, right? Cells are dying. They do grow.

The saddest thing is that most abortion opponents will fight to see the kid born, but once the kid pops out of his mother and she can't afford to take care of it, the pro-lifers would rather see the kid die then have a govt get involved to help the family.

To me it seems that it's just another way Cons/Reps are trying to control other peoples lives when it has ZERO affect on them personally.

Cons/Reps: Kids being born to mothers that don't want them - Yes. But when a 6 year old is sick and his mother can't afford to pay for it, death is preferred. There is absolutely no consistency to these beliefs which makes me think that you pro-lifers are being told what to think and not thinking rationally.

Answer 4

The difference is simple and clear, if you're intelligent enough to see it. A baby that's already been born is a human being, capable of independent survival. A fetus at the time of abortion is not. It is not even capable of assisted survival outside the womb. To say it is equal to a human being when it is no more than a potential human being is an insult to humanity. Cells are alive and grow, so do we call it murder when you get a haircut of trim your fingernails? Why do we not prosecute miscarriages as negligent homicide? Arguments against the right to choose abortion are generally flimsy, and yours symbolize this well.

Answer 5

I can not believe that anyone would want to tell someone else what to do with their body and life...... in america the free
one religion might believe it is a person or soul

but an athiests religion may see it as helping the planet by not bringing another unwanted child into this screwed up world where rich people do not want to pay for these poor kids

i blame everyone who does not believe in socialism
take from the rich and help the poor....

what is dysfunctional about their brains...

Answer 6

There is a HUGE difference between the two. First, it is legal to get an abortion... its not legal to murder a baby. Enough with the word games in hopes of proving a point that is not made... Next question

Answer 7

You annihilate billions of cells everytime you get out of bed in the morning.

Though I personally am opposed to abortion, I believe that if people like you were are allowed to legislate their morality, then the bonds that bind us together as a civil society will become further frayed. Why? Because not everyone accepts your values and they have just as much right to live in the country they were BORN in as you do.

I capped BORN because our civil society only acknowledges the rights of its citizens. If you are willing to refer to people conceived in the US as "unborn citizens" then you might have to rethink immigration, and everyone knows that you don't want to do that. Is a foetus conveived in the US by Mexican parents and born in Mexico still count as a US citizen? I already know the answer to that question.

That said, until a baby is born (or, in my opinion, capable of living independantly from the mother) then that baby's life is 100% in the hands of its mother. If she chooses to abort that baby, then I leave that between her and whatever concept of God she may have.

It isn't the business of the state to control people's procreative functions. With that said, I am 100% opposed to tax money going to pay for abortions....but, I'm also against tax money going to pay for nuclear missles too...

Answer 8

I believe there is a right to choose technically theres to me there is no difference but being a embryo there is no quality of life or attachment. That is why we live in a country where we all have the right to choose.

Answer 9

To me there is no difference. To others I guess they will have to explain it to God at some point.

Answer 10

An embryo is not a viable human life. Never has been, never will be.