Do you think abortion is murder? should people get charged of murder if they get an abortion in your opinion?

Ithink abortion is homocide, though not all homocides are murders. Let me explain my position.

I have thought about this quite a bit over the years. The wide spread of opinions is incredible, matched only by the passion of the activists on all sides. This is an issue that few people are even able to have a civilized discussion about. Complicating it further is that there are few that hold a black-and-white few of the issue. The majority of people in the US see abortion as a giant grey area with varying degrees of abortion considered acceptable. Very few people hold the position of unlimited abortion access or no abortion under any circumstances. Below is the process I went through to come up with my position on the matter.

First, I asked myself the question at what point does a human being obtain "personhood" and as such gain all the legal and moral protections that status entitles them to? There are some who say that the point of personhood is 28 days AFTER birth, at which point you still should be allowed to abort. In fact, there is a professor of ethics at Princeton University that actively advocates this position. This is the position that spurred “Born Alive” legislation that says if a woman has an abortion and the baby survives, that doctors cannot withhold care and let the baby die on the operating table. Others say up to the point of birth. These folks, such as Barak Obama, would hold that this type of infanticide as well as partial birth abortion is a reasonable procedure. Or perhaps just before while the mother is in labor. Or 6 months of gestation or 3 months or three weeks. I wrestled with this for a long time.

Then I looked at the issue a different way. Does human life have an imputed value or an intrinsic one? If we say that it is imputed, meaning the value is derived from something else, some outside criteria, then any one of the above positions would be equally valid. We as a society would decide what criteria to select. My problem with this is what criteria do you use? On what basis is a baby at 6 weeks more valuable than a baby at 5 weeks? Is a baby that has not yet developed a heart still a baby? This hit really hard on my wife and I when we lost one of our children. Lynne had a miscarriage a few years ago. When people with strong pro-choice sentiments gave us their condolences, they referred to the fetus as a child, even though she (we named her Grace, even though we do not know for sure if she was a she or a he. It made it easier to explain to the children what happened and easier for Lynne and I to grieve our loss) was at the same gestational point, 9 weeks, that they believed abortion was merely removing some unwanted tissue of the mother. So, the criteria used is whether or not a child is wanted. If that is so, then why?

By similar logic, if the value of human life is imputed, it can also be taken away, depending on what some person or group of persons believe that life is worth. So if you happen to be mentally retarded or black or Jewish, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be killed off for the good of the community if they believe it. I have a friend who is paralyzed from the neck down. There are some in the world who would look at her and say that she has no quality of life or that the money and effort to support her would be better used on others. They would have her die due to her handicap. But knowing her the way I do I find the notion that she is without a quality of life to be ridiculous on its face. She is a writer, a painter, a social worker, and heads up an international charity. I’d call that a pretty good quality of life. So would her husband who married her years after her accident put her in the wheelchair. Thus, the imputed value logic is shown to me to be completely arbitrary. Following any of the “prior to this point it is not human but at this one on it is” positions is likewise arbitrary and does not answer the question of personhood.

But consider the proposition that human life has an intrinsic value. That it is valuable simply because it is human life and no other reason. No measure or quantification of the value of it, it is and that is enough. It is sort of like gold. Gold is valuable because it is gold, not because we as a society stood up one day and said, “we are going to make gold valuable”. Gold has an intrinsic value as opposed to an imputed value, such as paper currency. Paper currency is worthless in and of itself. It has value only because we say it has a certain value.

This position then would support a clear line between human life and not human life. With this position, you are a human at the point that you have a unique genetic code. In other words, at inception. Prior to inception, there was no “you”. The male and female reproductive components in and of themselves are not a unique genetic code, but merely parts of the donors. It is only when they combine to create new life do “you” begin to be a person.

The notion of intrinsic value also carries forward throughout life. My mother-in-law was on dialysis for several months before diabetes finally took her life. There are many who would have said that she should just die and not burden the rest of us. If those persons held the position that human life has imputed value, I can understand. I however, believe that human life is intrinsically valuable and worth preserving and protecting for as long as possible. Thus, we should protect life at the beginning and at the end and at all points in between, as we did with her.

So, we come full circle back to the question of abortion. Should it be outlawed? My answer, since I believe in the intrinsic value of human life, is that for the most part it should. Why only “for the most part”? Because there are times when you have to weigh the life of two humans and pick one to live and one to die. My sister-in-law faced such a problem once. She got pregnant from her husband and it turned out to be a tubal pregnancy. Had the child been allowed to grow inside of her, it would have killed her before the baby would have been able to survive on its own. Thus, in weighing these two lives, one would have to conclude that the baby would have to die in order to save the mother’s life. What about cases of rape or incest? I have 5 daughters (yes, that was no typo) and the thought of one of them being raped is always lurking in the back of my mind. If one of them should get pregnant as a result, the hard decision would be to let that child live. Pregnancy is not the extremely dangerous event of the past. Rarely do people die from giving birth. Many more die as a result of complications after an abortion. But the bottom line is that the child is innocent of any crime, so why punish it? I’m not saying it is an easy choice and I can certainly sympathize with those who have had to make it. Perhaps they even made the wrong choice. But, God is a loving and forgiving God, who can even forgive the taking of a human life. Which is what abortion is.

Right from the first sentence, your logic is flawed. To start, a cell is a living thing. Ask any scientist, and they will tell you that much. The question becomes, is this living group of cells that is constantly dividing and differentiating, a human being? And if so, when does it become a human? At conception, at birth, or somewhere in between?

Is it human? Answering this question should be easy enough. The fetus has all the DNA that makes it a person at the moment of conception. That fetus will never be a duck or a cat, it will not be a tree or a flower. It will only ever be a human. Again, ask any scientist if you doubt this one

The next question is, when is it ¨human enough¨ to have the same right to life as you and I have. This is where it gets tricky. A fetus has a beating heart within 3 weeks of conception and the neural tube (brain and spinal cord) are intact by the following week (the brain, of course, will continue to grow into childhood and early adulthood, but it is intact by this point). So when is it ¨human¨? At least at 3 weeks of conception, when it has a beating heart (if not sooner). Something with a beating heart is certainly a living organism. And, as discussed before, the organism is human.

So the final question becomes, does this living human being have the same rights as the rest of us? And if so, at what point is he or she ¨developed¨ enough to have those rights. Saying it´s OK to kill a fetus because it isn´t fully developed is like saying its OK to kill a 2-year old or a 5-year-old or a 12-year old, because they are also not fully developed yet. Go out and murder a 2 year old and try that sad excuse that ¨it wasn´t fully developed¨ on the judge or your fellow prison inmates. See how much sympathy the judge or inmates give you.

If you really don´t want a child, DON´T HAVE SEX! And while I can sympathize with people who are raped, even something as tragic as rape does not give you the right to go out and murder someone. That includes the unborn child. Plus, only 1% of abortions are due to rape. Another 3-4% are due to serious deformities in the child or threat to the mother´s life. The rest are people who are either careless or who just think that thier life is more important than another human beings. And yes, I know that some people are responsible and use birth control, but still get pregnant. But you knew that all birth control methods have a certain failure rate and you knew that there was still a small potential for pregnancy. Again, if you are not willing to take this small risk, then do not have sex.

And no, I am not religious and my opinion is not based in religion. But I do have morals and ethics which tell us that murder is wrong. Science tells us that this is a living organism, a human being. And just as I am against murder of an adult, I am against murder of an unborn child.

EDIT: And just because something is legal or society accepts it as OK, doesn´t make it right. It wasn´t all that long ago that it was ¨OK¨ to enslave blacks or mass-slaughter Native Americans.

* Steps off of soap box*

Murder is a legal term, and it is defined strictly by state statute. A person could be charged with murder for the death of unborn fetus if the state law so provides. However, abortion is specifically excluded from the legal definition of murder since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade held that any law criminalizing abortions prior to viability of the fetus is unconstitutional. The point is: if a state law says that someone who kills a box turtle can be charged with murder, then it's considered murder. If shooting your neighbor's dog does not constitute murder according to the language of the statute, then it is not murder. But aside from the legal aspect of the issue, there is a significant difference between a woman causing the termination of her own pregnancy through an abortion and the death of an unborn fetus caused by the intentional misconduct of a third party. Think about it this way: someone who cuts off a woman's arm can be charged with assault and battery as well as a number of other crimes, but it is perfectly legal for a woman to cut off her arm herself. The distinction is the woman's choice as to whether she wants to lose her arm or not. Her pregnancy follows the same principle: if she wanted to carry the fetus to term, then the early termination caused by the actions of another can be punishable by law, but if she does not want to keep the pregnancy, then she can terminate it herself prior to a certain point in time. Probably the most important thing to understand is that, legally speaking, a fetus is not a citizen of the U.S., since it has not been born, and therefore it has no inherent "right to life" guaranteed by the Constitution.

<<Do you think abortion is murder?>>

Yes. Abortion is murder.

<<should people get charged of murder if they get an abortion in your opinion?>>

If abortion is banned, then having one constitutes a crime. Therefore, yes.

<<first of all, in my opinion abortion is not murder, the fetus is not alive.>>

No. Abortion IS murder because life begins at conception, not birth, nor some arbitrary point in between. Therefore, EVERY abortion constitutes the murder of an unborn human being.

<<it has the POTENTIAL to be alive and living but it is not.>>

No. The unborn are alive.

<<it is merely a mass of single cells (depending on the trimester). you must remember that humans are multicellular organisms>>

Since the unborn are alive since the moment of conception, obviously it's not the number of cells that matters in determining when a human life begins.

<<there is a separation between church and state. no religious reasonings should be used to come up with a law.>>

No, that's not what Separation of Church and State means at all.

Seperation of Church and States means the government is forbidden to do the following three things:

1) Creating a state-run religion/church

2) Adopt an existing religion/church as a staterun religion

3) interfere in any way with the free practice of religion.

That's what Separation of Church and State is. It LIMITS the government's power over religion, it does not strengthen it as you seem to be implying.

abosolutely not... i think many people have given very good answers already. I'm not religious and i believe a woman has the right to decide what happens to her body. If abortion is turned down by the law and we start charging people for murder, we are taking away a womans right to her own body. It's one big step backwards in society. Look at how far we have already come. From a time when men went out, got the jobs and woman stayed at home to raise the kids and make the husband dinner! Then we cross to a time when women finally broke out, burned their bras and embraced their importance in society, we gained voting rights and a voice for own existence. New age times abortion has become legal, we have greater access to other contraceptives, and we are finally been seen as equals in the workforce. Screw those who want to take away our rights and freedom of opinion. This isn't the 1950's anymore. We all have to get used to the fact that we are evolving. This isn't the only topic that we are all going to face and have differences of opinions over. I hate to imagine what my daughter will grow up to face in society. It's all going to change again.

Having said all that, i believe there is a law in every pro-abortion state that stipulates how far along you can be before abortion is illegalised. From what i have read a fetus or baby has a small chance of survival on its own around the 22/24th week of gestation. For as long as the baby can survive on its own then this should remain the cut off point although my opinion does vary on that number. I have had two kids and they certainly look like tiny humans to me when they are 18 weeks. Perhaps morally this should be the cut off but if you want a law based purely on science and whats available medically then you have to extend it.

Charging people with murder is a little over fetched because if a women is that distraught and doesnt want a baby she might find other more horrific and dangerous ways to terminate if it becomes illegal. She could ultimately kill herself in the process all because some idiot wants to charge her with murder for a choice that should have been hers. If that ever happened, i would blame the womans death against the law that denied her the right to safer medical practices. And if you are totally against abortions then you need to focus your campaign away from hating people who choose abortion to greater education and information on contraceptives. I personally think we all skipped this step. I am shocked at how much is available to me out there now as compared to 10 years ago when i was learning about in high school. We shouldn't be focusing our arguments on the rights and wrongs of abortion, we should be putting all of our time and effort into re-educating the population on what is readily available, thus reducing the number of abortions world wide. Education is the key, not another stupid law to add to the cauldron.

Murderers are put behind bars because they are sick in the head and were hell bent on causing physical pain upon another living, conscious human being. People who abort are often the victums of being uneducated, as well as suffering an array of emotions such as confusion, hopelessness, stress, depression, anxiety, fear... no one who aborts has the intention in mind that they are going to "murder" a baby!

Cells are alive. A lot of people suffer from PTSD after they abort. My sister had her teenage daughter abort her baby and both of them went through agony about it afterwords for years and years. Not worth it. But I can see if someone is raped doing it ..if they can't stand to be in their own body because of it. Guess it just depends on the person how they will react. Nobody really knows if it's murder or not. Everybody just says according to how they've been raised.

It's not murder if abortion is legal. Murder is an unlawful killing. If people, despite this fact, want to continue to believe it's murder that's their CHOICE but legally they would be wrong.

You can't be "murdered" until you've been born already, just a thought.

Supreme Court - Roe v Wade transcripts

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_1...

JUSTICE STEWART: But we're dealing with the statute as it is. There's no state, is there, that equates abortion with murder? Or is there?

MR. FLOYD: There is none, Your Honor.

Abortion: There is a Consensus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsSQiazUvgo

~Pro-Choice Momma; Have had an abortion <no regrets> and I have a 10 month old daughter <no regrets>. I believe in protecting my daughter's choice.

Ps - oldasdirtandknowsitall -

You don't know it all or you would know that the actual translation is 'Thou shall not *murder* - not kill.

The Old Testament's examples of killings sanctioned by God are often cited in defense of the view that "murder" is a more accurate translation. Additionally, the Hebrew word for "kill" is הרג (harog), while the Hebrew word for "murder" is רצח (retzach), which is found in the Ten Commandments לא תרצח (lo tirtzach). In the fullness of the Old Testament Exodus 20:13 is abundantly evidenced as prohibiting unjust killing, rather than a universal injunction against all killing, as retzach is never used in reference to the slaying of animals, nor the taking of life in war, while its most frequent use is in reference to involuntary manslaughter and secondarily for murderers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Kill...

Now see above where it is explained that abortion cannot be murder if it is legal.

No, people should not be charged with murder for getting an abortion. As mad as it makes people, abortion is still legal in this country, as it should be. And along the same terms as an answer above, late term miscarriages would also be considered suicide if people who got abortions could be charged with murder.

There is supposed to be a separation of church and state. Maybe one day it will actually happen. Not everyone follows the bible.

Okay. Here is how it is:

If I was pregnant and decided I didn't care to let this unborn baby live, then I will kill it,it never had a choice to decide to live or die, I made the choice for it to die, it will never reach it's full potential as far as being born, growing up, becoming whatever it would have been, had I decided to let the baby live.

If I decided to kill you, at the age you are. your life ends now. you don't have a choice to live or die, I am going to kill you. you are not going to reach the full potential you could have reached in your life if I had not killed you, but let you live.

My argument about the mass of cells that is not alive but has that potential is : YOU(who I am gonna kill, remember) have not reached (100 yr old) or (have your Phd) or (been married/had children) but you DO HAVE THE POTENTIAL if only I wouldn't have killed you at whatever age you are now.

This world (in it's confused state) may not charge you with murder but God will.

The Bible says: Thou shalt not Kill. Like it or not, we will all stand before God one day and be judged. when we kill or abort, we are charged with murder and will be judged.

I don't understand how taking a double dose of birth control pills (the "morning after" pill) within twenty-four hours of a sexual assault, when a fertilized egg has not implanted on the uterus wall yet, and is a mass of cells a hundred times smaller than the brain of a housefly, constitutes cold-blooded murder in some people's eyes.