Abortion is Murder?

You just summed up my entire opinion in one post, bravo.

 

A single woman becomes pregnant, but she can't take care of the baby on her own. She finds a nice family to adopt the baby and goes on with her life. No one dies.

This is the wishful thinking pro-lifers have.

 

There are already so many kids in foster care and children's homes already that surely you must see it isn't as simple as just popping the baby out and putting it into a happy little family. Some babies never get adopted. Plus that baby would have to grow up knowing its parents didn't want it.

I think you are being too much of an idealist as opposed to looking at the reality.

 

It grows, and eventually turns into a human being. It's very much alive, however if it should get the chance to develop is the case discussed.

:')

Agreed.

 

Strictly medically and biologically speaking it's only alive or "viable" after a certain stage. Before that stage it is naught more than organic matter, but so are leaves on the ground.

 

Leaves on the ground don't develop into human beings.

Well, tough break. People all have different circumstances growing up that make them who they are. It's better than DEATH. My parents didn't "want" me, and I've had my troubles dealing with that, but it's nothing to DIE over.

 

My point is that that means ****.

 

So you're HONESTLY telling me that the value of a pile of leaves on the ground is the same as that as a fetus?

 

So you're HONESTLY telling that the value of something that hasn't reached a certain status yet is the same as something of that status?
If that's not going against every form of logic that I don't know what is.

 

It's not "the same", but it's pretty close, and it's going to. It isn't "worthless" like you're saying it is.

A prince isn't a king yet, but he's still royalty, isn't he? And doesn't his status as a prince make him important only because he's "going to" become the king? He isn't equal to other humans. Like a fetus isn't equal to leaves.

 

A better example would be student and professor or engineer or whatever. A student isn't on the same status as an engineer yet, and not even close to either. Why is this a better example? Because there is only one king, and that king would indeed need a successor that has to be royalty. This is where the analogy with fetuses doesn't quite cut it.
One student dropping out isn't really a drama. A prince dying is another matter.

That being said I see your point with the leaves thing. But in all honesty, their values are indeed not all that different to me. Fetuses are pretty worthless imo.

 

I'm sure you have an answer for this, but I'm going to ask it anyway.
How does the fact that you WERE a fetus come into account when you say that last statement?

 

If I was aborted as a fetus I wouldn't be sitting here to care about it.

 

So, you wouldn't have any protests to being aborted as a fetus?

 

"No way I'm agreeing to this. Here's me being on strike in my mom's uterus."
Yeaaaaaaaaaaah it doesn't quite work that way. So no, I wouldn't object.

 

Well, technically speaking all humans have been formed and sustained from a leaf at some point. The leaf falls from the tree, the leaf then decays into the earth, the earth cultivates plants, the plants are consumed by animals, the animals are eaten by humans. We all are sustained by the earth, we then die and our bodies decay into the earth, and basically the big recycling wheel of life keeps turning.
That's if we're being technical.

Whilst on the matter at hand, I myself can't find a clear cut answer to this question. Forms of abortion have existed for ages, from beatings of the womb to the sophisticated process of today. It's happened, and it's always going to happen. But to call it murder? It may be just that, but i compare to my views on euthanasia. If it is painless and asked by a responsible person, abortion is something I may not consider as such a bad thing.

I do wonder that, if people never commited abortion, what type of people would be alive today. Chefs? Lawyers? Theives? Killers? Heck, there could even be a person down the road of aborting their own kid. It's the chances we take when a child is conceived, what direction we want to put forward for it... and what path we want for ourselves.

 

I don't think there's a "right" answer when it comes to abortion because the question in and of itself is a very complex and deeply subjective one; it'd be nice if there was always wrong and right, good guys and bad guys, but unfortunately for us the real world is rarely ever that simple. Saying that pro-choice people don't value life whatsoever as well as saying that pro-lifers are all hypocritical romanticists is to make rash, unfair generalizations that are hardly true by default.

And in any case, it's not really the question of whether it's right or wrong so much as whether it should be legal that's the crux here, because after all, just because we frown upon something personally isn't necessarily a reason to ban it (and just for the record, I personally find the idea of abortion distasteful). Does someone who dislikes cheese personally suddenly have a right to go campaigning to outlaw it based on their entirely subjective, personal preferences? I don't think anyone who is pro-choice is of the opinion that people should be getting abortions left and right. They just want the option available.

People live their lives the way they see fit; we won't always agree with it, but it's important to tolerate and even encourage differences because otherwise we just turn into bigots who are unable to live amongst themselves comfortably. We ban things that are proven to be detrimental to society. The question is whether abortion has enough adverse effects on society as a whole to just outlawing it.

In addition to all of that I think there's are a few more points that merit addressing:

1.

Technically speaking, a fetus is "alive" and "human" in the basest, biological sense of the words, so really, there's no point in arguing that. What the debate is really about is whether the fetus is a person and should be afforded rights.

2. I'm not really a fan of the "you made it, raise it" philosophy because in my mind it treats the child as a punishment to be imposed on its parents, and treats this punishment as the priority, it doesn't concern itself with the child's actual well-being, which is what's really important (and after all, punishment is important, but so are forgiveness and understanding). If the parents are forced to have a child and it ruins their life, do you think the child is going to get any love and attention from them? Ultimately, that's one thing you're not going to be able to force them to do: love the child.

3. Giving up a child for adoption still leaves two complications:

a) Pregnancy isn't exactly a walk in the park. It's very trying on the woman, especially where labor's concerned. All this trouble for a child that isn't wanted at all and that she's not even going to raise.

b) the adoption system has its fair share of flaws and complications. Kids often drift from foster home to foster home, not getting the love and attention they deserve, and lead less than stellar lives as a result. It's true that it's not impossible for a child to find happiness regardless of all those adversities, and I personally like the idea that we should be given a chance at life, but ultimately I have to concede that there are worse things than death.

We should, then, focus on improving the adoption system first rather than banning abortion outright so that there won't be any need for one in the first place.

 

Look, I understand the trials of a woman during pregnancy (to a certain extent, anyway).

I understand that it's difficult, physically and emotionally draining, painful, etc. But in the end, the price for a woman not having to go through all of that is the death of an innocent child. It's just not right.

 

What about the situation where a mother is unable to support the child emotionally and physically?
The child would suffer for it the rest of their life. There are so many mothers who use, abuse and are unable to take care of themselves let alone another human being who needs there love and care 24/7.
And it's not the childs fault for being born into a life like that. If I was
to advise someone in a situation who would be unable to properly look after the child, i would advise them to consider the possibility, for sure.

No one wins when a child isn't looked after or cared for, it's a slow and painful way to be raised. And the results... Do not end well

 

So the attacker should be arrested for assaulting her, not killing the baby.
If a woman decided she couldn't raise her 5 year old child anymore and kills him, she won't be able to use the "My baby, my body" argument. She'd get in trouble the same as if someone else broke into their house and killed her child. Granted, the baby's already growing up and has its right, but, depending on when life starts, I see very little difference between the mother who kills her already-born child and the one who aborts her unborn.

See, I don't like this argument because who's to say the child's life won't improve in the future? Chances are it may not, but there's a chance it will. My mom suffers from a mental disorder and had raised my older brother, me, and my little sister with no father, with barely enough income to support herself. There were lots of time when I thought she wasn't fit to be a mother with her mental state. There are times when she's emotionally unable to handle a situation and reacts badly to it. And yet, my brother and I are both in school, doing fine. Through high school, while we weren't able to enjoy all the things most kids did, or suffered from a different household then they did (Not once have we ever had a family dinner, save for holidays and even those are probably not the same as others), we didn't suffer. We got jobs and improved life for ourselves. My mom, who didn't finish high school because she got pregnant with my brother, moved us down to a smaller town over a decade ago, before my sister was born and got a more family-friendly job which paid better.
If a mom wasn't physically able to support childbirth, that's a different thing. I would definitely leave that choice up to the mother. But what if there's a case where the mom is already ill or old or can't work. What's the loss of that life to a new one? (That sounds a little cruel, but I hope you see what I mean)
I think a mom could put the baby up for adoption. Orphanages are already crowded, yeah I know, some of them never get adopted. Who's to say once that baby is of age, (s)he can't start a better life for himself/herself?Prisons are crowded, some of them never get released, but people still oppose the death penalty.

Bringing up my mom again, when my older brother was born, she couldn't raise him herself, he spent most of his childhood with my grandma and the rest of our family back in the Dominican Republic. My mom had help raising me and my sister, and my brother in his teenage years. She didn't raise us alone.