A fetus can't survive outside the womb so it's not murder?
828758
I liked the yawn response.  Sounds like one of our politicians.  Good questions you're bringing up.  There's a lot of confusion out there and most of it is from a society that wants to believe that abortion is no big deal.  But it is a matter of life and death and it does concern the most helpless members of our society.\nIn answer to your question the noble and respected abortion "doctors" do have to wait a bit more than 6 weeks before they can suck the little ones out and harvest their bodies to medical and pharmaceutical laboratories.
309600
Most countries where abortion is legal, as far as I know, accept it only during the first three months of pregnancy, where the foetus isn't even properly termed a 'foetus' but rather an 'embryo' (I think). If you've ever seen pictures, it doesn't look anything like a human yet and it has no brain function and thus can feel no pain and has no awareness of its existence (for anybody wanting to ask 'how can you be sure?', all I can say is that I'm not - this is only what I've read). Well before birth, a foetus has become very much a human being (though not one that can survive independently) and then it is a crime to remove it.\n\nPlease remember that very few people who have had abortions see the question as black-and-white as many anti-choice people do. Every one of them wrestles with their own morals and conscience in their own way.
1014401
Instead of bringing religion in as a tool of argument, I'm going to use the scientific definition of an organism being alive.  A living organism must have the ability to live independantly from another organism, thus a fetus cannot be considered a living organism.  And also, according to Federal Law, not all humans are given these fundamental rights.  Convicted criminals and unlawful combatants are NOT entitled to these rights.  And finally, to use God in an argument of law is inherently questionable, as the First Amendment prohibits religious doctrine in law.
391732
As a "choice", vs. a medical decision, it's actually a violation of human rights.\n\nA lot of people think this is about religion, but it's not. It's about human rights. Scientific DNA testing would prove that the fetus is: A) a human being B) a different individual than the mother (so it is NOT a part of the mother's body), and C) that it is alive. To end the life of a fetus is to end the life of a living, individual human being. A culture proves its worth by how it treats the most vulnerable people within its society. Here in America, we seem to have no trouble killing these vulnerable humans. We freak out about animal rights, but human rights are thrown in the garbage along with aborted fetuses.
646560
If you get in early while the cell is still in it's simpler stages then I don't feel it can be considered murder...you kill a living organism when you pick a flower to put in a vase, you SLAUGHTER a cow then you EAT it with lettuce, both of which are/were living organisms!\nI think to truly be anti-abortion you have to be vegan, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
763297
Some people believe that the unborn baby  doesn't have a soul.  Others believe that we have a sould as soon as we are concieved... the other side of this is that it is murder if you kill a human with at heart beat, where does the line get drawn?
266546
Abortion is murder, you are killing a life (the fetus IS alive at the MOMENT of conception). Abortion is the must DISGUSTING thing ever.\n\n1) why should we punish the child, it was NOT the child's fault it was born\n2) With sex comes responsibilities, and if you're going to engage, you BETTER be willing to pay (whether it means adoption, giving up your life for theirs, what ever the consequence is- you better be ready.)\n3) From the moment of conception it has its own DNA coding, therefore it's tech. not the "women's body", the only thing the women is doing is housing and feeding it.\n4) The two participating had the choice whether or not they were ready to deal with the consequences so why give them more choices if they're already making bad ones?\n5) rape, I sympathise greatly, but why punish the child? it's not the child's fault, yes it is a HUGE burden and COSNTANT reminder, but still- from a political perspective it's all or nothing, if it were up to me those who were raped (politically) would have the choice (religion in there there would be no rape or abortion- but that's not life). If I were raped though I would definately keep the child though. But in politics it's all or nothing.\n6) There is ALWAYS adoption- if you're willing to kill a child, why are you worried about its life in an adoption agency???\n7) We are not God, we do not have the right to say who lives and who dies. \n8) From the moment of conception it IS alive.(to be alive it has to fill 4 criterias, (1) metabolism, (2) growth, (3) reaction to stimuli, and (4) reproduction)\n9) It's either pro-life or pro-death, not pro-choice because where is that child's choice? and the oppisite of life is death and that's what they are saying is good- the right to put a child to death- YAY!!! hah not!\n\nI see NO plausible defense for this abomination at all.
114168
No.  A person is an individual substance of a rational nature.  Pre-viability, the baby is still a being with a rational nature, just not able to use reason yet.
792633
Abortion is murder no matter how you look at it
63226
It is an interesting dichotomy wherein pro-choicers want abortions on demand, and they question/argue about when a fetus is considered a human being.\n\nHowever, if a pregnant woman is attacked in some manner by someone, and the fetus dies, then the pro-choicers want the attacker charged with murder for killing the fetus they are all too willing to kill in the first place.  \nThe difference?...they'll state that the woman wanted to keep the baby, now they call it a baby because it's wanted, but unwanted, they'll call it a fetus.  Interesting
1157701
I'd like to warn you that my opinion about abortion is based on reason, and very few people approach the abortion debate using reason. For most people, it's an emotional debate fueled by guilt. The emotions on the issue tend to run so deeply most people forget which is which. So I do apologize for any hurt feelings which result from my dealing with abortion reasonably.\n\nI support a woman's right to have control over their reproductive capacity. Abortion does not affect citizens (a person is not a citizen until they are born) or the intrinsic assets of the nation, so there is no legislative basis for there to be any laws taking rights away from a citizen (the pregnant woman)\n\nFurthermore, abortion is not murder. Murder is the willful taking of one human's life by another human. I've seen pictures, and the fetus might look vaguely human, but physiologically a fetus is more like a salamander than a human. I know that sounds harsh, but there's also a degree to which deep down you know that it's true.\n\nNeurologically, the child isn't complete until it's a year old, and continues developing for about 25 years. So while it's still in the womb, it's certainly not a developed human. It's a part of our natural development for the brain to be undeveloped at birth because otherwise the head could never have fit through the opening. \n\nI asked the question "What makes humans distinct from other animals?" I received many interesting answers: The awareness that we are different from other animals, the ability to make rational decisions, the ability to suppress our animal nature, the ability to conceptualize good and evil, large brains, the ability to create art, the ability to question one's existence, speech, self improvement, and so on. At a glance, it's fairly obvious that a fetus does not have any of these qualities. In doing further research, I came across this website which I strongly recommend: http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162\n\nA fetus has the potential of becoming human, but being human is a very special thing and a fetus isn't there yet. Being human is more than just a matter of our genetic make-up. It's about the way we think. Without the way we think, we are like any other animal. \n\nGiven that most people believe in the existence of a soul, It becomes an issue to consider when a person gets a soul. If you believe that only humans have souls, then the fetus doesn't have one because it's not yet human. It has the potential to become human, but it's not there yet. If you believe that all creatures have souls, then it goes to wherever souls go. If you believe in Karma, then that life served a purpose which it was there to do and can karmically celebrate that it's life accomplished what it was destined to accomplish.\n\nDon't get me wrong, I don't want anyone to think that I'm advocating killing babies. Babies are cute and respond well to people, kinda like puppies, and I am also opposed to killing puppies. In fact I have often been very supportive of all things child related and puppy related. But when it comes right down to it, and we consider the neural biology, certain facts become apparent. But I want to make it very clear that I am in no way advocating infanticide, which is much nicer than the bible which doesn't even mention infanticide despite the fact that it was commonly practiced at the time. In fact, until about a hundred years ago, I can't recall this ever having been much of an issue ever in the history of the world. But now, as infant mortality rates are at an all time low, and population is soaring out of control, now is the time in human evolution when people decide to stand up and say that abortion is wrong.\n\nChristians claim to take truth from the bible, and the bible makes no reference to abortion (which according to Wikipedia did exist in ancient times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti
1093104
It's not.  Abortion is not okay.  The only time abortion is acceptable is in the case of rape, because no kid wants to grow up to find out they were the product of rape.  I despise this culture of checking if your kid has Down's syndrome and such like prior to birth, as people react by aborting the foetuses.  How dare we play God just because someone is not conventionally perfect?  Everyone has value.\n\nNo, abortion is wrong too.  It is murder.  It is the decision to terminate another life, and the other person is entirely powerless to resist.
836717
The Libertarian view on abortion is a shaky one. Some Libertarians are for abortion, some arn't. Me. I am for it but only to a certain extent. I believe that during the embryo stage, because it isn't able to live outside the body, it is still part of the woman and should be allowed if wanted. But at the later stage when it is able to live outside the body, I believe it is a seperated individual, and should not be done. But that is my views many Libertarians don't view that. But we do believe that the decision should be made at a state level and not a federal one.\n\nThe thing is if this was a Libertarian governed country, it will all depend on what the State believes. That is if the State thinks partial birth abortion is wrong, then it would be illegal for that person to get a partial birth abortion. But because Libertarians believe that the govt, should not intrude into the Abortion Clinic's business, it would be hard for that to be enforced. I hope that makes sense. I think I'm confussing myself. (Alot of deletes.) But I really don't know how this would be taken.\n\nIf you really would like to know more about Libertarianism, email me at Chsel_06@yahoo.com. I don't know everything, but I'm pretty knowledgable about many issues and principles regarding Libertarianism.
621538
Really depends if you  consider an aborted baby a person on not.\n\nIf you consider an aborted baby a person then different rights should come into the question eg Father, state and child. The power of each of the rights depends on the majority views of the society\n\nIf you consider it to be like sperm then you can do whatever you want with it.
811032
Most abortions occur at 6 weeks, where the embryo doesn't have brainwaves or cerebral cortex. It basically looks like a salamander. This is not a baby. However, if the woman completes the pregnancy, a child is born with all the complete developments and cerebral cortex. That is a child. It would cause irreversible psychological damage to the child if his/her dad doesn't want to see them. It will screw them up for life. You're pro-life, will you support a man's option for the woman to have an abortion? He can't force her. Your reasoning contradicts your beliefs in abortion.
314177
Well, our reasoning is based on the idea that there isn't a simple answer for every situation. You can't just label abortion "mindless killing," because it might NOT be mindless. For example, what if you got raped? Would you like to go through the pain of birthing the baby and putting it up for adoption just for something that entirely WASN'T your fault? Don't you think that could breed depression and neurotic tendencies in anyone? Don't you think a kid separated from his mother or adopted experiences emotional pain? \nAbortion is done to guard against future harm. If there's a mother who knows she won't be able to care properly for a child, it would be merciful to both her and the growing fetus to undergo abortion. \n\nI do agree with you that the sanctity of a life should be preserved however. Abortion shouldn't be encouraged in women who have sex and think there's just an easy way out. It should be PERMITTED, however, because it is a RIGHT and because in the case of rape it is not a case of a woman having made a bad choice; it is a case of BAD LUCK.
757776
Are you even a citizen in the womb?  --prego woman can't use their babies in the belly as a second person for the car pool lane--