Abortion -- LiveWire Teen Forums

Quote: from fnoellw75 at 9:24 pm on May 19, 2008

Anyone who is pro-choice is pro-murder. Abortion is murder. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. Anyone who disagrees doesn't know the meaning of abortion and/or murder.

You're shooting yourself in the foot. Murder by definition means "wrongful killing." You're basically saying abortions are wrong because they are murder -> Abortions are wrong because they are wrongful killing -> begging the question. There's no fact in there, because you have given nothing as to why it's wrong.

Yes, women get raped and become pregnant. It's an awful, horrible thing. But it's also an extremely rare thing. I believe that everything happens for a reason.

Not that rare, considering rape is rarely done with a condom, and rape is sadly not that rare. Moreover, just because you happen to believe the world is teleological (an assertion that you'll find is quite hard to back up) is not good enough to make any moral assertions, especially since you're not backing it up with anything.

And if a victim of rape doesn't want the child (understandably) then she can put it up for adoption.

You seem to be ignoring the whole nine months of pregnancy bit, first of all, and since your previous arguments had no real moral component, it doesn't matter anyways.

There are so many people that cannot have children but want them so badly. How can you say that it is okay to murder a child inside the womb?

And your point? There are a great deal of children put up for adoption already. Second, how is it murder? You've not given a reason why it's wrong.

It is not the choice of a doctor or a mother or a father or anyone. Fetus' have fingernails. They have heartbeats. They have feelings. They are living, breathing beings and should be treated that way.

1. In the first trimester, when abortions are safest and are usually done, the fetus does not have sensation, let alone intents and desires ("feelings"). So that argument goes out the window right away for the first trimester.
2. How is simply being physically alive enough to warrant innate moral value on par of a fully functioning person, as you imply? By that argument, a fish has the same moral value as the fetus or the mother. Oh, and FYI, they're not breathing yet.
Further, even once they have "feeling" it's still less than that of most domesticated animals. That's just not enough to warrant this grand normative claim you're making, let alone justify it.

-------
Religion: Apathetic agnostic
Political Affiliation: Independent

449 users online 184809 members 595 active today Advertise Here