• Title Length Color Rating : Is Abortion a Murder
  • Birth Control Or Legal Murder - College Essays - …
  • Abortion/ Birth Control And Abortion term paper 16935

The heated discussion about legalizing and restricting abortion has arisen over many years.

this means abortion is murder, ..

Abortion is murder, not birth control. - Notes | Facebook

Without legal abortion, women found it more difficult to resist the limitations of these roles.
I once ventured upon some adolescent boys getting ready to torture ayoung cat by throwing it into a mass of sticker bushes to see how it woulddo. I interceded on behalf of the cat. The main antagonist, a fairly largeboy, was displeased by my intervention and said that I had no businessinterfering with their fun. His main comment was that it was his cat andhe could do anything he wanted to it. I take it that this is a form ofthe privacy (and private property) argument, that this was a private matterand I had no right to intervene. I did not at the time see fit to arguethe merits of the case on that particular issue and instead gave him othergrounds which I thought might appeal to him. I suggested that if he couldnot see any reason to see the similarity between the cat's feelings andhis own that I might help him see the relationship in this instance betweenthe cat's well-being and his own. This convinced him for the time at leastthat harming the cat might not be in his own best interest. But it occurredto me later that the cat's being his cat gave him not less responsibilityfor its well-being, as he seemed to think, but gave him even more responsibilityfor its well-being. In general, the owners of pets and the parents of youngchildren are held responsible for at least certain minimal standards oftheir charges' welfare. Recently enacted laws in a number of states requiringparents to have their children in car restraints while the car is in motionis another example of balancing parental privacy with child welfare onthe side of the welfare rather than privacy. And it does seem to me, havingseen so many parents who dangerously, carelessly, and recklessly allowtheir children to ride standing up on the front seat (as if to give theirheads better aim at the windshields in case of sudden braking or frontalcollision) that the innocent child should have a champion in the stateif the parents do not fulfill reasonable obligations. In general, a womandoes have some responsibility toward her children and even toward her unbornfetus. How much is open to discussion. And in general parents cannot justifablytreat their children any way they would want to, especially if that meansharming or killing the child, or risking its life or health needlessly.I would expect there to be made similar cases for fetal rights, thoughjust how much, and whether it could preclude abortion or not, and underwhat circumstances, is what is at issue. The point here is that privacy,by itself, is insufficient to morally justify abortion and/or other sortsof fetal harm -- regardless of the Supreme Court's legal decision.

Abortion, Birth Control and Contraception: How …


4) On the issue of trying to decide whether thefetus has a soul or when, or whether it is alive, or a live human beingor when, or whether killing a fetus is murder or not, and if so, when:
this is a question that either is more difficult than the questionof the rightness of abortion, or is impossible to answer because therecan be no answer other than simply one by fiat. It is impossible to discoverwhether a fetus is alive or is a human being or can be murdered becausethere is nothing to discover about either life or fetuses (or fertilizedeggs) that can count for or against whether they coincide or not. We alreadyknow to a great extent in what ways fetuses are like born people and inwhat ways they are different. The question is whether the similaritiesor differences are more relevant. That cannot be answered because the conceptof "alive" and "human being" have never before been either readily appliedto, nor kept from applying to, fetuses in the past and because there arenot clear cut enough definitions already for us to be able to tell whetherthey should apply or not.

 

to say that contraception and abortion is "murder ..


Abortion is both constitutionally and morally wrong, and should be illegal in the United States in all but two cases: if the mother was raped (and pregnancy was as a result of the rape) or if the mother’s life would be put in endangerment by the pregnancy....


To take another kind of similar case: suppose that it turns out we arenever able, from a practical standpoint, to viably thaw out people whoare cryogenically frozen in the hope that whatever disease they had beforefreezing can someday be cured. We, of course, might say that such peopleare "frozen alive", but are they really still alive? There is no telling,not because we don't know anything about them, but because the conceptof "alive" never was clearly enough defined or used before to let us discoverwhether it applies in such a case or not. There would be nothing to discover,just a stipulation or decision to be made, an arbitrary stipulation ordecision. Whether embryos or fetuses should be called alive or human ornot is not really important; what is important is that normal fetuses,without abortions being performed, generally become human beings -- thisis the most salient fact. Whether they should be called human or alive,or things that can be murdered, at a stage earlier than they were beforeis an arbitrary matter to be pronounced rather than discovered. But themost salient point about fetuses is that in a fairly short time -- at birth-- they will be alive and human. If we stipulated that a four day old fetuswas not yet alive or human, and that a five day old fetus was, it seemsto me that the fact killing it on the fifth day would be called murderand killing it on the fourth day would not be called murder makes virtuallyno difference in the morality of the situation. I doubt it would make anydifference to the fetus. Consciousness or self-consciousness would be insignificanton the fifth day and nothing else of any moral relevance would be significantlydifferent either. I am not saying that when some people die makesno difference; I am only saying that I think when a fetus dies makes nodifference, no significant moral difference. I think that may also be trueof a newborn baby; that a newborn baby dies is significant, but whetherit dies on its second day after birth or its third day seems to be of littleconsequence relative to continuing to live. Whether a fetus is killed ornot is morally significant, not when. At the other end of the spectrumthere is a joke on an old Jewish toast that one should live "to be 120years old". One fellow toasts to his friend that he should live to be "120and three days." The friend asks why the extra three days, and the onegiving the toast says "because I don't want you should drop dead all ofa sudden." The point of the humor is that it is hard to imagine that formost people it would matter much at all whether they live to be 120 or120 and three days. Three days at the beginning of a short life or at theend of a long life, it seems to me, are of very little consequence, absentsomething very special that could only happen in those three days time.


Religious opposition to abortion, birth control ..

The issue of whether seriously unhealthy or seriously malformed fetuses should be identified and aborted:
since quality of life does seem to be a consideration, and since certainkinds of defects assure suffering and preclude even minimal quality oflife, it seems that anyone arguing severely deformed or fatally or morbidly ill fetuses should beallowed to be born (or "forced" to be born and thus forced to suffer) needsto have and to show some very good reasons why. The simplistic argumentthat abortionists are playing God is not sufficient. We are playing Godeither way, since we have the power either way (assuming the real God doesnot intervene the opposite way and really play God) for bringing aboutabortion or live delivery. We are playing God just as much to make someonebe born as when we keep someone from being born.

Is Abortion Murder? - ThoughtCo

Abortion advocates often point to the lack of quality of life a givenfetus may encounter once born, and anti-abortionists often totally ignoreor discount as irrelevant the question of quality of life the fetus islikely to face once born. From both the facts that we rightfully do notseek total conception of every possible egg, nor the extermination of everyunhappy already-living human being, it seems that quality of life has somebearing on the value of the existence of life, but that it is not the onlyconsideration. I will return later to this issue.