If abortion isn't murder..

Maybe because only the woman has the right to decide whether the foetus inside her lives or not?

Why ? The fetus is not her's it is Nature's property .

.. then why is it considered double homicide to kill a pregnant woman?

Maybe because only the woman has the right to decide whether the foetus inside her lives or not?

It is hers, "natures" jahahhahava


Posted from TSR Mobile

No this is not moral the woman has already chose to have a baby in most cases just by having sex and often by also not using contraception.Also, if an abortion is to happen a man must have equal rights to a woman and the abortion should have to have the agreement of both the man and the woman otherwise it doesn't go ahead(with nature getting the deciding vote).

The 9 months the fetus is in the womb is small compared the amount of years the human will live whilst the man and the woman live and care for it if either leaves then they have to pay child support so it will affect both for the rest of their lives so the 9 months becomes negligible.

go swag more, yolo

The idea is that life(sub-human life) starts at conception and that what I would regard as a human/person starts around maybe 3 or 4 so life goes from low animal equivalent-fully human.I don't really think this is necessary though I never agreed with the idea that when life begins is crucial when deciding on whether abortion is right or wrong, its much more to do with the potential and the fact that it is very likely that the fetus will become a human like you or me and if you kill it then then you have obviously killed it in the future so you have killed a human being-if a woman almost decides to abort a child but doesn't due to their lover and then they get murdered at 18 the murderer could say "If your mother had had her way then you would already be dead and you wouldn't have lived these 18 years) so its clear to me that abortion is a lot worse than the average murder abortion is the worst crime you can commit(apart from multiples of crimes).

If the argument is potential then what's the difference between a foetus and sperm in that context? Millions of sperm collectively have a high potential to create human beings, potentially more than a single foetus, especially if used in IVF.

An 18 year old person is different from an early foetus. The latter has not even developed a conscience (that would be my definition of 'life starting'). That doesn't happen until at least 20 weeks.

If the argument is potential then what's the difference between a foetus and sperm in that context? Millions of sperm collectively have a high potential to create human beings, potentially more than a single foetus, especially if used in IVF.

An 18 year old person is different from an early foetus. The latter has not even developed a conscience (that would be my definition of 'life starting'). That doesn't happen until at least 20 weeks.

Pick one.

Brings new meaning to investment bankers having no life.

I don't think he has to. When it begins, the life isn't necessarily human yet.

The potential of the millions of sperm is very low as it is unlikely even one of them will make a baby, as shown by the fact that masturbation doesn't have effect pregnancy.

What about people who seem not to have a conscience?

If it's alive and not human, what is it? An alien? A different species?

PRSOM



If it's alive and not human, what is it? An alien? A different species?



In theory, you could impregnate millions of women with one ejaculate by injecting sperm cells into egg cells but instead you chose to have a bash. By your logic, you just killed millions of potential babies.

You mean brain-dead people? You do realise they're considered legally dead right?

No this is not moral the woman has already chose to have a baby in most cases just by having sex and often by also not using contraception.Also, if an abortion is to happen a man must have equal rights to a woman and the abortion should have to have the agreement of both the man and the woman otherwise it doesn't go ahead(with nature getting the deciding vote).

The 9 months the fetus is in the womb is small compared the amount of years the human will live whilst the man and the woman live and care for it if either leaves then they have to pay child support so it will affect both for the rest of their lives so the 9 months becomes negligible.

Why ? The fetus is not hers it is Nature's property .

I agree that a woman knowingly having unprotected sex whilst not wanting children at that time is rather stupid. However, sometimes contraception fails, sometimes rape happens, sometimes a myriad of other circumstances where abortion is the option that would cause the least harm.




What I meant was, it should be a woman's choice whether she wants to abort her own child or give birth to it. Nobody else has the right to decide to end the life of the woman nor her child.

And by your logic, nature owns diseases and hair too, right? Yet people still get rid of them.

If abortion is murder, ejaculation is genocide and swallowing is cannibalism.

Pick one.