The landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade was supposed to settle the question of abortion’s legality once and for all, but the Court’s ruling has instead become a fulcrum of debate. Placed squarely at the intersection of civil rights, health, religion and law, abortion is one of America’s most heated controversies.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Abortion Kills Innocent Children
- From ADF
By Alliance Defense Fund - Defending Our First Liberty
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Then women who abort must be murderers
If anyone really believed that abortion is murder, he or she would be advocating the same penalty for women who choose to have abortions as the law prescribes for anyone else who is guilty of premeditated murder: twenty-five years to life, ususally. I have never heard anyone call for that, or any punishment whatsoever for women who abort. Therefore, it is logically inescapable that no one really believes a fetus is the same as a child, no matter what they claim to believe.
- vzeebjtf
August 30, 2008 10:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Counterexample
According to your reasoning:
If anyone really belived death penalty is murder, he or she would be advocating the same penalty for those who carry out/sentence the death penalty as the law prescribes for premeditated murder.
I honestly don't believe that those opposed to the death penalty want jury members, judges, and law officials to be jailed over it. They simply want the option off the table. The same is true with the abortion issue. Your argument once again tries to make abortion solely a women's rights issue when those who oppose it are heart-broken over the loss of innocent life. I will never accept the pro-choice point of view, but I can oppose it without labeling pro-choicers as murderers.
- euclid8677
October 18, 2008 11:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That is not a counterexample
“According to your reasoning: “If anyone really belived death penalty is murder, he or she would be advocating the same penalty for those who carry out/sentence the death penalty as the law prescribes for premeditated murder.”
Correct.
“I honestly don't believe that those opposed to the death penalty want jury members, judges, and law officials to be jailed over it.“
Why not?
“They simply want the option off the table.”
That cannot be accomplished, without punishment.
“Your argument once again tries to make abortion solely a women's rights issue…”
No, it doesn’t.
“…when those who oppose it are heart-broken over the loss of innocent life.”
Then why don’t you want the killers punished?
“I will never accept the pro-choice point of view, but I can oppose it without labeling pro-choicers as murderers.”
If the takers of innocent life are not murderers, what are they? And what, then, is a murderer?
With all due respect, I think your contradictions make my point.
- vzeebjtf
October 23, 2008 12:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The beginning of life...
is not the same as the right to life, as I have argued elsewhere on this thread. One does not treat an acorn as one treats an oak tree. One does not treat a four-year-old as one does a teenager. Development does count.
Yes, our lives begin at conception, but what we do with them comes after entering the world and it is that "doing" that counts for the moral judgement of 'innocent.' A fetus is no more innocent than it is guilty.
The "doing" is also largely what we are beyond a collection of dna. God may judge people on the basis of nothing more than their DNA(though the Bible would seem to be evidence to the contrary) but to say that "doing" counts for nothing then perhaps we should revise our moral judgement of men like Hitler, etc.
The truth is we are not passing judgement on the fetus, we are not considering their innocence or guilt, we are making a judgement about the place in our lives of an as-yet unborn fetus (I mean the first-trimester). We are examining our abilitities, our life's goals, our financial prospects and current state, perhaps even whether this is a world ready for yet another mouth to feed --in short we are examining the wisdom of having and raising a child, not only by ourselves but others (I gave my daughter up for adoption when it was the only alternative to raising her myself, whch I could not realistically expect to do. I can't tell you how much I regret the abuse she recieved at their hands).
Only someone that believes that what we Do counts for nothing could believe that the choice of a woman excercising her judgment counts for nothng against the dictates of you and your God.
- Atlas Fan
September 1, 2008 4:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Arbitrary assertions do not reality make
The anti-abortionists use one sloppy, cheesy phrase written in one unprofessionally written textbook used in third-rate medical schools as "scientific proof" that human life begins at conception.
Such argumentation represents a wholesale rejection of reason and a hostility to actual science. It is a cynical ploy that convinces no one outside of evangelical circles. The evangelicals use it in the vain hope that somebody's say-so will vanquish others' will to think critically.
- Wendy
September 1, 2008 10:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's legalized murder right now!
Unless you were raped or it's a threat to your life I believe it's wrong to be allowed to end a life just because it's an inconvenience to you. If that were the case,keep your legs crossed and you won't have that problem!!!
- Mommyteacher
September 27, 2008 4:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Brilliant answer.
Why don't we make you the head of decision making for all the girls who seek abortions. You can go and hear all of their stories and decide who can and who can't get abortions. You can determine whether or not they are doing it for convenience or not.
I am sure that all the girls who are out there were thinking..."I am definitely going to get pregnant and have an abortion . That sounds like a great idea."
By the way, why do people have kids ? To continue their bloodline? To get some guy to finally put a ring on their finger? Because babies are sooooo cuuuute? Don't act as though women who decide to have kids are altruistic saints who should be put on a pedestal and worshipped. Even cockroaches have kids.
The world is overpopulated. Keep your legs crossed.
- illusion
June 10, 2009 7:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Inaction Kills Innocent Children
According to the logic behind this argument as to why a woman should have no legal control over her body parts, you and I have committed murder, or man-slaughter.
There are thousands of innocent children who are dying everyday through lack of such a simple thing as a functioning kidney, or bone marrow. When you choose to retain your body parts, or choose to not undergo a painful process you are killing those children through your inaction.
If you know that a child will die and you do nothing to prevent it, you have murdered that child. According to the logic that a woman must give up control of her body parts for the sake of saving a life, all people must do so.
If abortion should be illegal, so also should non-compliance with other medical procedures that can save lives.
- SocialistBetty
December 15, 2008 6:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Only in certain cases
Why should it be illegal? Would you take away the choice for a 13 or 14 year old girl who was raped? Yes, there is giving it up for adoption , but it is the fact that a child will have to carry a child. I do think that it shouldn't even be an option for older women, because it is, usually, their own fault they're pregnant in the first place. Also, what do you think when you see a pregnant 20 year old versus a pregnant 14 year old? It won't hurt anyone older to carry their child. The only acceptable times for an abortion are rape and if carrying the child could kill or harm you severely.
- mbargues
April 17, 2009 9:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.