Why do many people believe that abortion is not killing a person?

Why do many people believe that abortion is not killing a person?

Mother Angelica Live Classics - Catholic Epistles


They can't prove otherwise, can they?

Previous questionWhere does the blood go after checking the analysis?
Next questionWhat happens in the body when a limb is "numb" and tingling is felt?

Answers (28)

Answer 1
October, 2020

In the Russian Federation, abortion at the request of a woman is permitted only in the first trimester, that is, for a period not exceeding 12 weeks . I do not see any problem here, since this is still an embryo that does not feel anything and is at the stage of formation.

A fetus whose term is less than 22 weeks gestation, is not viable outside the mother's body, and cannot yet be born alive. That is why termination of pregnancy in our country for social reasons is allowed exactly up to 22 weeks . ( 21 weeks and 6 days ).

For confirmed medical reasons, pregnancy can be terminated at any time. The cleft lip is also an indication for termination of pregnancy, although today it is completely cured with the help of surgery.

It should be added that before birth, the fetus is part of the mother's body and does not have any rights, therefore termination of pregnancy AT ANY term is not purely legal murder.

Concerning premature babies.

In Soviet times, people were recognized fetuses whose period of stay in the womb has exceeded 28 weeks (in the event that they have already been born). Today is 22 weeks . However, some doctors do not recommend saving children born earlier than 28 weeks , citing the fact that due to high prematurity there is a high risk of disability.

Self-awareness in a child appears, if memory does not change, in the fifth month of postnatal life, therefore it is not a criterion for recognizing a fetus as a human. This, according to doctors, can only be a live birth.

Answer 2
October, 2020

Because a person is primarily his consciousness (self-awareness), which the embryo does not have. The embryo (especially in the early stages) is not yet human.

Answer 3
October, 2020

Because abortion for medical reasons often saves a mother's life.

Not always what is removed during such an operation is a child. There are abnormalities in pregnancy.

Answer 4
October, 2020

My argument is that life begins from the moment of conception, and not from the moment of birth. And I have always had this belief of mine and will not change. At the same time, I do not believe that abortion should be prohibited, since there are enough not smart women and there are women in a really difficult situation. But when they simply do not use contraception and then have abortions, this is simply beyond my understanding. I personally do not understand how you can kill a healthy unborn child.

Answer 5
October, 2020

The author of the top answer is a skilled manipulator: whoever disagrees is a hypocrite; compares the embryo with organs, fungi, etc. An example is not an argument, because every situation is unique. And the beginning is generally tin! A living organism does not have the opportunity to live independently - it means that it is not alive, judging from the answer.

I must say right away, I am not saying that abortions should be prohibited and so on, I will only answer question: "Is abortion murder?"

Next. If abortion is murder, that is, we accept that the embryo is a living being that is “capable” of functioning independently without a mother's body, then eating mushrooms is also murder. If it seems to you that the example is incorrect, then you may have double standards.

At the expense of double standards: maybe you will disagree with me, but in order to take something for food, we it is necessary to kill it (and it does not matter what kind of organism it is - a plant, an animal, a mushroom, etc.). This all falls under the generally accepted criteria of a living organism, which are passed in high school. But I, unlike the author, brought them up and I will not invent, but this is at the end.

If the embryo is not able to function normally without the mother's body, while being multicellular ( complex) organism, therefore, the example about the appendix is ​​correct.

Comparison with the appendix (a part of the organism, not a separate organism) is generally gross delirium! I think there is no need to procrastinate.

Here are the criteria for live:

highly ordered structure. living organisms are composed of chemicals that have a higher level of organization than non-living substances. all organisms have a certain structural plan - cellular or non-cellular (viruses).

metabolism and energy is a set of processes of respiration, nutrition, excretion, through which the body receives from the external environment the substances and energy it needs, converts and accumulates them in its body and releases waste products into the environment.

irritability is the body's response to changes in the environment, helping it to adapt and survive in changing conditions. when pricked with a needle, a person withdraws his hand, and the hydra shrinks into a lump. the plants turn towards the light, and the amoeba moves away from the salt crystal.

growth and development. living organisms grow, increase in size, develop, change due to the supply of nutrients.

reproduction - the ability of a living to reproduce itself. reproduction is associated with the transmission of hereditary information and is the most characteristic feature of living things. the life of any organism is limited, but as a result of reproduction, living matter is "immortal".

movement. organisms are capable of more or less active movement. this is one of the clearest signs of the living. movement occurs both inside the body and at the level of the cell.

self-regulation. oneone of the most characteristic properties of living things is the constancy of the internal environment of the organism under changing external conditions. body temperature, pressure, gas saturation, concentration of substances, etc. are regulated. The phenomenon of self-regulation is carried out not only at the level of the whole organism, but also at the level of the cell. in addition, due to the activity of living organisms, self-regulation is inherent in the biosphere as a whole. self-regulation is associated with such properties of living things as heredity and variability.

heredity is the ability to transmit the characteristics and properties of an organism from generation to generation during reproduction.

variability is the ability of an organism to change its characteristics when interacting with the environment.

If you need an example and you can't live without it, then think of the paralyzed, the other disabled: killing them is killing them, although they won't do much alone either.

And yes, scientists now consider even a zygote alive. If you still do not agree that abortion is murder, despite the fact that the embryo falls under the criteria of a living one and so on, then you are "anti-science".

Now to the legal and ethical side.

  1. Murder of a pregnant woman is punished more severely than "ordinary" murder.

  2. If, in order to be a human, the embryo must be "released" from the mother, why then neither a miscarriage, nor already aborted fetuses are considered human?

In conclusion, I repeat: an example is not always an argument! The top commentator substitutes for concepts, does not have the slightest understanding of the subject of discussion (this can be seen in his invented criteria of the living).

P. S. At first I wanted to write a comment on the top answer, but it turned out to be too long.

Answer 6
October, 2020

I believe that every person has the right to interrupt the natural processes of his body. This is everyone's business.

People are sorry to see how sharply the path from seeds to flowers is refracted. This is how a person's perception of the world has developed over the years. But at the same time, the chicken gives birth to an egg, and people take it for themselves. Surely now it touched you ...

Most often, until the seed has sprouted and transformed into a flower, they do not pay attention to it. Besides, nature does what it wants with it. But when the flower has already blossomed, opened, people can pick it or not, and it will continue on its path of reproduction. But if you do not divide these processes into before and after, that is, into different objects (seed and flower), but perceive everything as processes, then the essence of my thought will reach you. Think about it.

As has long been known, everything in the world is relative. Why do you think the word "abortion" appeared? Why not "murder" they call it. What is a bad thing about abortion? And what is murder to you?

Answer 7
October, 2020

I'll leave it here



Answer 8
October, 2020

A trick question. Why should anyone prove this at all?

Why even get involved in a dispute between a person / not a person, murder / not murder?

Who can benefit from this discussion and how?

Only opponents of abortion. They have come up with this rhetorical technique "an embryo is a living person", and are trying with its help to powder as many brains as possible in order to push through the prohibition of abortion.

Although this dispute changes NOTHING. Termination / maintenance of pregnancy is a women's health issue, and it should be solved by a woman and under the supervision of a doctor.

Let's do the opponents of abortion and agree that the human fetus is already a LIVING PERSON. OK.

If a mother decides to have an abortion of a LIVING PERSON, this is her right.

And this is more than a difficult decision for the mother and without the trolling of religiomrazi on the topic A MAN IS KILLED; if anyone feels this fetus as a real child, it is the mother.

And if the mother decides to have an abortion, then the abortionists can only shut up and support this woman.

Otherwise, it may start to seem that you are not so much for human lives as you are trying to position yourself, but simply hate women.

Answer 9
October, 2020

Because objective biological reality is confused with legal and emotional-ethical assessment. Note that many people who say "abortion is not murder" are actually saying that "abortion is not bad". But not everyone can correctly formulate their thoughts.

From a biological point of view, abortion is murder. It's foolish to deny it. The embryo is not a part of the mother's body, it is another living being, with its own set of genes, which is killed during an abortion.

And then the legal aspect is connected, because abortion is not killing a person . Catch the difference?

And the main thing is the emotional and ethical assessment. In modern developed societies, there are several types of killing that are considered acceptable - killing animals for food or protection, killing enemies in war, killing a dangerous hostage-holding criminal, euthanasia. Abortion is one such permissible murder. The public benefit of these murders exceeds the harm, therefore they are considered normal and society treats them with condescension. Apparently, people who want to say that "abortion is not murder" mean that "abortion is acceptable in some situations and should not be condemned or prohibited" and "a woman has the right to an abortion, i.e. her life is more important than the life of the embryo. " Think of it as a logical diagram:

"abortion is murder "
" I'm for abortion "
therefore " I am for killing "

The third statement dislikes many people, so they try to avoid it by denying the first statement.

Answer 10
October, 2020

The moment the soul enters the embryo has not yet been studied. It is possible that the soul unites with the fertilized egg at the moment of fertilization of the egg by the sperm. The soul, which tends to be immortal, at this moment receives a mortal physical body. When the fact of the soul's entry into a fertilized egg is proven by scientists and is legally adopted in the constitutions of countries around the world, only then can we say that the destruction of a fertilized egg (embryo) is a murder of a person and is punishable by law. In the meantime, people can only realize that a four-month-old fetus reacts to the laughter of its mother, because it has been proven by scientists. That is, this is definitely a person who feels pain or comfort, and his destruction is murder. What people cannot yet grasp? What is actually human is the fertilization of an ovum, a connection with an immortal soul. And the destruction of a fertilized egg (embryo) is the killing of an unborn person.

Answer 11
October, 2020

If a woman does not want a child, should she have one in order to fulfill her universal mission and not be censured by society? How many parents who did not want to be one, but did not dare to have an abortion or did not think about it at all, became good parents? How many parents are there in the world who have not yet matured themselves, but how cool they have become when becoming parents?

Answer 12
October, 2020

in this case, during orgasm, you also kill your "children")




Answer 13
October, 2020

Do all people believe in horoscopes? Let not all, but many know that a person's character corresponds to a greater or lesser extent to the sign under which he was born, it was born, and not conceived, all fortune-tellers, astrologers are interested in the date of birth, time and place, and not conception, so I think that the soul is given to a person exactly at the moment of birth, respectively, in the womb it is just a multicellular organism.

Answer 14
October, 2020

Nobody knows at what age from the moment of conception the Lord puts a soul into a living being. From this moment on, abortion will be murder. Therefore, I would not advise taking risks. One thing is clear that a creature is endowed with a soul, which acquires the likeness of God.

Answer 15
October, 2020

From the point of view of the Christian religion, abortion is a sin of adultery, violation of 1 of the 10 commandments, if you consider yourself a Christian, then this issue is not even discussed. The rest of the points of view from the evil one.

Answer 16
October, 2020

The human embryo is not a human yet !! read about the embryo more carefully and there is no need to "stretch". and then there are "a million" circumstances in life when abortion is not only justified but also necessary .. and everything else is DEMAGOGY!

Answer 17
October, 2020

Murder will be when the fetus comes to life. Therefore, they say what can be done before that. And yet, it is better to have an abortion than to suffer all your life later. And those who shout about the ban on abortion, MAKE them pay to mothers who have little income. Sorry for you, feed and pay.

Answer 18
October, 2020

The problem posed in the question and differently covered in the answers stems from the inaccuracy of terminology. The asking question and those answering it are based on personal ideas, and therefore are biased, and therefore such rhetoric is meaningless. Let's operate with something generally accepted - terms, for example. I'll start with the definitions. Please correct me if I am inaccurate or biased somewhere.

  • Biomedical terms. Abortion is an artificial termination of pregnancy. Pregnancy is a condition of the female body in which her reproductive organs contain an embryo. At this point, we are faced with the first conceptual problem. Embryo is the early developmental stage of an animal from zygote to birth. A living organism is a body that has a set of properties that distinguish it from inanimate matter (not inanimate matter), especially metabolism (the fetus has), self-maintenance of its structure (the fetus has), the ability to reproduce itself with preservation of hereditary characteristics (potentially in the fetus). Finally, man is a living organism, a representative of the species Homo Sapiens; in everyday speech, a person is precisely a born individual, but in a biological sense, any object carrying a genome, including a fetus. So, human embryo .
  • Legal and philosophical terms. Murder is the taking of life. At this stage, we are faced with the second conceptual problem. Murder as such in our thinking is not a priori evil: we are not tormented by eating a juicy chicken, trampling the grass on a future path, or killing pathogens with antimicrobial drugs. In addition, there is no division of murder into violent and non-violent in Russian. Here we are faced with the most difficult - philosophical, or rather deontological (ethical) - problem. More precisely, problems:
  1. Does it make sense to distinguish between violent and non-violent killings?
  2. If yes, on what basis?
  3. If so, which ones are morally negative?
  • The division of murder into violent and non-violent, perhaps, makes sense, since this division has legal and deontological consequences. According to the criminal codes or their counterparts in all countries, murder is the willful infliction of death on another person . It is interesting to note that the legislation of the Russian Federation in relation to other animals, excluding humans, operates with the term "cruel treatment resulting in death" instead of the term "murder". However, this definition does not show the difference between violent and non-violent, since in the Russian Federation any murder of a person is illegal, even of his own free will (and euthanasia is not allowed here - oh, a sore subject, but for a separate discussion). Within the above terms, abortion is murder .
  • Back to the terms. What is violence? There are many definitions of violence, from the obviously laconic to the complete, strict and redundant. I will choose one, and you will have the right to challenge my choice. Violence is the performance of an action against a living being against his will (let's leave the issue of free will aside, this is also a topic for a separate conversation). In this case, if the subject is deprived of will, any action in relation to him a priori is devoid of the attribute of (non) violence . Already at this stage, we can with reservations say: abortion is nonviolent murder . Why with reservations? Because the nervous system in a human fetus begins to form already in the third week, nevertheless, the substrate of higher nervous activity, and therefore will, - the cerebral cortex - is formed only by the third trimester, in which abortion is prohibited . This confirms that abortion is non-violent murder, since it is the deprivation of the life of a living being, devoid of the property of will.
  • Finally, is nonviolent killing morally negative, or, simply put, bad? Every day you destroy animals, plants, microbes - they are all living organisms, and the death you brought to them is the most non-violent murder. How does it feel?

So, abortion is nonviolent murder . But is it bad? This is a question that does not have a strict answer, the answer to which cannot be objective at all. You decide. Enjoy your walks and bon appetit.

Answer 19
October, 2020

They just can prove it, you just are not interested in this evidence. As the saying goes, "if the facts contradict my concept, so much the worse for the facts." Each of us living on Earth, at one time won an unthinkable chance out of a billion, when one of the spermatozoa penetrated into the egg, and all the rest died. At the same time, there are people, mainly by the way, men who do not give birth, but put it out and run, bleating that "an abortion is a murder." Ely-palas, and each ejaculation is the murder of millions of unborn people. Only one sperm from these millions is introduced into the egg. Born into the world, each opponent of abortion by this very fact deprived of the chances of life for these millions in the form of the rest of my father's sperm. And nothing, no one is outraged about this, does not even worry. As well as about how many millions of potential citizens died at the abortion fighter during teenage masturbation sessions. Genocide, never dreamed of by any Hitler with Paul Pot. Nothing, they sleep well.

Answer 20
October, 2020

In essence, an embryo is a product of the fusion of two sex cells. No one in their right mind would say that two cells are a person. Then these cells begin to divide and grow. 4, 8, 16 cells - this is not a person either. On the other hand, an embryo that is about to be born may already be called a human. At this late stage of pregnancy, an abortion is no longer possible. But if we "subtract" one cage from an already born, but still small child, then at each of the stages he must maintain the status of a human, it is also difficult to argue with this. So at what stage does a recruitment or, better, a bunch of cells become a human? This question can be answered in different ways, as an option, to establish an artificial border that has little to do with reality. They decided to establish this border at the moment when the embryo is born. This seemed to people the most reasonable.

Answer 21
October, 2020

Well, let's plunge into a world in which "abortion is murder" for 5 minutes. You divide the whole world into black and white, apparently not understanding that from a legal point of view, murder is not an accurate definition.

Is it a murder by a group of persons by prior agreement, due to the fact that a doctor and possibly even a nurse is involved in the process? Will we send them for complicity or what?

Further, suppose a pregnant woman does not survive if the pregnancy is not terminated. In this case, is abortion a necessary level of self-defense?

Further, you do not understand what the "presumption of innocence" is. Which works in full growth for criminal responsibility, which is the responsibility for "murder". Here you must prove that it was a murder and that the woman committed it, and not she make excuses.

You want to drag moral norms into the world of jurisprudence like this vyser, which, by definition, cannot be there. A set of definitions is required for jurisprudence. In a specific case, you need to prove the equality of the concepts of "embryo" and "human".

Answer 22
October, 2020

Because many people look at the issue of abortion from the point of view of their views, someone believes that the embryo is not a human, because it cannot exist without its mother, there are even those who do not consider even a child up to one person human years i.e. until he starts trying to speak and formulate his thoughts.

Abortion cannot be called a murder of a person either from a legal point of view, because murder is the deprivation of LIFE. Legally (it is in the Russian Federation, I cannot say about other countries), a person acquires life from the moment of his birth, and the moment of birth, again legally, is the beginning of the first contractions in the mother. Accordingly, it is impossible to deprive a person of what he does not yet have.

But the author of the question looks at abortion from the point of view of morality or biology (where life is the very principle of existence), therefore he does not understand those who are the question looks from a legal point of view or adhering to similar beliefs that I have given above.

In fact, abortion is a topic that does not have a single correct answer, it is different for each person.

Answer 23
October, 2020

The embryo is not human. This is what can become a human being under a favorable set of circumstances. Although, of course, it all depends on who we call human.

Answer 24
October, 2020

Here's the situation: you are in a hospital, it caught fire, but you are alone on the floor. You hear a scream in one of the rooms, running into it, you see a 5-year-old child. At the other end of the room, there is a box with 1000 embryos ready for IVF use. You can either take the box or the child, the third option: everyone will die, and so will you. The question is, who / what will you save?

If, in your opinion, the embryo = human, then leaving the box, you will be to blame for the death of 1000 people. Or, saving the box, you wake up to blame for the death of the child. Now tell me, is it a human embryo?

Answer 25
October, 2020

Oh, it's very easy to prove otherwise. A person, in the legal sense of the word, is defined by law in such a way that the embryo is not a person, and therefore the murder of an embryo is not the murder of a person. This is not a matter of evidence, it is solely a matter of accepted legal terminology. It is such a fact.

Nevertheless, the embryo has its own, special, legal status. This status, for example, does not allow me to beat a pregnant woman to a miscarriage and limit myself to punishment for serious bodily harm. This status does not allow a woman to inflict life-compatible injuries on her embryo in order to make a freak out of it and sell it to the circus. But this status allows a woman to make the decision that she does not want this embryo to turn into a human and get rid of it by a legal procedure, and this is good, right, and it should be.

As you can see, this the question has nothing to do with biology and is strictly proven (well, how much the fact of existence of certain legal concepts needs proof at all - you take and read the laws and find out what is written there).

You can only discuss the question of how these concepts must be formulated in the law - and here, again, there is no room for evidence, it is impossible to prove the correctness of an ethical maxim, it is only possible to convince others to agree with this, and not another maxim. The case for a ban on abortion is unconvincing.

Answer 26
October, 2020

From the course of school biology, we know that nature is divided into living and inanimate. If you don't know the main differences, Google will help you.

Next. If abortion is murder, that is, we accept that the embryo is a living being that is “capable” of functioning independently without a mother's body, then eating mushrooms is also murder. If it seems to you that the example is incorrect, then you may have double standards.

If the embryo is not able to function normally without the mother's body, while being a multicellular (complex) organism, therefore, the example about the appendix is ​​correct.

Why? You live in the real world, where the complex is formed from the simple, going through certain stages of development, not the stages of a person. And this means that a person becomes a formed organism only after “birth”, when the ability to function adequately appears.

If I have not convinced you, try to conduct an experiment, and it is better to read literature on this topic. You need to grow an embryo that was rejected by the mother's body at 1 month of pregnancy. If the idea seems absurd to you, then it is worth revising the framework when the embryo becomes a human. Only thanks to scientific works, research, you can assert something, and not according to personal convictions and prescriptions of not particularly reasonable people, without any adequate arguments.

I will not turn the monologue into "srach", I did not express my opinion, but only applied, perhaps meager, knowledge in this area. If you disagree with me, please decide on what your arguments are based on, scientific works, or humane ideas.

Answer 27
October, 2020

The ability to think is, alas, a secondary optional feature. The main thing is documentary registration. Without a piece of paper, you are an insect, even if a person is not bad if you look closely. So this is not only a problem and not so much embryos.

Answer 28
October, 2020

Because the idea has taken root in society that a person is, first of all, a thinking creature, and only then a representative of a biological species.
If you focus on the second, then there will hardly be any problems.

Related question

Why do so many people disagree with the notion that abortion is murder?

Read more

Why is society believed that drugs make a person more creative, although in practice this is not the case?

Read more

Why do many people believe that the immunodeficiency virus does not exist? Are there any strong arguments in favor of this theory?

Read more

A Former Abortionist's Journey to Becoming Pro-Life (Part 2) - Dr Anthony & Cecelia Levatino

Why, although the medical community has recognized homeopathy as a pseudoscience, many people believe that homeopathy helps them. Self-hypnosis?

Read more

Why do people believe that bottled water is better than tap water?

Read more

How many people did Ebola killed?

Read more

Why do many scientific sites write that religion is spreading thanks to intestinal bacteria. How can this be, does it not offend believers?

Read more

Do you believe that Billy Milligan suffered from multiple personalities?

Read more

Speak Out: Abortion is Not A Human Right

Is it true that if you do not kill a mosquito that sucks blood, then the bite will not itch?

Read more

Many people on the Internet write that abstinence is unhealthy. Is it harmful if a person does not have sex at all?

Or masturbation and other self-gratification until 30?

Read more

Why do many people not get a tattoo on their elbows, but only do it around?

Read more

Why does the director of the Cancer Prevention Foundation believe that medical graduates cannot be trusted with patients because they will kill them? Is it really that bad?

Read more

Why do children show aggression and what pushes them to kill? How aware are they of what they are doing? And why do some people like to kill?

Read more

I Carried Out My Own Abortion

It is believed that AIDS is the biggest scam of the 21st century. The HIV virus has not yet been isolated. Do you believe this?

Read more

Is it true that a drop of nicotine kills a horse? How many cigarettes do you need to smoke to get this drop?

Read more

Why do so many people get cancer?

Read more

Why do many overweight people not follow the simplest dietary rules?

Read more

Why do many people not sleep without a blanket, even if the room is already hot enough and there is no need for insulation?

Read more

How US abortion policy targets the poor | 2020 Election

Why do some people believe sorcerers and charlatans more than doctors?

Read more

Someone says that milk is good, while others say that it is not. Whom to believe?

Read more