Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 month ago

If abortion isn't murder of a human person then why men who kill pregnant women are charged with double homicide?

How it is just a “clump of cells” or “tumor” in one scenario and a full human being in another scenario based on the whims of the person carrying it? All scientific arguments for the unborn baby not being the person fail in this scenario?


@God of Thunder- pregnant women get other benefits. Example- a recent San Francisco program to help black And brown pregnant women

Update 2:

Fingers - extreme feminists call the unborn baby a dead body until it is born.  You are right about women’s choice. The question is about the scientific arguments for the unborn not being a person objectively

Update 3:

@ Anon with the picture. That’s Violinist argument

1) The government is NOT forcibly impregnating any woman. Therefore, the government does not have to legalize abortion. The government can't force someone to donate their organs. Nobody has the right to invade a person's body to save other lives. THAT is bodily autonomy.

Pro-lifers are not asking the government to invade a woman's body (for impregnation or abortion or organ donation). Your analogy is wrong.

Update 4:

Emotional blackmail attempts ? I am not blackmailing any pregnant woman who seek abortion. This is just a question

Update 5:

Eddie -   The only forced pregnancy is rape. That is an entirely different topic. In every other pregnancy, people chose to have sex.

Update 6:

Anon - True. The state does not have right to anyone’s body. The state shouldn’t impregnate or abort any woman. But YOU are ASKING the state to do abortions

Update 7:

@ Anon - Free will and autonomy exists when you choose to have sex. No, you are repeatedly ignoring the important difference. The government is not forcing you to remain pregnant. The government does not care about your body. You choose to have sex. YOU are asking the government to do abortions. This is true in state hospitals in other countries.  Comparing this to organ donations is a poor analogy.

Update 8:

Two answers with pictures use the same debunked Violinist Argument.  Comparing abortions to organ donations and harvesting is a poor analogy. The counters arguments for that are given above. 

Update 9:

The government is not forcing you to become pregnant, not forcing you to abort, not forcing you to donate organs. You have full bodily autonomy. But you are forcing the government to do abortions. Your arguments are willfully ignorant

Update 10:

This is the first time I ask here. The old questions got removed by report monkeys. I am not ranting. Just giving the counter arguments to the answers below

Update 11:

@ Samwise - Pro-lifers don’t treat women as property. Women have full autonomy when it comes to sex. Not all sexual acts can or must result in pregnancy. But still, pregnancy is the natural result of sex. Rape is the only exception. Pro-lifers only ask both men and women to be responsible for the life they create.

Update 12:

@ Sam wise - You agree that a fetus in any stage of development is human life. That’s right. But you also say “A life is of value because someone else values it--a basic fact of human existence. “. That’s false. Every human life is valuable. The value of human life is not based on the whims of another person.

Because it is reliant on the mother, It should be the top priority of the mother to nurture and protect it. “Reliance on the mother” argument should not be used to kill it.

15 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago
    Favorite Answer

    Laws vary from place to place. You can’t argue for (or) against abortion based on laws. Abortion is currently legal. What is legal is not necessarily moral

  • 1 month ago

    I concur that there's a question here of inconsistency. But I think it can be sorted out by controlling our attention, avoiding distractions from main points. 


    The trouble is that both the purported "pro-life" and "pro-choice" groups tend to focus on the status of the fetus. Actually, I think the real issue, in legal terms, is whether or not government is entitled to treat a pregnant woman as property. 


    I do consider a fetus in any stage of development a human life. And yes, its death is a bad thing. But that oughtn't to be the legal question. The legal question is the role of legal authority in making decisions about the fate of that human life. Political "pro-life" factions tend to agree on that question with Communist Chinese authorities: they regard the government as entitled to decide. 


    Without treating women as property, the government actually has plenty of power to reduce abortions. We know this because in the U.S., every Republican (and thus "pro-life") administration since 1980 has produced a steady increase in the abortion rate, and every Democratic (thus "pro-choice") administration has produced a steady decrease. That is because the Democrats are focused on increasing the resources available to most people to carry to term, provide for, and educate children, while the Republicans have been devoted to taking those resources away and concentrating them in the hands of people who are already wealthy. 


    To get back to your example of the contradiction: If the focus is on whether the woman who is carrying the unborn child wants to give it birth and raise it, there isn't a contradiction. A life is of value because someone else values it--a basic fact of human existence. 


    The real contradiction is between people who claim to value life, even talking about its "sanctity," while not being willing to support it. A "pro-life" stance that is only concerned with treating women as property is just an excuse.

  • 1 month ago

    A fetus is not a "clump of cells" any bore than pro-abortion activists are just a "clump of cells."  Never let the liberl left lie to you, and be aware of their propaganda.

    Nor is a fetus a tumor.  A tumor grows unchecked.  A baby grows to her proper size and is born.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    The law isn’t the same everywhere, in some places it isn’t charges as double homicide. So by your logic it isn’t murder in those places and embryos in those places have a lesser moral value than in places were the charges are double homicide. Using the law to debate morality is retarded, explain with properly explained and elaborate motivations and arguments why the embryo has such moral value directly from conception that aborting it is necessarily wrong.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Repeated question, ranting.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Your emotional blackmail attempts are futile. 

    Attachment image
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Abortion is murder. Nobody is disputing that. The law says its mother’s choice. That’s their right

  • 1 month ago

    A fetus is never called a tumor except by dishonest christians like yourself. The difference is that in the case of abortion, its the mothers decision as to what she does with her body. In the case of murder, you take that choice away. How and why is this difficult to understand? And its not a baby until its born. Stop being a lying sneak. Isnt the christian position on abortion nothing more than one of the whims of the christians being that THEY should be the ones who decide what a woman can and cant do with her body? A person having an abortion has no ill effects on someone not having an abortion, why is it any of their business? 

  • 1 month ago

    If a fetus is a person, why didn't pregnant women get an extra $500 in stimulus payments for their fetuses?

    Your excuse doesn't address the issue.  Clearly the federal government does not consider a fetus a person.

  • 1 month ago

    All scientific arguments for the unborn baby not being the person do NOT fail in that scenario, stupid. Get informed.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.