Abortion is a very controversial issue in today’s society. The issue is whether abortion is considered murder. There are many reasons for why abortion is murder. Abortion is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus that is incapable of survival. In other words, the mother is taking the decision into her own hands to kill her unborn child. If, in the United States of America, murder is the killing of another human, than why wouldn’t abortion be considered murder? Abortion is murder because it is the slaughtering of an unborn human.
Murder is considered to be the unlawful killing of one human by another. The mother is killing her own unborn child. Murder is also defined as illegal killing with malice aforethought. With this statement, people argue that abortion is not illegal and that the mother does not feel malice for her unborn child. Meaning, she is not killing her child to see it suffer. It is not known for a fact that a mother does not feel malice. She could be killing her child to benefit in her own ways. She could be mentally unstable and want to see her own child suffer. Another person cannot decide whether the mother felt malice or not. Either way with feeling malice or not, it is not a good enough argument to show that abortion is murder. In addition, people making the counter arguments believe that the mother has the right to chose whether her unborn child should live or not. You could then continue to say that a mother could even kill her born child. Their argument is not clear enough, because it leads you to believe that a mother can choose if she wanted to kill her own child. There is no difference between an unborn and born child.
There are differences though like the child is no longer connected with the cord to the mother. - Anon
When you say "see her own child suffer," you don't touch on the point that the woman isn't really going to see it. Also, you might want to examine the definition of "child." One main counterargument is that an embryo is not considered a child. You may want to argue whether or not the embryo "suffers" or feels pain. Lastly, the difference between an unborn and born child can be examined by drawing a line where you think the embryo or fetus is developed enough to qualify as a child. Sure, you could very well believe that a fertilized egg is developed enough, but does that mean the egg is a child that feels pain?
An unborn child would be considered a fetus or embryo while in the womb. A fetus is an unborn person in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of a mature person. If I may stress one part of this definition it would be the word person. A fetus is just an unborn person. The fetus is still considered a human being, but is not fully developed yet. Since murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human by another, and a fetus is still considered a person, then abortion would be considered illegal. After stating these points, a person would argue that a fetus is not a human. In addition, since they believe a fetus is not a human, than it is not considered murder. There argument is not specific enough to convince that abortion is not murder, considering the fact that a fetus is an unborn child.
Who defines a fetus as a person? This is one of the gray areas.
In addition to the previous counter arguments, people would claim that abortions are legal. Just because law states that abortion is legal, it does not mean that abortion is not murder. It has already been stated that abortion is considered murder. It would then make sense that since murder is illegal, than abortion would be considered illegal too. The United States does have laws, but it does not mean that these laws can or will never be changed. The argument that abortion is legal is not sufficient.
Once again, abortion is murder because it is the unlawful killing of one human by another. Counter arguments for this issue were that people argue that abortion is not illegal and that the mother does not feel malice for her unborn child. Abortion being legal is a fact, but the comment about whether a mother feels malice or not for their unborn child is not a fact. People have different opinions, and a mother could feel malice for her child and wanting to abort it. In addition, others argue that it is not considered murder, because an embryo or a fetus is not considered a human. But the definition of a fetus is an unborn person in the later states of development showing the main recognizable features of a mature person. After this simple definition, their argument would be considered wrong. A fetus is a person, and abortion would be considered murder. The last counter argument is that since abortions are legal it is acceptable to kill an unborn child. I believe that my argument is the best, because abortion is considered murder, and murder is illegal. This topic is contradictory, because murder is illegal, than wouldn’t abortion be considered illegal also? After reviewing my points on why abortion is murder, I would expect that it is clearly understood why the counter arguments are not acceptable.
According to your facts you are saying abortion is only illegal if the mother wants to watch the baby suffer. It is easy to follow along but starts to become redundant and you don't really give the counterarguments much of a chance. - Anonymous
Your paper touches on some of the arguments surrounding abortion, but it might help to limit the repetition to strengthen your position. Get your point across to the audience by using multiple strong arguments rather than repeating the same primary argument that "abortion is murder, and murder is illegal, so therefore abortion is or should be illegal." Otherwise, I think this topic is a good one because there exists a gray area between the two sides of this issue. It has good potential to be a strong argument, it just needs to be strengthened a little bit. - ParkerBlog
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.