Yes abortion is a bit wrong and there is a better alternative solution which I would recommend before attempting a abortion (such as putting the children up for adoption instead) it can't really be helped sometimes though.
There are many reasons for why one may attempt a abortion some that may be considered good and some that may be considered bad.

tgags123 : We kill things every day. Yesterday I had pork for dinner. Today I swatted a mosquito. You're not making any sense.

And no, a fetus is not a child. Because a child is defined as a human that is older than a baby, but has not yet reached puberty. You seem to have a problem understanding some of these basic definitions. I would recommend doing a little research into the topic at hand before posting again.

tgags123 : I think what she's saying is that all life is not human life. She doesn't consider a fetus a child because she doesn't actually consider it a person. She just considers it a group of cells like a tumor.

I may sound like the Devil's advocate here, but going off of some earlier posts, what would happen if the woman let the child be born, knowing full well she could not provide a life for him/her? My feelings are more along with the lines of are we going to take responsibility for bringing a child into this world, or just have them feel ultimate torture before they go. If someone believes they cannot provide a happy future for the unborn child, I will understand them aborting the pregnancy.

Traduweise : The pork and mosquito are not human. Fetuses are human. And stop being so darn technical. It doesn't matter if it is a child or a baby or a fetus, it is still a human.

tgags123 : Stop being dishonest then. A fetus is not a child. Period. As for human? Who cares. It's a clump of developing cells. If a fetus is a human, so is a tumour. Is it also wrong to have a mole surgically removed?

Traduweise : "As for human. Who cares?" So if I went up to your dad and killed him your response would be "Who cares?"?

Personally I don't really like the idea of abortion but I don't think it should really be outlawed either. Isn't it possible to move a embryo to another womb and have it born from them? I think they call them surrogate mothers. Perhaps if there's a system for in place for that where it could be preformed on a massive scale then Traduweise could be happy getting rid of abortions.

tgags123 : So now you're comparing a clump of cells analogous to a tumour to an adult human being. I hope you are not being deliberately obtuse. You can define a human being to include a fetus, but that doesn't make a fetus a person. It is not even capable of thought or sentience. It is a lump of cells.


Vincent1875 : That is only possible in extremely early stages of development. And of course you would need to find a consistent supply of women willing to have strangers' fetuses implanted in them. It is not at all realistic.

Tumors are not people. They are tufts of cancerous skin tissue, that share the same deoxyribose nucleic acid as the person they are attached to. However, a fetus only shares half of their DNA with the person they are attached to. A person has a uniform DNA throughout their body- you can't argue with that. A fetus does not share DNA with the person it is inside of, so it isn't part of that person. That fetus also has the DNA that makes it a homo sapien. The fetus' DNA shows that it is a human being, and that it is separate from it's mother. To kill that being would be to murder a human being, which is wrong by all accounts. People who want to say it's only okay to kill people when they are fetuses are not willing to be responsible for their own actions. If they impregnated someone or got pregnant with someone, it is their own fault, and they should take responsibility by having the child or, like Vincent (1875) said, have it transplanted if necessary. (The offensive but more common term for this is "test tube baby.") Abortion is murder, and murder is wrong. Abortion should already be outlawed. (Hey, technically, if you murder someone, you are aborting their life, and they, like unborn fetuses, don't have a choice in it either! The definition of abortion is "to "end prematurely.")

Traduweise : Well I was more referring to endeavors in the future than it currently being feasible. Maybe if someone invents an artificial womb. Understand?

Abortion is wrong period.

Why you may ask? Simple, the "fetus" is alive. For example, when abortionists use the salt water solution to "dissolve" the child the child has the instinct to move out of the way. Yes, I said it instinct. Last time I checked don't instincts require an organism in general to be alive? So if the fetus was as stated before "just a clump of developing cells" why would it have instincts? After all its just a bunch of cells.

Another reason is that there's always a way out. The other day when I went to the emergency room (for a whole different reason) I saw on one of the walls that there are places where you can leave your child if you absolutely have to if you are unable to care for said child. I'm sure there are also other programs where you can give your child to other couples who are unable to conceive a child of their own. Plus, you can probably go and see the child when they're older if you're feeling really bad about leaving your child with strangers. 

Lastly, if you cant have a child or are in a situation where having a child is unfavorable... don't have a child. Its simple as that stop and if you say it is more complicated then my response to you is to simply stop complicating things silly! 

star4z : A tumour is not a person, and yet it has the same human DNA that any fetus does. Trying to argue that human DNA makes it wrong to have an abortion makes as much sense as claiming that by scratching my nose, I am killing hundreds of people.

And abortion is not murder. Murder is illegal, and abortion is not. Don't appeal to legal terminology you don't understand in a baseless attempt to make your point seem more visceral.

Traduweise : While you may be right about murder being illegal and abortion being legal you forgot one thing, some laws can and do have errors. Yes, there is the Roe VS Wade case that made abortion legal in the first place but lets compare it to another case shall we?

The government once said that slavery/segregation was legal. Was it wrong? Absolutely 110% yes it was horrendous. Were there people who were fine with slavery? Yep! Were there laws supporting it? Have you heard of the Jim Crow laws? Were there people against it? Of course! 

What I'm trying to prove is that laws can and will change in the future. Just because there is a law saying that an abortion isn't murder now does not justify the fact that it IS murder in the long run.

angelbear1297 : That's completely irrelevent. Murder is a legal term, not a moral one. If fetuses were legally declared persons and abortion were outlawed, then abortion would be murder. All these people on the thread ranting about abortion being murder are using the term for shock effect: it just sounds more brutal and unpleasant that way. It's a rather paltry attempt sway people emotionally without having to make a reasoned argument. But, as I said, abortion is a legal term. It is not necessarily about what is right or wrong.

Traduweise : I'm not sure if it is an attempt at using shock value or emotional manipulation. Unlike you they actually do see fetuses as people and so they'd naturally see abortion as murder. I see it as more of a natural progression of their train of thought. If they didn't call it murder they'd call it homicide.

Traduweise : Think about it like this. When you were in the womb, I walk up to your mom and stab her in the abdomen, killing you before you were born. You are telling me that I didn't take your life? That is ok because you were just "a cluster of cells"?

Yea... I agree... Abortion is really wrong. It doesn't help or benefit you, its just another way to murder a newborn.  How could people do such things to helpless newborns?

Vincent1875 :  If you would just read my posts, I make it abundantly clear what the problem is. Whether or not a fetus is a human being, murder is not defined as killing a human being. Murder is unlawfully killing another human being. The term "murder" is a legal definition. So long as abortion remains legal, it cannot possibly be murder. The pro-life crowd just likes using terms such as murder for shock value. Homicide is another legal term, so it once again does not apply to abortion.



tgags123 : You could have simply asked how I would have felt if my mother had aborted me. Instead, you have to throw in a scene where you stab my mother in the stomach. Because apparently, it's ok to say "well I'm going to stab your mother" as a reasonable rebutal to someone who supports legal abortions. Is it really impossible for you to make a logical argument instead of using such exaggerated language as a crutch? If I had been aborted, I wouldn't have experienced sentience or life on this world. As a result, it would be impossible for me to feel regret, or anything else. I would simply never have existed.

Traduweise : If you wish to get into morality murder can be a moral term as well. Murder, in a moral sense, means the purposeful taking of another being's life notice how I said being.

Anyways since abortion is a legal term lets look at the legal definition shall we? As stated here: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2283 Abortion is "n. The termination of pregnancy by various means, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life." Meaning that the fetus is still alive but must be supported by another life source. By terminating the "fetus" life source you are getting rid of its life. Its similar to a person on life support or oxygen support. The person is still alive but they need extra help to live.

Now going onto as to you say legal terms isn't that what law is about? Deciding what is right and what is wrong and then creating a law so that there are punishments in case said scenario happens? How would you explain homicide or genocide? Both are "legal terms" as you put it but both regard to wrong actions. Using your same logic would abortion have to be right or wrong as well?