abortion

I think "murder" isn"t the right choice of words. And, I think that the definition you wrote is quite incorrect, and I think you purposefully wrote one that would justify your argument. Though, the true definition of murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing another living being especially with malice aforethought." which basically means, malicious or purposeful murder of a living person. There are many different forms of murder, and according to the dictionary, and the law, abortion is not one of them. They are, suicide, homicide, negligent homicide, criminal homicide, torture until death, curial killing, premeditated murder, second degree, manslaughter, even sleepwalking murder, but, as you can clearly see, abortion was not on this list, thus it is not, by the law and judicial system, murder. if you are still not convinced, than just take a closer look at the definition of murder. "The crime of unlawfully killing another living being especially with malice aforethought." see that it says "of a living being" and scientifically, in order to be alive, you must be able to eat, breath, and defecate. A baby that has not yet been born, also known as a fetus, can"t do any of those things, so, it is not technically alive, meaning that, it is not, in any sense, murder. My debate partner says, "Well I believe that it is wrong to force a child not to live. People do not have a right over someone else's life. Last time I checked, I wouldn't be very happy if my mom aborted me, as I would not get the chance to live and experience life." But, although children have brain activity at about 11 weeks old, they certainly don"t have nearly enough to know what"s best for they won"t really know how to answer a question like "do you think your mother made the right choice by having you?" until they are grown up. They will not know if their mother"s life could have been happier, if her career could have been more fulfilling, or if she could have waited longer and married someone that would have made her happier and she could have had an all around happier life, and a happier family. If you think that these questions do not matter, and that all that matters to you is your life, than you clearly have not yet matured enough to develop enough empathy to be able to truly understand the decision your mother has to make. My debate partner also says, "A growing baby, no matter the stage, is still human, and is still alive. By aborting it, you are killing a living human." This, as I have established earlier, is incorrect. I repeat, scientifically, in order to be alive, you must be able to eat, breath, and defecate. A fetus cannot do any of those things, thus, it is not technically alive, so it is not murder. "Another statement made by my opponent is: ", whether they [the government] know what the woman has went through, what the baby is going through, or what storms they will each have to weather through their lives" I am not quite sure what he is trying to say, but it is still no excuse for murder." I would like to start by saying that my English was perfectly clear, just more refined and poetic than the average debate. But, to put it simpler, the government doesn"t know anything about the mother"s past, present, or future, or what may happen if the baby is born, for all they know, the mother was raped, the mother has a deadly illness, the baby could have a horribly painful life, ending in a painful death, or the mother and the baby could both die if the baby is born. And, according to the law, choosing to save the mother"s life instead of the babys is a perfectly valid excuse for an abortion. In any case, for the third time, and I don"t want to repeat myself again, it is not murder! But even if it was, according to the law, if a mother could die, it apsolutely is a valid exuse. My opponent than says, "Why would the right decision for the baby be killing it? How does she know what her baby wants? She doesn't. The baby cannot express itself. It cannot defend itself. It is the mother's responsibility to nurture, and care for her baby." I will tell you why, it"s a story, the autobiography of the twenty three unbearable weeks of a loving mother. I beg of you to read the entire thing thouroghly before responding. My Abortion, at 23 Weeks By JUDY NICASTRO I was 38 when I completed a term on the Seattle City Council. Two years later, I married my husband, who is five years younger. We wanted children, and started trying right away, but had trouble conceiving. Using in vitro fertilization, we had our son, Matthew. When he was 2, after another round of I.V.F., we conceived again. I was six weeks pregnant when I learned I was carrying twins, a boy and a girl. We were exstatic. But in my 20th week, during an ultrasound, the technician looked concerned, and we got the first hint that something might be wrong. The next day, a Friday, my obstetrician called to say that the technician had had a hard time seeing the heart of the male fetus. "It is probably just the position," she reassured me. On Monday, I had a second ultrasound and my husband and I spent two hours " it felt like an eternity " with a different doctor and technician. "It looks as if the boy has a herniated diaphragm," they told us. "All the organs are in his chest and not developing." What did that mean? Would the organs move? Was my baby "fixable"? The clinic staff members were reluctant to tell us how bad it was. They said I needed an M.R.I., which would provide more details. My world stopped. I loved being pregnant with twins. Sometimes it felt like a party in there, with eight limbs moving. The thought of losing one child was unbearable. The M.R.I. confirmed our fears: the organs were pushed up into our boy"s chest and not developing properly. We were in the 22nd week. In Washington State, abortion is legal until the 24th week. After 10 more days of tests and meetings, we were in the 23rd week and had to make a decision. My husband and I had very different views on abortion, but we were in complete agreement. We desperately wanted this child and would do whatever we could to save him, if his hernia was fixable and he could have a good quality of life. Once we had all the data, we met with a nurse, a surgeon and a pediatrician at the hospital. The surgeon said our boy had a hole in his diaphragm. Only one lung chamber had formed, and it was only 20 percent complete. If our boy survived birth, he would be on oxygen and other life supports for a long time. The thought of hearing him gasp for air and linger in pain was our nightmare. The surgeon described interventions that would give our son the best chance of surviving birth. But after that, he would likely live only a short while. He cautioned that medical ethics constrained what he could say, then added, "Termination is a reasonable option, and a reasonable option that I can support." I burst out sobbing. My husband cried, too. But in a sense, the pediatrician"s words were a source of comfort and kindness. He said what we already knew. But we needed to hear it from professionals, who knew we were good parents who wanted what was best for our children. The next day, at a clinic near my home, I felt my son"s budding life end as a doctor inserted a needle through my belly into his tiny heart. She had trouble finding it because of its abnormal position. As horrible as that moment was " it will live with me forever " I am grateful. We made sure our son was not born only to suffer. He died in a warm and loving place, inside me. In having the abortion, we would end our son"s life, but we would be sure that our duaghter"s could go on and our son wouldn"t go through a life of pain. Our daughter, Kaitlyn was born, healthy and beautiful, on March 2, 2011, and we love her to pieces. My little boy partially dissolved into me, and I like to think his soul is in his sister. Many new laws about abortion have been going into affect, and, while some of these new restrictions allow exceptions for fetal genetic defects, second-trimester abortions must remain legal because, until a child is viable outside the womb, these decisions belong with the mother. I share my story in the hope that our leaders will be more responsible and compassionate when they weigh what it means to truly value the lives of women and children. I hope you can now understand the reasons that an abortion should be up to only the parents, particularly the mother. I also dearly hope this changes your mind about what you said earlier, that, "the woman does not have rights over the baby" because really, the decision should only be up to the mother. This story explains that sometimes abortion truly is the right thing to do in many cases. If JUDY NICASTRO hadn"t had her abortion, the baby would have had a miserable life that probably would have ended in a painful death, as hard as it was for the mother, she had to make the right decision, to let her baby die in very little to no pain, in a warm and loving place. And it was difficult, but as the great kenneth parcel once said, "there is always a right thing to do, just sometimes its not the easy thing" and, like the 350 people out of 378 that commented that this story I think the mother did the right thing, I hope that you can see that too. Also, responding to what you said earlier, that a mother cannot know what the baby wants, you are partly correct, the mother doesn"t know what the baby would think is right, which is why she needs to make the decisions for it. I would also appreciate it if you would stop addressing me as a man, because I am actually a woman, but I hope this news does not, like your views on a woman"s right to do what she finds right with her body, make you believe my female opinion is no longer valid.