This first debate so I don't know if I'm doing anything wrong.
Opening:
Before I get into my argument, I would like to clarify what I meant by "within certain timeframe". I think abortion should not be considered murder (ethically), if it is done before the first two months of a pregnancy.
I'm going to start with the most common argument, that abortion is the murder of a living being. However, I firmly believe that when the fetus first develops, it is just a clump of cells. The reason I don't consider it to be a new living organism is because at this stage, the baby (fetus) cannot yet feel, or think, but most prominently suffer, and counting the destruction of cells as murder compared to the murder of a person or pet (who can feel senses) is simply not ethical.
Of course, there are also many smaller factors such as rape, or external factors involving the mother, in which I believe abortion is a viable option.
(I'm having a brain fart so I'll just set out some common arguments)
"Put it up for adoption"
When it comes to giving birth (especially with underaged women who have been raped), it's not exactly like they'll just give birth and walk away. There's trauma involved in childbirth, and the mother may not even be ready to give birth to a child. Remember, the child (if put up for adoption), doesn't have it easy either. Sure they get to experience "life and it's beauty", but they are growing up without a parental figure, and have to deal with the fact that they may never see their real mother.
"If it's consciousness that you care about, would you kill a man in a coma?"
I really don't have a good answer for this, and I'm probably committing multiple logical fallacies here, but there is a difference between a man in a coma, and a undeveloped fetus. The fetus has still yet to even develop a consciousness, while the man in the coma is simply unconscious. To put this in simpler terms, I will compare a coma to "deep sleep, except no amount of external stimuli (such as sounds or sensations) can prompt the brain to become awake and alert" (
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/coma)
I think we can all agree killing someone in their sleep is wrong.
During a sleep, our brain is still capable of creating and feeling emotion (Like if you wake up crying or scared). In fact, there are still reports of people who have heard their family talk to them (or to others), while inside their coma. Meanwhile, a fetus is not even aware of itself.
What if it was a brain-dead man?
I personally believe it is fine to pull the plug on a brain-dead man, although it should be done with consent from close friends or family. In this state, the man has practically turned back into a fetus that is incapable of living by itself (in fact, one who is brain-dead is legally considered, "already dead").
OBSERVATIONS:
"I think abortion should not be considered murder (ethically), if it is done before the first two months of a pregnancy."
~ Murder and ethical are mutually exclusive terms and should never be used together. There is nothing ethical or unethical about 'murder.'
"However, I firmly believe that when the fetus first develops, it is just a clump of cells. The reason I don't consider it to be a new living organism is because at this stage, the baby (fetus) cannot yet feel, or think, but most prominently suffer, and counting the destruction of cells as murder compared to the murder of a person or pet (who can feel senses) is simply not ethical."
~ This right here demonstrates your lack of education on the subject material.
Clump of cells? Not a living organism?
The baby (fetus)...?
Bringing a pet into this also shows a measure of ignorance too.
Scientifically, at conception, the very basic biological criteria for "life" are met; therefore, it is alive/living but it is clearly NOT [a] human being (ie - 'a person'). It has potential to be, but it actually is not. Potentiality =/= Actuality. Also, a fetus =/= [a] baby either. That term, baby, is a misnomer, an appeal to emotion fallacy.
""If it's consciousness that you care about, would you kill a man in a coma?" I really don't have a good answer for this..."
~ You should, and it is easy. That argument is a false equivalency fallacy. One cannot compare a pregnancy to a born human being, regardless of their state (e.g. coma, under anesthesia, asleep, etc.). Why? Simple. The pregnancy has NO legal rights, privileges, and/or equal protections of the law - unlike those born who do (14th Amendment; 1 USC 8).
" What if it was a brain-dead man? I personally believe it is fine to pull the plug on a brain-dead man, although it should be done with consent from close friends or family. In this state, the man has practically turned back into a fetus that is incapable of living by itself (in fact, one who is brain-dead is legally considered, "already dead")."
~ This is nonsensical and utterly irrelevant to the debate topic. And the "the man has practically turned back into a fetus..." Incredibly ignorant statement. Think before you type. If it sounds uneducated, don't post it.