Murder?

Ms. Cheatheam's article "Why do we think we have the right to kill the Unborn?" raises some interesting points to consider about the morality of abortion. Unfortunately she fails to address her opposition and cites articles only supporting her claim. By doing this she stiff-arms pro-choice advocates and weakens the effectiveness of her viewpoint. She approaches her stance as a hot headed argument rather than making a plea for readers to re-evaluate their opinion of the issue. Her description of the abortion process and the reality of the matter does make a strong emotional appeal. This could be considered a tactic used to irrationally scare someone to support pro-life. Interestingly enough her points only express true facts about the medical process of abortion. They are not pretty or pleasant, but real. We need people to start being bare bones honest about injustice and Ms. Cheateam lays it on the table. The title makes a bold and highly relevant point. Unborn does not translate to non-human. A live fetus existing inside a woman's uterus relies on others to live. Nobody can argue the fact that an unborn fetus is living and yet some are of the opinion that they have a "right" to abort it. Where does this right come from? Where does our right to exist come from? If somebody on earth were threatened, they would not agree that someone else had a right to abort their existence. Superb title! One specific comparison was made about a man dismembering his wife and a doctor dismembering an unborn fetus. She asks why we don't treat both instances as murder. A better question might be: "How can a country grant anyone the right to terminate the existence of another human or fetus. And for that matter, on what premise do we decide that a walking and breathing human has more rights than an unborn fetus, who is the beginning of human life? The issue runs much deeper than what appears on the surface. The author needs to make an argument asking people how they can justify being granted this kind of right. While the idea has great potential, greater detail needs to be considered when trying to help others see a specific point of view. Nobody likes a slap in the face, with a hand or words. Facts about abortion are nasty but so is a narrow minded argument. Since both can be turn-offs, she needs to explore and seek to expose motives behind abortion. She claims that abortion is murder, which may very well be true. My question is why?