Abortion can be defined as the deliberate causing of the death of a fetus, either by directly killing it or by causing it to be expelled from the uterus before it is “viable.” With “the killing of an innocent human being without his consent is murder” and “abortion is the killing of an innocent human being without his consent” are the premises for an argument with a conclusion of “The abortion is murder." Let's analyze the first premise. This premise is correct by saying that it is not right to kill someone without their consent. But we must refute the phrase human being. When talking about the issue of abortion, many distinguish between the words human being and people. The human being, in a moral sense, is a "full member of the moral community" (198). A fetus could not be said to be a human being because it is not a full member of the moral community. It is living inside a woman, of which she has minimal rights, but has the right to life. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The second premise reinforces the first by stating that abortion is the killing of a human being without consent. Of course this can be said because a fetus cannot consent and say, “kill me because I will have no chance of surviving.” This is a very sensitive topic because it brings home the point of what a human being is. A moral community to which a human being belongs is one that enjoys rights and privileges. A fetus has the common sense to make a judgment about killing itself. I don't think that's the case, so the conclusion is wrong that abortion is murder. If murder means killing an innocent human being, then abortion is not murder. It is not murder because there is a distinction between human being and person. The doctor does not kill a human being because he is not part of a full-fledged moral community. The fetus is inside, without community and without common sense. You cannot say that a fetus is a human being using Mary Anne Warrens explanation of a human being that I have already described. A fetus is not part of a community at all. It's inside the womb, in a woman, who really can't make a choice for herself. He will have to stick to what his mother does because he doesn't have a mental or emotional state yet. The mental and emotional state is the ability to plan, acquire knowledge and awareness. How could one say in this case that a fetus is the same as a human being? When you are born and even two years later, do you have the ability to do all this? The answer is no because you really don't know what's going on. In this case the abortion cannot be murder because it is not possible to obtain the consent of the fetus. It is literally impossible to get consent from a person who wasn't even born and doesn't know what's going on. You can also delve deeper into this topic by adding the fact that the mother could die if she prolonged the pregnancy. One would say that abortion in this case is murder. If the mother will die when the child is born, why would it be morally wrong to kill a fetus that cannot be considered “human”. The mother is human according to the common sense of the person and also according to the definition of a human being. Why should killing the fetus, which is not “human”, be murder when a mother, a “human being” could die due to the birth of the fetus. One might say that the fetus has a good and prosperous life ahead of it, but how good will the child be without a mother. I know there's adoptions and all that, but the way I see it is the fact that how could they give this child up for adoption and in the end the child finds out that it was him or the mother who died. Of course the child will feel good, but I also think he would feel like there is an open end to his life. Another.