Poll: Is abortion murder?

[BGH122]

She knew the risk when she had sex. If she didn't want to risk having a child then she shouldn't have had sex. She doesn't have the right to put a man through the emotional trauma of losing his child just because it'd be physically burdensome.

She didn't sign a contract to have the baby; she has no obligation. If it's emotionally traumatic for him, then HE should have thought about that before he had sex.

This argument doesn't work, this is like saying she knew something she didn't want to occur could occur and so did he therefore it's his problem. You're just forcing men to play the chivalry role which is ludicrously outdated.

They both partook in sex knowing that a child could occur as a result, that was their joint action, so we can assume she gives her consent to a child because otherwise she shouldn't partake in actions which could cause one. This means that we she desires an abortion she's reneging upon their earlier implicit agreement that a child is an acceptable consequence of sex. This makes her the transgressor, the man is simply sticking with their earlier implicit agreement in demanding that she birth the child. She's changing the moral rules ad hoc to suit her, that's immoral.

You're making up moral rules ad hoc either way. You could just as easily say that we can assume he gives her consent to have an abortion by not getting her to explicitly agree not to have one.

No, we couldn't. Implicit in sex is the immediate consequence of a child, not an abortion. An abortion first requires a child which is the immediate consequence of sex. If we're saying that people shouldn't partake in actions which have immediate consequences they disagree with then my 'sex entails children' argument works, your 'sex entails abortion' doesn't, since you've missed out a step.

Yep, I'm a man, and I believe all the women in their perspective countries should get to gather and decide, what THEY WANT THE LAW TO BE. Us men shouldn't have any say in the matter.

The emotional and psychological effects of an abortion are way more outstanding than anything us guys can relate to.

Absolute toss. Let's say, hypothetically, you're at an age where if you don't have children now you'll never get to raise them. You have sex with a woman, she can't be bothered to go through childbirth and so denies you the right to ever raise children. She's committed an act far more grievous than yours.

Men have every right to lay claim to their children. It's absolute nonsense that women's emotional reaction to carrying/aborting a baby trumps mens. You're also biasing child-rearing towards women, as if women have some natural link to this role, by claiming that it's emotionally harder for them to abort a baby, as if they have a stronger link with it.

 

[Nemu]

No.

And I'm not getting into a religious/scientific debate over it on a gaming forum.

What has this got to do with religion in any way, shape or form?

This is a moral, legal, and scientific debate.

FINE

I shall also not get into a moral, legal, philosophical, he-said-she-said, my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad, butter-side up or down (et al) debate.

Better?
Seriously, I could enter into this "debate" by just tossing in the gender card, and no-one wants that. This is a personal issue, I don't discuss personal issues with complete strangers on a gaming forum.

 

[RMcD94]

It's not any more alive than a sperm or egg, which makes claiming it is murder idiotic, it is not self aware, so it is not murder.

It's all about "where to draw the line" but you know what's convenient? Nature gave us a hugely import and conspicuous event in which to draw that line

birth.


Whether you think it's wrong or not is a personal matter, but murder it is not.

I 100% agree with you. Birth is where I draw the line. Once the umbilical cord is cut to be precise.

 

[andriod]

You just opened a can of worms. There is going to be some angry words exchanged over this topic...again...

...I don't know what I feel about it... I haven't taken a side yet.

hungry for worms? no hungry for WORDS!

on topic: no its not murder if it has no consciousness. It is a bunch of cells and ff you call killing cells murder then everyone is guilty and should be sent to prison

 

[Simalacrum]

Oooooh boy, touchy subject this one...

I'm kinda on the fence about the whole pro-life/pro-choice conundrum, personally.

Whether its murder or not... that depends. I think that, yes, in the end we are killing a proper human being within the womb. However, that does not automatically mean murder - in some cases, e.g. the child was forced upon the mother through rape, abortion might be considered euthanasia, in a way.

 

[Plurralbles]

no. Until it is 1 year old I don't give a fuck about childrens' right to live.

Arbitrary line ageism alert.

Difference between a 31 556 926 seconds old (a year old) child and a 31 556 925 seconds old child, that means they have a right to live.

Same thing with alcohol and tobacco consumption and driving.

 

[The Last Parade]

No. No concious thought means you aren't killing a true person. That's how I think of it anyway.

interesting fact here, Babies believe themelves to be severed limbs of the mother and do not become self aware for up to a year after exiting the womb, however they indeed are only consious after exiting the womb

 

[RMcD94]

I would like to see how many people in this thread have actually had an abortion (you or your girl) and see what they think. The rest of them can just go away, if you haven't had it affect your life yet, then why try to argue?

The only people who should choose laws are the people who it has affected yet?

So only the people who have murdered or have been murdered, or have a partner murderd get to choose whether it's legal or not.

You crazy.

Yep, I'm a man, and I believe all the women in their perspective countries should get to gather and decide, what THEY WANT THE LAW TO BE. Us men shouldn't have any say in the matter.

The emotional and psychological effects of an abortion are way more outstanding than anything us guys can relate to.

A man has been made to give birth before. It was on the news.

Does he get to go to this universal meeting?

I can't wait till all the speeders and all those who've been injured by a car travelling over the limit in their perspective countries meet up and suddenly the speeders have an overwhelming majority and driving over the limit is no longer illegal.

 

[Normalgamer]

I personally think it is murder. Lumps of flesh don't have ears and eyes, and they don't swallow and have the ability to kick you while in the womb.

Murder implies the taking of a life. A life isn't defined by thoughtless action, or somewhat human characteristics. It's not murder, foetuses before 24 weeks don't possess conscious thought ergo they're not in possession of life.

By that standard I could kill a 1 year old since nobody can prove weather or not it has conscious thought, because the baby can't verbalize it.

The baby can feel pain, we've already proved that, so your argument is invalid.

No, his argument was that its not murder because it has no conscious thought, he said nothing about if it can feel pain. We weren't talking about that, at least not in this series of posts between me and BGH122.

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase that well enough, the bebyz have cried when given a tiny pinch or other such thing, thus it registered and they took an action against it, a clump of cells in a womb doesn't have the consious thought to go "Ow them ripping me out of here hurts".

 

[Kiriona]

Personally, I just wish people would kindly take their nosiness OUT of my uterus and start paying attention to more important things. Like the fricking economy. Seriously. No one's interested in a girl's periods, of her pap-smear exams... why the hell does everyone suddenly become so riveted when it comes to a lump of undeveloped tissues being removed?

 

[BGH122]

Personally, I just wish people would kindly take their nosiness OUT of my uterus and start paying attention to more important things. Like the fricking economy. Seriously. No one's interested in a girl's periods, of her pap-smear exams... why the hell does everyone suddenly become so riveted when it comes to a lump of undeveloped tissues being removed?

Uh, because that lump of tissues is a vestigial human being? It's fairly arbitrary that you're female and females happen to birth children. This isn't about women, or women's rights, this is about the child and whether or not it has a right to life and whether or not its right to life trumps your right to govern your own body.

 

[kingpocky]

She knew the risk when she had sex. If she didn't want to risk having a child then she shouldn't have had sex. She doesn't have the right to put a man through the emotional trauma of losing his child just because it'd be physically burdensome.

She didn't sign a contract to have the baby; she has no obligation. If it's emotionally traumatic for him, then HE should have thought about that before he had sex.

This argument doesn't work, this is like saying she knew something she didn't want to occur could occur and so did he therefore it's his problem. You're just forcing men to play the chivalry role which is ludicrously outdated.

They both partook in sex knowing that a child could occur as a result, that was their joint action, so we can assume she gives her consent to a child because otherwise she shouldn't partake in actions which could cause one. This means that we she desires an abortion she's reneging upon their earlier implicit agreement that a child is an acceptable consequence of sex. This makes her the transgressor, the man is simply sticking with their earlier implicit agreement in demanding that she birth the child. She's changing the moral rules ad hoc to suit her, that's immoral.

You're making up moral rules ad hoc either way. You could just as easily say that we can assume he gives her consent to have an abortion by not getting her to explicitly agree not to have one.

No, we couldn't. Implicit in sex is the immediate consequence of a child, not an abortion. An abortion first requires a child which is the immediate consequence of sex. If we're saying that people shouldn't partake in actions which have immediate consequences they disagree with then my 'sex entails children' argument works, your 'sex entails abortion' doesn't, since you've missed out a step.

How does the immediacy make a difference? When the consequences occur doesn't matter. People shouldn't partake in actions which have consequences they can't handle, whether those consequences are immediate or in the distant future. Sex entails possibly getting a woman pregnant, which entails the woman possibly getting an abortion, which entails possible "emotional trauma."

Of course, I think that just puts both the man and the woman on the same level. However, since the woman is the one actually carrying the baby, the consequences are greater for her. Thus, her right to not have the baby overrides his right to force her to have it.

 

[Mad World]

Yes - I definitely think that it is murder.

 

[RMcD94]

no. Until it is 1 year old I don't give a fuck about childrens' right to live.

Arbitrary line ageism alert.

Difference between a 31 556 926 seconds old (a year old) child and a 31 556 925 seconds old child, that means they have a right to live.

Same thing with alcohol and tobacco consumption and driving.

I disagree on them too though, though it's so kind of you to take up their argument as well as your own.

Absolute toss. Let's say, hypothetically, you're at an age where if you don't have children now you'll never get to raise them. You have sex with a woman, she can't be bothered to go through childbirth and so denies you the right to ever raise children. She's committed an act far more grievous than yours.

Men have every right to lay claim to their children. It's absolute nonsense that women's emotional reaction to carrying/aborting a baby trumps mens. You're also biasing child-rearing towards women, as if women have some natural link to this role, by claiming that it's emotionally harder for them to abort a baby, as if they have a stronger link with it.

What about the physical effects? I agree on the emotional, but physical?

 

[Danpascooch]

It's not any more alive than a sperm or egg, which makes claiming it is murder idiotic, it is not self aware, so it is not murder.

It's all about "where to draw the line" but you know what's convenient? Nature gave us a hugely import and conspicuous event in which to draw that line

birth.


Whether you think it's wrong or not is a personal matter, but murder it is not.

I 100% agree with you. Birth is where I draw the line. Once the umbilical cord is cut to be precise.

.....so if a nurse delivered the baby, and then WITHOUT CUTTING THE UMBILICAL CORD the nurse drop kicked it over to the doctor, who caught it and stuck a scalpel in it's eye, it wouldn't be murder? It would be awesome though, right?

 

[Sinisterspider]

tasty tasty murder...wait.

 

[kingpocky]

Personally, I just wish people would kindly take their nosiness OUT of my uterus and start paying attention to more important things. Like the fricking economy. Seriously. No one's interested in a girl's periods, of her pap-smear exams... why the hell does everyone suddenly become so riveted when it comes to a lump of undeveloped tissues being removed?

Uh, because that lump of tissues is a vestigial human being? It's fairly arbitrary that you're female and females happen to birth children. This isn't about women, or women's rights, this is about the child and whether or not it has a right to life.

I actually agree with you on that point though.

 

[subtlefuge]

Is masturbation murder? (Each one could be Leonardo Da Vinci. As each fertilised egg could be.)
Is contraception murder? (See above)
Is abortion after rape okay?
Is abortion if the mother would die okay?

Since you decided to misquote me and paint me as a nutjob, I won't let you get away with asking tired, asinine questions and pretending it to be logic.

a. Masturbation could not possibly be murder because sperm possesses no characteristics of life. See "potential".

b. (See above)

c. long one:
* Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk for pregnancy.
* A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by three tenths. Three days out of 30 is one out of ten, divide 133 by ten and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use five days out of 30 it is one out of six. Divide one hundred and thirty three thousand by six and we have 22,166 remaining.
* One-fourth of all women in the United States of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths come out to 10,000 (or 15,000).
* Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina,1 so let's cut the remaining figures in half. This gives us numbers of 5,000 (or 7,500).
* Fifteen percent of men are sterile, that drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).
* Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600 (or 5,400).
* Another fifteen percent are on the pill and/or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).
* Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the avove figures by 5. The number drops to 600 (or 920).
* In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15 percent. In this case we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20 percent of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).

d. Irrelevant, there are already laws in place that allow the medical proxy to make the decision on whose life to preserve

 

[Teh_Lemon]

Once the baby is old enough to leave the uterus and live a normal* life, it is murder. But if the baby is still dependent on the womb, it's not too late to abort. You have almost 9 months to reverse a bad decision you made, so reverse it A.S.A.P.

*Birth defects excluded

 

[RMcD94]

People shouldn't partake in actions which have consequences they can't handle, whether those consequences are immediate or in the distant future. Sex entails possibly getting a woman pregnant, which entails the woman possibly getting an abortion, which entails possible "emotional trauma."

Driving entails possibly getting a person killed, which entails the driver possibly being emotionally mindfucked for the rest of his life, he shouldn't have drove.

Yes?

Unless you are prepared to kill someone (regardless of whether it's your fault or not), you shouldn't drive.