Poll: Is abortion murder?
- Thread starter CaptainKoala
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Please see the arguments above. If she doesn't wish to have a child she should either abstain or make this clear to her partners. If she makes it clear then they have no right to demand she goes through with the pregnancy because the consequence of sex is no longer a child and both partners agree. If she just leaves it without saying anything then the she has deceived her partner as the immediate consequence of sex is a child and she should have said if she wished to change this since it's she who wishes to deviate from the presumed course of events.LadyRhian said:
As I've said, if her life is in danger (as ascertained by a doctor) at any point in the pregnancy then this takes precedent over the man's emotions and the child's potential life.
No, it is still not okay to kill the unborn child because it isn't the fault of the child but of the rapist. A woman shouldn't take out her sadness or anger on an unborn child, not unless of course that rapist was a hideously mutated freak like the 'Hills Have Eyes' way.RMcD94 said:
By the way, why can't anyone spell 'fetus'? it's not 'foetus'
Besides, think of the sperm you stopped from becoming a full-grown person.BNguyen said:
"I didn't get the chance to live because you "have the right to choose whether you ejaculated in a way that I couldn't get to an egg". What about the rights I had? I was a person too."
If you define human as being able to survive independently then they aren't human. I'm pro-killing parasites (comatose people). Though I think they pay for it, no? Otherwise kill them.
Why does the mother's life trump the foetus?
Think of what the foetus would think if it was a full grown person.
"You had x amount of years, and yet you still killed me? Even though I'd lived for just days. But no, you just had to be selfish."
Surely the young should trump the old? By your definition it's alive, so it's the youngest.
If this is indeed the case then fair enough, let's abandon that string of argument. I'm aware that vasectomy only cuts the vas deferens, but I'm also aware (personally) that doctors also warn the recipient that it will probably leave them unable to conceive. If this is incorrect then that's good new for everyone. More options are always positive.LadyRhian said:
If one party (be it the mother or the father) chooses to have the child and then changes their mind then the baby should be aborted, since neither parents wants it. If the baby is afflicted with a disease/disorder which will severely negatively impact its ability to function then it should be aborted, because whilst this may cause trauma to the parents it's unethical to bring a child into the world which will outlive its parents but not outlive its dependence upon their care. We can't tell the future and society may not always be able to care for the severely disabled, this isn't in the child's best interest. The child's best interest is relevant here because it definitely will be born and ergo doesn't just have 'potential' best interests (as a non-living thing can't possess interests), but has real future interests. I'm not sure how the mother's state of mind as altered by hormones affects my initial point, please elaborate. If this is the father's only chance to have a baby this is trumped by the baby's future rights in the case that it will be born incapable of functioning adequately, the father's rights aren't applicable to the other conditions.LadyRhian said:
Legality did not figure into my argument, mostly on account of the fact that I did not find abortion to be murder and the OP has nothing to do with legality.RMcD94 said:
Of course not, but if you had read...
The 740 is the number of rapes that would end in childbirth, theoretically of course.
It does possess some but not all. I won't define "life", it already has been defined.
Google search it. The definition isn't fungible.
I'd say a child doesn't start to become "human" by popular definition until a few months after it has been delivered, as I suspect it acts mostly on instincts during that time, and has very few independent thoughts.
That's just my theory, however. Not saying murder of infants is justified.
That's just my theory, however. Not saying murder of infants is justified.
If an abortion is conducted within the recommended time of pregnancy, before it becomes (more) dangerous/harmful to the woman getting the abortion, then no- I don't think it's murder. It's a bunch of cells that WILL come together and become a living being, but are still far from it at that point.
No, it is still not okay to kill the unborn child because it isn't the fault of the child but of the rapist. A woman shouldn't take out her sadness or anger on an unborn child, not unless of course that rapist was a hideously mutated freak like the 'Hills Have Eyes' way.[/quote]
Good, consistency. However you ignored my other main point (the rape point was simply to see if you were being logical, or picky choosy like most people (in which case debate is useless)), which I really would like answered.
Good, consistency. However you ignored my other main point (the rape point was simply to see if you were being logical, or picky choosy like most people (in which case debate is useless)), which I really would like answered.
Hah. Stupid USAmericans, fucking up language as per.
Your analogy to cancer is false. You didn't partake in an action with another human in possession of wishes and desires relating to the development of your cancer which brought it about.Kiriona said:... Pardon, but didn't you just say that us girls give birth to children? Sooo... yeah, I think it's VERY much about us females, since, you know, we have to carry the thing around for nine months, bend over backwards to take care of ourselves and go through the horrific life experience that is child birth... I think we have just as much right to abortion as we do having a cancer tumor removed. If a fetus or embryo is a human being, then why doesn't the census count them? How come they aren't given social security numbers before birth? And why is it an abortion with humans, but with a chicken, it's am omelet? why is it okay to kill a chicken's fetus and eat it, but we can't touch a human fetus? So many questions...BGH122 said:
But like I said, what happens in my internal organs, including my uterus, is no one's business. Honestly, hasn't anyone any respect for privacy anymore?
PS. I f-ing hate children... you know... in case you didn't notice... Goodnight!
Your body your rules is also false. By this token I can demand you have an abortion as my sperm is part of my body.
I hate children too. I have absolutely no desire to have any (I think they destroy their parent's lives, frankly), but that's not relevant to moral reasoning.
No, I'm showing that the physical doesn't always trump the emotional. It's also possible that a man can be child-oriented and in possession of an extremely low sperm-count. In such a case a woman aborting his only chance to have a baby would be destroying his hopes, but this is irrelevant. My point was valid in showing that physical discomfort isn't superior to emotional discomfort.LadyRhian said:
You're also engaging in straw man fallacy here, I'm not talking about any old man forcing any old woman to have a baby, I'm talking about a woman who went through with sex without clarifying that she didn't want the resulting presumed consequence. That's not any woman and any man.
And perhaps the mother has no possible ability or desire to support a child, but now both she and it will be chained to an existence that is going to be miserable. That does not help anyone.BNguyen said:
Foetus is a perfectly legitimate spelling.
Unrelated to quote:
The unborn child possesses neither consciousness or self-awareness, aborting it would be no more murderous than cutting out an ulcer.
If its early its just a bunch of cells. If its murder than masturbation should also be considered murder.
No, the immediate consequence of sex is not a child. Not for the many people who have sex and do *not* get pregnant, either from not being at the right place in their cycle, or of male or female impotence. So, basically, a woman has to either be willing to get pregnant or deliberately make it so she can never get pregnant, before she ever has sex? And then, of course, she has to tell the other partner or partners (lets not be shy here) about her inability to have a child (if she can't) simply because he or they might be wanting to get her pregnant when she can't be, because she's gone and gotten her tubes tied or some such when he or they weren't looking. Is that what you are saying?BGH122 said:
What about sex between two women or two men? Or non-penetrative sex? Are you automatically saying that people who do that should expect an immediate consequence of pregnancy? This just underscores the "the immediate consequence of sex is pregnancy" is ridiculous. I admit it is a possible consequence of sex between a male and a woman of a certain age. But once you are over 40 or so, it's a heck of a lot less likely. and if you are only having sex with other women, it's vanishingly unlikely. But even assuming a man and a woman able to get pregnant, it is only possible, not certain. There are married couples who try to have children for years and are simply not able to- and not from impotence on either side. Sometimes, the woman's body is such a hostile place to the man's sperm that they die before they get anywhere near the egg.
So I do not accept that a child or pregnancy is an "immediate consequence" of having sex. Not unless you are very unfortunate. It's a possible consequence, yes. But "possible" does not equal 100% likely or certainty. And the number goes up the more times one has penetrative sex (unless one is having anal sex).
That's a terrible argument. It becomes murder only when it's more dangerous to someone else? What?Caligulove said:
Also, will is bullshit. It is not a certainty that it will become a human. It is merely a possibility. It needs food, heat, safety, etc, all provided by the mother.
Uh huh. ARE THEY ALLOWED TO ABORT OR FORCED TO GO THROUGH CHILDBIRTH UNWILLINGLY?subtlefuge said:
Now you're just being annoying.
If you don't tell me what you think the characteristics of life are then this argument is useless. You tell me it has characteristics of life, but then go on to say that they are not constant, and then don't tell me what ones you are using. And then you tell me you won't define something because it's already been defined.
You are not being helpful at all.
