Poll: Is abortion murder?

[BNguyen]

to go further, I don't feel as though a person, specifically a pregnant woman, has any right to decide who should die and who shouldn't. If the mother doesn't feel ready or is unprepared for taking care of the child, she should put it up for adoption, not remove it.
Besides, think of it from the unborn child's perspective as if it were a full-grown person:
"I didn't get the chance to live because you "have the right to choose whether I should continue to develop or not". What about the rights I had? I was a person too."

Besides, think of the sperm you stopped from becoming a full-grown person.

"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."

Not all humans are capable of surviving on their own, so the argument, "it can't survive on its own, so it's not human and therefore it is okay to kill" is just idiotic. A comatose person can't survive without machines to feed them and keep their heart rate in check, so does it mean they are no longer human because they can't care for themselves?

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.

I'd find it okay if the fetus died in the womb and needed to be removed, but as long as it is developing and could live, it should be allowed to grow. Only when the child or fetus or whatever is seen as a threat to the mother's life should it be dealt with.

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.

I never meant that the woman's life trumps the fetus (FETUS, not foetus)
Besides, when it's spelled like 'foetus' it sounds like the unborn child's become an enemy.
It's just that if the fetus does something that can cause damage to both the mother and the child, then something should be done, note that I said 'something' not 'killing'
And while masturbating can be said to go against my way of thinking, and those are millions of potential lives, the one or multiple that did manage to develop should be allowed to grow.

I'm tired of arguing with someone when be both know we'll never come to an agreement so I'm stopping here

 

[BGH122]

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?

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).

Okay, fair enough, I should properly define sex. I'm defining sex here as heterosexual penetrative vaginal sex without a condom. Frankly, oral, anal or homosexual sex isn't sex: it's inducing orgasms, that's not sex. Sex is an activity in which the natural goal is reproduction (I accept that this isn't the real goal for most humans, but this is, nonetheless, the physical goal of sex). When partaking in sex with a condom we should definitely go under a different rule to partaking in sex without a condom, since the man's donning of a condom implies that he's not intending to have a child. He may not then redefine the intended consequence of protected sex ad hoc if it just so happens that the woman gets pregnant. There's an implicit agreement that protected sex is not designed to result in a child.

 

[RMcD94]

I never meant that the woman's life trumps the fetus (FETUS, not foetus)
Besides, when it's spelled like 'foetus' it sounds like the unborn child's become an enemy.
It's just that if the fetus does something that can cause damage to both the mother and the child, then something should be done, note that I said 'something' not 'killing'
And while masturbating can be said to go against my way of thinking, and those are millions of potential lives, the one or multiple that did manage to develop should be allowed to grow.

I'm tired of arguing with someone when be both know we'll never come to an agreement so I'm stopping here

I'm trying to make you realise that it's only a POSSIBILITY for the FOETUS (MY spelling has been around for 500 years, yours has been around since 1776, GTFO) to be birthed. A sperm requires an egg. A fertilised egg requires warmth. A warm fertilised egg requires minerals, etc, etc, etc.

 

[vance32]

I think this you have sex your going to have a baby should have thought about it to late good bye but if you got raped i think abortian should only be for raped people because they didnt have the decesion

 

[subtlefuge]

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.

I told you they had some, because you said they had none, and I also said that they are constant.

1.Cells (Check)
2.Organization (Check)
3.Metabolism (No)
4.Adaptability to Environment (Check)
5.Homeostasis (No)
6.Reproduction (No)
7.Growth and Development (Check)
8.Evolution (Check)

There you go, fetus scores 5/8. Debate all you want about whether or not that constitutes life, I'm probably going to bed.

 

[Kiriona]

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?

That's the point of the argument... That's why you debate. Not blindly accept laws. That's like saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, because they aren't allowed to marry.

You sad, sad person, you. I keep telling you, but you just won't listen. Get your nose OUT of my womb and go debate that nasty oil spill in the Gulf or something. There are more important things to think about rather than my uterus.

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...

Really? You think the egg sold in stores are fertilised? Really? Oh dear lord.

... That's a rather low level avenue for attack for someone who decided to lecture me on the virtues of debate. Desperate for argument, are we?

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!

Read that as hate chicken.

...Now you just aren't making any sense. Stop being silly at once. Now please take your nose out of us girls' vaginas and go protest something meaningful.

As for me, I'm not going to bother here any more... arguing with people has always been pointless, so there's no reason to push the issue. So goodnight, peoples. Maybe a thousands fuzzy kittens inhabit your dreams.

 

[bob-2000]

It's not any worse than killing a small colony of bacteria.
Maybe it's a little worse than that, but it's still not murder.

 

[RMcD94]

I think this you have sex your going to have a baby should have thought about it to late good bye but if you got raped i think abortian should only be for raped people because they didnt have the decesion

*shudder*

Spell checking is not hard.

Why does not having a decision trump life? What makes "oh, I didn't get to choose" more important that a life?

You people disgust me (because of your terrible logic).

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I don't know if it's murder exactly, I only know I'm deeply uncomfortable with it, find it morally abhorrent and think other options (such as adoption) should be explored first. I wouldn't even consider it at all except in such situations where rape, incest and danger to the mother's life are a factor. Many people bring these kind of arguments up against pro-lifers, but statistically I believe them to be a tiny percentage of the abortions that happen.

So I'm not okay with it, and wouldn't be okay with somebody I'm with having one during the time I'm with them. That said, I obviously don't make the laws.

I'm willing to give and compromise a lot of my political beliefs in the face of convincing debaters or compelling evidence, but Cheeze Pavilion couldn't change my mind on this issue, so none of you lot are gonna get anywhere, let me tell you.

 

[meris608]

If abortion is murder then miscarriages is unintentional homicide

 

[LadyRhian]

False premise. Vasectomy only cuts the vas deferens, the channel that sends the sperm to the penis. You could still collect the sperm from inside the man's body. And you can insert a cell that has undergone meiosis into another sperm cell (after having cleaned out the original genetic material, and use that to fertilize the egg.

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.{/quote}

Indeed.

If a woman chooses to have the pregnancy and then changes her mind. I'd say it depends on what is making her change her mind. What if she wanted to end the pregnancy if the baby was afflicted with Tay-sachs, or because of horrible genetic abnormalities? Would you cry foul? What if changes in her brain chemistry brought on by the pregnancy were making her, essentially, go crazy? How about if each of those cases were the last chance for the father to have a kid?

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.

Basically, is pushed towards insanity by having to have the child- however that insanity manifests. I just happen to think that the health and sanity of the mother trumps the wishes of the father- even if this is his last chance to have a kid. Why not just adopt a kid? There are so many kids waiting to be adopted whose parents didn't want them- why tell women that they have to add another kid to that total, just because the man who fathered it feels that they have to go through with the pregnancy because he wants the baby. Until men are able to carry a fetus to term, it's totally the woman's choice- because it is her body we are talking about, not his.

 

[shticks]

The real question is (in my eyes): Do you sympathize with metaphors. By the letter of definition it is not murder. But I think of the possibilities and i could never bring myself to agree to an abortion.

 

[kingpocky]

There are very few immediate consequences for smoking. We can see with fairly good certainty that it has long-term consequences.

Your argument rests on the idea that having sex is an implicit agreement to have a child. Can you think of any agreements in society that obligate a person to make major lifestyle and work changes for over half a year that do not require the person making the agreement to sign a contract, or at least explicitly state that they understand what they are agreeing to?

No, but that's because contract law and moral reasoning are two very different ball parks. Pointing to legality when discussing morality isn't relevant, unless you can show the two are inextricably linked. I argue that we are all aware of the basic consequences of our actions, where said consequences are common knowledge. I know that if I have sex I run the risk of having a child. If I haven't discussed this with the other person and it turns out they wanted the child and I don't then more fool me, because the common knowledge shared between us was that sex entails child, not my opinion on the matter. I should have informed them that I wanted an abortion, since I didn't it's my problem as it's me who's asking us to deter from the default consequence of sex.

Furthermore, your point on smoking misrepresents my position, I'm not talking about temporal immediacy (e.g. happening now or 5 minutes from now), rather whether any consequences lie in between the relevant consequence and the action. Smoking directly leads to cancer, regardless of the amount of time it takes, because smoking is directly carcinogenic. If I smoke I accept cancer, regardless of how long it takes to develop. It's not like I smoke, then normally it'd be fine, but a further action out of my control leads to cancer.

Alright, I'll agree that there's a difference in legality and morality here if you concede that even though it may be morally wrong for a woman to have an abortion without the consent of the father, there is no ground for legally forbidding her from having one.

If it were universally or even widely accepted that having sex is an implicit agreement to childbirth, I might agree with you. However, it is also common knowledge that many people disagree with that. Your viewpoint is in the minority. I know, that doesn't matter for questions of morality. But if there is a serious question of whether a given action constitutes giving consent or not, then you can't assume that consent is given unless it is explicitly stated. Besides, the default consequences of sex usually isn't pregnancy. If the pregnancy is unexpected, then it is already deterring from the default consequences.

 

[migo]

Abortion is a euphemism, so yes. If it weren't murder people would refer to it more directly.

 

[RMcD94]

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?

That's the point of the argument... That's why you debate. Not blindly accept laws. That's like saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, because they aren't allowed to marry.

You sad, sad person, you. I keep telling you, but you just won't listen. Get your nose OUT of my womb and go debate that nasty oil spill in the Gulf or something. There are more important things to think about rather than my uterus.

You already said that you hate children, implying you aren't having any, you have no more right to argue this than anyone else who is not having children.

Also, I haven't had a single argument about the gulf oil spill. What the hell is there to argue? That it was the USAmericans companies fault as well as home grown BP. I think Obama decided to ignore that for a reason.

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...

Really? You think the egg sold in stores are fertilised? Really? Oh dear lord.

... That's a rather low level avenue for attack for someone who decided to lecture me on the virtues of debate. Desperate for argument, are we?

Why else would I be on here?

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!

Read that as hate chicken.

...Now you just aren't making any sense. Stop being silly at once. Now please take your nose out of us girls' vaginas and go protest something meaningful.

As for me, I'm not going to bother here any more... arguing with people has always been pointless, so there's no reason to push the issue. So goodnight, peoples. Maybe a thousands fuzzy kittens inhabit your dreams.

I'm female.

Argument nullified.

I assume you too (there was another person with this opinion), think that only speeders should vote on speeding laws, and so, speeding would be legal?

 

[Abedeus]

Nope. Birth is the deadline. If someone is still not born, I don't count him as a separate being. Not until it can survive on its own or a week with help (8th month or so).

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.

WAAAH, WAAAH, WAAAH.

That's verbalizing enough? Also, if you kick a baby, it will cry a lot more than when it's hungry. Assuming that kick didn't kill it.

Abortion is a euphemism, so yes. If it weren't murder people would refer to it more directly.

Autopsy and vivisection are both digging inside things and testing organs and so on. But if you don't know the difference between them, you best hope you won't have to choose which one you will want.

 

[Necrofudge]

Nope.
Its a small bundle of cells with no conscious thought, dreams, aspirations, or even a pulse. For some reason most of the pro-life people I've met keep thinking that abortions happen at 9 months or something when the fetus has taken the shape of an actual baby. Interestingly enough, they don't.

Abortion is a euphemism, so yes. If it weren't murder people would refer to it more directly.

Alright, if it is a euphemism then give it a more literal name without using the word "murder".

 

[NotAProdigy]

Depends on if you believe in human nature or a tabula rasa, when it becomes human, and when you're getting an abortion.

 

[LadyRhian]

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.{/quote]

No, the sperm is mostly a protein coat and a motive force (tail) surrounding genetic material. Once it reaches the egg, the sperm dies. All that's left is the tail, and that is discarded. And if it fertilizes an egg, it isn't "your" sperm any longer.

Yes. Are you equating a man not being able to force a woman to have a baby as "utterly destroying all his dreams and ambitions"?

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.

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.

We already discussed the parts about low sperm count earlier. There are ways of getting around that. So I'm not going to cover that again. All I can say is, your science is out of date there.

Even any woman and any man having sex... a baby will not automatically occur if they have sex once. I admit, the chance that the woman will go up the more times they do have sex (assuming everything is working correctly), but it's not "have sex and BAM! you're pregnant". It can happen, but does not in all cases.

 

[BGH122]

Basically, is pushed towards insanity by having to have the child- however that insanity manifests. I just happen to think that the health and sanity of the mother trumps the wishes of the father- even if this is his last chance to have a kid. Why not just adopt a kid? There are so many kids waiting to be adopted whose parents didn't want them- why tell women that they have to add another kid to that total, just because the man who fathered it feels that they have to go through with the pregnancy because he wants the baby. Until men are able to carry a fetus to term, it's totally the woman's choice- because it is her body we are talking about, not his.

I've already shown, and haven't been rebutted, that the physical doesn't trump the emotional so until you can provide support for the physical > emotional argument the 'it's her body' line of reasoning doesn't work.

I also totally agree that having a child is inherently immoral. I don't wish to have any children but, to para-quote Norman Borlaug, one third of the world's population will die of starvation within the next decade if current farming procedures continue to be used. Adding another person to this world is insanity since we already have a two billion too many.

Right, so the nub of your point is "Is the woman's sanity more important than the father's emotions and the foetus' life?" and the answer would depend upon the permanence of her insanity and what is actually meant by that. If her insanity poses a real risk to her life (e.g. SSRI's suicidal ideation and violent rumination) and could be shown to be due to her pregnancy (and to be alleviated by its termination) then yes, the foetus should be terminated since the mother's life trumps its and the father's emotions. Furthermore, if her insanity is set to be permanent then this trumps permanent emotional damage to the father, since our mind is all we have to separate us from beasts and destroying that shouldn't be acceptable.