Poll: Is abortion murder?

[RMcD94]

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.

Why the hell does rape trump life?

Everyone against abortions always seem to think it's okay if the mother will die, or if she was raped?

Why the hell does that trump life?

Also, incest? What? Why should two people who want to have a child (since you specified it, it's plainly not rape) not be allowed to have a child?

inb4yousaybecausetheyhavegeneticdefects

Then I'll say, why couldn't you have just said if they had genetic defects they are allowed to abort, and then I'll point out that incest is not 100% genetic defective child as people might care to think, and then *breathes in* I'll say why does someone get to decide that a child isn't allowed to live because there's something wrong with him?

 

[Antidrall]

A touchy subject. in these situations, I do my best to not care what anyone thinks

 

[kingpocky]

snip

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.

Ah, I see. So we were arguing about different things here, really. Although plenty of people are quite stupid and don't think about protection, but I really don't care to even decide what I think about them.

Although off topic, sex is only partially for reproductive purposes for humans. As far as reproduction goes, we're the least efficient animals on the planet. Most animals only have to have sex once to get pregnant. A healthy human couple having sex every day for a month only has about a one in four chance of pregnancy. If it didn't serve another very important purpose, that would be a lot of wasted energy.

 

[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.

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?

Tsk tsk. It's bad to assume things, you know. What if I said, 'So I assume you're one of those religious freaks who blindly follows what 'God' tells them too?' Honestly, I thought we were past grade school...
So your a girl too? And you have to nose in my uterus? Get it out, please!
Just because your a girl means nothing. Argument nullified. Good night.

 

[BGH122]

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.

I redefined sex elsewhere to be specifically unprotected vaginal sex, so we can dump any uncertainty of the possibility of consequences. I know there's no legal ground for what I'm saying, but moral change precipitates legal change. But one century ago women couldn't vote, the moral change brought about by brave men and women changed this.

 

[Necrofudge]

A touchy subject. in these situations, I do my best to not care what anyone thinks

Fantastic. The next step would be to form your own opinion. Or not.
Some ladies love the indecisive type.

 

[Lucifron]

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.

1. What BGH122 said.
2. General notice: Can everyone stop saying: "I personally [verb]". It goes without bloody saying that it is a personal opinion of yours and not an objective truth when you say that you believe or think something. Knock it the fuck off already, you sound like Miss... whatever state it was (you know the one, she was ridiculed in all forms of media after being asked a question on TV).

 

[RMcD94]

Tsk tsk. It's bad to assume things, you know. What if I said, 'So I assume you're one of those religious freaks who blindly follows what 'God' tells them too?' Honestly, I thought we were past grade school...
So your a girl too? And you have to nose in my uterus? Get it out, please!
Just because your a girl means nothing. Argument nullified. Good night.

Except you were the only person who was talking about your specific womb, and since that isn't going to be used for producing children anyway, I do not see why are you complaining. Also, BGH would probably comment on cutting the male out of any control for pregnancy, he's been arguing in this thread about it for pages.

By the way, I happen to be very pro-choice.

 

[BGH122]

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.

No, but the implication of 'unsafe' sex is that it will result in a far higher chance of having a child than protected sex. This sets the ground for a valid presumption that both parters are fine with a child.

Would you mind linking me to the wiki article (or some such) on the ability to give men with low sperm count children? I'd be interested to read up on that, if you don't want to go searching around on my behalf then that's fine!

snip

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.

Ah, I see. So we were arguing about different things here, really. Although plenty of people are quite stupid and don't think about protection, but I really don't care to even decide what I think about them.

Although off topic, sex is only partially for reproductive purposes for humans. As far as reproduction goes, we're the least efficient animals on the planet. Most animals only have to have sex once to get pregnant. A healthy human couple having sex every day for a month only has about a one in four chance of pregnancy. If it didn't serve another very important purpose, that would be a lot of wasted energy.

That's an interesting argument, what other purpose does it serve?

 

[LadyRhian]

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.

Really? Then you are arguing a circular definition. Because the only possible reason to have sex is to get pregnant. (Natural goal being reproduction). Most mammals can only have heterosexual sex when the female is in estrous (ready to have a baby/in season). Otherwise, the man can't get her to do anything at all. But humans, and some other species, can have sex any old time they like, whether a baby is going to happen or not. We share this with the Bonobos, who also have lots of sex (procreative and not). In short, I do not accept your definition of sex as being defined as only procreative. Sex embraces a wide range of human activities and experiences. What if the woman is on the pill? Is it no longer sex in that instance? Honestly, I find your definition ludicrous.

 

[subtlefuge]

It's funny in a weird sorta way: many of the arguments used in support of abortion were also used to support a certain series of laws and practices in the United States from our humble beginnings up until the 1960s. Just think about it.

 

[RMcD94]

2. General notice: Can everyone stop saying: "I personally [verb]". It goes without bloody saying that it is a personal opinion of yours and not an objective truth when you say that you believe or think something. Knock it the fuck off already, you sound like Miss... whatever state it was (you know the one, she was ridiculed in all forms of media after being asked a question on TV).

Some people leave out that they think they're opinion is objective and so this can be helpful. Especially if you're saying,

"That is your opinion.", just to make sure they actually know it is. Also, IMHO wouldn't have become so popular if people didn't like to make sure you knew they weren't assuming they are objective.

It's funny in a weird sorta way: many of the arguments used in support of abortion were also used to support a certain series of laws and practices in the United States from our humble beginnings up until the 1960s. Just think about it.

And suddenly I'm anti abortion. Edit: I thought you meant that kept it's existence, pardon me. I have no idea what laws you are referring too. But as soon as I saw very beginning I felt the hatred rush through me at the bandwagon of countries which united against the UK during 1776.

 

[Baconmonster723]

Genetically, it's human. Biologically, it's alive. From the moment the egg and sperm combine into a single cell and that cell starts dividing. Yes, that is a human life by both of those factors. I'm not here to debate trivialities. Scientifically, it can be identified as both human and alive. Therefore, you are killing a human life. Two creatures of the same species mate they create another member of their species. It's a simple concept, and the same reason that you never see a gorilla born to two chimpanzees even though they both have 48 chromosomes. The cell can be identified from the moment of conception as a distinct member of the homo sapien species, it can be nothing else.

Having said this I am not completely against abortion on the whole. While I'm hesitant to call it flat out murder I understand its necessity in certain situations. But the fact of the matter is life is a process. Life cannot be defined nor do we fully understand it. As the cell is alive and it is identifiable as human I cannot deny that I feel great unease at someone getting an abortion. I feel it is wrong and I would never stand by someone who got an abortion, aside from saving the mother's life, to clarify I mean physically saving her life as in the baby being delivered would most likely kill the mother.

Women, I respect your right to do with your body as you please. But I do not respect your right to do away with a distinct human life, even in cell form, in your body.

 

[BGH122]

Really? Then you are arguing a circular definition. Because the only possible reason to have sex is to get pregnant. (Natural goal being reproduction). Most mammals can only have heterosexual sex when the female is in estrous (ready to have a baby/in season). Otherwise, the man can't get her to do anything at all. But humans, and some other species, can have sex any old time they like, whether a baby is going to happen or not. We share this with the Bonobos, who also have lots of sex (procreative and not). In short, I do not accept your definition of sex as being defined as only procreative. Sex embraces a wide range of human activities and experiences. What if the woman is on the pill? Is it no longer sex in that instance? Honestly, I find your definition ludicrous.

Yes, it's no longer the sex to which I'm referring if the woman is on the pill because the relevant point here is that taking no contraception is a implicit statement that both parties are fine with having a child. Vaguely referencing to the fact that humans have sex for reasons other than reproduction isn't relevant to disproving the point that, since contraception is available, not using any contraception should be seen as accepting that the likelihood of conceiving is far higher and that since both parties are partaking in the sex knowing this both parties are fine with this consequence.

Furthermore, the only possible reason to have sex isn't to get pregnant, when using contraception, it is for pleasure's sake. My logic isn't circular either, I'm not claiming that contraception alters the definition of sex because it alters the definition of sex. I'm claiming that, as far as perceived consequences of sex goes, contraception vastly alters the definition of sex and that's valid because it's about the perception of consequences of the action. The only reason I brought up 'natural consequences to sex' (which clearly threw us off track) was to explain how most people would perceive the usual consequence to unprotected sex, which is relevant to show that they've implicitly accepted the consequence.

 

[RMcD94]

Genetically, it's human. Biologically, it's alive. From the moment the egg and sperm combine into a single cell and that cell starts dividing. Yes, that is a human life by both of those factors. I'm not here to debate trivialities. Scientifically, it can be identified as both human and alive. Therefore, you are killing a human life. Two creatures of the same species mate they create another member of their species. It's a simple concept, and the same reason that you never see a gorilla born to two chimpanzees even though they both have 48 chromosomes. The cell can be identified from the moment of conception as a distinct member of the homo sapien species, it can be nothing else.

Having said this I am not completely against abortion on the whole. While I'm hesitant to call it flat out murder I understand its necessity in certain situations. But the fact of the matter is life is a process. Life cannot be defined nor do we fully understand it. As the cell is alive and it is identifiable as human I cannot deny that I feel great unease at someone getting an abortion. I feel it is wrong and I would never stand by someone who got an abortion, aside from saving the mother's life, to clarify I mean physically saving her life as in the baby being delivered would most likely kill the mother.

Women, I respect your right to do with your body as you please. But I do not respect your right to do away with a distinct human life, even in cell form, in your body.

Every cell in your body is now an individual human.

Wait, what?

 

[Sacred Soul]

I don't think it's "murder", the moral issue aside.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Depends on the age of the fetus.

From a certain age you can see that a fetus creates brainwaves of it's own, from that moment on it's starting to develop as an individual. Just a start, but it's still happening.

You could call it murder if you terminate the pregnancy from that moment on. I find it difficult to do so personally as the fetus, even from that moment it starts developing it's own personality, still cannot live outside the womb for quite some time. I do frown upon abortion from that point on, I prefer it to happen before that point, if it has to happen.

Just a side-note by the way, I always found it sort-of funny how "pro-life" people paint "pro-choice" people as folks who want abortion to happen, as if they almost like it. This is of course nonsense, no one really wants abortion to happen. Pro-choice are probably just as pro-life, it's just that they want the option to be available in case of emergency.

Scientifically, it can be identified as both human and alive. Therefore, you are killing a human life.

Actually, no, no you're not and no it's not a human. There's more to species identification than that, one individual cell does not make an individual human being. An embryo, and even a fetus for a while, is not even an independent lifeform for a certain part of it's lifecycle.

 

[lizards]

no it may be alive but so are viruses bugs and staff infections it may be a life but end it if you wish, personally i think the rights of a women are more important than a parasite

furthermore if you disagree then you are no longer allowed to have tumors removed because those are human cells to and if the only requirement is cells, than enjoy your tumor

edit:and yes this was inspired by george carlin

 

[LadyRhian]

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.

And I said yes, it would be wrong of me to punch you even if you destroyed all my hopes and dreams. Did you miss that? Well, we've had many quotings of each other, so...

I have a question for you. Say, your body could be taken over by someone else because they feel you made a wrong decision involving them. Would it be legal and permissible for them to take over your body for a period of months without your permission just because of that wrong decision? Because, basically, that is what you are talking about doing- taking over someone else's body without their permission because you disagree with a decision that involved you. They had sex with you, they got pregnant, so that somehow gives you rights over their body because you don't like their decision. If you agree it would be permissible for other decisions, I'll accept that- I won't agree, but I will accept it.

 

[subtlefuge]

And suddenly I'm anti abortion.

I also find it "funny" that this is the post you chose to respond to, when I had set it up as a joke for all the people who were discussing whether a fetus could read or write.

I'm still waiting for you to call me annoying again for using too much science, history, and literalism in my argument about the definition of life.