Poll: Is abortion murder?

[Spineyguy]

Legally, there is no 'Malicious intent' involved in the aborting of a foetus, so it can't be defined as murder. In addition, the foetus is unable to survive outside of the womb. The mother and child have a symbiotic relationship, and with the foetus' lack of consciousness or ability to feel pain, the act of terminating a pregnancy is akin to nothing more than the removal of a wart.

 

[RMcD94]

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.

There's plenty of people who want abortion to happen. People who don't like contraception or after sex pills. People who think fertilised eggs are human and alive and like murdering stuff. People who think they can feel pain and are sadists. People who are Abortionists (wow, it's a word). People who like pissing off pro-life people. People who believe the world is over populated and thinks that the condom market is too powerful. People who like being added to list of people for strange things. People who...

 

[RMcD94]

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.

What post?

 

[Dfskelleton]

This is what I think, and nobody reply saying something Ahteist, because I won't give a crap about your intolerance to those who do believe in God.
When God gave humans the ability to mate and create a new human, do you think he also thought "But it's perfectly okay for people to kill the new life before it's born. I'm totally cool with that." I don't think he did.
The thing is that most people who support abortion don't believe in God, and I can't understand those who believe in God AND support abortion.

 

[BGH122]

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...

No, this wasn't my point. My point is that in arguing that physical injury > emotional injury that it'd be more wrong of you to punch me than for me to destroy all your hopes and dreams. Obviously two wrongs don't make a right, but that wasn't my point.

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.

But this is a distortion of my argument. I'm not saying that the woman should be under the dominion of the man over some trivial disagreement. She still has the ability to do anything she wants with her body other than terminate the foetus, ergo 'taking over' is a tad strong.

Secondly, if I'd implicitly agreed to do something for another person where it was fully of my own volition then yeah, I should be made to go through with the act. If you and I go into business with one another and I provide the storage space and you the goods then I can't just smash up all your goods as soon as you move them into my storage space because there was no explicit agreement that I wouldn't do that. Even though it's my storage space I don't have full control over it because I rescinded that as soon as I let you store something in it.

 

[Baconmonster723]

Nope, not even close. You in your current state are a multicellular organism. Losing a few skin cells because you scratch your arm is not the same. You are not killing all the cells at once therefore snuffing the distinct life of said organism. While those skin cells are your skin cells they are not you. They are simply part of a collective. However, killing all cells relating to a specific organism is killing the organism. Therefore, a clump of cells inside the womb does not hold the same level as a few skin cells off your arm. The clump of cells is a distinct member of the species, those skin cells were a distinct member of the species but were shed as the entirety of the organism moves on. So long as the organism remains alive then those cells no longer matter. The issue is the entirety of the organism itself, not the miniscule parts that add up to the greater whole.

Hope that clears up my point a little for you.

 

[kingpocky]

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.

Sure, but I'm also arguing that an agreement that obligates a person to do something as significant as everything being pregnant entails - without having the person specifically state that they understand and agree with everything - is wrong, even more so that the action it is attempting to prevent. There is a reasonable limit to how much anyone can implicitly agree to.

Although I wouldn't necessarily think it would be wrong if women were expected to inform their unprotected sexual partner if they did not plan on having a child if one was conceived. However, it'd also be just as fair if men were expected to inform their partners if they specifically did not want any possible children to be aborted. It's pretty arbitrary either way. Honestly, if two people are having unprotected sex and they've never discussed what will happen if the woman gets pregnant, I have a hard time feeling sorry for either one of them.

 

[BGH122]

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.

Sure, but I'm also arguing that an agreement that obligates a person to do something as significant as everything being pregnant entails - without having the person specifically state that they understand and agree with everything - is wrong, even more so that the action it is attempting to prevent. There is a reasonable limit to how much anyone can implicitly agree to.

So where do we draw the line? What is and isn't implicit? I'll accept this idea of an unconscionable implicit contract if you can tell me where line of what's 'unconscionable' is drawn.

 

[RMcD94]

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.

Did not see this. Does 1. include a singular one? I'll assume so. How did it get a check for Evolution? I'm confused at what you ticked. Also adaptability to environment? I thought a foetus had an extremely narrow bandwidth off survival. Needing the right minerals, the right temperature, complete protected all via the mother.

Sperm

1. Check
2. Check
3. No
4. Check
5. No
6. Check
7. No
8. Do not understand.

Anyway, I'm sorry, but I've completely forgotten the argument. You didn't say they were constant. You said they weren't. That f- word that I forget. Filibusty or something.

 

[Cowabungaa]

This is what I think, and nobody reply saying something Ahteist, because I won't give a crap about your intolerance to those who do believe in God.
When God gave humans the ability to mate and create a new human, do you think he also thought "But it's perfectly okay for people to kill the new life before it's born. I'm totally cool with that." I don't think he did.
The thing is that most people who support abortion don't believe in God, and I can't understand those who believe in God AND support abortion.

Because sometimes it's just inhuman to let a fetus come to term. Think children who will never grow mentally past the age of 1 or something, not even becoming sentient. Or children who are forced to live in horribly agony and die after a couple of years. Or of course when the mother's life is threatened.

No-one likes abortion, remember that. And sexual reproduction has nothing to do with a supreme being, whether such a being exists or not.

 

[RMcD94]

This is what I think, and nobody reply saying something Ahteist, because I won't give a crap about your intolerance to those who do believe in God.
When God gave humans the ability to mate and create a new human, do you think he also thought "But it's perfectly okay for people to kill the new life before it's born. I'm totally cool with that." I don't think he did.
The thing is that most people who support abortion don't believe in God, and I can't understand those who believe in God AND support abortion.

Well, God didn't have to do that. Seeing as he's all-powerful he could have created it so that couldn't have happened. However he did not. Therefore he wanted it to happen.

Also, the first part of your post is incredibly intolerant, and God does not support intolerance, God is tolerant of all life that he created, regardless of their opinion of him. He created them to think for themselves, and he is happy whatever their belief.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Yes it kinda is in a way, killing potential life. Still people have the right to make choices. I have never met a woman proud or happy of having an abortion. I think people have the right to choice, and the social and moral costs that come with it. I don't think I could deny a pregnent rape victim an abortion if it helps her. What is wrong is forcing will on others, rather than giving them the liberty to chose. Freedom of choice is a two way street.

 

[kingpocky]

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?

I've read that it's important for forming stronger social bonds with other individuals. Of course, like I said, it's tangential to the argument on abortion. We do plenty of other things that are wastes of time and still perfectly acceptable by society.

 

[Evil Earlgrey]

Imho it is not murder.

But even if you say it is murder, consider this:
The by far biggest problem mankind faces atm is population. We need less people in order to survive the next couple of generations. Is it really worth saving life where it is even debatable if you can call it live when we urgently need to reduce population anyway?
I'd say no.
Anmals and Humans (if you need to make that distinction) all die one day. I fail to see the great value of a foetuses life when children that are fully conscious die from hunger and diseases all over the world. We should take care of the people that are already here, not the ones that are in the waiting room. If it wasn't for our high tech medicine children would die a lot more often anway during birth or after. It is unnatural to expect every foetus has a right to live.
Population (birthrate) and the fact that there are more important lifes to take care of (already born ones) make me not really care that much about abortion.

 

[LadyRhian]

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.

I think a lot of men would disagree with you there.

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!

No problem. There are several ways to help men. First, there is a difference between "impotence" defined as an inability to get or keep an erection, and infertility, defined as being unable to conceive. In some cases, there is no help, as when Sperm are dead. But in sperm with low motility, sperm are collected and injected into the womb after the woman have ovulated. There is also the "Test Tube Baby" procedure- where eggs are removed, fertilized outside the womb, and then placed back in. The one about removing the Genetic material from a sperm and inserting some from another male was something I read a few years ago in a science magazine, but the other two are definitely done on a fairly regular basis.

http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/464.html
http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/370.html

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?[/quote] Pleasure. Bonding.

 

[Cowabungaa]

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.

That makes it living tissue, meaning amputation would sit on the same line as abortion. Now that would obviously be quite silly. My leg is living tissue but not an individual being, yet if it's horribly mangled and no longer functional I'd be glad to see it go.

Is a fetus living tissue? Of course it is. Is it an independent organism? No, not for a large part of it's growth cycle. Is it an individual human being? Again, not for quite a part of it's growth cycle.

 

[koriantor]

Yes it's murder. The life starts the moment of conception.

This beginning cell is more complex than the first molecules of "life" on earth. If those molecules are life, this fertilized egg is certainly life. At conception, the human life has certainly begun, or at least the process has begun. If you stop the process, you stop the life.

Abortion is the "easy way out" for people who aren't responsible. They make the choice of procreation, then they're going to get the consequence.

EDIT: Nothing is black and white though, Rape and like situations are different.

 

[Miumaru]

Is killing a bug murder?

 

[LadyRhian]

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.

I think a lot of men would disagree with you there.

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!

No problem. There are several ways to help men. First, there is a difference between "impotence" defined as an inability to get or keep an erection, and infertility, defined as being unable to conceive. In some cases, there is no help, as when Sperm are dead. But in sperm with low motility, sperm are collected and injected into the womb after the woman have ovulated. There is also the "Test Tube Baby" procedure- where eggs are removed, fertilized outside the womb, and then placed back in. The one about removing the Genetic material from a sperm and inserting some from another male was something I read a few years ago in a science magazine, but the other two are definitely done on a fairly regular basis.

http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/464.html
http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/370.html

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?[/quote] Pleasure. Bonding.

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.

Sex is short for "Sexual intercourse", which is certainly not all about procreation. It is still a circular definition, because of how you are defining it. In short, then, if a man doesn't use a condom, he can't complain if the woman turns up pregnant and wants him to contribute to its support despite the fact that he doesn't want kids, because he made that choice, too, when he had sex. I'd actually like to see men take responsibility for their own sex organs, too. But so many men put the onus on the woman to make any and all reproductive choices when it comes to sex. They don't want to wear a condom, but vigorously blame the woman if she gets pregnant.

Okay, what if both parties are using contraception, and it fails? Who is responsible in that case? Since this can happen, too. Does the man owe the woman half the cost of the abortion, since neither wanted the child?