Poll: Is abortion murder?

[NickCaligo42]

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.

No, but fetuses do, and fetuses aren't people either.

 

[Eric_Autopsy]

No, it's abortion.

 

[Evil Earlgrey]

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.

By that logic it is also murder to mown your lawn or even just to go outside and walk on the ground or clean some dishes in the kitchen. Ever thought about how many thousands of cells full of life you destroy each day? You make it a bit too simple for yourself and the argument really doesn't withstand the first seconds of critical thinking.. try harder when forming opinions.

It withstands it fine. If you think murder is killing cells then it being murder to mow your lawn does not make his argument wrong. It simply makes the word murder mean the same as kill.

Yes. But if he considers destroying cells (that bare life) murder then we are all mass murdering all the time and it really renders the whole question obsolete. And that is not contributing in any way to finding an answer to the question. It is rather an "easy way out" to dodge the real issue. And that is the critical thinking this argument could not withstand.

 

[halfeclipse]

Sure, but so does contraceptive sex. The qualitative difference between contraceptive and unprotected sex is its likelihood to produce a child. Anyone who partakes in the latter knows this and forgoes their right to act surprised and make up their decision vis-a-vis child bearing ad hoc when they conceive. They made it already when they chose to partake in unprotected sex.

Faultily condom, the women was took advantage of, etc. They make a conscious choice to partake in unprotected sex?

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.

Whether or not it constitutes life is irrelevant. There are dozens of things in both mine and your kitchen that came from things that score 8/8 and were killed to provide it. And no I don't just mean meat. Most plants don't survive harvest. Then there's bread, care to guess how many yeast bit it to get you that loaf of wonder bread?


Only relevant question is "Is it sentient?" Theres a chunk where the answer to that is most definitely no, and a chunk where it is most definitely yes, and then an ever shrinking grey area where we have no clue. Most countries that practice abortions only allow abortions with in that no area. At worst getting an abortion in that period of time is no greater a crime then eating a steak, and a best the equivalent of taking antibiotics.

 

[Akalistos]

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.

No it's not. They don't have consciousness yet. But if you say yes and are eat eggs, it like doing a abortion on a chicken. Didn't you realize that?

As for adoption, it's isn't better. I got and learn a sh*t ton of stories about adoptions and foster home that would make you puke. And the crazy part, good family isn't common. People adopted kid for money the state provide for them. So, I'll prefer a sweet death over torture.

 

[BGH122]

I declaring myself out for now. I'm too tired for this, my typos are becoming increasingly profuse and I need a nap. I shall return to the debate later on!

 

[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.

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?

Somebody is touchy. To be fair, I agree, but those are points I give to the pro-abortion folks in order to make another point: That even their primary arguments in favor of abortion involve an extremely small percentage of the actual abortions which happen today. Ergo, their position based off those arguments is invalid because the majority of abortions happen for petty, selfish reasons.

I think incest is wrong, but I agree that new, soon to be born life shouldn't suffer for it. Same for the children of rape. Adopt that kid and forget about it if you want, but don't kill it.

And now that I've responded to you, I can expect to get blasted by the other side for stating what I very clearly said was my personal opinion.

Why don't you go learn some manners, buddy? I don't know what I said to get you so cross, sir. You were very rude and ranty, and certainly haven't painted a very good picture of the pro-life side (my side) of the argument, to be blasting even those supporting your views on the subject.

Really, I'm very disappointed in your conduct.

 

[Chaos Marine]

No. A foetus is just a lump of biomass with no sentience.

 

[LadyRhian]

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

Then they'd be wrong, unless they could convincingly argue otherwise. I'm not attempting to be representative of men here, I'm 20 and, despite continual offers, I've not had sex. It doesn't interest me. Debating, reading, gaming, philosophy and medicinal science (though your knowledge vis-a-vis the biology of human sex puts mine to shame). I'm not exactly representative of most men and I'm not attempting to be.

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

Cheers! I'll search the Scientific American online back-issue database for that. I admit, this is an area of biology in which I'm woefully unlearned.

I don't know if it was SA. It's been a few years, and I just don't remember the name of the magazine. Sorry. For reasons of not remembering, I am going to withdraw that one from consideration. Although it should be possible, the same way that cloning Dolly the sheep was possible.

Pleasure. Bonding.

Sure, but so does contraceptive sex. The qualitative difference between contraceptive and unprotected sex is its likelihood to produce a child. Anyone who partakes in the latter knows this and forgoes their right to act surprised and make up their decision vis-a-vis child bearing ad hoc when they conceive. They made it already when they chose to partake in unprotected sex.

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?

Fine, I used the wrong term, that doesn't make my term circular or else we can go down the route of saying all language is circular. Why does why mean why? Because. We could precisely define the word I mean when I say sex, but it'd significantly increase the length of our sentences, such let's just accept my qualifications on the word 'sex'.

I don't agree that a man should support the child if it's the woman's desire to keep it, because he's declared no interest in it. Frankly, if children could be incubated outside of the mother, the mother's declaration of wanting an abortion should see her out the picture too. Unfortunately she must currently play the role of incubator because we don't have the technology to replace her. If the father wishing for an abortion, who's declared no interest in the child, could play a similar role to the mother in a role reversal kind of way then that'd be fine, perhaps he should help the mother through her pregnancy? Do the stuff that she can't do because of her physical condition? It's only after the birth that the pro-abortion parent's link to the whole affair should be severed.

I'm not arguing in favour of sexists who want to blame women for having a child accidentally, regardless of whose fault it is, please don't cast me into roles for which I haven't argued. If neither person wore contraception they've both accepted to bear the child through to fruition if either parent wishes. If either wore contraception then they've both accepted that the parent will go it alone if they suddenly decide to have the child (this is only applicable to the woman, the man can't have the child since he gave up that right by having sex with a woman on contraception/using his own contraception).

For the pleasure and Bonding, you didn't ask what made it different from procreative sex, you asked "What other purpose does it serve?" I answered (and fixed the mistaken attribution, as those are my words, not King Pocky's.

It's a circular definition, since you claim that sex invariably results in a child, then say that the only reason to have sex is to have a child in the first place. If that's not a circulat definition, I don't know what is. "What is sex? The way to have a child. How do you conceive a child? By having sex!"

But the man made a decision, too- he decided to have sex without using a condom or any other means of contraception. So that makes it equally his decision to have that child- by having procreative sex in the first place. As they say, it takes two to tango. Now, you are saying that his decision to have that procreative sex and make that baby is less of a decision than hers is. If she gets pregnant and has that child, he doesn't have to support it- even though, according to you, it's her fault for choosing to have sex that could result in a baby. Why do men get a cop out? If the man wants the baby- according to you, the woman should be forced to have it just to make him feel better- but if he doesn't want it, despite choosing to have unprotected procreative sex- a choice he made as well... he shouldn't be obligated to support it.

Well, now I sure wish I could be a man in your world- all the power, none of the responsibilities! He has the right to force her to bear the child even if she doesn't want to- because she chose to have procreative non-contraceptive sex, but even though he made the same choice, she has to bear the responsibility of bearing and raising it if he decides he doesn't want it.

I have to admit, that makes me angry. Basically, it is all the woman's fault and none of the man's. That is what it comes down to in your scenario. At least make the man have responsibilities equal to the woman for having non-contraceptive procreative sex. As it is, he can change his mind at any point and just leave and have nothing more to do with the situation if he changes his mind, but the woman isn't able to if he decides he wants the kid.

You say, "I'm not arguing in favour of sexists who want to blame women for having a child accidentally, regardless of whose fault it is, please don't cast me into roles for which I haven't argued"- but you also said this- "I don't agree that a man should support the child if it's the woman's desire to keep it, because he's declared no interest in it". But he made that choice to have sex where it was possible to have that child he doesn't want to support- and like it's said- it takes two to tango. Basically, you just invalidated your own words.

I am going to take a long break from responding to this thread, because at this point, I am just too angry to continue.

 

[Tdc2182]

I for the most part am liberal, but this is where I draw the line. Yes, abortion is murder. A person is a person as soon as they are conceived. If you are dumb enough to have sex, then you are gonna have that baby. If you don't want a baby, then be smart enough not to get knocked up.

 

[Wintermoot]

no its not yet consiuos
EDIT: the time they remove it doesnt resemble a human and is just a clump of stemcells also the woman already chose to remove it with a good reason

 

[Composer]

\

How'd you know when that is?
\

you dont so i have no conclusion on wether it is or is not murder.

 

[JediMB]

Eh, the way I see it is that once something would naturally develop into a human, it's a human. I'm against abortion.

To expand on the "conscious thought" thing, the ability to think is by no means a characteristic of life. Plants are alive, as are bacteria. I think that it's immoral when we kill something that's alive and is a (future) human just because we don't feel like dealing with it.

Sperm. The male body produces more of it than what could ever conceivably be needed, and all the billions of little sperm cells (per person) that don't enter an egg die. You don't even have to masturbate for it to happen.

Every man alive is a mass murderer, because that's how we were "designed".

 

[Fire Daemon]

Is it murder? I guess so, but it's different to killing a human that has already been born. You're taking away a possibility for life, not the direct taking of life and so calling it murder is a bit iffy. Technically using a condom would be murder because you are stopping fertilization and hence stopping a foetus (or however you want to spell it) from taking place and then you can fall further down the slippery slope and realise that not fucking a wide group of fertile people regularly is murder because hey, you're stopping a life from taking place.

It's hard to not go around 'murdering' people but I propose that rather than giving some flimsy definition for when life occurs we come to the conclusion that abortion and contraceptives and a date with Rosie Palms is murder (or more correctly the denial of life) but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I believe that abortion and contraceptives and Ms Palms makes the world a better place, it gives people greater control over their lives and lets women have a child when they are ready in levels of maturity and when they are able to support the kid. Maybe it's wrong to take such a flimsy approach but I really don't care, humans aren't all that special and if some of us die before we are born so what, there will be plenty of others that are born and society at large would be better without over population.

BUT lets not go down the road and declare life all Human life pointless and ripe for abortion. I don't want to see kids being aborted because they can't perform basic Algebra (I hope that at least one of you gets that reference), clear boundaries need to be set and they should not be altered. The laws in place now seem to work pretty well and I don't see any reason to change them. Also, adoption should be encouraged both socially and by the doctors before the abortion takes place. Pretty much everyone benefits in some way when adoption takes place.

 

[Cowabungaa]

le snip

Couple of things:

First:
Using "pro-life" is nonsense, as if people who want abortion to be a possibility are anti-life. I feel quite offended by that really. I don't like abortion, it's a sad thing and I doubt any upcoming mother would go YAAAY when having an abortion.

Yet I can obviously see that abortion sometimes is the most humane thing to do and that's why I want it to be a possibility. Saying you're "pro-life" is such BS, that title really shows where the debate goes wrong. So does RMcD94 by the way, being so rude.

Second:
Care to prove that statistical statement? Do genetic defects and life threatening situations really make up a tiny part of all abortions? Even if it does, does it matter? Are those few situations not worth having abortion as a possibility? Aren't the exceptions enough?

As for rape, while I agree that the unborn child should not have to suffer from someone else's mistake, I think you're forgetting about the mother's health. Specifically her mental health. We, as men, cannot imagine how it would feel to give birth to your own father's child who raped you 9 months before. It's easy for us to have an opinion about this, too easy really. We shouldn't be involved in that, it is beyond our perception.

 

[JediMB]

I for the most part am liberal, but this is where I draw the line. Yes, abortion is murder. A person is a person as soon as they are conceived. If you are dumb enough to have sex, then you are gonna have that baby. If you don't want a baby, then be smart enough not to get knocked up.

In a grossly overpopulated and overconsuming world, I think that's a disgusting attitude to have. There are greater responsibilites out there than appeasing to archaic, impractical and counter-productive morals spawned by ignorant superstition.

Feel free to disagree, but those are my two cents.

 

[Citizen.Erased]

No, it is not murder, that is why it is called abortion. If a man rapes me, I have every right to remove his penis from my body if I did not invite him in. The same goes for a fetus.

 

[RobCoxxy]

I'm guessing OP's family has always voted Republican, thinks Bill O'Reilly is brilliant and are fond of the bible.

Just a stab in the dark.

 

[the sighing shoe]

Its all about perception

Personally I can look at both sides and see how they could be right as I am an uncaring bastard sometimes and a bleeding heart others.

For a period of development (May i remind you that this is the one where most if not all happen in)it is a lump of cells that if anywhere else in the body would be considered cancerous and removed, as it is a large mass of quickly dividing cells that take a lot of nutrients to support but provide nothing to the body. Adding to that you are saying that by not having sex most girls are murdering there children as when they have a period the... forgot the name for it but blood and lining that supports the egg are discharged ending the possibility for the life that was in that egg

Though on the other side (admittedly this argument is weaker) Human cloning (humor me)is illegal because you are putting them in a position that they cannot survive in and is considered murder. They are capable of higher brain function and have what most people call a conscious (correct spelling?) anyhow the same can be said of the child as of the second tri i believe, most have a brain that is capable of thought albeit very primitive thought but thought none the less, this indicates higher brain function in development and now im rambling as i really didnt think about this one much before i started it but anyhow i think people will get the point im trying to make

 

[cryofpaine]

I hate society's double standard. If someone kills a pregnant woman, it is a double count for the woman and her unborn child. Oh, but it is PERFECTLY fine for the woman to consent to the child being offed for convenience's sake!

Yes, it is murder.

Bravo!!!!

I find it interesting that most people's answer is along the lines of "it's not alive, so no".

Life:
-noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

A single fertilized cell manifests growth through metabolism, reproduces, adapts to its environment and has internally originating changes. Therefor, by definition, it is alive. It has the exact same genetic structure as a single cell that it will have throughout its life, so it is human. Therefore, it is a living human being from the very moment of conception.

As for the argument that it has no conscious thought, and so it's ok to end its life, just like it would be ok to end the life of someone who is brain dead, the difference is that they don't typically kill someone who is brain dead, they simply stop the artificial support of that person's life and let nature take its course. Even in those rare instances where the patient is euthanized, they wait until it is conclusively proven that there is no hope of the person recovering - ie. that they will not eventually gain consciousness. Since that fertilized cell will (under normal circumstances) develop consciousness, the analogy doesn't hold.