Poll: Is abortion murder?

[MelziGurl]

Regardless of whether it's alive or not doesn't change my stance. I'm all for other people using it, but I won't. I strongly believe it's too relied upon as a preventative method to pregnancy. I had this discussion with friends the other night, but due to the alcohol involved I failed to register most of the conversation.

 

[CaptainKoala]

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.

 

[Angel_0A]

Technically, it's not alive, so no.

It's not murder, foetuses before 24 weeks don't possess conscious thought ergo they're not in possession of life.

Not all life is sentient (plants), or at least not as we percieve.
When a foetus is aborted, YES it is killed.
However, I'm not sure if it's classed as murder, it's too grey.
I mean take euthanasia for example; that's killing, but its not murder.

 

[RatRace123]

Up to a certain point, no. It's not a person, it's just a bunch of cells that form something that looks similar to a person.

I go by when the law says its murder. I think that's after six months, but I'm not entirely sure. But if it's only like a few days or a week, or even a couple months. Yeah, it's more or less just a blobby parasite.

 

[InnerRebellion]

No it's not murder, I'm tired of this controversy.
But that aside, no it is not murder. It cannot think yet, and most fetuses are aborted way before they develop most vital parts of their body.

 

[Normalgamer]

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.

The baby can feel pain, we've already proved that, so your argument is invalid.

 

[manaman]

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.

"Fully formed" "beating heart" arguments like that are a cop out. We pretty much define life in the western world as brain activity. There is likely a definable point in a fetuses development where it no longer is a "collection of cells" and starts having brain activity. It would seem that before that it's not alive in the way a man with no brain activity who's heart only continues to beat on because of machines is not truly alive. We have almost no qualms about taking that man of machine support and allowing his body to wither away. The qualms about abortion only come up because rather then the end of ones life this is the dead zone before the beginning. Left alone that lump of flesh would be a life (well left in a healthy womb of a women who is not drinking heavily and rolling down the stairs), where the man left alone dies.

That's the true argument anyway, does an abortion before brain activity equate to murder because of the potential for life. Because it's truly not alive yet as we define life (brain activity). Please don't give the cop out brain not fully developed rip either, so then it's okay to kill a toddler. Because your brain is not truly fully developed until you're around 22, and nobody is saying it's okay kill a 12 year old kid.

I also really dislike the "as soon as it could survive on its own out of the womb" answer, because nobody is going to kill the man mentioned above living only because the machines keep him alive if there is still brain activity.

 

[Nomanslander]

I don't know?

Is masturbation infanticide?

 

[CaptainKoala]

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.

The baby can feel pain, we've already proved that, so your argument is invalid.

No, his argument was that its not murder because it has no conscious thought, he said nothing about if it can feel pain. We weren't talking about that, at least not in this series of posts between me and BGH122.

 

[BGH122]

Thats a matter of opinion I'm afraid. I consider it murder.

Then you'll have to define murder or else your term, and ergo your statement, is meaningless.

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.

Ah, fair point. Then we would have to come up with a test for consciousness, I'm not sure what such a thing would be. I'll need to think this over.

My general argument against killing children, since they don't possess consciousness, is the fact that they're 'realised' vestigial conscious humans (i.e. capable of surviving outside the mother and becoming 'real' thinking beings), but this is circular; I need to explain why 'realised' is a relevant qualitative difference.

 

[Kimarous]

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.

 

[The Lunatic]

Nope. Just a bunch of cells.

 

[zad1212]

As long as they are not to devolped, i dont care, then again I am a democrat, and dont care what other people do
also pot should be legeal

 

[Vrex360]

It's illegal to have an abortion once the fetus has developed to the stage you described. They get aborted before they've developed any form of concious thought so it's not so much killing as it is never allowing a life to start.
It's still quite nasty, I admit, however a woman has a right to choose and if she can't raise the child or feels simply unprepared then I think it's well within her right to do it.
I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice.

 

[theironbat46]

No,it hasn't been born yet, and it's the woman choice.She is going to be the one who delivers, and may/ or may not take care of it. If she wants to make sure the population stays down thats her choice.

 

[Aerodyamic]

Since a one year old is capable of conscious interaction with individuals it recognizes, your theory fails. Most infants can respond to stimuli, and will smile and gurgle when they see their mother, in particular. In fact, almost all infants are clearly capable of displaying or vocalizing fear, hunger, discomfort and pain, so your premise is not only a shitty one, but it borders on sociopathy.

Then there's the fact that an EKG will demonstrate brain activity, which also negates your argument. If you want to try and use morally ambiguous statements to bolster a 'pro-life' position, please use ones that can't be so readily shot down.

It's not my place to dictate whether or not another human being can do something to their body, but if I was a prospective father, I would want to be involved in the decision making process, concerning an abortion. In the end, however, I'm not the pregnant party, so the final decision isn't mine.

 

[Eldarion]

Thats a matter of opinion I'm afraid. I consider it murder.

Then you'll have to define murder or else your term, and ergo your statement, is meaningless.

How is my statement meaningless? You are taking a life, ergo its murder.

You could give me some argument about weather or not a fetus is "alive" at what stage, but since that is a matter of opinion rather than scientific fact and my opinion is that its alive from the start then abortion is in my view of the concept murder.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Technically, it's not alive, so no.

How is it now alive? Did you know that by week 4 the baby already has a heart and a circulatory system?

Yes, but it's not "complete." Also, some could probably get an abortion before week 4.

But that's not the point, the point is that it is a person in development. As for the argument made before about putting animals down. They're animals. Not people. There is a HUGE difference. A fetus is a person in the making.

But what makes animals less than people?[footnote]Obviously the potential for conscious thought but some animals have this to varying degrees[/footnote] On top of that, you are going by the argument that you are guilty of all the good you do/did/will not do, which, although I see the logic behind it, I do not follow, as I figure if I follow that then no matter what I do I'm a mass-murdering psychopath. I just go by a morally subjective view, though that doesn't mean I sit on my hands all the time and go 'It's his/her view'. I'm erratic like that, my beliefs are like fluid in a balloon, a little push can change its shape but it will always come back to rest in a similar manner.

I feel like I got off track, basically what I'm saying is my views differ from yours, and this is one of those topics where, while science has a say, it is insignificant in the face of the fact that the moral reprehensibility of abortion is dependant upon the moral framework of the individual.

OT: Depends on the viewpoint. Some may say that it isn't yet a life *raises hand* and therefore it isn't murder while others say that the future repercussions of the action are just as valid as the present day actions, and these people see abortion as the murder of a future human being. Science only has a say in the first view as a means of determining at what time it becomes immoral/murder.