Poll: Is abortion murder?

[SilverApple]

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.

I'm pretty sure in places where abortion is legal, there are laws as to how far developed a foetus is allowed to be in order to be aborted.
I'm not 100% sure the baby is kicking that early in the pregnancy, however even if it is, it almost certainly has no degree of conscious thought, it simply reacts to stimulus.

Scientifically, reaction to stimulus is the first requirement for something to be considered life. So from what you said it is life. And not just flesh.

Not really, there's seven scientific conditions to life all of which must be fulfilled. The baby doesn't fulfil any except movement.

Which list are you using as a reference here?

 

[Maze1125]

See, here's the problem, I can find no non-axiomatic (e.g. pain is bad) argument for any form of animal rights.

There's no non-axiomatic argument for any morality. It just that in most arguments the axioms are used implicitly rather than explicitly.

All that means is that the people arguing for animal rights are more intellectually honest.

 

[subtlefuge]

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.

I'm pretty sure in places where abortion is legal, there are laws as to how far developed a foetus is allowed to be in order to be aborted.
I'm not 100% sure the baby is kicking that early in the pregnancy, however even if it is, it almost certainly has no degree of conscious thought, it simply reacts to stimulus.

Scientifically, reaction to stimulus is the first requirement for something to be considered life. So from what you said it is life. And not just flesh.

Not really, there's seven scientific conditions to life all of which must be fulfilled. The baby doesn't fulfil any except movement.

Which list are you using as a reference here?

I would like to know as well.

Since my fellow escapees seem to be surprisingly fond of oversimplified arguments, here's one for you:

Abortion is murder by derived definition.

 

[imaloony]

Is abortion if the mother would die okay?

I don't know, would you kill one person to save two? See, I can get technical too.

You're assuming I think the fertilised eggs are people. I don't. To me it's killing one parasite to save the parasite's host. You haven't answered if you think saving the parasite's host should be legal or not.

Anyway, it's whether it's legal or not for her to save herself by killing someone else (according to you it is someone else and not just removing something else). If she had twins she'd be saving herself by killing two people I suppose.

These might not make sense since I edited it and can't be bothered removing where I've spoken same thing twice etc.

Here, let me give you an example of why it would be considered murder. Let's say we have Pregnant Woman A and Evil Bad Guy B. Say Evil Bad Guy B shoots Pregnant Woman A. Pregnant Woman A does not die, but her fetus does die. I wonder, in the courtroom, would Pregnant Woman A shout "Attempted Murderer!" or would she shout "Murderer!"? I have to double check, but I'm pretty sure Evil Bad Guy B would be charged on one count of murder and one count of attempted murder and assault in that case.

Do people say "How is your parasite?" to a pregnant woman, or do they say "How is your baby?"?

Whether or not your acknowledge it or not, depriving a fetus of life is the same as waiting until they're 30 to kill them. You're still taking life from a human with life. Technicalities say it's not a baby until it comes out of the womb, but the fetus has a brain, lungs, a heart, it moves on its own, it's a human. Depriving it of life is murder.

 

[JediMB]

[why-so-serious]

An unwanted fetus is clearly intruding in the woman's reproductive system. This can be considered rape, and the abortion would be an act of self-defense.

[/why-so-serious]

>_>;;

 

[subtlefuge]

Is abortion if the mother would die okay?

I don't know, would you kill one person to save two? See, I can get technical too.

You're assuming I think the fertilised eggs are people. I don't. To me it's killing one parasite to save the parasite's host. You haven't answered if you think saving the parasite's host should be legal or not.

Bad science for the win I suppose?

Next time you quote something you picked up in 9th grade Biology, actually look it up first (see "symbiotic relationships", and more importantly "commensalism").

A fetus is not a parasite, and your fallacious logic is sadly fact the meat and bones of your argument.

 

[subtlefuge]

[why-so-serious]

An unwanted fetus is clearly intruding in the woman's reproductive system. This can be considered rape, and the abortion would be an act of self-defense.

[/who-so-serious]

>_>;;

Clearly.

Being dismissive of another side of an argument by using rhetorical fallacies does not in fact constitute winning said argument.

1. A fetus is a consequence from unprotected sex.
2. A fetus is not an extension of the mother, or derived from her cells.
3. There is no logic behind comparing it to rape, and you are being sensationalist.
4. A fetus is not inherently invasive, and contraception is a primary form of self defense.

 

[JediMB]

[why-so-serious]

An unwanted fetus is clearly intruding in the woman's reproductive system. This can be considered rape, and the abortion would be an act of self-defense.

[/who-so-serious]

>_>;;

Clearly.

Being dismissive of another side of an argument by using rhetorical fallacies does not in fact constitute winning said argument.

1. A fetus is a consequence from unprotected sex.
2. A fetus is not an extension of the mother, or derived from her cells.
3. There is no logic behind comparing it to rape, and you are being sensationalist.
4. A fetus is not inherently invasive, and contraception is a primary form of self defense.

The fact that you replied to that post means you've failed.

My condolences, sir or madame.

 

[subtlefuge]

[why-so-serious]

An unwanted fetus is clearly intruding in the woman's reproductive system. This can be considered rape, and the abortion would be an act of self-defense.

[/who-so-serious]

>_>;;

Clearly.

Being dismissive of another side of an argument by using rhetorical fallacies does not in fact constitute winning said argument.

1. A fetus is a consequence from unprotected sex.
2. A fetus is not an extension of the mother, or derived from her cells.
3. There is no logic behind comparing it to rape, and you are being sensationalist.
4. A fetus is not inherently invasive, and contraception is a primary form of self defense.

The fact that you replied to that post means you've failed.

My condolences, sir or madame.

I would normally feel dumb, but the format of your post is just kinda weird.

 

[grimsprice]

Glad to see the majority of the escapist agree it's not murder, there's a reason it's called a foetus rather than a baby. Though once it could survive outside the womb, then it could be murder I suppose. But we don't allow abortion that late, so it's fine.


Oh and completely off topic but,

Science. It works bitches.

I have this t-shirt

Me too.

High-tentacle!!!

 

[Samurai Goomba]

le snip

I know you didn't call me that, it's why I said that that's where the debate already goes wrong. Those terms have developed thanks to a very polarised and at times vile and violent debate, "pro-life" and RMcD94's rude reaction being an example. I mean, don't think that abortion is sometimes the most humane thing to do? Like when, for example, the child will never grow up past the age of one and never even become sentient, just to name some extreme example. Aren't you pro-choice too then?

As for the statistics, thank you. It saddens me to see that 25%, at least in the US (as I don't live there) has an abortion just because they don't want a child yet. Rape is, thankfully, just a very small percentage.

However, again, bearing a child after being raped is not something us men can really can have an opinion about. We cannot imagine a single thing about how that would be, it is completely beyond our field of perception.

I too do not like to see an abortion because of rape happen, but lets be honest; it is something we shouldn't be involved in. How could we ever be? How can we even make an even remotely informed opinion about that? What could justify forcing our nonsensical opinion about that subject on women who went through something like that?

I don't like the logic that man can't have an opinion on something just because "we can't understand what it would be like." What if it was your girlfriend, and you had consensual sex and REALLY wanted to be a father to this kid? You might not think you had no right to your opinion then, when you felt that love for something many wouldn't even classify as a human being at that time.

See, with consensual sex I'm ALWAYS of the opinion that if the mother isn't at risk, adoption is the way to go. There are couples out there who want a kid but can't have one, and then there are the people who selfishly have sex without protection and then have abortions.

Just because I'll never be able to bear children, I don't think that means I should just back off in my opinion that abortions which have nothing to do with the three exceptions I mentioned (which, again, are statistically insignificant percentages anyway) should not be allowed.

Are there minority situations where I might support abortion? Sure... But what if that kid who would only live to age 1... What if the parents had him anyway? He might only live a year, but he might live longer. And you seem like a nice guy, but really this sort of example kind of feels like a stretch. Again, another statistically unlikely situation, although I have to admit that's just an opinion. I suppose health complications with the child would be more common than the other examples the very militantly pro-abortion people like to use.

I mean, I've got a strong opinion about this, but at the same time I don't want anybody to think I despise them because of his or her opinion. You all can believe whatever you want to. I'm not 100% opposed to abortion in 100% of all scenarios, but the few situations where I'm not opposed to it aren't anything close to the majority of cases where it's used-therefore my stance that I do not believe it should be legalized (or that it should be very heavily restricted in its use). Maybe I'll never understand this issue the way a woman does, but a lot of the people on both sides of the argument are men anyway, and I'm not going to fold just because somebody claims my gender renders my opinion invalid. Men can feel love for unborn human potential (fertilized human eggs which, given time, will become children) too. Just because art critics can't paint like Monet doesn't mean they aren't allowed to have an opinion about him.

Finally, I agree both extreme sides of the debate get pretty dumb, with one side calling the other murderers and the other making similar slanderous claims. The two-party system is heavily flawed. Maybe if the "not in favor of legalizing abortion" side were willing to go to the table with the "in favor of legalizing" side and talk things out, and if BOTH SIDES were willing to compromise a little, maybe something could get done. 'Cause at this point the only two outcomes seem to be blanket legalization everywhere and you can get one for any reason, or blanket illegality and you can't get an abortion for any reason. And with that setup we're just perpetuating this obnoxious Civil War style of politics where everyone has to have an all or nothing opinion.

 

[RMcD94]

Is abortion if the mother would die okay?

I don't know, would you kill one person to save two? See, I can get technical too.

You're assuming I think the fertilised eggs are people. I don't. To me it's killing one parasite to save the parasite's host. You haven't answered if you think saving the parasite's host should be legal or not.

Bad science for the win I suppose?

Douchery for the lose?

Next time you quote something you picked up in 9th grade Biology, actually look it up first (see "symbiotic relationships", and more importantly "commensalism").

1. 9th grade? What the fuck is that?
2. The only time I've heard symbiotic before was on fanfiction.net talking about the plant/animal bond of bulbasaur and other such creatures.
3. Commensalism? According to my dictionary, that's not even a word.

A fetus is not a parasite, and your fallacious logic is sadly fact the meat and bones of your argument.

1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Oooooooooooooowned.

 

[RMcD94]

Here, let me give you an example of why it would be considered murder. Let's say we have Pregnant Woman A and Evil Bad Guy B. Say Evil Bad Guy B shoots Pregnant Woman A. Pregnant Woman A does not die, but her fetus does die. I wonder, in the courtroom, would Pregnant Woman A shout "Attempted Murderer!" or would she shout "Murderer!"? I have to double check, but I'm pretty sure Evil Bad Guy B would be charged on one count of murder and one count of attempted murder and assault in that case.

Your entire argument is based on laws in place? So you think laws are always right then? The whole point of this is to change laws... So that it is/isn't legal. If you obey every law blindly then I have no reason to debate with you.

Do people say "How is your parasite?" to a pregnant woman, or do they say "How is your baby?"?

People are idiots. What they say is irrelevant.

Whether or not your acknowledge it or not, depriving a fetus of life is the same as waiting until they're 30 to kill them. You're still taking life from a human with life. Technicalities say it's not a baby until it comes out of the womb, but the fetus has a brain, lungs, a heart, it moves on its own, it's a human. Depriving it of life is murder.

Whether or not you acknowledge it or not, depriving a sperm of life is the same as waiting until they're 30 to kill them.

How is that any different?

A foetus is not a human. It can be a human. Just as sperm can be a human. But it is not, and should, like sperm, not be treated as such.

 

[subtlefuge]

Oooooooooooooowned.

I came to the conclusion that you are a troll a long time ago. This is the last time I will be posting in this thread.

If you really do want to know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensalism

Since a fetus does not use the host for reproductive purposes, and the host is not generally harmed, it does not count as a parasite. It's semantics I know, but it does matter.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

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.

Fetuses don't have conscious thought until a certain stage. When that stage kicks in though, that's where I put my foot down.

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.

Oh, so you think it's justified to slaughter and kill animals? To skin them while still alive? To flush them down the toilet? Never mind that they are fully developed creatures with the ability to feel pain, no, let's focus on a thing that can barely form the thought of feeling pain, who will be raised poorly anyways. Bollocks to that.

Everything in this battle screams of subjectivity, because we all can't get along on when it's considered murder. I say it's the minute the baby can think about the pain it's in, which is way ahead. Other's think it's murder the minute it gets into the womb, and other say that the sperm is alive, in which case, I've committed infanticide several times.

But think about this: Do you think the baby wants to be raised in a poor environment, or without a father, or being neglected, or being an overall burden to it's family? And doesn't the mother have a say? She's the one who must raise it, she's the one who must go through the pain of giving birth it, and she's the one who must sacrifice every second of her life to it.

To sum up: Until it can properly feel pain, it's not about the baby, it's about the parents. When the fetus counts as a sentient person, meaning when it actually can feel pain and form thoughts on it, then the parents aren't allowed to back out.

I had over 15 quotes in my inbox this morning, and you're one of the two that I'm replying to because you typed more than a sentence as a counter argument.

I see yoru point, but can you even IMAGINE the fallout if people started aborting fetus puppies? You would have politicians, religions, and organizations up in arms trying to stop you. This is the double standard I hate. That and: If a pregnant woman gets killed, BAM double-murder charge. But abortions don't count? Weather you support abortion or not that's a ridiculous double standard.

I agree, except that I think a pregnant women killed should count as single murder, not double murder. Might as well charge him for breaking the husband's heart otherwise.

 

[Cowabungaa]

le snip

I'm going to cut this in several manageable pieces.

First of all, you appear to have misunderstood me when I talked about men not being able to form an opinion about it. When I said that I was solely talking about rape, not concensual sex. Fact is that a man can never ever imagine the psychological trauma that comes with being raped and becoming pregnant because of it. I said that in response to you saying that rape is not a valid reason. Fact is; you cannot decide that, neither can I. It's something both of us will never be able to judge and therefor I don't see how we have the right to get involved in that. Consensual sex is another matter entirely, and of course men do deserve a say in that. Afterall, we too can experience the feeling of becoming a parent even though we don't actually carry the baby. Rape is another matter entirely and that was that I was talking about.

Second of all I question your useage of "statistically unlikely" and "statistically irrelevant" for a simple reason; we're not talking about just numbers here, we're talking about individual lives, and lots of them. You might call about 6.1% stastically irrelevant (I don't hope you actually do, I hope you mean something else, if so do explain) but that's thousands of women we're talking about. Somehow I don't think those women would like it if you say something like that in their face, that their case is statistically irrelevant. Isn't something like this above such a thing as statistics? Isn't it too important for that? In any case, aren't those thousands of women enough to warrant some sort of abortion legalisation?

Lastly, I'd be happy to see both sides just sit in the table and talk about the things that actually matter, not petty differences. One thing that irks me though is that many "pro-lifers" are pretty much trying to enforce their own believes on other people. No "pro-choice" legislation is forcing someone to deal with their pregnancy in any kind of way, this however is the case with the other side of the fence; people trying to force other people to do things according to their believes, even though those other people might not even share those believes. That makes me go "hmmm..."

 

[Hashime]

Yes, from the moment of conception it is human.

That's human?

I don't consider it human until it develops a consciousness.

Yes, we were all like that at one point, and are human. When can one truly determine when a fetus develops conciseness? You could use measure electrical signals, but does science really know what consciousness is? It is best to make a concrete ruling on abortion, and since every circumstance is different, saying a fetus / blostoclyast (sp?) / whatever is human from conception removes the gray area.

 

[imaloony]

Here, let me give you an example of why it would be considered murder. Let's say we have Pregnant Woman A and Evil Bad Guy B. Say Evil Bad Guy B shoots Pregnant Woman A. Pregnant Woman A does not die, but her fetus does die. I wonder, in the courtroom, would Pregnant Woman A shout "Attempted Murderer!" or would she shout "Murderer!"? I have to double check, but I'm pretty sure Evil Bad Guy B would be charged on one count of murder and one count of attempted murder and assault in that case.

Your entire argument is based on laws in place? So you think laws are always right then? The whole point of this is to change laws... So that it is/isn't legal. If you obey every law blindly then I have no reason to debate with you.

I'm sorry, you think your ruling is more valid than that of people who have sat down in larger groups, with smarter people with more varying opinions and thought this up? Go ahead then, go shoot a pregnant lady in the stomach and argue that it wasn't murder. See how far you get with that.

Do people say "How is your parasite?" to a pregnant woman, or do they say "How is your baby?"?

People are idiots. What they say is irrelevant.

If that's true, then you are an idiot and what you say is irrelevant too, so this whole conversation is irrelevant.

Whether or not your acknowledge it or not, depriving a fetus of life is the same as waiting until they're 30 to kill them. You're still taking life from a human with life. Technicalities say it's not a baby until it comes out of the womb, but the fetus has a brain, lungs, a heart, it moves on its own, it's a human. Depriving it of life is murder.

Whether or not you acknowledge it or not, depriving a sperm of life is the same as waiting until they're 30 to kill them.

How is that any different?

A foetus is not a human. It can be a human. Just as sperm can be a human. But it is not, and should, like sperm, not be treated as such.

So, your argument is that I'm saying that every sperm in existence should be used? That's stupid, impossible, and you're ignorant.
A sperm will not grow into a human of its own accord. A fetus will.
Again, I want you to see how far destroying a fetus will go in court when you compare it to masturbation.

 

[fletch_talon]

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.

I'm pretty sure in places where abortion is legal, there are laws as to how far developed a foetus is allowed to be in order to be aborted.
I'm not 100% sure the baby is kicking that early in the pregnancy, however even if it is, it almost certainly has no degree of conscious thought, it simply reacts to stimulus.

Scientifically, reaction to stimulus is the first requirement for something to be considered life. So from what you said it is life. And not just flesh.

I didn't say it wasn't life, but plants react to stimulus and killing them isn't considered murder
Killing animals also isn't considered murder by most.