That's because murder, by definition, is the pre-meditated killing of a human being by another human being. So you can't murder plants or animals.fletch_talon said:
Poll: Is abortion murder?
- Thread starter CaptainKoala
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's not as rare as you think. Most women have, in fact, had an abortion in their lives. With perfect practice, a condom plus birth control has only a 97% chance of protecting you. That means that if you have sex 100 times, you're almost certain to get pregnant. That's pretty much par for the course.GooBeyond said:
God, I wish that you could get pregnant. Then you'd see pretty easily that just putting a child up for adoption is an idiotic thing to say, as you're stuck with a fetus for nine months, you have to go through the expense of caring for the damn thing, and you have to deal with the social stigma of having gotten pregnant, which can vary from positive to fairly negative.
And yes, bankruptcy law allows people who are in extreme situations where their debt easily outpaces their income to have their debt forgiven. It's in extreme cases, but it's helpful.
Resisting the urges? Yes, I suppose we could expect people to utterly defeat their every biological desire, but then we'd be bleeding robots.
Yeah, because a free on-line dictionary is the best place to go for the definitions of precise biological terms, right?Rannon said:
Not that it matters, as a baby is an intrinsic biological gain for a mother as a baby is the only possible way to pass on her DNA. Ya know, evolution and all that.
If it is anything like that at all, it is a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one, but that's wrong to as that also requires that the two in the relationship are of different species. The term you are really looking for is reproduction, because that's what a baby is, the species' way of reproducing.
Not a parasite, not a symbiote, but offspring.
No, that's not how the statistics work.hyrulegaybar said:
Those statistics are for regular use over the course of a year. If a condom claims to work 97% of the time, that means that if 100 couples use it for regular sex over a year only 3 of them will get pregnant.
And, of course, most condoms are actually at least 99% effective if used correctly. Throw the pill in there too and you are essentially safe for life unless you make a mistake or get really unlucky.
Don't worry I am definately not going to argue that the cultures nor other things that carry characteristics are human entities. However, Because the process leads to what ultimately is a humanlife through natural means without outside interference I feel great unease killing it. Now scientifically we may be able to concretely say very soon one side is right and one wrong but right now all we have are some facts, gut feelings, and opinions. Hell if its proven to be fine by my standards then I'll be the first to admit fault. I just feel unease at the simple possibility of it all. But, I would never have the gall to call an abortionist a murderer. It is just such a touchie subject I just wish it wouldbe resolved sowe could all stop babbling about it.Cowabungaa said:
The first comment was against your douchebaggery comment that I picked it up from Biology. I've never heard it in Biology.Maze1125 said:
And no, I did not realise that. Wikipedia however does specify species. But whatever you want to call it, it still is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Where different simply means different, another, not different species. If any part of my body, or something in my body rather did that, I'd want to remove it, or have the legal option to do so in this case. I'm also sure it being a parasite was not my point, but rather just a name I used so I didn't have to type out the above.
I've accepted that it's not biologically a parasite (see previous post). Owned was my reply to douchebaggery.subtlefuge said:
Also, how is it commensalism? One is clearly affected negatively.
That actually supports my argument that it is a parasite.
You can't be saying that the mother is unaffected by something using a large amount of her energy, and resources.
Larger groups in the past, sat down and decided for 100 odd years the slave trade was legal. Just because it's law does not make it right.imaloony said:
Also, surely, that if I shot her in the stomach, it'd be classed as an unwanted/forceful/can't think of the word abortion. Your telling me now that abortion is murder!
Of course it's irrelevant.
[/quote]
A foetus WILL NOT grow into a human of it's own accord. Like the sperm it requires things from other sources. This is what pisses me off. Everyone assumes that a foetus will become a child.
No. This is not true. If the mother stops eating, if the mother dies. So does the foetus.
I am using your argument against me, it doesn't mean I'm anti-masturbation, it means I'm pro-abortion. I'm just showing how your logic goes.
A SPERM NEEDS AN EGG PROVIDED BY THE MOTHER
A FOETUS NEEDS WARMTH PROVIDED BY THE MOTHER.
A WARM FOETUS NEEDS MINERALS PROVIDED BY THE MOTHER.
A MINERALISED WARM FOETUS NEEDS PROTECTED (immune system) PROVIDED BY THE MOTHER.
A PROTECTED MINERALISED WARM FOETUS NEEDS A CONTINUOUSLY WILLING MOTHER TO BECOME A HUMAN.
For crying the fuck out loud.
yes and im saying that forcing a woman to have a child because a man wants it is hurting the womans emotional well beingBGH122 said:
Plus if your into the whole positive negative influence a mother can have over the baby shes most likely gonna resent it for the entire birth which probably isnt good for it(really depends on your beliefs
So what your saying there is you want to force a person who for whateva reason has decided that the kids to much to handle or he made a mistake in deciding to keep the baby that he must look after it(again i dont actually have a problem with the woman putting it up for adoption she made the choice to go through pregnancy its fine..its the forced pregnancy i have an issue with)BGH122 said:
Because thats plain not good for the child's emotional wellbeing in the future a parent who regards you as a mistake he cant get rid of isnt postive. and doesnt have to put it up for adoption really just abandon it somewhere
Yes women have a physical effect that guys don't have, but the chances of complications in pregnancy are low, and afaik, there's plenty of warning signs. This has been a very long thread, so I'll repeat what I said earlier, if there's any sign that the bearing the child will result in permanent damage to the mother then the child should be aborted. The mother's long-term physical well being is more important than emotions. Having stretch marks (which bio-oil can get rid of) or a caesarean scar (which can be lessened significantly, if the woman requests the surgeon take care to avoid scarring) isn't a valid reason to abort the pregnancy, since these things are part and parcel of being pregnant which was already consented to implicitly by having unprotected sex.
The concept that there's no negative repercussions for the guy is just wrong. The guy has to give up nine months of his life to care for the mother. He's not going to do that if he just wants to put the baby up for adoption. But let's take a harder line, if you wish, let's say whichever parent wants the child has to raise it cannot put it up for adoption unless they're rendered incapable of caring for it.
yeah there fine with the consequences but im pretty sure neither is asking the other before sex if i knock you up can i keep the babyBGH122 said:
so the woman might think oh well there the morning after pill or if she forgot for some reason she can abort it then the clinic turns around and says we need the fathers permission we go get dear old dad and he goes w8 your pregnant i want the child
what if anyone has a 1950s view of gender its you. your world is man has dominion the act of being able to make a woman have a baby for you is a a sign of thisBGH122 said:
as for the man not being able to have 2 relationships thats simple stuff
the fact that you think a woman needs help from a man during pregnancy is wrong. she can get by just fine by herself. the fact that you think she cant do this without a man to support her is again your 1950's view
what i meant when i said mother cant have another relationship is that while pregnant she most likely is not gonna find a guy who says yeah im cool with the fact youve got another dudes baby in your stomach and that hes gonna take it away when your done
i never said anything about a relationship after pregnancy tho one could argue the physical aftereffects...(u know where thats going)
and just because something is illegal doesnt mean it doesnt happen grow up
again tho your not Punishing the Father in any tangible way as compared to what the mother has to go throughBGH122 said:
Not quite a troll, but I could suppose you can qualify the behavior as trollish, for which I apologize. I was trying to keep my involvement light and then it just ended up coming off as overly flippant.Tdc2182 said:
Having said that, it was clear from your earlier response to other people that you're quite heavily vested in this and no response is going to be a calm one. Personally, instead of really getting into the thick of it with you, I'd rather just bow out.
I think it says a lot more about you than it does about me that you feel this instantly gives you the right judge me or my ability as a parent though.
either way, I'm not going to argue with you. This will do neither of us any good.
edit: left out the key word "not". good job me.
Well then, next is Svenska Akademiens ordlista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_Akademiens_Ordlista)Maze1125 said:
I'm goint to translate, hence it won't be perfect.
mooch-animal or mooch-plant; cadger, freeloader
This thread is abortion, which means that we're talking about a foetus that is either unwanted or hurting the host, i.e. the mother.
Which means that it takes without giving.
Also the term parasite isn't only a biological term.
A fail to see how a Swedish dictionary is at all relevant for English words.Rannon said:
A woman's body is set up to give to the baby. That's not how parasites work. Parasites take from places that aren't designed to give it to them.
There are two ways to use the word "parasite" in an argument.
1. Precisely. Which a baby doesn't qualify for.
2. Emotively. Which is a logical fallacy.
And then after that 100th year they decided that was retarded and changed it. As you said, people are idiots, but they learn. Again, these people have had time/experience to think this crap out.RMcD94 said:
No. If you shoot a pregnant lady in the stomach, the courts call it murder. No way around that big boy. Yeah, I am telling your abortion is murder. Haven't you been listening to me? I'm stating my opinion that abortion is murder in principle, and a fact that that "unwanted/forceful/can't think of the word abortion" is murder is court.
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.[/quote]
Jesus man, calm the hell down.
You're saying that there's nothing morally wrong with killing a fetus then? Killing something before it even has a say-so? Killing it before it has a chance to live? How would you feel if that happened to you? Oh, wait, you wouldn't feel anything because we wouldn't be having this conversation now because you wouldn't exist, would you?
The point is, it's a waste of life. You don't see animals going around tearing their babies out, so why should we do something so barbaric? If you don't want a baby, use birth control, or condoms, or what the hell ever. If you get hit by that 1% or whatever the fail rate is and don't want a baby, just give it up for adoption. There is no reason for abortion to be necessary.
The old KS3 'Mrs Gren':SilverApple said:
M Movement All living things move, even plants
R Respiration Getting energy from food
S Sensitivity Detecting changes in the surroundings
G Growth All living things grow
R Reproduction Making more living things of the same type
E Excretion Getting rid of waste
N Nutrition Taking in and using food
Woefully low-level, I know (heck, it's calling metabolism 'respiration'), but it's a better starting point than just 'movement'.
Yes and no. You're right in saying that all moral argument will eventually become axiomatic or circular. I can't remember the philosopher who pointed that out (I really should, only did philosophy two years ago), but the goal of debate is to break the argument down as far as it can possibly go before becoming necessarily axiomatic. Animal rights arguments rest upon a very high level axiom (pain is bad) as the delimiter of right and wrong, yet we can delve much deeper than that. We can examine why humans work their morality in terms of duty and proximity: my duty to my family is stronger than that to my country which in turn is stronger than that to my race which in turn is stronger than that to other races. We can examine which human traits we find desirable and why (basically age old virtue ethics). This is deliberately ignored by animal rights activists because both reveal that animals can't be included in moral systems as comprehensively as humans, humans can understand duties (and can understand putting others before the self, entirely necessary for ethical systems) and can be in possession of 'virtues' (I don't like virtue ethics so I won't be defending it here). Animals can be in 'possession' of pain, yet a right to be safeguarded from pain, which is really what animal rights argues for, requires animals to possess traits that they cannot and do not because they are founded in human rationality. I've already explained the 'animals can't have duties ergo they can't have rights' conundrum.Maze1125 said:
So really, animal rights is intellectually honest because it accepts its morality 'as is', with limited justification. But this is only intellectually honest if the statement "moral logic always eventually becomes axiomatic or circular, so all levels of moral logic are equal" is valid. I believe that I can show this statement to be false:
All human logic eventually becomes circular or axiomatic, not just moral logic. If I break down a physics equation to its constituent parts, mathematics, then I cannot question it any further because I cannot explain why 1 is 1 and not 2. Does this mean that 1=1 is as valid as 1=9197812438? No. Why? Because whatever creates the axiomatic truth within humans that 1=1 creates our 'shared core logic'. Arguments that rest upon this logic can themselves be wrong, as they can misunderstand or misapply our shared core logic, but the logic itself is irrefutable. It may well be that an alien would entirely disagree with our assessment that 1=1, as its evolutionarily (or God-endowed, whatever) logic may well differ.
This also means that moral arguments can be shown to be wrong. This refutes the supposed intellectual honesty of animal rights as that honesty relies upon all moral logic being equally subjective/wrong. Further damning is that they (by this I mean Singer and Newkirk because they're all I've studied and they're the two most famous figureheads) do not respond to rebuttals and sidestep them when convenient. They do not explain how a thing can have rights without duties, or how a thing which cannot conceive of putting others before the self can partake in morality, yet they endlessly spout the one nugget of truth 'pain is bad' and then extrapolate into an argument which ignores all the logical hurdles I've already mentioned: 'animals feel pain, (base) negative utilitarianism avoids pain, we should avoid animal pain'.
That seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me.
Very true. As a side-line, I'm not talking about this as if it should be a law. I want to make that clear. Logical moral reasoning influences law to a very small degree because law isn't there to enforce morality, it's there to keep society functioning. If that happens to invoke shared moral laws (in order to keep people happy) then fine, but just because a moral law has been proven doesn't mean it'll be realised as legal law. I've not read any objection to Mill's moral law that one has a duty to emancipate slaves, regardless of whether or not they made the choice to be slaves, if we have a duty to human liberty, yet slavery still goes on in Africa and I don't see us rushing to make laws forcing them to emancipate their slaves. That's because it's not practical. Pissing of a major superpower by trampling all over their country (regardless of whether we're in the moral right) isn't a good way to preserve a society. Legality =/= morality. I know that's not relevant to anything you've said, but there's been a lot of confusion regarding that point by several posters throughout this thread.alinos said:
In light of the above quoted point I temporarily rescind my argument whilst I think this through. I need to come up with a way that we can prevent a parent from birthing the child and then just putting it up for adoption. Perhaps we could say that the parent has to make it explicit when they lay claim to the child whether they intend to raise it or put it up for adoption. If it's the latter then both parents must agree. This isn't a perfect solution because I can think of no reason that the parent who'd previously refused to consent to birthing the child would now suddenly change their mind when adoption is raised as the reason.
This is a good objection. None of the 'pregnancy is worse for the mother than the father' arguments work because I can always fall back on 'that's evolution for you, she knew this when she risked getting pregnant'.alinos said:
However, what you've shown here is that, in the modern day and age, even sex which leads to conception isn't necessarily followed by pregnancy. That's good, it undermines my entire logical argument. Very well, I must now redefine the argument: it is now the duty of whichever parent objects to the pregnancy to demand a termination via the pill after a night of unprotected sex. This demand will trump the other parent's desire to keep the child, since implicit in even unprotected sex (these days) is the fact that there's always the pill as a retroactive contraception. Going into sex both knew this (presumably, the morning after pill is common knowledge) so both implicitly agree that the other partner may be expecting it to be utilized.
If neither parent demands that the pill be used and no contraception was worn then the old rules apply.
Maze1125 said:
First attested in English 1539, the word parasite comes form the Medieval French parasite, from the Latin parasitus, the romanization of the Greek "παράσιτος" (parasitos), "one who eats at the table of another"[1] and that from "παρά" (para), "beside, by"[2] + "σῖτος" (sitos), "food".[3] Coined in English 1611, the word parasitism comes from the Greek "παρά" (para) + "σιτισμός" (sitismos) "feeding, fattening".[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism#Etymology
Which bring us, or rather me to that we're talking a "offspring" that is either unwanted by and/or hurtful to the mother, this offspring is taking up more and more space, "eating" her energy to do so, making her go through, some are stated here http://fatherhood.about.com/od/pregnancyandfathers/a/pregnant_body.htm.