Poll: Is abortion murder?

[Maze1125]

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

Nice to know, but the derivation of the word is pretty much as irrelevant as knowing the definition of a Swedish word.

The fact still remains that claiming a fetus is a parasite, in any sense other than purely biological, is an attempt at evoking a negative reaction towards the fetus and thereby encourage people to allow them to be killed via their emotions rather than rational discourse. Which is a logical fallacy.

 

[Rannon]

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

Nice to know, but the derivation of the word is pretty much as irrelevant as knowing the definition of a Swedish word.

The fact still remains that claiming a fetus is a parasite, in any sense other than purely biological, is an attempt at evoking a negative reaction towards the fetus and thereby encourage people to allow them to be killed via their emotions rather than rational discourse. Which is a logical fallacy.

How is it irrelevant?
I just let you know from where I'm coming.
As I for the moment don't own a English dictionary I'll leave it to you to write down what it says.

Please tell me who to logically decide to go through all the negative parts of a pregnancy and then give away you offspring?
Considering that they'll live there knowing that they for some reason wasn't wanted, and might be adopted by people like Josef Fritzl.
Tell me, how can you decide to keep it?

Also, I've extended my last post a bit.

 

[Maze1125]

How is it irrelevant?

Because words often change meaning from their original derivation.

As I for the moment don't own a English dictionary I'll leave it to you to write down what it says.

As I've explained already, dictionaries are very bad at given precise definitions of scientific terms.

Please tell me who to logically decide to go through all the negative parts of a pregnancy and then give away you offspring?

That's not the discussion here, the discussion here is whether or not abortion should be allowed at all, not whether or not a particular person should get an abortion.

Yes, the personal choice will be based on emotion, but the legal status should very much be base on rational arguments.

Considering that they'll live there knowing that they for some reason wasn't wanted, and might be adopted by people like Josef Fritzl.

As someone who was adopted, I find that extremely offensive.
I don't care that my biological mother gave me away, what I do care about is that I know that the people who adopted me did want me.

You have absolutely no justification for implying that adopted children will have negative psychological effects from it, nor for implying the great people who wish to adopt children are a high risk for abusing those children.

 

[SilverApple]

Which list are you using as a reference here?

The old KS3 'Mrs Gren':

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'.

A few points...

Movement- yes, a fetus moves.

Respiration- Respiration and metabolism are different things, actually. Metabolism is simply defined as the sum of all the chemical reactions that take place within an organism's cells. Respiration is a process (of chemical reactions) within cells. So, metabolism includes respiration. Metabolism does not equal respiration. Respiration is occurring within most of the fetus's cells. If it wasn't, it would be dead.

Sensitivity- Yes, it has the capacity to detect changes. At the beginning, as a zygote, the apparatus may be minimal, akin to that of an amoeba [http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/amoeba.html]. By the end of gestation, barring disability, the fetus will have all senses. It will also have been using them prior to birth [http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/fetalsense.html]

Growth- Fetuses grow. Compare the arm length of a 27 week fetus to that of a 35 week fetus if you don't believe me.

Reproduction- This means that it is a member of a species that can reproduce. It is not necessary that the individual be able to reproduce itself. Otherwise children and infertile adults wouldn't satisfy this criterion. A fetus is manifestly evidence that its species can reproduce.

Excretion- human fetuses produce two forms of waste: urine, and carbon dioxide.

Nutrition- yes, a fetus takes in and uses food. The food is supplied directly into its bloodstream via the placenta and umbilical cord.

 

[Rannon]

Please tell me who to logically decide to go through all the negative parts of a pregnancy and then give away you offspring?

That's not the discussion here, the discussion here is whether or not abortion should be allowed at all, not whether or not a particular person should get an abortion.

You're the one who called me up on a logical fallacy of mine, then I appreciate if you could explain instead of waving it aside as off topic.
Also I think that I was pretty general about the "person".

Yes, the personal choice will be based on emotion, but the legal status should very much be base on rational arguments.

I agree with you, it should be based on rational arguments.

*Depending of where you live it'll probably be at least one law against forbidding abort, for example the UN would probably "attack the ban on abortion", and if you live in USA http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_right_to_have_an_abortion.
*A ban would take away the woman's right to decide over her own body.

Considering that they'll live there knowing that they for some reason wasn't wanted, and might be adopted by people like Josef Fritzl.

As someone who was adopted, I find that extremely offensive.
I don't care that my biological mother gave me away, what I do care about is that I know that the people who adopted me did want me.

Firstly, that was a reason for abortion, speaking about what might happen not what is going to happen.
Secondly, it wasn't against adoption, even if it might have sounded like that.
Thirdly, I know that not wanting to have the baby is the only reason for adopting away ones children, sometime it's for the child's benefit.
Well, it's good that you know what's important for you, i.e. your parents (no, I don't really count the biological mother as a parent).

You have absolutely no justification for implying that adopted children will have negative psychological effects from it, nor for implying the great people who wish to adopt children are a high risk for abusing those children.

Neither have I human rights and I still use them in conversations, there are no rights whatsoever.
"Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away" - George Carlin [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E&feature=related]

Anyway, back to topic.
I did imply that adopted children will "have negative psychological effects from it" nor did I imply that adopters are "high risk for abusing those children".
Most adopted children are probably normal and most people who adopts are probably like you say, I have indeed no right to say that they're not, and neither have I.

What I did however was to point out that there are the possibilities of a child having bad foster parents and have been negatively affected by this.

One example is my fathers cousin who was adopted, he was mistreated and sexually assaulted by his foster parents, more than one of them, I don't know, he moved a lot I've understood.
That's pretty much all I know about him, that and that he fucked up himself with drugs.
Also http://gomestic.com/family/parents-reject-innocent-adopted-baby/

Adoption according to me is something good, but how much will it help society in the long run if it'll be ten children per adopting parent(s), and if homosexual adoption is prohibited as it is in some countries, perhaps a bigger gap.

Also about On the average, 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result, either directly or indirectly, of hunger [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation#Hunger_mortality_statistics] wouldn't these already living children need adoption parents more then the foetus?
What we need is something that will work together. Abortion is one of those things, of course last option but should still be an option.

Sorry if this is mixed up, I've re-written this text a couple of times
Edit, hope it looks better know

 

[Rannon]

*unimportant double post*

 

[Maze1125]

You're the one who called me up on a logical fallacy of mine, then I appreciate if you could explain instead of waving it aside as off topic.

Parasite, unless used in the purely biological sense, is an emotive word.

Using emotive words in rational arguments is a logical fallacy.

It is wrong for pro-lifers to call foetuses "babies" and it is wrong for pro-choicers to call foetuses "parasites".

 

[Tdc2182]

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.

A full grown man who spends this much of his time arguing on the internet just to generate an angry response doesn't exactly scream "Good Parenting" to me.

 

[gamer_parent]

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.

A full grown man who spends this much of his time arguing on the internet just to generate an angry response doesn't exactly scream "Good Parenting" to me.

Which is why I apologized for the behavior, it being rather immature of me. It's easy to rattle off flippant responses on the internet.

Anyway, this has gone off topic and has quite frankly started to become personal. So this will be my last response. If you really want to keep questioning my abilities as parent, that's your right but is quite frankly none of your business.

 

[RMcD94]

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.

1. We are animals.
2. Non-human animals don't have the methods to kill animals pre-birth, so they kill them once they're born. If you want an example of this see: male lions taking over a pride.

Give it up for adoption? Why should you put a being through nine months of being drained both emotionally and physically by something she doesn't want.

Masturbating is a waste of life. Not having sex with every single girl every single time possible is a waste of life.

Also, what about rape?

 

[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.

There's a very simply way to determine consciousness. Measure alpha waves. When a foetus begins to develop its mind and has its first independent thoughts, It begins to dream. This is easily measured by monitoring alpha waves. Simple.

But you are rite. There is a cut and dry, simple method of judging on abortion. As far as I'm concerned that's birth. Until its born the mothers life takes first priority. I argue that when a foetus begins to dream that is when it becomes human. But it still is not as important as the mother until the moment it takes its first breath. 1 sperm cell attached to an ovum is not a human. By your boundaries having a wank is committing mass genocide and a period is a double homicide.

No, There must be fertilization for the egg and sperm to be considered human.
I do not disagree that the mother's life should take priority, but birth, really? Would you say it is all right to abort a baby at 9 months?
The only instance where I can see justification in abortion is when the mother's life is at risk, otherwise the person is just not willing to live up to the consequences of their actions (rape victims aside) pregnancy is really only going to have a minor effect on a persons whole life, basically 4-6 months of discomfort are the only things avoided by an abortion. The mother can always give the baby up for adoption.
Answer this question, when did you start?

 

[Rannon]

You're the one who called me up on a logical fallacy of mine, then I appreciate if you could explain instead of waving it aside as off topic.

Parasite, unless used in the purely biological sense, is an emotive word.

Using emotive words in rational arguments is a logical fallacy.

It is wrong for pro-lifers to call foetuses "babies" and it is wrong for pro-choicers to call foetuses "parasites".

Then I'd like another word for something that's in the case of an probably unwanted, possible hurtful(as in medical reason) and most certainly painful to the woman, I think I've covered most of the bases on why someone would want an abortion.

But really, isn't Embryo a better term, if we want to be more rational, as it seems like this is when most of them are aborted [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo#Induced_abortion].

I will do my most not to call the foetuses nor the embryos for parasites.

Whoever a good point for not banning abortion, in my opinion, is this:
Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring safely and 20 million unsafely.[3] While maternal mortality seldom results from safe abortions, unsafe abortions result in 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities per year. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion]
[3] = Shah I, Ahman E (December 2009). "Unsafe abortion: global and regional incidence, trends, consequences, and challenges". J Obstet Gynaecol Can 31 (12): 1149?58. PMID 20085681.

 

[hyrulegaybar]

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.

No, that's not how the statistics work.

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.

If you talk to any public health worker, you will find that women get abortions far more frequently than you'd imagine. I fucked up the statistics, true. But condoms are not 99% effective. The effective rate is around 97%. Even with the pill and condoms, it is possible. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as perfect birth control. Some women are simply so fertile that they can get pregnant.

 

[hyrulegaybar]

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.

Animals are at least so kind as to wait for the child to be born before it starves to death or is eaten by the mother for sustenance. We're at least barbaric enough to chemically induce a miscarriage before it even develops into anything resembling something human.

If your argument hinges on how someone else would like it, it is fairly weak. The fact of the matter is that people don't use birth control, its utilization is weak (please see abstinence-only education for a great example) and even with birth control you can still get pregnant. You must be a guy, because only a man would think it's no big deal to be pregnant for nine months. You do realize there's a reason why abortions exist, right? Not only is it prohibitively expensive to be pregnant, it's painful, difficult, and potentially fatal.

I agree with you. Ideally, abortions should not be necessary. But I also think jails shouldn't exist because no one should commit crimes either. Doesn't mean they're not gonna. So let's just allow it as a necessary thing, at the very least, that is needed.

 

[imaloony]

1. We are animals.
2. Non-human animals don't have the methods to kill animals pre-birth, so they kill them once they're born. If you want an example of this see: male lions taking over a pride.

Give it up for adoption? Why should you put a being through nine months of being drained both emotionally and physically by something she doesn't want.

Masturbating is a waste of life. Not having sex with every single girl every single time possible is a waste of life.

Also, what about rape?

1. Technically, yes, but that's besides the point. I mean we're not uncivilized wild animals. Except for Twilight fans.
2. Animals often eat their young for food. Hell, if it wasn't for the suppressants the body gives a mother shark, she'd eat her baby the second they come out. Otherwise, they'd rather leave their young, which is better than killing them, but often, they don't. Because they realize something we as humans apparently can't understand: Life is precious.

Yeah, give it up for adoption. I'm sure the 9 months of child labor is about the same as going into an operation to have the baby killed and ripped out of your womb, whereupon you realize you just killed your child and have to live with that for the rest of your life. Besides, there are plenty of infertile mothers out there who would give their right arm for a baby, so throw them a bone.

Obviously if every girl on the planet got pregnant every time they could, the planet would become even more over crowded than it already is. Once the baby is growing, it becomes a waste of life because at that point, it becomes a being with a heart, lungs, a brain, and the qualities of a human. Babies are technically alive while in the womb. Yeah, you can argue that without the mother it wouldn't be alive, and it's not technically a human until it leaves the room, but that's besides the point. Once the egg is fertilized, it's a human. Killing it is like shooting the baby right out of the womb.

Oh fuck, the rape question again.
Adoption. "Oh, but she doesn't want to live with that reminder of what happened!" Her memories are a reminder of what happened, not the baby. Don't blame the baby, it didn't rape you. Give it to a family that does want it.

 

[RMcD94]

1. Technically, yes, but that's besides the point. I mean we're not uncivilized wild animals. Except for Twilight fans.
2. Animals often eat their young for food. Hell, if it wasn't for the suppressants the body gives a mother shark, she'd eat her baby the second they come out. Otherwise, they'd rather leave their young, which is better than killing them, but often, they don't. Because they realize something we as humans apparently can't understand: Life is precious.

1. I'll give you that. Twilight fans are terrible.
2. More like, life that has their own genes in it are precious. I'd like to point to birds who ignore weaker children in a litter for the stronger ones. The same goes for most animals with larger litters that parents. The runts rarely survive. And first you say we aren't civilized so we can't be compared, and next compare us to them, can't do that. Also, I bet if you offered an animal who could understand that you could remove the thing that's taking up all their energy, then they would accept.

you just killed your child and have to live with that for the rest of your life.

You'd have to live with it, other people would not think that way. That's why abortion should be an option, not forcing beliefs on other people.

Oh fuck, the rape question again.
Adoption. "Oh, but she doesn't want to live with that reminder of what happened!" Her memories are a reminder of what happened, not the baby. Don't blame the baby, it didn't rape you. Give it to a family that does want it.

Good, at least you are consistent.

Besides, there are plenty of infertile mothers out there who would give their right arm for a baby, so throw them a bone.

So it'd be okay to kill them if there weren't infertile people-who-want-to-be-mothers

Obviously if every girl on the planet got pregnant every time they could, the planet would become even more over crowded than it already is
Obviously if every girl on the planet got pregnant every time they could, the planet would become even more over crowded than it already is

It's not crowded... We're just using the space badly. The planet could handle much more than the current human population.

. Once the baby is growing, it becomes a waste of life because at that point, it becomes a being with a heart, lungs, a brain, and the qualities of a human.

No it doesn't. It doesn't develop them for a long time.

Babies are technically alive while in the womb.

There are no babies in the womb. There are foetuses. Anyway, they are no more alive or less alive than any other cells in your body.

Yeah, give it up for adoption. I'm sure the 9 months of child labor is about the same as going into an operation to have the baby killed and ripped out of your womb,

I highly doubt it, but I'd like you to try living with something sucking your life out of you for 9 months, and then forcing it's way out of your body.

Yeah, you can argue that without the mother it wouldn't be alive, and it's not technically a human until it leaves the room, but that's besides the point. Once the egg is fertilized, it's a human. Killing it is like shooting the baby right out of the womb.

Why once it's fertilised? Why is cancer not human? Why is sperm not human? Why is an egg not human? Killing it is nothing like shooting the baby right out of the womb.

I think that's me.

 

[alinos]

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

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'.

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.

Okay this is my last post on the topic because frankly i cant be bothered but one thing i realised about one of my earlier statements

Your logic is that the baby cant be aborted because the father may suffer emotional trauma from thinking he may be a dad and then having that taken away from him

But , if a woman fell pregnant with another mans child (by accident or whateva the reason) and never informed the man then surely she should be able to have an abortion without the mans permition

because in this case its not actually going to cause him emotional trauma and she doesnt really want it so in a way its win-win because the mother doesnt go through pregnancy and the father is blissful in ignorance

 

[Rannon]

Funny thing is that my little brother ones argued that both parties should be able to decide on the abortion e.g. no one had a veto not even the woman, just to spare the man from becoming a father against his will.