Poll: Is abortion murder?

[Omnific One]

3rd trimester abortion is murder; otherwise, nope.

Edit: Though I'd say it should be reserved mainly for rape or danger to the mother for the second trimester, and third trimester abortion should be reserved for a situation that would present an imminent threat of death to the mother.

 

[RMcD94]

There are a few exceptions, rape or if the birth threatens the life of the mother I can understand.

Using your argument, explain why these are morally acceptable exceptions?

 

[BGH122]

Why exactly do you all feel so strongly for a womans right to abort a fetus anyway? What gives anyone that right? A woman has a right to choose weather or not she has a baby, but I say she made that choice when she had sex. Even with birth control you are still risking pregnancy, even if by less than 1% chance. Why have sex if you can't accept the consequences of your actions? Thats what the pro abortion stance is. Its just enabling bad judgement. After all why should you have to deal with the consequences of your decisions right?

Woah! This isn't about 'wimmin's rights', I don't think (bar rape) any woman should have the right to abort a foetus unless the father signs off on it too (and whoever refuses to sign off on the abortion has the duty to raise the child). This is about what it means to be alive. So far you've provided no more of an argument than "it's alive because that's my opinion" and that's just invalid. Saying "that's my opinion" is less than worthless in a debate since the purpose of a debate is to ascertain an agreed-upon truth which two originally disagreeing parties can agree upon.

So you judge human life as sacred at any stage? What about a murderer? Or a genocidal maniac? What's qualitatively different about these people that allows them to be killed and dodge the 'human life at any stage of development should be protected' rule? Try and be precise, moral laws always ought to be precise so that they can be accurately enforced.

 

[Eldarion]

There are a few exceptions, rape or if the birth threatens the life of the mother I can understand.

Using your argument, explain why these are morally acceptable exceptions?

In the case of the mothers life being threatened, I just feel the life of a person is worth more than a potential person. That does not mean its acceptable if the mother life isn't in danger.

Rape causes permanent psychological harm, probably even more harm if the mother has to deliver the baby. Again its the mothers health over the babys.

Under any other circumstance, why should a mother be allowed to decide the fate of a potential person when it poses no threat to her?

 

[Gigano]

No. Nothing which possess any personality or selfawareness (at least beyond a pig) is lost.

As Singer so rightly said: Digging up an acorn is not the same as felling an oak.

 

[RMcD94]

For those who claim late abortion is illegal, but early abortion is. Please, please, please, give me an exact time (talking down to the planck [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units]), where on one side of that time it's okay to murder, and on the other side it isn't.

Please point that out to me.

 

[L1gh7Sp33d]

Where is the exact point at which it is not okay to abort anymore?

I personally find it is kinda strange to accept a position in which "it is okay to abort as long as the fetus has not developed past such and such phase."

Edit: Well what do you know someone stated that same thing as me

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

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.

Its not murder.

98% of fetus's are aborted well before 20 weeks, and most before 10. Its not until 24 weeks that brain function has a probability of existing (some start slightly later or earlier but not by much).

Before that its no different than killing a tumor. Its just cellular growth. If you play the "what it is going to be" card, then masturbation is mass genocide.

Science. Listen well children. It works bitches.

Bravo!!! you hit the nail on the head!

OT: If you havent worked out, i dont believe that abortion is murder, besides, in most cases the mother is either extreemly poor, and thus bringing a child up in this environment may lead to the death of more than just the baby (her having to work long hours for money, not enough money for food after rent and electricity/water)

 

[alinos]

Nope its not murder

for at least the first 6 months my only logic really for a 6 month period is because surely you know your pregnant you shoulda made your mind up by now(if it causes difficultys do whats best for the alive concious one instead of taking 1 life and a something with you)

up until that 6 months its rare a baby can be born before that so it is completly dependant on the mother being alive to function which in my mind says its exsistance is by proxy

I also think anyone who sits outside a clinic and yells and harasses people for doing it is sick

people dont always have a pregnancy of there own will (and im not saying they forgot there condom) and to harrass them for this is pure and simple wrong and can drive them to inflict harm on them selves because of it


abortion is a choice and to ban it actually causes more issues in my mind

i mean you could end up sentencing a baby to years of abuse and miscare because you wouldnt let an alcoholic get rid of it(child services doesnt always work and dont kid yourself into thinking it does ) in some cases it may actually be more humane to take care of it than force it on someone

 

[Felated Show Pony]

Why exactly do you all feel so strongly for a womans right to abort a fetus anyway? What gives anyone that right? A woman has a right to choose weather or not she has a baby, but I say she made that choice when she had sex. Even with birth control you are still risking pregnancy, even if by less than 1% chance. Why have sex if you can't accept the consequences of your actions? Thats what the pro abortion stance is. Its just enabling bad judgement. After all why should you have to deal with the consequences of your decisions right?

abortion should be legal at any point. any time a person is forced to support another life at the expense of their own is highly ethically questionable. much more so than the destruction of a potential or actual life that cannot support itself.

 

[Costaine]

There are a few exceptions, rape or if the birth threatens the life of the mother I can understand.

You mentioned aborting a life is murder because you are killing a human. Are you saying now though that if you're the product of rape you're somewhat less worthy of life? I'm strongly pro-choice but this argument contradicts your stance that the mother doesn't have the right to infringe on the child's right; whether the product of a horrible situation or not.

But if you are gonna have sex you need to accept the very real possibility that you are gonna have a baby on your hands. Aborting a potential life because of the mothers poor judgement isn't something I can get behind.

Potential life in my honest opinion is a rather absurd idea. Are you saying that if the guy pulls out just before conception that its not wrong but terminating the pregnancy shortly thereafter is? Because at both points the potential life lack consciousness, the ability to feel pain and the ability to feel pleasure. The only difference between the two is that one has become a physical reality and the other has not. In reality though the outcome of it never being conceived and its being aborted (before the three aforementioned qualities develop) are exactly the same.

In addition following your moral philosophy to the logical end may result in some interesting views on pro creation. As you value potential life so much does that not mean that we should fulfill as many potential lives as possible?

 

[ShadowKatt]

Until it becomes sentient I don't class it as a human. It is most definetely not murder in my opinion.

I've heard several people throw around the term sentience, and I'm not picking on you, just using you as an example. But we don't have a clear cut definition for sentience. As of yet it is a purely philosophical entity, open to interpretation of the person at the moment. You can't base an arguement on an ever changing basis of evalutation.

I would classify sentience as complex reasoning beyond the subconsious need to survive. I.E. thought processes. When the growth begins to dream I would clasify it as sentient. For the sake of argument lets just call it a consciousness. Being aware of your own existence.

Exactly, YOU would classify sentience as such. According to the almightly Wikipedia(Isn't it odd how much we refer to this? Most of my college professors would fail us if we cited wikis),

In the philosophy of consciousness, "sentience" can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or "qualia". This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are "about" something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining 'consciousness', which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.

Now, since most newborns don't have a nervous system capable of processing a great deal of sensory input(In fact that's why people don't have memorys that far back, the brain is still developing and does not have the synaptic capability of retaining memorys), a newborn would be unable to process these "Qualia" and thus fail the test of sentience.

I'll say it again, you cannot base an arguement on a shifting basis of evaluation, because someone will always have a different set of rules to judge by. Like opinions, you cannot argue with one, because they cannot prove or disprove anything.

 

[soapyshooter]

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? And the heart starts beating by week 5?

If it was taken out of the mother it would die. So technically it isn't human or anything viable for that matter. It is not murder. Once the baby can survive outside of the mother it becomes illegal to abort or kill because that point it does become murder.

I assume you are pro-murdering people who are in comas then? Since they are not independent and require other people to survive. Actually, pro killing anyone who couldn't survive independently?

If thats you assumption I guess it must be true, you are the hero after all, making me look like a villain for presenting a thoughtful argument with facts.

 

[MajorKris]

Like many before me have said, unless a certain trimester is reached, it is not considered murder. No one can remember when they were born, so if a fetus was to get aborted it would simply never know. Is that cruel to the fetus? I don't necessarily think so. All life is precious true, but if the technology already exists to have a safe and proper procedure for the mother to get an abortion then why stop her? It is her choice and she must live with the consequences.

I think people need to realize that this isn't something women do to brag about. They have their own reasons for doing this, and I don't believe we have the right to tell a person not to.

(But then again, I'm getting off topic and turning this into whether it should be legal or not.) I think I've made my point. Excuse me.

 

[ctalons]

No matter what it is be it cell, plant, animal, person...killing is murder.

 

[DarkRyter]

I don't really know, and I don't really care.

If it isn't, then boom. What is there to worry about?

If it is, so? People die all the time. Don't really see what the big deal is killing off a few "pre-people".

 

[RMcD94]

There are a few exceptions, rape or if the birth threatens the life of the mother I can understand.

Using your argument, explain why these are morally acceptable exceptions?

In the case of the mothers life being threatened, I just feel the life of a person is worth more than a potential person. That does not mean its acceptable if the mother life isn't in danger.

Suddenly it's potential life? I thought it was alive! Dear me, suddenly arguments are changing.

Rape causes permanent psychological harm, probably even more harm if the mother has to deliver the baby. Again its the mothers health over the babys.

Under any other circumstance, why should a mother be allowed to decide the fate of a potential person when it poses no threat to her?

So, harm to one person is more important than another person? No?

So if the mother becomes retarded, say, during pregnancy, it's now okay to abort? Even though the adoption option is still there?

 

[Felated Show Pony]

the real question is, would you ban the killing of your food, or grass, or a cell? is their life of enough worth to justify the protection of others against those same persons' best interests? clearly, when dealing with a fetus or preborn child, no.