Poll: Is abortion murder?

[kingpocky]

She knew the risk when she had sex. If she didn't want to risk having a child then she shouldn't have had sex. She doesn't have the right to put a man through the emotional trauma of losing his child just because it'd be physically burdensome.

She didn't sign a contract to have the baby; she has no obligation. If it's emotionally traumatic for him, then HE should have thought about that before he had sex.

 

[BGH122]

I think maby I respect life to much at a philosophical level at not a logical one and its scewing my argument.

Hey! I took a Philosophy A-Level! Philosophy is logic! I hate it when people say, as a get out clause for making a statement they don't want to back up, it's their philosophy.

But nonetheless, I respect your right to end the debate. It was fun debating with you, thanks for responding to me!

She knew the risk when she had sex. If she didn't want to risk having a child then she shouldn't have had sex. She doesn't have the right to put a man through the emotional trauma of losing his child just because it'd be physically burdensome.

She didn't sign a contract to have the baby; she has no obligation. If it's emotionally traumatic for him, then HE should have thought about that before he had sex.

This argument doesn't work, this is like saying she knew something she didn't want to occur could occur and so did he therefore it's his problem. You're just forcing men to play the chivalry role which is ludicrously outdated.

They both partook in sex knowing that a child could occur as a result, that was their joint action, so we can assume she gives her consent to a child because otherwise she shouldn't partake in actions which could cause one. This means that when she demands an abortion she's reneging upon their earlier implicit agreement that a child is an acceptable consequence of sex. This makes her the transgressor, the man is simply sticking with their earlier implicit agreement in demanding that she birth the child. She's changing the moral rules ad hoc to suit her, that's immoral.

 

[Margrave Rinstock]

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.

There should be a "no, but am still not in favor option".

I understand wanting an abortion if your child will be severely mentally handicapped. Rape victims, I also understand, but I say we should place Lives, no matter how small they may be, over the Pride and Comfort of people who got themselves into the situation on their own.

Define a life.

In this case, something with capacity or potential for a reasonable degree of thought, emotion, and moral reasoning.

And in case you were wondering, I also apply this reasoning to many animals, and therefore I am a vegetarian.

To many animals, but not all? And what (non-human) animal has moral reasoning? I'm pretty sure that definition would allow you to consider the majority of the animal kingdom as not living.

Anyway;

Sperm, if they meet an egg have potential for that.

Eggs, if they meet sperm have potential for that.

Fertilised eggs, if they are kept warm have potential for that.

Warm fertilised eggs, if they are given minerals have potential for that.

Mineralised warm fertilised eggs, if they are kept safe (from viruses, etc) have the potential for that.

Safe mineralised warm fertilised eggs, do have the potential for life.

See where I went with that?

Killing sperm is murder.

Fair point, I should rephrase my previous statement: "In this case, something with capacity or developing the capacity for a reasonable degree of thought, emotion, and moral reasoning."

And note, I did not say it was Murder-I would say that the killing of a reasonably developed human is more a crime then killing something in the process of growing it's tenth brain cell (unless the former was a Rapist or something)-but still not the best option.

As for animals, your right, a cow might only fit well into two of the categories, but I consider that sufficient not to kill them for my comfort.

 

[RMcD94]

No.

And I'm not getting into a religious/scientific debate over it on a gaming forum.

What has this got to do with religion in any way, shape or form?

This is a moral, legal, and scientific debate.

Well i just did. A life is a life

But how is that any more alive than a sperm or an egg?

And note, I did not say it was Murder-I would say that the killing of a reasonably developed human is more a crime then killing something in the process of growing it's tenth brain cell (unless the former was a Rapist or something)-but still not the best option.

When does it become murder?

11th brain cell?

 

[Eldarion]

Saying "It need enough nervous system to feel pain" is just as valid as saying "it needs toes to be alive"

Hilarious. Do you really think that?

I'm afraid so. I am not ok with he idea of any set of qualifications set by anyone for what life is. I can't look at life as something that needs X nerve cells or X level of development. that said I can't progress my argument on logical ground, I'm done. I feel to strongly about this to debate it any further.

You've been great, but I can't discuss this any further I don't think.

 

[Costaine]

Saying "It need enough nervous system to feel pain" is just as valid as saying "it needs toes to be alive"

Hilarious. Do you really think that?

I'm afraid so. I am not ok with he idea of any set of qualifications set by anyone for what life is. I can't look at life as something that needs X nerve cells or X level of development. that said I can't progress my argument on logical ground, I'm done. I feel to strongly about this to debate it any further.

You've been great, but I can't discuss this any further I don't think.

I hope to god your a pacifist vegan.

 

[joshuaayt]

Too vague.
I mean, it counts as abortion right near the beginning, when the subject really is "just a bunch of cells", right up until it becomes an infant.
We need to draw a line, I guess- some point in the development of the brain, during which thought clicks. Cannot we scan baby brains?
THEN we can start the debate.

 

[Snownine]

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.

Fish do not posses conscious thought. Fish are alive.

Show fish do not possess conscious thought, they have memory so that surely entails consciousness?

No.

And I'm not getting into a religious/scientific debate over it on a gaming forum.

Then why even bother commenting?

No, memory is not a conscious act. In animals like human beings it can be influenced consciously and controlled. A Fish is essentially an instinct driven biological machine. Human fetuses are on not on any higher a level in this regard however.

This is obviously a topic that people feel very strongly about and since I do not get any pleasure debating it (I come here because I enjoy it so I am not going to come on and do something that I do not enjoy). That does not mean there is no merit in debating it, just not for me. So I am just going to end my comments here on that.

 

[RMcD94]

I would like to see how many people in this thread have actually had an abortion (you or your girl) and see what they think. The rest of them can just go away, if you haven't had it affect your life yet, then why try to argue?

The only people who should choose laws are the people who it has affected yet?

So only the people who have murdered or have been murdered, or have a partner murderd get to choose whether it's legal or not.

You crazy.

 

[Aur0ra145]

No.

And I'm not getting into a religious/scientific debate over it on a gaming forum.

What has this got to do with religion in any way, shape or form?

This is a moral, legal, and scientific debate.

Well i just did. A life is a life

But how is that any more alive than a sperm or an egg?

Isn't religion a basis for moral ideals, so yes I think it should be included in this discussion. If you aren't a religious person, you still have to deal with them in a day to day basis, so you should listen to what they think and why they believe what they say.

You don't by any means have to agree with them or even like their opinions, but you need to keep a broad view of perspective on the different subjects you wish to interject your opinions on.

 

[Danpascooch]

It is not self aware, so it is not murder.

It is that simple.

 

[BGH122]

No, memory is not a conscious act. In animals like human beings it can be influenced consciously and controlled. A Fish is essentially an instinct driven biological machine. Human fetuses are on not on any higher a level in this regard however.

This is obviously a topic that people feel very strongly about and since I do not get any pleasure debating it (I come here because I enjoy it so I am not going to come on and do something that I do not enjoy). That does not mean there is no merit in debating it, just not for me. So I am just going to end my comments here on that.

Well I've never claimed fish have a right to life. Rather, what I should have said, is that reasoning or vestigial humanity with the ability to survive outside the mother is the delineator of a right to life.

I respect that you no longer wish to debate, farewell!

 

[SirDerick]

Hell, lets go even further back on the life chain. Wearing a condom is murder.

 

[kingpocky]

She knew the risk when she had sex. If she didn't want to risk having a child then she shouldn't have had sex. She doesn't have the right to put a man through the emotional trauma of losing his child just because it'd be physically burdensome.

She didn't sign a contract to have the baby; she has no obligation. If it's emotionally traumatic for him, then HE should have thought about that before he had sex.

This argument doesn't work, this is like saying she knew something she didn't want to occur could occur and so did he therefore it's his problem. You're just forcing men to play the chivalry role which is ludicrously outdated.

They both partook in sex knowing that a child could occur as a result, that was their joint action, so we can assume she gives her consent to a child because otherwise she shouldn't partake in actions which could cause one. This means that we she desires an abortion she's reneging upon their earlier implicit agreement that a child is an acceptable consequence of sex. This makes her the transgressor, the man is simply sticking with their earlier implicit agreement in demanding that she birth the child. She's changing the moral rules ad hoc to suit her, that's immoral.

You're making up moral rules ad hoc either way. You could just as easily say that we can assume he gives her consent to have an abortion by not getting her to explicitly agree not to have one.

 

[Danpascooch]

No.

And I'm not getting into a religious/scientific debate over it on a gaming forum.

What has this got to do with religion in any way, shape or form?

This is a moral, legal, and scientific debate.

Well i just did. A life is a life

But how is that any more alive than a sperm or an egg?

And note, I did not say it was Murder-I would say that the killing of a reasonably developed human is more a crime then killing something in the process of growing it's tenth brain cell (unless the former was a Rapist or something)-but still not the best option.

When does it become murder?

11th brain cell?

It's not any more alive than a sperm or egg, which makes claiming it is murder idiotic, it is not self aware, so it is not murder.

It's all about "where to draw the line" but you know what's convenient? Nature gave us a hugely import and conspicuous event in which to draw that line

birth.


Whether you think it's wrong or not is a personal matter, but murder it is not.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

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.

Abortion is just disbanding a bunch of cells. Technically eating eggs is arguably the same thing. Hell, If you consider it even masturbation is far worse of a crime then abortion anyway. Basically, you end up letting a bunch or tiny organisms die - at least in the hundreds - just so you can get a few joys out. And those said organisms die by being scorched to death.

Hopefully no one will pull that 'but they're not humans' argument because for that I have a response constructed ahead of time which goes like this; Fetus's aren't humans either. They're 'almost' humans. I support abortion for three reasons. Spite, population and rights. Constantly I'm reminded of all the things we do to animals just for the sake of controlling their population - which is far less then ours. I don't feel too much guilt in seeing a few less kids and I certainly don't feel guilt in knowing that the kid didn't have to live a horrible life just because his mother wasn' t ready. Our population is too damn much and we certainly have to take measures to control it. It's not like these methods are compulsory, they are by choice and they are pretty tame.

In Arguments supporting abortion I always hear it's inhumane and cruel. To those arguments I call BS. We are the same species that beat seals over the heads with clubs, sterilize Wolves and shoot their cubs - so I ask why is disbanding a few incomplete cells such a horrible crime? Yeah, 'killing babies' sounds horrible but in a lot of cases it's either they're released from torment before they can feel it or they're thrown into a life that I don't want to even begin speaking about.

My final argument is choice. The female doesn't just say to her self, 'You know what Jeffrey? I want to go get an abortion right now.' Abortion is a serious choice and they probably lose sleep while they constantly think about this choice. They walk through the streets and they know what people will think of them, how people will judge them. To them she is nothing more but a careless slut.

But I ask you this; do these people really know what she went through? Maybe she was raped. What do we do then?

All the time when I ask this to someone that's against abortion they reply 'Well, maybe we should allow it in some cases . . . ' But sadly you can't do that. It's either we got abortion or we don't. Yes, people will be irresponsible and it's sad that the one of the victims will be an unborn child. But these people above everyone else know whether they're prepared to have a child or not and it turns out they're not.

The girls that have abortions aren't demons, they're people and it happens people make mistakes and we shouldn't judge whether or not they're horrible people due to these mistakes.

It's funny. When an abortion happens I usually hear of what an awful slut the girl is instead of hearing what a horrible douche bag the man who fucked her is. The man who probably said he loved her just so he can manipulate her and ran off when she needed him.

Oh well. This is one heck of a serious topic and I enjoyed replying to it. To lighten up the mood a bit here's one of the most cheerful songs I ever listened to -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C17yfGyJjM

 

[Aur0ra145]

I would like to see how many people in this thread have actually had an abortion (you or your girl) and see what they think. The rest of them can just go away, if you haven't had it affect your life yet, then why try to argue?

The only people who should choose laws are the people who it has affected yet?

So only the people who have murdered or have been murdered, or have a partner murderd get to choose whether it's legal or not.

You crazy.

Yep, I'm a man, and I believe all the women in their perspective countries should get to gather and decide, what THEY WANT THE LAW TO BE. Us men shouldn't have any say in the matter.

The emotional and psychological effects of an abortion are way more outstanding than anything us guys can relate to.

 

[LadyRhian]

Mmm... I'd have to say, no. I also want to point out that if abortion is murder, then God is the worst murderer there is. Because hundreds of thousands of fetuses spontaneously abort every year (i.e. Act of God). And if abortion is wrong, why does it suddenly become okay when God does it?

I've had enough experience with Abortion, in friends and family, that I have some pretty strong views on it. From my first cousin who was told over and over as a child that if abortions had been available when her mother was pregnant with her, her mother would have had one- which mentally and emotionally damaged her. To a friend who was pregnant and wanted the baby but couldn't have it because of severe medical problems. When she went to the abortion clinic to have the abortion, it was being picketed by protesters who screamed "Baby Killer!" and worse at her, causing her to have a nervous breakdown.

My opinion now is- it's up to the woman who will have to carry that baby around for nine months to say what happens. Until the day that a man can have the baby sucked out of the woman and implanted in him, and he carry it for nine months, go through the body changes and then give birth- it's not his place to say. It is nobody's place to say but the woman who is carrying it. It's not anyone else's body but hers. You can have an opinion, but you do not have a choice. It's her choice.

 

[RMcD94]

Too vague.
I mean, it counts as abortion right near the beginning, when the subject really is "just a bunch of cells", right up until it becomes an infant.
We need to draw a line, I guess- some point in the development of the brain, during which thought clicks. Cannot we scan baby brains?
THEN we can start the debate.

I agree. The only line that can be drawn is no abortion, or until the umbilical cord is cut.

My logic is as follows:

If you can show me a point in the development of a fertilised egg, where one second prior to it x was false, and one second after x was true, ie, one second before it was legal, after it isn't, then I will happily accept that line.

X being the difference between a non human and a human/abortion and murder.

For me, the difference between abortion and murder is that the umbilical cord is cut, that the organism is independent (the potential of independence means nothing to me).