Poll: Is abortion murder?

[subtlefuge]

Now you're just being annoying.

If you don't tell me what you think the characteristics of life are then this argument is useless. You tell me it has characteristics of life, but then go on to say that they are not constant, and then don't tell me what ones you are using. And then you tell me you won't define something because it's already been defined.]


You are not being helpful at all.

I told you they had some, because you said they had none, and I also said that they are constant.

1.Cells (Check)
2.Organization (Check)
3.Metabolism (No)
4.Adaptability to Environment (Check)
5.Homeostasis (No)
6.Reproduction (No)
7.Growth and Development (Check)
8.Evolution (Check)

There you go, fetus scores 5/8. Debate all you want about whether or not that constitutes life, I'm probably going to bed.

Did not see this. Does 1. include a singular one? I'll assume so. How did it get a check for Evolution? I'm confused at what you ticked. Also adaptability to environment? I thought a foetus had an extremely narrow bandwidth off survival. Needing the right minerals, the right temperature, complete protected all via the mother.

Sperm

1. Check
2. Check
3. No
4. Check
5. No
6. Check
7. No
8. Do not understand.

Anyway, I'm sorry, but I've completely forgotten the argument. You didn't say they were constant. You said they weren't. That f- word that I forget. Filibusty or something.

I said that it was not fungible, hence it could not be substituted or replaced. Therefore it is constant.

Aside: Filibusty sounds like a nickname for Sarah Palin.

You refer to abortion as if it takes place when the fetus is a single cell, it does not.

The fetus can adapt to the environment, or else it would not survive. It can not however provide for its own regulation or homeostasis.

Evolution depends solely on whether you believe in microevolution or not. That's another argument entirely.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Abortion is the "easy way out" for people who aren't responsible. They make the choice of procreation, then they're going to get the consequence.

This is nonsense, you're forgetting countless of possibilities here; the fetus threatening the mother's life, the fetus not being able to survive for, say, a few weeks after birth in horrible agony or a child that will never develop past the age of 1 and won't even be sentient.

We all know that an embryo is living human tissue, but for a large part of it's life cycle it simply is not an independent organism and thus not an individual human. That so much is established no matter what you believe.

 

[BGH122]

I think a lot of men would disagree with you there.

Then they'd be wrong, unless they could convincingly argue otherwise. I'm not attempting to be representative of men here, I'm 20 and, despite continual offers, I've not had sex. It doesn't interest me. Debating, reading, gaming, philosophy and medicinal science (though your knowledge vis-a-vis the biology of human sex puts mine to shame) interest me. I'm not exactly representative of most men and I'm not attempting to be.

No problem. There are several ways to help men. First, there is a difference between "impotence" defined as an inability to get or keep an erection, and infertility, defined as being unable to conceive. In some cases, there is no help, as when Sperm are dead. But in sperm with low motility, sperm are collected and injected into the womb after the woman have ovulated. There is also the "Test Tube Baby" procedure- where eggs are removed, fertilized outside the womb, and then placed back in. The one about removing the Genetic material from a sperm and inserting some from another male was something I read a few years ago in a science magazine, but the other two are definitely done on a fairly regular basis.

http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/464.html
http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/370.html

Cheers! I'll search the Scientific American online back-issue database for that. I admit, this is an area of biology in which I'm woefully unlearned.

Pleasure. Bonding.

Sure, but so does contraceptive sex. The qualitative difference between contraceptive and unprotected sex is its likelihood to produce a child. Anyone who partakes in the latter knows this and forgoes their right to act surprised and make up their decision vis-a-vis child bearing ad hoc when they conceive. They made it already when they chose to partake in unprotected sex.

Sex is short for "Sexual intercourse", which is certainly not all about procreation. It is still a circular definition, because of how you are defining it. In short, then, if a man doesn't use a condom, he can't complain if the woman turns up pregnant and wants him to contribute to its support despite the fact that he doesn't want kids, because he made that choice, too, when he had sex. I'd actually like to see men take responsibility for their own sex organs, too. But so many men put the onus on the woman to make any and all reproductive choices when it comes to sex. They don't want to wear a condom, but vigorously blame the woman if she gets pregnant.

Okay, what if both parties are using contraception, and it fails? Who is responsible in that case? Since this can happen, too. Does the man owe the woman half the cost of the abortion, since neither wanted the child?

Fine, I used the wrong term, that doesn't make my term circular or else we can go down the route of saying all language is circular. Why does why mean why? Because. We could precisely define the word I mean when I say sex, but it'd significantly increase the length of our sentences, so let's just accept my qualifications on the word 'sex'.

I don't agree that a man should support the child if it's the woman's desire to keep it, because he's declared no interest in it. Frankly, if children could be incubated outside of the mother, the mother's declaration of wanting an abortion should see her out the picture too. Unfortunately she must currently play the role of incubator because we don't have the technology to replace her. If the father wishing for an abortion, who's declared no interest in the child, could play a similar role to the mother in a role reversal kind of way then that'd be fine, perhaps he should help the mother through her pregnancy? Do the stuff that she can't do because of her physical condition? It's only after the birth that the pro-abortion parent's link to the whole affair should be severed.

I'm not arguing in favour of sexists who want to blame women for having a child accidentally, regardless of whose fault it is, please don't cast me into roles for which I haven't argued. If neither person wore contraception they've both accepted to bear the child through to fruition if either parent wishes. If either wore contraception then they've both accepted that the parent will go it alone if they suddenly decide to have the child (this is only applicable to the woman, the man can't have the child since he gave up that right by having sex with a woman on contraception/using his own contraception).

 

[The Hairminator]

Is (male) Ejaculation genocide? You exterminate millions of potential children EVERY TIME!

 

[subtlefuge]

Is (male) Ejaculation genocide? You exterminate millions of potential children EVERY TIME!

That is just dodging the question.

There is a difference between potential children and ones that are in the oven so to speak.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Just a side-note by the way, I always found it sort-of funny how "pro-life" people paint "pro-choice" people as folks who want abortion to happen, as if they almost like it. This is of course nonsense, no one really wants abortion to happen. Pro-choice are probably just as pro-life, it's just that they want the option to be available in case of emergency.

There's plenty of people who want abortion to happen. People who don't like contraception or after sex pills. People who think fertilised eggs are human and alive and like murdering stuff. People who think they can feel pain and are sadists. People who are Abortionists (wow, it's a word). People who like pissing off pro-life people. People who believe the world is over populated and thinks that the condom market is too powerful. People who like being added to list of people for strange things. People who...

Well yes there are psychos everywhere, but your average pro-choicer, like me, wouldn't go all YAAAAY when an abortion happens. You're nitpicking now.

 

[RMcD94]

I said that it was not fungible, hence it could not be substituted or replaced. Therefore it is constant.

Aside: Filibusty sounds like a nickname for Sarah Palin.

You refer to abortion as if it takes place when the fetus is a single cell, it does not.

The fetus can adapt to the environment, or else it would not survive. It can not however provide for its own regulation or homeostasis.

Evolution depends solely on whether you believe in microevolution or not. That's another argument entirely.

I'm sorry. I have lost total track of this argument, as I said last post. I plainly also got the definition mixed up, which led to much misunderstanding.

As it is, I have no idea what I'm trying to argue, or what you're trying to argue and so I submit my defeat.

 

[RMcD94]

Is (male) Ejaculation genocide? You exterminate millions of potential children EVERY TIME!

That is just dodging the question.

There is a difference between potential children and ones that are in the oven so to speak.

There's a single step difference. It does not have to come out of the oven cooked.

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.

 

[kingpocky]

I redefined sex elsewhere to be specifically unprotected vaginal sex, so we can dump any uncertainty of the possibility of consequences. I know there's no legal ground for what I'm saying, but moral change precipitates legal change. But one century ago women couldn't vote, the moral change brought about by brave men and women changed this.

Sure, but I'm also arguing that an agreement that obligates a person to do something as significant as everything being pregnant entails - without having the person specifically state that they understand and agree with everything - is wrong, even more so that the action it is attempting to prevent. There is a reasonable limit to how much anyone can implicitly agree to.

So where do we draw the line? What is and isn't implicit? I'll accept this idea of an unconscionable implicit contract if you can tell me where line of what's 'unconscionable' is drawn.

I don't know *exactly* where to draw the line, but I'd say that anything requiring a long-term (defining long-term to be months-long or more, if you're going to be picky; Probably shorter) commitment should be explicitly agreed on by the two parties in question, and sufficiently discussed. Probably written down too.

Used to be, if you got too drunk at a bar, you could wake up the next morning on a ship headed for a far corner of the British empire. "Yeah, you totally agreed to join the Royal Navy last night, you don't remember? Now get to work!" I know that's a rather extreme example, but it illustrates my point.

 

[BGH122]

Used to be, if you got too drunk at a bar, you could wake up the next morning on a ship headed for a far corner of the British empire. "Yeah, you totally agreed to join the Royal Navy last night, you don't remember? Now get to work!" I know that's a rather extreme example, but it illustrates my point.

Well I'm undecided whether drunken decisions count, whether or not free will was violated. I mean, the person made the decision to get drunk but that doesn't mean they've agreed to whatever decisions flow from that. I'll need to think that one through.

 

[Evil Earlgrey]

Yes it's murder. The life starts the moment of conception.

This beginning cell is more complex than the first molecules of "life" on earth. If those molecules are life, this fertilized egg is certainly life. At conception, the human life has certainly begun, or at least the process has begun. If you stop the process, you stop the life.

Abortion is the "easy way out" for people who aren't responsible. They make the choice of procreation, then they're going to get the consequence.

By that logic it is also murder to mown your lawn or even just to go outside and walk on the ground or clean some dishes in the kitchen. Ever thought about how many thousands of cells full of life you destroy each day? You make it a bit too simple for yourself and the argument really doesn't withstand the first seconds of critical thinking.. try harder when forming opinions.

As for the "easy way out".. that again is very misanthropic. Do you honestly think it is worse to destroy a fertilized egg than to raise a child that was never wanted and by that can never be really loved and given the oportunities it should have?

 

[LadyRhian]

And I said yes, it would be wrong of me to punch you even if you destroyed all my hopes and dreams. Did you miss that? Well, we've had many quotings of each other, so...

No, this wasn't my point. My point is that in arguing that physical injury > emotional injury that it'd be more wrong of you to punch me than for me to destroy all your hopes and dreams. Obviously two wrongs don't make a right, but that wasn't my point.

I have a question for you. Say, your body could be taken over by someone else because they feel you made a wrong decision involving them. Would it be legal and permissible for them to take over your body for a period of months without your permission just because of that wrong decision? Because, basically, that is what you are talking about doing- taking over someone else's body without their permission because you disagree with a decision that involved you. They had sex with you, they got pregnant, so that somehow gives you rights over their body because you don't like their decision. If you agree it would be permissible for other decisions, I'll accept that- I won't agree, but I will accept it.

But this is a distortion of my argument. I'm not saying that the woman should be under the dominion of the man over some trivial disagreement. She still has the ability to do anything she wants with her body other than terminate the foetus, ergo 'taking over' is a tad strong.

But that is basically what you are saying, whether you realize it or not. Pregnancy is not like choosing a shoe to wear. It's wearing on the body of the woman in a way that men do not experience. It's like being enslaved. Imagine agreeing to care for someone for nine months, then having them chained to your body so that you can never put them down or get them off/away from you. Occasionally, they hit, kick or punch you, just because. Meanwhile, because this person is chained to you, you throw up every morning. Other physical changes happen to you. Now imagine you didn't really agree to do this- you did something else which someone meant claimed you agreed to do this. And you can't get this person off of you for nine months, at least. And this other person is whining that if you stop caring for this person for the whole time, you'll be hurting their feelings awfully.

Secondly, if I'd implicitly agreed to do something for another person where it was fully of my own volition then yeah, I should be made to go through with the act. If you and I go into business with one another and I provide the storage space and you the goods then I can't just smash up all your goods as soon as you move them into my storage space because there was no explicit agreement that I wouldn't do that. Even though it's my storage space I don't have full control over it because I rescinded that as soon as I let you store something in it.

But what you are arguing is a string of poorly supported claims. Not everyone agrees that having sex means automatically consenting to having a child. Having unprotected sex once does not mean you automatically get pregnant. And in the case of storage space, you can declare the agreement over and tell me to get my stuff or you will put it on the curb for anyone to take.

 

[The Hairminator]

Is (male) Ejaculation genocide? You exterminate millions of potential children EVERY TIME!

That is just dodging the question.

There is a difference between potential children and ones that are in the oven so to speak.

Or is it? I'd say a featus that hasn't gone too far in developement operates as much on primal instincs as a single sperm cell does.

 

[Baconmonster723]

Scientifically, it can be identified as both human and alive. Therefore, you are killing a human life.

Actually, no, no you're not and no it's not a human. There's more to species identification than that, one individual cell does not make an individual human being. An embryo, and even a fetus for a while, is not even an independent lifeform for a certain part of it's lifecycle.

I have to disagree with this wholeheartedly. Two humans combining genetic material cannot make anything other than a human life. The single cell may not be recognized as a human in your eyes but as life is a cycle and not an event that single cell is all part of the human life cycle. The cell is not a representation as most people see it. However, species identification has been altered and significantly restructured in the last 4-5 years based on our own breakthroughs in the field of genetics.

It was once based upon physical characteristics and appearance. However, much like most other scientific concepts it is altered as discoveries are made furthering its accuracy. Genetics has essentially revolutionized species identification by revolutionizing the definition of species. It is no longer about what you can phycially see and what we once knew. Genetics has completely changed all of that.

 

[RMcD94]

Yes it's murder. The life starts the moment of conception.

This beginning cell is more complex than the first molecules of "life" on earth. If those molecules are life, this fertilized egg is certainly life. At conception, the human life has certainly begun, or at least the process has begun. If you stop the process, you stop the life.

Abortion is the "easy way out" for people who aren't responsible. They make the choice of procreation, then they're going to get the consequence.

By that logic it is also murder to mown your lawn or even just to go outside and walk on the ground or clean some dishes in the kitchen. Ever thought about how many thousands of cells full of life you destroy each day? You make it a bit too simple for yourself and the argument really doesn't withstand the first seconds of critical thinking.. try harder when forming opinions.

It withstands it fine. If you think murder is killing cells then it being murder to mow your lawn does not make his argument wrong. It simply makes the word murder mean the same as kill.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

I think it depends on how far the 'infant' is in it's development. Technically it is murder, because it's a living thing.

 

[Jewrean]

No... it's not murder. But at the same time don't assume that I would allow it to happen to my partner. Just because someone doesn't think it's murder doesn't mean they will automatically do it.

 

[BGH122]

But that is basically what you are saying, whether you realize it or not. Pregnancy is not like choosing a shoe to wear. It's wearing on the body of the woman in a way that men do not experience. It's like being enslaved. Imagine agreeing to care for someone for nine months, then having them chained to your body so that you can never put them down or get them off/away from you. Occasionally, they hit, kick or punch you, just because. Meanwhile, because this person is chained to you, you throw up every morning. Other physical changes happen to you. Now imagine you didn't really agree to do this- you did something else which someone meant claimed you agreed to do this. And you can't get this person off of you for nine months, at least. And this other person is whining that if you stop caring for this person for the whole time, you'll be hurting their feelings awfully.

This is all predicated on the fact that I 'didn't really agree to do this', I contest that point so this argument fails. It's not a case of forced to go through something, through no fault of your own, by another person. Your own actions led to this.

If it were a rape, or a contraceptive was in play then this changes this because you took every action possible to avoid this (bar abstinence, but that's too extreme for most people).

But what you are arguing is a string of poorly supported claims. Not everyone agrees that having sex means automatically consenting to having a child. Having unprotected sex once does not mean you automatically get pregnant. And in the case of storage space, you can declare the agreement over and tell me to get my stuff or you will put it on the curb for anyone to take.

No, I can't. That'd be illegal, I consented for you to put your stuff in my storage space. It also isn't relevant whether or not people automatically get pregnant from unprotected sex, the fact is that the chance of getting pregnant is drastically higher than with protection. That's all that's necessary for the implied consent of the consequence.

Drinking excessively and then driving won't make it a 100% chance that I'll kill someone, but I'm still responsible if I happen to do so, because I took responsibility for the uncertain consequence as soon as I committed to the actions which made it likely to occur.

 

[Cowabungaa]

le snip

Yes I know it creates human life. That I did not dispute, it is obvious that it is live human tissue. That is not the point, I won't fall for your red herring.

What I was trying to say is that human tissue does not equal being a human being, that so much is obvious too despite any genetic test around. My hand on it's own is not a individual human being either. A human being is more than just genetic information.

Take for example human cell-growths in labs, replacing live animal testing. Those cultures have those genetic human characteristics too yet, like an embryo, you can't argue that those cultures are individual human beings.

 

[gto1969]

the word liveing is only relitive yes a plant is liveing the idea that performing a chemical reaction counts as life but being self aware able to interact is the idea of it and no a ferus befor 24 weeks is just a chemical reaction so its not murder and theres no garenty that adaption is a good idea theres a good chance of metal unstability and starvation and not getting adopted and turning to a life of crime