Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Abortion

  1. Jan 9, 2005 #1
    Is abortion murder or not?
    I think that it is because they are alive and they are humans. I have never heard any argument to discount the above statements. Even if you do not believe them then there has to be some probability that they are true, and if they are then it is murder.
    If these playboys and slags want to sleep around then they should be aware of their actions, and not be able to reverse the consequences just because they created a human being.

    (I wonder how long it will take for this thread to be locked)

    People who are opposed to abortion should not take the attitude that it is everyones choice. Because the rights of the unborn should be respected, and they should be protected from their mothers. Note that in western society it is seen as ok to kill an unborn baby, but in asia it is ok to murder a newborn baby girl. These societal beliefs should be stopped and made illegal.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 9, 2005 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    There would be no reason to lock it if you hadn't included this stereotype sludge. Your first and last paragraphs raise a legitimate phiosophical issue.
     
  4. Jan 9, 2005 #3

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    At what stage of development do you say that a bunch of differentiated tissue is a human ?

    And while I recognize that it would be fruitless to attempt a civilized discussion with you, let me ask you the following question. If a couple has a genetic disorder that is likely to be passed on to offspring, should they (or should they not) be forbidden from reproducing ? If they have a child despite the knowledge and the baby inherits this crippling disorder, should the couple be tried for deliberately inflicting suffering on a third person ?

    The debate is harder than you make it out to be. But then, that's your style.
     
  5. Jan 9, 2005 #4
    The debate is a complex one but how I look at it, I believe it is murder. Murder seems to be too strong of a word but it is a termination of potential life. I just do not believe that we should stop a natural process from happening. I dont care how far it is into the process, thats beside the point really. The point is that it has began and if you allow it to develop it will become a human being.

    Whether you believe in god or not is beside the point too. Every person is made different, and it should not be up to us what we allow to live in this world and what we dont allow. Would having a child that was disabled be difficult? without a doubt...regardless, they are your child and its only fair that they are given a shot to live. If they are meant to die, human nature will take its course and they will.

    The problem in our society is that we dont like to deal with reality. In every sense we like to make things better for ourselve and we forget what is right.
    We are at a point where many teenagers use abortion as birth control and that is just not right either.

    There is a fine line in everything, but the line I have always drawn is that while I can understand and respect a lot of things people do, its only to the point where it affects them, if it affects someone else, then it has crossed the line.
     
  6. Jan 9, 2005 #5
    I would say abortion is murder; however, I support the pro-choice philosophy. A fetus is not in the position to contribute to society within its mother's womb; therefore, it has no value to society.
     
  7. Jan 9, 2005 #6

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    i think abortion becomes murder when a mother has carried a child to her 3rd trimester...it is at this point the baby can live on their own, although may have slowed mentality and underdeveloped lungs among other things...

    as for aborting in the first trimester, if the child is unwanted, cannot be supported well, or has genetic problems, i am all for it. women who use abortion as a means of birth control will find out later in life if and when they do want to conceive that they will have some serious problems in carrying a pregnancy.
     
  8. Jan 9, 2005 #7

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Note: Philosophical issue. Unless we're going to discuss the social ramifications of abortion, why is this in social sciences? Sounds like an ethical argument is being made.
     
  9. Jan 9, 2005 #8

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    And so each of us draws the line according to his or her own opinion. I don't believe there is any way to reach a concensus on abortion. I agree with loseyourname that this thread belongs in the Value Theory forum.
     
  10. Jan 10, 2005 #9
    I agree now that the value theory forum is the best fit for this topic.

    After conception.

    If there is a child/adult who is disabled, should they be killed? I say not, although they would be a drain on society. The real debate you are raising is whether certain people should be disallowed from reproducing or not.

    Do not insult me.
     
  11. Jan 10, 2005 #10
    Before this stage, the womb is essential for survival. But equally, for adults oxygen is essential for survival. If we are flying in a plane, should we be killed because we could not survive outside the plane? Or should the pilot have the choice to kill us.

    So just because the timing is inconvenient, you should have the right to kill. Women who use abortion as birth control may or may not regret it later, but they serve no penal sentance and this does not help the people who were killed.

    Do you believe that it is ok to kill the baby girls in asia, because they could not survive without their parents, or any adults to support them?
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2005
  12. Jan 10, 2005 #11

    This does not make any sense. Why should a murderer have the right to kill others?
     
  13. Jan 10, 2005 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    A plane is outside of the normal human habitat, thus the analogy doesn't work.
    Not a valid analogy.
    There are two cases where it is done: people who are brain dead with no hope of recovery often have life support terminated, and people who choose it either through a living will or assisted suicide. In both of these cases, I think it is moral.
    There is an inconsistent standard applied here by many religions: If a fetus is a full-human with a soul, then birth should not be a factor: why does entry into heaven require baptism after birth (why not have a ceremony where you baptise the woman's stomach?)? Why don't people have funerals for month-old fetuses? [legally] Why do we have "birth certificates" and not "conception certificates"?

    It is my understanding that a significant fraction of fertilized eggs never implant into the uterus (can a biologist confirm this please?) or are otherwise lost (menstration doesn't stop?) within weeks of conception. Doesn't this pose a problem for the life-starts-at-conception view?
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2005
  14. Jan 10, 2005 #13

    anti_crank

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    So are bacteria, yet your immune system destroys millions in a given day. And it's a good thing that it does so, otherwise you wouldn't last the day. Nonetheless, I'll allow that you don't mean that
    Be that as they may. Genetically, they're always human. But I'd like you to make an argument as to why we shouldn't kill humans. That's not to say that I support indiscriminate killing, but there have to be good ethical reasons for it - and then we will see whether they apply to the problem at hand. Keep in mind too that there are plenty of circumstances in which most people would approve of killing humans, such as self-defense.
    Again this needs some sort of support.
    You need worry nothing in this regard. People who are opposed to abortion are very active in trying to get their views shoved down everyone's throat, and use every means at their disposal, which includes some very underhanded tactics, to pursue that.
    And the mothers shouldn't be protected from the babies? How would you like it to have something you don't want leeching off your very existence, whether you created it or not, and affecting you negatively in any number of ways in the process?
    Cultures differ. I don't like the idea of choosing boys over girls (it is unsound in any number of ways), but change is hard for old cultures. China has outlawed selective abortion, yet we all know the legal systems can be ahead of times compared to the rest of society. The only effective solution to this problem is education. This costs money, always takes at least one generation to complete, and in the case of China is not helped by the distrust of people in their government. If you have any good ideas, I'm sure the government of China will listen.
    Uh huh. Surely you can give a reason other than your own personal opinion?
    Edit: I just noticed something that gave me pause. I certainly hope that you mean the practices should be made illegal, and not the beliefs :surprised
    Moving on...
    Let's suppose our plane crashes in the desert. You have some water that is your own, do I have any right to demand it from you? Again that's not to argue whether you'd WANT to give me some or not; the question is if you have the right to do otherwise. It is your water, you need it for survival and the rescue teams aren't very punctual, and heck you like living as much as the next man. A twist of fate has landed me in a very bad spot; should you not have the right to say "Tough luck buddy, them's the breaks" and save yourself?

    As for whether abortion is murder or not and what of it, a few question pop to mind: how do we define 'murder', how does it differ from the physical action of killing a human, and when is murder unethical?
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2005
  15. Jan 10, 2005 #14
    Well what about if the mother's life is in danger? Should she not be able to abort the feotus in self defence? And what about becoming pregnant after being raped - could you live for nine months, and infact for the rest of your life, knowing how your baby was created?
     
  16. Jan 10, 2005 #15

    learningphysics

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I've always found this a bizarre line of argument from pro-choicers. The woman's choices led to the creation of the unborn baby (I'm excluding rape cases). You have two lives in an unpleasant predicament... the first was responsible for getting both into the situation... the second is not... Why is the one that is not responsible for the situation punished for the actions of the first?

    This is about responsibility... why do we say parents are responsible for taking care of their children? Why does this responsibility only begin after birth?
     
  17. Jan 10, 2005 #16

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    i am guessing you are male. and as me being a female, the last thing i want to hear or read from a male is what choices i need to make concerning childbearing, especially from a religious standpoint.
     
  18. Jan 10, 2005 #17
    I consider abortion to be a form of murder (I don't shy from that word) but I fully support the practice, as see lots of advantages to it. As for when it should be legal, I'll let society decide (as long as women have a say in that society). Having said that, I don't think that you should send to jail a woman (and a doctor) who has aborted 1 day past the limit set by society. There should be a gradation of punishment. I also support the right of parents to kill babies (via an injection) with very severe physical and mental deformities who are already dying slowly and painfully by dehydration or infection.
     
  19. Jan 10, 2005 #18

    anti_crank

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Since we want to explore this point properly, I'll also exclude pregnancies that directly endanger the mother's life. Consequence of a choice is not the same as intent; in fact it is safe to assume the opposite in this case - the woman was intending NOT to become pregnant. In some instances the mother may accept the accidental pregnancy and in others she may not - this is a willing decision by the mother. Would it satisfy you if the baby could be removed from the womb, matured in an artificial life support system and sent to an orphanage thereafter?

    In this instance, responsibility only happens if it is willingly assumed. Parents need not be responsible for raising their children. This is simply the way it's always been and likely will be, and society has come to make this expectation of parents (though if you read Brave New World by A. Huxley, you'll see that it's not necessary), however there is no fundamental principle that requires them to. Whether one likes it or not, there is no fundamental responsibility for one human to help another in need. That is not be read that most people won't do it, but that they don't HAVE to do it. So, if the mother decides not to support the baby, case closed. (but refer to above) The alternative is to pass laws to force people to be heroes at any opportunity.
     
  20. Jan 10, 2005 #19
    :rofl: I love it. More, please.

    Saint Plus, martyr to hysteria. You'll have to try harder, I'm afraid.
     
  21. Jan 10, 2005 #20

    learningphysics

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Hmmm.. let me get this straight. If a baby is born, it can be ethically abandoned and left to starve, since no human being has any responsibility towards another???

    What is your ethical position exactly? Give me an example of a case where someone HAS to do something.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?