Addressing the Ethical Debate: The Status of Abortion as Murder

[Kerrie]

Of course. But after all, to restrict abortion abruptly would be like taking away bananas from monkeys. We must first reach a cultural foundation; we must initially teach people what is wrong with a situation, and why it is wrong. To make abortion illegal right away in a country which has adapted to it for so long, would be very dangerous indeed.

read this link of why abortion remains and will remain legal.

Nine reasons why abortion is legal

I particularly agree with #6:
"6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society.

If there is any matter that is personal and private, then pregnancy is it. There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms."

 

[dekoi]

6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society.

If there is any matter that is personal and private, then pregnancy is it. There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms.

==================
i. "incompatible with a free society": I'm sorry, but have there been records of a society in which abortion was legal and we experienced massive chaos because of 'incompatibility'? It mentions "free" society; it's funny that even an organization like Planned Parenthood does not know the meaning of "freedom"/free. To give a person freedom is to give them the right to choose good decisions. To give a person license is to give them the right to choose good and/or bad decisions. A society which allows license is one which allows human beings to be enslaved in their own apathy; this sort of society is one which allows abortion to continue, and let millions of woman suffer for years and years (if they live that long afterwards) and kill 80 newborns every single minute. This sort of society is one which stops a beating heart; one which disturbs natural order, and one which totally takes away the freedoms and liberties of the baby.

"Where will government stop?" This is absurd. To ask a question like this regarding abortion, which "wounds one [woman], kills the other [baby]", is to almost praise abortion as something good . The entire question tries to put the restriction of abortion on the same lines as e.g. putting cameras in private showers and publicizing them.

"It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms." Once again, to give America individual rights and freedoms is to give us power to choose good; to give us freedom would be to steer us away from evil and enslavement. If a government did not do this, would they be fulfilling the goal of a government to protect their population?

There are so many flaws in "Nine Reasons Why Abortions Are Legal" that it is absolutely laugh-out-loud ridiculous. It seems they are begging the question by connecting unrelated information to their "arguments"; if this works so well, perhaps i should to make murder legal as well, or theft for that matter, afterall it is my private matter. We have to stop looking at abortion as such a private matter; "By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion."

 

[plus]

read this link of why abortion remains and will remain legal.

I particularly agree with #6:
"6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society.

Society is not and should not be completely free. If it were then it would be anarchy.

If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms."

The same point. If the government allows people to murder the unborn, then where will it stop? What about killing new born babies?

The traditional american ideas about individual rights and freedoms do not mean anything. They allowed slavery.

 

[plus]

may say, abstain from sex. is this realistic? i think not. i am not saying that a woman should automatically choose abortion if she didn't mean to get pregnant...abortion for a woman IS a hard decision that factors in how much a woman can sacrifice herself for being a parent...remember, it is the woman who tends to be the primary care giver, who will rely on a man to pay support, to give support. in a society where the mother is most often the single parent (one who never marries the father anyway),

The unborn is produced by a man also with his genes. She should be more careful who she sleeps around with also then. If you like to go around having casual sex, and get pregnant then it may be convenient to kill the offspring, but it is not fair on the person you are killing. Like it or not but sex has some very serious consequences associated with it. Sex should only be completed in a situation where either the woman wants (or will put up with) to be a single parent or in a stable marriage with a responsible man.
There is a choice. Either for things to carry on with women having sex with whoever takes their fancy, and then murdering the offspring.
In my opinion the genocide has to stop. This will require either returning to a situation where more traditional family norms are adopted, with people shunning sex outside marriage. Or for women to be happy being single mothers after being inpregnated by whoever she felt lust for.

Since Kerry posted a link to why she thinks abortion should be legal, have a look at these disturbing pictures of the dead.

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/



Now contrast those images with the selfish women who happily have orgasms for fun with whoever. Sure they may feel some guilt later, but most murderers feel this.

 

[dekoi]

I feel sad that we couldn't get this discussion settled without an appeal to emotion (the images plus posted).

Plus i am glad you are participating, but could you read my replies as well?; i think it will contribute to your responses.

 

[Dayle Record]

I am not sure how anti-abortion people were able to conjure up the telepathy, to know that women are emotionally hurt, by abortion. I can see how the anti-abortion movement would seek out women who did feel remorse, to shore up their arguements. All flesh was made by the same creator, whether the creator is a god, or a big accident. So, as you blow your nose, or eat your chicken dinner, or scratch your derriere, I maintain, that it is all the same stuff. Quantum physicists will back me up on this, it is all the same stuff. Even thinking about abortion, in a positive or negative light, is the same stuff. So choosing the anti-abortion stance, is just a matter of need for inappropriate control of lives, and events that are not theirs to control. I think the anti-abortion armchair control freaks, should go to work for charities, that serve the starving, abandoned, born children in this world. Every penny spent in the anti-abortion movement, is taken from the needy. So, to the anti-abortion movement, I say, get up from your computer, your desk, your telephone, and go feed a hungry child, relate to a child, financially support a child, donate to food banks, and to education, and after school care. Adopt a half a dozen hungry kids. But no, they don't want already needy kids, they want babies, that they can control. I think the anti-abortion people aren't loving, they are just trying desperately to find an issue, where they are in the right.

 

[dekoi]

I think the anti-abortion people aren't loving, they are just trying desperately to find an issue, where they are in the right.

Everything i do, i do for the love of humanity. I do not favour the aborted children over the hungry chldren. That is extremely absurd. You "thinking" this is true is equally absurd. How could you possibly know this?

Charity is a wonderful thing, and can be done in numerous ways. Some choose feeding the hungry, others supporting children. I choose helping dying children.

It makes me laugh at how everyone ignores my points on subjectivity and resorts to statements like, "You are trying desperately to find an issue.".

 

[Kerrie]

I am not sure how anti-abortion people were able to conjure up the telepathy, to know that women are emotionally hurt, by abortion. I can see how the anti-abortion movement would seek out women who did feel remorse, to shore up their arguements. All flesh was made by the same creator, whether the creator is a god, or a big accident. So, as you blow your nose, or eat your chicken dinner, or scratch your derriere, I maintain, that it is all the same stuff. Quantum physicists will back me up on this, it is all the same stuff. Even thinking about abortion, in a positive or negative light, is the same stuff. So choosing the anti-abortion stance, is just a matter of need for inappropriate control of lives, and events that are not theirs to control. I think the anti-abortion armchair control freaks, should go to work for charities, that serve the starving, abandoned, born children in this world. Every penny spent in the anti-abortion movement, is taken from the needy. So, to the anti-abortion movement, I say, get up from your computer, your desk, your telephone, and go feed a hungry child, relate to a child, financially support a child, donate to food banks, and to education, and after school care. Adopt a half a dozen hungry kids. But no, they don't want already needy kids, they want babies, that they can control. I think the anti-abortion people aren't loving, they are just trying desperately to find an issue, where they are in the right.

thank you Dayle...it seems those who are anti-abortion are first to preach about the horrid act it is, yet are the last to volunteer to help abused children or mothers on welfare.

I choose helping dying children.

by doing what act? preaching? i certainly hope you aren't one of those who stands at the clinics shouting at the doctors and women.


i have said my piece here...as far as i am concerned, someone else's choice of terminating a new life is none of my business. that person will have to be the only one to live with the consequences.

 

[Hurkyl]

that person will have to be the only one to live with the consequences.

Of course there's another one that doesn't get to live with the consequences.

Whether or not it's your business, the issue of terminating life is certainly something the government is required to address. One point of these discussions, at least as I see it, is to work out how we think it should be addressed.

 

[plus]

I feel sad that we couldn't get this discussion settled without an appeal to emotion (the images plus posted).

Like it or not, a lot of the actions of society are governed by emotion. For example showing starving people in Ethiopia to get people to give money to charity.

The main aim of these pictures is to show that they are real people who are being killed. I would have preferred if it was not from such an emotional/ fanatical website, but I couldn't find anything else quickly. And yes, I admit that you have a more linguistic style of debate.

 

[plus]

But no, they don't want already needy kids, they want babies, that they can control. I think the anti-abortion people aren't loving, they are just trying desperately to find an issue, where they are in the right.

There are not very many children in the west. Hence the crisis of the aging population, with its problems such as paying for pensions.
It is not about debating the need in giving money to needy children. Most people agree that this is a good cause. But unfortunately a lot of people do not care about the right to kill the unborn as they do not see them as people.

 

[Dayle Record]

There are millions of needy children in the west. Millions of them, if you consider both the Northern and Southern hemispheres of the West. You could spend your entire lifetime income, and not make a dent in the need.

In the United States, prospective parents have to pass competency vetting, to adopt, children. Then cultural issues come into play as well. So radical anti abortion people, don't get to adopt the unwanted babies, of women, who can't afford to raise them, or who are too young, or who can't afford an abortion. The babies go to people who want to raise children, as opposed to people who have other agendas. There are some private adoptions.

It is a very real nightmare, that girls who are raped within fundamentalist families, victims of incest, have to be branded as harlots by their congregations, and watch their children be given away.

In villages all over the world, girls are given in marriage at the onset of menses. All over the fundamentalist Muslim world, girls have to pass virginity tests. In villages all over Africa, girls are circumcised with stones, and primitive blades; it is stated openly that this circumcision, is to destroy sexual pleasure for women, so they are considered clean. This is what happens when everyone but women, have rights.

 

[dekoi]

Kerrie:

that person will have to be the only one to live with the consequences.

How about the man who recognizes that sex really isn't that big of a deal? How about the man who decides to go have sex with more woman, rape more woman, and cause them to have more abortions? How about those 80 children who are killed every single minute? How about that? Are those not other "people" who will be living with the consequences?

So you choose to ignore my arguments against ethical subjectivism? To tell you the truth, it doesn't surprise me a bit. It is a common action among ethical subjectivists to ignore logic when they are faced with a counter argument.

You say i am "the last to volunteer to help abused children or mothers on welfare. " How would you know that? Perfect example of an ad hominem logical fallacy.

"This is what happens when everyone but women, have rights." Did i ever consider not fighting for rights to woman? Did i ever suggest enslavement of freedom to women?

America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!

What is taking place in America," she said, "is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another.

Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants.

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.

I objected to ethical subjectivism. I objected to the "Planned Parenthood" 'reasons for abortion to be legal'; and no one really argued. Until i see a valid counterargument, i will seize to argue.

 

[Kerrie]

Of course there's another one that doesn't get to live with the consequences.

Whether or not it's your business, the issue of terminating life is certainly something the government is required to address. One point of these discussions, at least as I see it, is to work out how we think it should be addressed.

that is what Roe vs. Wade was all about. it is decided. from the roe vs. wade site:
"he Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entireity of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling."

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie: How about the man who recognizes that sex really isn't that big of a deal? How about the man who decides to go have sex with more woman, rape more woman, and cause them to have more abortions? How about those 80 children who are killed every single minute? How about that? Are those not other "people" who will be living with the consequences?


I objected to ethical subjectivism. I objected to the "Planned Parenthood" 'reasons for abortion to be legal'; and no one really argued. Until i see a valid counterargument, i will seize to argue.

again, the woman is ultimately responsible for that fetus, and roe vs. wade upholds this. reality is, it will never change, women will always continue to abort, thus forcing them to carry a child they are not willing to support is more destructive then the lives of the fetuses. let's be real, not ideal.

 

[cragwolf]

If the government allows people to murder the unborn, then where will it stop?

Exactly where society says it should stop, which is where it currently stops. You are committing the slippery-slope fallacy.

 

[dekoi]

Exactly where society says it should stop, which is where it currently stops. You are committing the slippery-slope fallacy.

He's not saying that there is a higher chance of 'x' situation happening than the current situation. He is saying there is an equal chance of further problems caused if governments continue to allow the killing of children.

again, the woman is ultimately responsible for that fetus, and roe vs. wade upholds this. reality is, it will never change, women will always continue to abort, thus forcing them to carry a child they are not willing to support is more destructive then the lives of the fetuses. let's be real, not ideal.

So now the lives of newborns are less important than the privacy of the woman?

Women will not continue to abort if governments make it illegal. That is like saying theft will continue at the same level if it was changed from being legal to illegal. There are so many parallels to abortion that it surprises me everyone ignores the issue.

I promised i will not post again, but i can not resist the senseless arguments people are posting.

 

[derekmohammed]

Women will not continue to abort if governments make it illegal. That is like saying theft will continue at the same level if it was changed from being legal to illegal. There are so many parallels to abortion that it surprises me everyone ignores the issue. This statement is one of the most ignorant and purhaps uninformed I have heard in a long time. If you would do a little research you would find out that before abortion was legal 15% of all maternal deaths were caused by botched illegal abortons.

See http://http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=72
Here is an example of how terrible they would become...

"In the thirties, my aunt died self-aborting. She had three children and couldn't feed a fourth … So she used a knitting needle. She died of septicaemia leaving her children motherless."

Things like this would happen quite often when abortion was illegal, is it right to put a woman in these circumstances where she is potentially at risk?

There are so many parallels to abortion that it surprises me everyone ignores the issue.

Obviously you are missing the issue.

 

[BoulderHead]

So now the lives of newborns are less important than the privacy of the woman?

You appear to be confusing fetus with newborn infants.

Women will not continue to abort if governments make it illegal.

This statement has no basis in reality whatsoever.

…That is like saying theft will continue at the same level if it was changed from being legal to illegal.

Wrong again, you should have said; Thievery will stop if governments make it illegal. Of course you know it would be absurd to make such a claim, unfortunately you don’t seem to be aware the statement about abortion ceasing is just as ludicrous.

I promised i will not post again, but i can not resist the senseless arguments people are posting.

Nor I yours.

 

[plus]

You appear to be confusing fetus with newborn infants.
This statement has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Wrong again, you should have said; Thievery will stop if governments make it illegal. Of course you know it would be absurd to make such a claim, unfortunately you don’t seem to be aware the statement about abortion ceasing is just as ludicrous.
.

The main point is that abortion will decrease in quantity if it is made illegal.

I too get annoyed when people make statements like " Prostitution is going to happen anyway, so why not make it legal". The point is that prostitution would increase dramatically if it were legal, turning it from a minority pastime to a majority activity. This was something similar to what Kerry was saying.

 

[BoulderHead]

My point was about making untrue statements.

I don’t share your apparent view on prostitution, though it is in fact legal in more than one area and so far as I have ever seen has not become a ‘majority activity’ in such areas. Do you have any evidence for such a claim?

 

[Kerrie]

So now the lives of newborns are less important than the privacy of the woman?

newborns are not being killed. this sort of statement shows how far off of reality your views truly are. roe vs wade has determined that the privacy of a woman is what ultimately matters in this issue. roe vs wade also made the determination that it was safer for a woman to have a legal abortion then for her to choose an illegal one. roe vs wade acknowledges reality that women will continue to seek abortions in a large scale.

roe vs wade did not make a judgement call in saying that abortion was morally ok. roe vs wade was a judgement call in what is inevitable-women will risk their lives because they will continue to choose. i am not even saying abortion is morally right, but it is necessary unfortunately. we can preach and preach, but i guarantee you, your preaching will not change women's minds about what they feel is right for themselves.

 

[Dayle Record]

One statistic I consider tangent to this discussion, but remarkable. According to statistics I have read in the papers, recently, the number one cause of maternal death in the United States, is HOMICIDE. There are a lot of guys that don't want to raise their offspring, to the extent that they murder both their offspring, and the women who are carrying them.

In Africa, rape is one of the main routes of transmission, for the AIDS virus. In the process of that crime, both mother and child are frequently murdered; or the mothers of existent children are taken by that act.

 

[AiA]

how could you say that the one getting an abortion is the only one being affected, what about the potential of that child. Chaos theory, one person, literally, changes the outcome of the universe. The potential of that child is so great that to even consider disallowing its ability to change the world is preposterous, and on top of that, its more the worlds problem than the mother, that child would of affected so many people, and that affect is so much greater than its affect on its mother.

 

[AiA]

Kerrie, I'm sure that you agree that child bearing is a natural thing, its normal, its HUMAN NATURE for women to give birth. Now why would going against nature be a good thing?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Kerrie, I'm sure that you agree that child bearing is a natural thing, its normal, its HUMAN NATURE for women to give birth. Now why would going against nature be a good thing?

That's about as weak an argument as I've ever heard, and I've spent 35 years listening to Catholic doctrine on the subject. It is also human nature to murder and make war. Yes it is; all the counterexamples turned out to be phoney. Besides, what you call human nature is here indistinguishable from animal nature. It is "nature's way" for mammals to bear young. That doesn't mean we have to do so. I suppose you object to contraception too because it is "against human nature".

 

[dekoi]

That's about as weak an argument as I've ever heard, and I've spent 35 years listening to Catholic doctrine on the subject. It is also human nature to murder and make war. Yes it is; all the counterexamples turned out to be phoney. Besides, what you call human nature is here indistinguishable from animal nature. It is "nature's way" for mammals to bear young. That doesn't mean we have to do so. I suppose you object to contraception too because it is "against human nature".

Would you give me a clear example of something 'good' that humans do which goes against our human nature?

 

[Kerrie]

The potential of that child is so great that to even consider disallowing its ability to change the world is preposterous, and on top of that, its more the worlds problem than the mother, that child would of affected so many people, and that affect is so much greater than its affect on its mother.

a valid opinion, but again, roe vs. wade was more concerned with the immediate safety of the mother rather then the potential of the fetus. again, roe vs. wade was not a matter of morals, but a matter of safety and privacy.

 

[Kerrie]

I suppose you object to contraception too because it is "against human nature".

excellent point...where are the anti-abortion supporters when it comes to birth control? that is much more widespread then abortion, and many potential lives are being prevented in this manner.

Would you give me a clear example of something 'good' that humans do which goes against our human nature?

contraception. it prevents unwanted pregnancies from having a poor quality of life because two people who are going with human nature (in other words sex) are unprepared for the immense responsibility of a child.

 

[Dissident Dan]

AiA, there are many different aspects of "human nature", and they are not all harmonious with one another. It is human nature to desire freedom, and it is, according to you, human nature to give birth, but children bring responsibilities, thereby limiting freedom. There are many more examples of the contrasts within the realm of "human nature"...more than I could ever list.