News Should abortion be considered murder?

[misskitty]

Since we were straying a bit in the "Scott Peterson" thread towards abortion, I thought I would start a new thread on it so we can discuss and stay on topic

Should abortion be considered murder? Should the federal government make it illegal? If a fetus isn't a person, then what is it?

I was hoping we could discuss some of these questions from a politcal and scientific aspect. I'm trying to get a meaningful topic going here.

Let me know what you think about this.

 

[marlon]

abortion is a personal choice of the people involved. The federal government ain't got no business in it. PERIOD

PRO CHOICE ofcourse

marlon

ps you shouldn't have written pro life but contra abortion.

 

[Pengwuino]

People are tried for murder every day. Are you saying the federal government 'ain't got no business in it'? Because smoke and mirrors aside, your killing a human being. If you bring in "but its my baby", you might as well say you can kill your child up until he's 18.

And ill choose a mocking tone for my next statement

ps. you shouldn't have written pro-choice but anti-life.

 

[mattmns]

Fetus=Person, so Abortion=Murder, imo.

If a couple is going to have sex then they should be ready to accept the consquences of such a decision.

Also, I think the government should NOT be involved.

 

[Pengwuino]

But the government is responsible for putting murderers on trial. How wouldn't the government be involved?

 

[mattmns]

I was thinking the government should not force people to do one or the other. I was not thinking about the aspect of an abortionist (if that is a word) being a murderer. So, in that case, yes the govt probably should be involved. Sorry for not elaborating in my earlier post.

Also, what do pro-lifers (anti abortion, or whatever) think about abortions and rape? As in, should a woman who was raped be allowed to have an abortion?

 

[Andromeda321]

Misskitty, I think you need another option something on the lines of "it depends on the situation." Nowadays I'd be very hesitant to be painted with a huge "pro life" or "pro choice" brush because I think it depends heavily on the situation, but I am by no means "indifferent" on the issue.

 

[misskitty]

Let me see if I can figure out how to edit the poll to add the option. I thought I was missing something. Thanks Andromeda.

 

[Pengwuino]

Also, what do pro-lifers (anti abortion, or whatever) think about abortions and rape? As in, should a woman who was raped be allowed to have an abortion?

A high percentage say that should be allowed along with ones that will kill the mother/could kill the mother. As someone just said, the 2 choices are actually difficult to gauge peoples opinions. Most people who are against abortion say they would allow it for rape/possible mother death.

 

[misskitty]

I would agree that is what many people say. It has to do with the emotional/mental effect it can have on the mother, depending upon how violent the rape was. Of course every situation is different.

 

[Moonbear]

How does "depends on the situation" differ from "pro-choice?"

 

[mattmns]

How does "depends on the situation" differ from "pro-choice?"

Probably like many people who naturally oppose abortion for their own moral reasons, but feel that women who are raped should have a choice.

 

[Astronuc]

If a couple is going to have sex then they should be ready to accept the consquences of such a decision.

I am married with two kids. My wife is somewhat older and due to her age, we had amniocentesis performed during the first pregnancy. If there was a severe birth defect such as a neural tube defect then abortion was a possibility. The doctor had difficulities and tried twice, but failed both times to place the needle correctly. Both my wife and I were distressed, and we then decided to terminate the procedure. We took the risk that the baby would be OK.

We did not even consider amniocentesis for the second pregnancy. We simply relied on nutrition and good prenatal care.

In some extraordinary cases, the mother's life may be endangered by a pregnancy. In this case abortion is warrented. I would not surrender the life of my wife to anyone!

I think access to good contraception and the so-called 'morning after' pill (RU-486) is appropriate. It is not a fetus then.

At some point after fetal development, I personally would have a problem with abortion. If my felt had felt she needed an abortion, I would support her decision - it's her body afterall.

Fortunately, we have two reasonably healthy children.

As for others, particularly unmarried, it is none of my business. It would be nice if some people were more responsible for their sexual behavior, but again that is their business, not mine. In the end, it is an individual's matter/choice and should not be decided/determined by others.

 

[Evo]

I am pro-choice. I think an abortion for any reason is acceptable in the first trimester, second trimester, depends on the reason, third trimester if the mother or child have a health risk. Anyone who feels that they have a right to force a woman to have a child better be ready to adopt it, otherwise keep your "morals" to yourself.

There is no such thing as 100% effective birth control, aside from permanent sterilization. Accidents can happen and if the unwanted pregnancy is causing emotional stress a woman should be allowed to terminate it.

What about a married woman that has three kids and her husband runs off and leaves her with no job, three kids, no money and then finds herself pregnant with a 4th? Even if she finds a job, she won't have health insurance coverage yet and she probably won't qualify for maternity leave that soon.

 

[Andromeda321]

How does "depends on the situation" differ from "pro-choice?"

Probably like many people who naturally oppose abortion for their own moral reasons, but feel that women who are raped should have a choice.

Yes, it's something like that. I personally would never have an abortion because I could never see myself going through with it. If I got pregnant today I'd carry the baby to term then put it up for adoption because just because I'm an idiot doesn't mean I'm going to deny a child its life. (I do think in general that people seem to downplay the option of adoption regarding unwanted pregnancies.) I will, however, not stand in the way of someone else who decides to go through with it for the first two trimesters: I'm not sure where life "begins" but if the baby can't survive on its own then I won't really get in the way of it (same goes for the morning after pill). Partial birth abortion, or destroying the fetus because of its sex/ some other foolish reason I will not stand for. Life is a great thing and destroying the potential for it is truly a sad thing, and as a result abortion should be rare.
I also don't really like the "pro choice" movement because they seem to forget that last point and instead make it a whole "women power" thing. Abortion isn't simplified into such a nice little package: it's obviously a very complicated issue or else we wouldn't be gappling so hard with it. The same goes for the pro life label: nowadays that camp seems all too willing to dub someone a murderer for mentioning that in some cases an abortion might be nessecary. I think nowadays the sides have polarized way too much, which is also a reason why I am unwilling to choose either side.

 

[Rev Prez]

Should abortion be considered murder? Should the federal government make it illegal? If a fetus isn't a person, then what is it?

If the unborn warrant personhood status, the law should treat them as such. Society has adequate methods for addressing the untimely deaths of its members.

Rev PRez

 

[mattmns]

I am pro-choice. I think an abortion for any reason is acceptable in the first trimester, second trimester, depends on the reason, third trimester if the mother or child have a health risk.

That is quite interesting. Care to elaborate?

Few more questions.

Should a woman who is a prostitute be allowed to have an abortion(s), for all you pro-choicers?

Also, how does everyone feel about that whole parent notification thing? As in, should parents be notified if their dependent, and under 18 year old daughter had an abortion or used the morning after pill.

 

[Rev Prez]

I am pro-choice. I think an abortion for any reason is acceptable in the first trimester, second trimester, depends on the reason, third trimester if the mother or child have a health risk.

Surely there's an underlying ethic. I have a hard time believing you assign different value to the life of the unborn according to an arbitrary tripartition as a matter of first principles.

Anyone who feels that they have a right to force a woman to have a child better be ready to adopt it, otherwise keep your "morals" to yourself.

I think women shouldn't kill their kids after birth. If I'm not prepared to adopt it, then should I keep my "morals" to myself?

Rev Prez

 

[Telos]

I marked "pro-choice" because I think the zygote should have its own choice on whether to live or not. (It can always choose to miscarriage, can't it?)

Sorry, I can be quite the idealist. :)

 

[Evo]

That is quite interesting. Care to elaborate?

I think it's very clear, abortion for any reason in the first trimester, second trimester, after the 4th month, if the woman becomes emotionally incapable of going through with the pregnancy, or health issues. Third trimester, the woman should know by then if she can cope with the pregnancy, so I agree only if there are health risks to either the mother or child.

Few more questions.

Should a woman who is a prostitute be allowed to have an abortion(s), for all you pro-choicers?

Yes.

Also, how does everyone feel about that whole parent notification thing? As in, should parents be notified if their dependent, and under 18 year old daughter had an abortion or used the morning after pill.

I believe in most (if not all) states, a minor cannot have an abortion without parental consent.

 

[Rev Prez]

I think it's very clear, abortion for any reason in the first trimester, second trimester, after the 4th month, if the woman becomes emotionally incapable of going through with the pregnancy, or health issues. Third trimester, the woman should know by then if she can cope with the pregnancy, so I agree only if there are health risks to either the mother or child.

What or whose interest are you looking out for as you restrict abortion in later stages of pregnancy?

Rev Prez

 

[mattmns]

I believe in most (if not all) states, a minor cannot have an abortion without parental consent.

I am not sure about the abortion part either. I remember an issue during the 2004 campaign about the morning after pill and parent notification, so I thought I would combine the two.

 

[Evo]

I think women shouldn't kill their kids after birth. If I'm not prepared to adopt it, then should I keep my "morals" to myself?

Rev Prez

What does that have to do with forcing a woman to have a child by denying her an abortion?

 

[Evo]

I am not sure about the abortion part either. I remember an issue during the 2004 campaign about the morning after pill and parent notification, so I thought I would combine the two.

I'm not sure about the morning after pill, I'm not even sure if it is legal here now?

 

[mattmns]

What about a married woman that has three kids and her husband runs off and leaves her with no job, three kids, no money and then finds herself pregnant with a 4th? Even if she finds a job, she won't have health insurance coverage yet and she probably won't qualify for maternity leave that soon.

Should a woman be allowed to kill her kid(s) if she can not support them?

 

[lawtonfogle]

To begin with, why is it 'pro-choice' and 'anti-abortion'! Using pro gives a postive sense, while using anti gives a negative sense. Why not use 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' or 'anti-life' and 'anti-abortion! By having the two different senses, you are making 'pro-choice' seem the better option to one who does not have any idea what all the terms mean. Is not pro better that anti?

The way you have written the choices, you show you are pro-choice (to a stereotyper at least). The choices make it look like the 'anti-abortion' look bad.

If you think due to this argument that I am a 'pro-life', then you are stereotyping. I am just telling you what you are doing.

Later I will tell you my opinion on the entire situation.

 

[Evo]

What or whose interest are you looking out for as you restrict abortion in later stages of pregnancy?

Rev Prez

In the third trimester a child has the possibility of survival on it's own or at least with intensive natal care. Third trimester abortions require actually giving birth (even if by cesarean).

 

[lawtonfogle]

I also think, so as to clear up confusion, you tell us what your definitions are of key words such as abortions, person, human, murder, human life, ect. Postmondernism states indirectly that we can have different deffintions for such words, and since your deffinitoin might be different, your understanding of the question/reply might also be different than intended.

 

[Rev Prez]

In the third trimester a child has the possibility of survival on it's own or at least with intensive natal care. Third trimester abortions require actually giving birth (even if by cesarean).

So the value of an unborn life relates to its dependency on a host?

 

[Rev Prez]

What does that have to do with forcing a woman to have a child by denying her an abortion?

If dependency is the measure you use to value life, then clearly nothing. That said, why the restrictions on second trimester abortions?

Rev Prez

 

[Evo]

So the value of an unborn life relates to its dependency on a host?

No, it's what I consider to be the difference between a mass of cells and and something developed enough to be "unborn life". The law seems to agree.

 

[loseyourname]

What does that have to do with forcing a woman to have a child by denying her an abortion?

Come on, Evo, this stuff about "forcing a woman to have a child" is just rhetoric devoid of any value to a serious discussion. If the other side is correct, then abortion is murder and that's that. Forcing a woman not to commit murder, no matter how much of an inconvenience it is to her and to a larger society that might have to deal with an unwanted child, is still the right thing to do.

I don't really know if abortion should be considered murder or not. In many cases, I think it is fairly clear cut that it is. Using birth as a cutoff point is rather arbitrary as the only difference between a newborn infant and a fetus several days before birth is that one is breathing air and the other isn't. On the other hand, a freshly fertilized zygote is clearly not a subject of experience nor a human in any meaningful way and should have no rights. So we're left with a dilemma. We know that at some point during its development, a fetus does attain the properties by which we consider a human to be a 'person.' At that point, for the sake of moral and legal consistency, the fetus should have at least have the most basic of rights - certainly it should have the right to not be killed unless it is a threat to someone else's life. The problem is finding that point. Until such a time that we can identify a developmental watershed at which a fetus is clearly a sentient entity deserving of rights, would it not be in our moral interest to err on the side of caution? I'd say ban all abortions after the first trimester at least. I'd rather have unwanted children plaguing adoption agencies and orphanages than to commit wholesale murder simply because we don't know any better.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Does not abortion always have some risk to the mother's health, no matter how much.

 

[lawtonfogle]

i meant minute

 

[Evo]

Come on, Evo, this stuff about "forcing a woman to have a child" is just rhetoric devoid of any value to a serious discussion. If the other side is correct, then abortion is murder and that's that. Forcing a woman not to commit murder, no matter how much of an inconvenience it is to her and to a larger society that might have to deal with an unwanted child, is still the right thing to do.

I'm merely pointing out that by denying a woman the abilty to abort, she is being forced into having the child, you have taken away her options. And that's the question, when does it become a viable "life".

I'd say ban all abortions after the first trimester at least. I'd rather have unwanted children plaguing adoption agencies and orphanages than to commit wholesale murder simply because we don't know any better.

I wouldn't be opposed to that either, except I would still say if the health of the woman or child was at stake it would still be a viable exception.

 

[Evo]

Does not abortion always have some risk to the mother's health, no matter how much.

With first trimester abortion done correctly with the current procedures, extremely minimal. Any medical procedure has risks, I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, can you clarify?

 

[lawtonfogle]

my basic analogy (excluding rape) is this
having sex= crime
having baby= time
old saying 'If you don't want to do the time, then don't do the crime'

if the government has anti-abortion laws, they do not force the woman to have a child because they did not force the woman to have sex

abstince is the only 100% sure birth control that works.

 

[Moonbear]

To begin with, why is it 'pro-choice' and 'anti-abortion'! Using pro gives a postive sense, while using anti gives a negative sense. Why not use 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' or 'anti-life' and 'anti-abortion! By having the two different senses, you are making 'pro-choice' seem the better option to one who does not have any idea what all the terms mean. Is not pro better that anti?

Actually, I have a problem with the term pro-life in context of being the opposite of pro-choice. The reason is that it presumes pro-choice are anti-life.

At this point, I will state that I am pro-choice, and prefer to tackle the problem of unwanted pregnancies by 1) prevention and 2) better care for babies and children after they are born.

1) Prevention means education about sexual responsibility, birth control/contraceptive options and proper use, self-respect and mutual respect, and overall women's health. Avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

2) Once a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, don't leave her stuck between a rock and a hard place with her only options being abortion, raising a child in poverty and hunger, or sending the child into a foster care system where he/she will be bounced around and possibly abused. Make it easier for people to adopt children, make it easier for mothers who keep their children to get the education they need about how to raise those children and get them the help they need to ensure that child is well-cared for. Too often, I find that those who are entirely anti-abortion only fight for the fetus and forget the child, which is why I ultimately have a problem with calling that position pro-life.

I don't think we will ever completely eliminate abortion, but if those two criteria are met, we may see a much greater reduction in the number of women who choose that option because they feel they have no other direction to turn.

So, that's my opinion. I'm not going to argue about it with anyone, I'm just stating it. I've discussed, debated and argued the pro-choice v anti-abortion issue many times and have learned that no amount of argument or debate will change anyone's mind on this issue. All I want to point out is that pro-choice is not synonymous with pro-abortion or anti-life.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Ooppps

I meant having a child, not abortion

my mistake, sorry

 

[lawtonfogle]

Just for reference, abortion is the ending of a prengancy by any means, including mis-carriage. last i heard 70% of fertilized eggs never attach, so 70% of babies are aborted as it is, now times 30% by who many births are aborted by a doctor and add it to 70%, and you then come up with the actual numbers of abortions in any area.

 

[Rev Prez]

No, it's what I consider to be the difference between a mass of cells and and something developed enough to be "unborn life".

Then if we draw the line at sentience, or even sapience, then how do you justify your adherence to an arbitrary tripartition that neither claims to nor does take into account the awareness or intelligence of the unborn?

The law seems to agree.

No, the law does not. Roe v. Wade asserts a woman may or may not have an abortion under X conditions (a different discussion). Even if we accept that law--and by that I mean a particular US Supreme Court decision at a particular time--is the final arbiter of fact, Roe v. Wade does not, it does make a finding--explicit or inferred--as to what human personhood is and it begins. In fact, it explicitly leaves that matter up to the woman and, to a certain extent and no further, her physician in the first trimester, and in the subsequent pregnancy to "the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother." The justices copped to a theory of balance, and from that we can infer that the value of life is less in one trimester than the next, but not the reason why.

Rev Prez

 

[Evo]

At this point, I will state that I am pro-choice, and prefer to tackle the problem of unwanted pregnancies by 1) prevention and 2) better care for babies and children after they are born.

1) Prevention means education about sexual responsibility, birth control/contraceptive options and proper use, self-respect and mutual respect, and overall women's health. Avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

2) Once a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, don't leave her stuck between a rock and a hard place with her only options being abortion, raising a child in poverty and hunger, or sending the child into a foster care system where he/she will be bounced around and possibly abused. Make it easier for people to adopt children, make it easier for mothers who keep their children to get the education they need about how to raise those children and get them the help they need to ensure that child is well-cared for. Too often, I find that those who are entirely anti-abortion only fight for the fetus and forget the child, which is why I ultimately have a problem with calling that position pro-life.

I don't think we will ever completely eliminate abortion, but if those two criteria are met, we may see a much greater reduction in the number of women who choose that option because they feel they have no other direction to turn.

So, that's my opinion. I'm not going to argue about it with anyone, I'm just stating it. I've discussed, debated and argued the pro-choice v anti-abortion issue many times and have learned that no amount of argument or debate will change anyone's mind on this issue. All I want to point out is that pro-choice is not synonymous with pro-abortion or anti-life.

I agree! We have had so many of these threads, I'm sick of them, they go nowhere, become flame wars and then get locked.

Another concern of mine is people that are unfit to be parents that end up abusing, torturing and killing these unwanted children, but that seems to be of no concern to the pro-lifers. Where is the moral outrage at this? Where are the protests? They just want to tell people what they shouldn't do but don't want to be bothered with the problems after the fact. Now I shouldn't say that as a blanket statement because there are a few (way too few) that really do care about the children, but most only care that abortion goes against their "morals". Does child abuse not go against their morals?

 

[Rev Prez]

Too often, I find that those who are entirely anti-abortion only fight for the fetus and forget the child

And why do you say that?

Rev Prez

 

[Evo]

Then if we draw the line at sentience, or even sapience, then how do you justify your adherence to an arbitrary tripartition that neither claims to nor does take into account the awareness or intelligence of the unborn?

from that we can infer that the value of life is less in one trimester than the next, but not the reason why.

Rev Prez

I suggest you get a good book on biology and read up.

 

[lawtonfogle]

1. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex.
2. If you find yourself pregant, put the baby up for adoption
3. If raped, don't punish the child, instead follow number 2.
4. If your health causes serious health risk if you have a baby, then don't have sex
5. If your problem is 3. and 4. then take a morning after pill (since it only ups the chances of a natural abortion occurring).

 

[Rev Prez]

Actually, I have a problem with the term pro-life in context of being the opposite of pro-choice. The reason is that it presumes pro-choice are anti-life.

On the singular issue as to whether ending the lives of the unborn should be legal, it is an entirely accurate characterization of the position.

At this point, I will state that I am pro-choice, and prefer to tackle the problem of unwanted pregnancies by 1) prevention and 2) better care for babies and children after they are born.

Your stated goals are lofty enough to be meaningless; that is, pretty much everybody accepts them. Few conservative Christians argue that wanton knocking of boots is a good thing, even fewer argue that the children are better off sucking the big one after they drop.

The means you vaguely describe below without so much as a defense are heavily disputed. That, of course, is a matter for another thread.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

I suggest you get a good book on biology and read up.

Care to explain?

Rev Prez

 

[lawtonfogle]

while you are explaining that can you also explain the little green (or gray) light with a warning sign in the lower left hand conner is for?

It is totally of topic but i just got to know

 

[Evo]

while you are explaining that can you also explain the little green (or gray) light with a warning sign in the lower left hand conner is for?

It is totally of topic but i just got to know

The little round light if green, means you are "online", gray means "offline", the triangle is used to report a bad post, it will send a copy of the post to the mentor's private forum and we will decide what to do with it. You can report a post if you think the person is a crackpot, or is being offensive, or advertising something, or just being a nuisance. It is confidential, the person you report will never know.

 

[misskitty]

Wow, I leave you guys alone for less than 12 hours and this thread explodes with responces. Its definitely NOT a bad thing.

You've all got good arguements to support your positions.