News Should abortion be considered murder?

[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.

 

[lawtonfogle]

thank you for explaining. Now anyone can argue my 1,2,3,4,5 rules, so i can improve badparts of them.

 

[Kerrie]

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?

I agree with this 100% Evo, I am pro-choice and pregnant myself. We had this discussion on abortion very recently...here is the link:


Abortion

I was quite active in this thread, right when I found out that I was pregnant ironically.

 

[BobG]

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).

I chose anti-abortion (there's a few instances where I think it would be acceptable, but those instances are very rare).

I agree with 2, 3, and 5, but not so much with 1 & 4.

I find it ironic that those most opposed to abortion also oppose artificial birth control (probably doesn't apply to lawtonfogle, personally, considering option 5). Abstinence may be the most effective birth control method, but you have to include other birth control methods as well if you want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies overall (but the user assumes the risk they won't work).

The health issues can apply to both the mother and the child. What's the advantage of continuing a pregnancy where at best, you trade the mother's life for the child's life, and, at worst, you wind up with neither having much chance of surviving. I also think abortions are acceptable for birth defects where the fetus has little to no chance of eventually becoming a self-sustaining adult.

Being anti-abortion isn't quite the same thing as believing it should be illegal. Still, at a minimum, it should be illegal during the last trimester. By that time, you've reached a point where it's awful hard to deny you're killing a concious, sentient person. If you had a test you could do using amniotic fluid to tell when the fetus had most likely developed into a sentient being, that would be the best dividing line between legal and illegal.

 

[Kerrie]

The health issues can apply to both the mother and the child. What's the advantage of continuing a pregnancy where at best, you trade the mother's life for the child's life, and, at worst, you wind up with neither having much chance of surviving. I also think abortions are acceptable for birth defects where the fetus has little to no chance of eventually becoming a self-sustaining adult.

I agree with this 100%...having a severe down's syndrome child in my family has opened my eyes to a lot of things. Typically, this genetic problem is an instance due to the mother being older, but in my family's case it is hereditary. Knowing this, I was fully screened during my first trimester for these genetic problems so that I could be informed of the condition of my child.

Being anti-abortion isn't quite the same thing as believing it should be illegal. Still, at a minimum, it should be illegal during the last trimester. By that time, you've reached a point where it's awful hard to deny you're killing a concious, sentient person. If you had a test you could do using amniotic fluid to tell when the fetus had most likely developed into a sentient being, that would be the best dividing line between legal and illegal.

Again, I agree 100% with this. Although I am pro-choice during the first trimester, I don't feel it is anyone's right to choose what is right for a woman and her life. I wouldn't have any problem with abortion being illegal after 16 weeks (2nd trimester) gestation, maybe due to my own personal experience of having children however.

 

[lawtonfogle]

one type of abortions i don't like are those that are done to teenagers who 'play-around'. I bleive pre-fornication is wrong. If she has a child, the grand-parents (all 4) should help raise the child and let the mom and/or dad finish school.

 

[Moonbear]

one type of abortions i don't like are those that are done to teenagers who 'play-around'. I bleive pre-fornication is wrong. If she has a child, the grand-parents (all 4) should help raise the child and let the mom and/or dad finish school.

I wasn't going to get back into this discussion, but this sort of comment suggests a complete unawareness of the conditions that many children are raised in and the sort of life one is condemning an unwanted child to.

What if the grandparents aren't around, or the teen got into this situation because her and her partner's own parents were rather irresponsible about supervising their whereabouts and activities and in giving them the education they needed about sexual responsibility? And what about the teen who is a runaway, living on the streets, prostituting herself, and abusing alcohol, crack, and heroine? There's a reason the foster-care system is filled with crack babies, AIDS babies, and developmentally challenged children; it's because nobody is stepping up to the plate to adopt them. What if this is one of those teens who herself was born to too young of parents and/or completely irresponsible/neglectful parents and has been bouncing around the foster care system? Who is going to raise her baby for her when she isn't even grown up enough to act responsibly for herself?

Are you also aware of the greater risk of complications in teenage pregnancy, especially for very young teens? Their bodies may be capable of getting pregnant, but they are not developed enough to carry and deliver a baby safely. Are you willing to pay for their prenatal care and for their postpartum care and for the care of that baby when there is nobody willing or able to to care for it, and for all the hospital bills when that baby is born premature because young teens have a higher incidence of premature births than older women?

If you are going to force these women to have children they can neither afford nor care for, then put your money where your mouth is and start paying the bills to care for and raise them all the way from the pre-natal care through adulthood. And if women are not permitted to have an abortion even if severe development abnormalities are detected in utero, then be willing to continue supporting those children even into adulthood if they can never be independent.

This is what I mean by not just taking care of the fetus but taking care of the child. It's not enough to say you think the child should be cared for, but one needs to actually put their money where their mouth is and start doing something about it.

 

[learningphysics]

These discussions always take a wrong turn. The real issues are, when does the fetus become a person... what kind of value does the fetus have.

Some of those against abortion see killing the fetus as pretty much the same thing as killing the born baby.

The issue of nobody being able to care for a child applies even after the child is born. So is terminating the child after birth acceptable? If not, then obviously the issue is not the difficulty in caring for the child, but something else... whether or not the fetus is a living being or not.

 

[Evo]

Before the ninth week it is not a fetus. First trimester abortions do not abort fetuses.

 

[russ_watters]

I have very little to add to this thread except to state that I'm the resident right winger (supposedly) and I'm pro choice.

That, and:

Being anti-abortion isn't quite the same thing as believing it should be illegal.

...and the corollary is also true. I'm pro choice and anti-abortion.

 

[megas]

i agree with pengwuino, this shouldn't even be an issue... first of all, if you want to kill your own child you shouldn't have had sex. You think about the responsiblities NOT the consquences... It is murder if you kill a fetus, and if that is legal that's stupid becuase then hey i want to kill my teenage kid! that's dumb too, that is what all you pro chioce people are saying! This is rediculas. I can't believe people would do this, people have sex to bring a kid into the world, now a days, "pro chioce people" probably do this, becuase it feels good, where has our morals gone?