Poll: Is abortion murder?

[Eldarion]

There are a few exceptions, rape or if the birth threatens the life of the mother I can understand.

Using your argument, explain why these are morally acceptable exceptions?

In the case of the mothers life being threatened, I just feel the life of a person is worth more than a potential person. That does not mean its acceptable if the mother life isn't in danger.

Suddenly it's potential life? I thought it was alive! Dear me, suddenly arguments are changing.

Rape causes permanent psychological harm, probably even more harm if the mother has to deliver the baby. Again its the mothers health over the babys.

Under any other circumstance, why should a mother be allowed to decide the fate of a potential person when it poses no threat to her?

So, harm to one person is more important than another person? No?

So if the mother becomes retarded, say, during pregnancy, it's now okay to abort? Even though the adoption option is still there?

My argument is the same potential life=life. Once the sperm and egg unite I consider it alive. You saying its not is an equally arbitrary and pointless designation.

I don't understand your second sentence.

 

[RMcD94]

I personally think it is murder. Lumps of flesh don't have ears and eyes, and they don't swallow and have the ability to kick you while in the womb.

There should be a "no, but am still not in favor option".

I understand wanting an abortion if your child will be severely mentally handicapped. Rape victims, I also understand, but I say we should place Lives, no matter how small they may be, over the Pride and Comfort of people who got themselves into the situation on their own.

Define a life.

 

[RMcD94]

There are a few exceptions, rape or if the birth threatens the life of the mother I can understand.

Using your argument, explain why these are morally acceptable exceptions?

In the case of the mothers life being threatened, I just feel the life of a person is worth more than a potential person. That does not mean its acceptable if the mother life isn't in danger.

Suddenly it's potential life? I thought it was alive! Dear me, suddenly arguments are changing.

Rape causes permanent psychological harm, probably even more harm if the mother has to deliver the baby. Again its the mothers health over the babys.

Under any other circumstance, why should a mother be allowed to decide the fate of a potential person when it poses no threat to her?

So, harm to one person is more important than another person? No?

So if the mother becomes retarded, say, during pregnancy, it's now okay to abort? Even though the adoption option is still there?

My argument is the same potential life=life. Once the sperm and egg unite I consider it alive. You saying its not is an equally arbitrary and pointless designation.

I don't understand your second sentence.

If potential life=life, then what you are saying is that it's okay to murder someone if someone else lives from it.

And against rape, your saying that it's okay to murder someone if that person might have hurt that persons, mentally and physically, but not fatally.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Yes it is murder. Once the sperm hits the egg it's alive. Also when a woman who a week after becoming pregnant gets murdered it counts a double homicide, because there was a fetish in her.

 

[Costaine]

If I make the distinction that life starts when the sperm and egg unite its equally as arbitrary as you saying it doesn't. I think we have to agree to disagree.

No. I do agree life start at conception. However I believe it is irrelevant. My position is not arbitrary because my decision is based on actual relevant knowledge. I permit the killing of a being that does not have the three qualities of consciousness, ability to feel pain and ability to feel pleasure.

You however chose something entirely arbitrary; based only upon a sanctity of human life view without consideration of the qualities of the life involved.

 

[RMcD94]

Yes it is murder. Once the sperm hits the egg it's alive. Also when a woman who a week after becoming pregnant gets murdered it counts a double homicide, because there was a fetish in her.

Recent news: Killing furries is a double homicide due to their fetish.



Also, why not when fertilisation takes place? The sperm nucleus has to travel to the egg nucleus to fuse. If it was stopped before, it's murder?

And why is stopping an egg and a sperm meeting not murder? Why is destroying a sperm/egg not murder?

 

[Margrave Rinstock]

I personally think it is murder. Lumps of flesh don't have ears and eyes, and they don't swallow and have the ability to kick you while in the womb.

There should be a "no, but am still not in favor option".

I understand wanting an abortion if your child will be severely mentally handicapped. Rape victims, I also understand, but I say we should place Lives, no matter how small they may be, over the Pride and Comfort of people who got themselves into the situation on their own.

Define a life.

In this case, something with capacity or potential for a reasonable degree of thought, emotion, and moral reasoning.

And in case you were wondering, I also apply this reasoning to many animals, and therefore I am a vegetarian.

 

[stridernfs]

That is the problem with using the word "technically" because you still have to explain and understand why its "technically". The problem with using "technically" is that it is not "technically" not "considered" ( i hate that word in this context) alive until it is out of the womb, and that is when they kill, exuse me "abort" the baby leaving any sane mother with a large amount of stress and anxiety as well as depression

Technically, it's not alive, so no.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap1.html

 

[Eldarion]

If I make the distinction that life starts when the sperm and egg unite its equally as arbitrary as you saying it doesn't. I think we have to agree to disagree.

No. I do agree life start at conception. However I believe it is irrelevant. My position is not arbitrary because my decision is based on actual relevant knowledge. I permit the killing of a being that does not have the three qualities of consciousness, ability to feel pain and ability to feel pleasure.

You however chose something entirely arbitrary; based only upon a sanctity of human life view without consideration of the qualities of the life involved.

"Sanctity of human life view"? Your arbitrary qualifications are just as valid as the next, it is completely a moot point.

 

[Plurralbles]

no. Until it is 1 year old I don't give a fuck about childrens' right to live.

 

[L1gh7Sp33d]

I personally think it is murder. Lumps of flesh don't have ears and eyes, and they don't swallow and have the ability to kick you while in the womb.

There should be a "no, but am still not in favor option".

I understand wanting an abortion if your child will be severely mentally handicapped. Rape victims, I also understand, but I say we should place Lives, no matter how small they may be, over the Pride and Comfort of people who got themselves into the situation on their own.

Define a life.

In this case, something with capacity or potential for a reasonable degree of thought, emotion, and moral reasoning.

And in case you were wondering, I also apply this reasoning to many animals, and therefore I am a vegetarian.

Animals:

Thought? Check
Emotion? Check
Moral Reasoning? Not so much

 

[SD-Fiend]

yes it just is to me

 

[Jnat]

It should be 100% up to the parents, not to anyone else.

 

[Eldarion]

There are a few exceptions, rape or if the birth threatens the life of the mother I can understand.

Using your argument, explain why these are morally acceptable exceptions?

In the case of the mothers life being threatened, I just feel the life of a person is worth more than a potential person. That does not mean its acceptable if the mother life isn't in danger.

Suddenly it's potential life? I thought it was alive! Dear me, suddenly arguments are changing.

Rape causes permanent psychological harm, probably even more harm if the mother has to deliver the baby. Again its the mothers health over the babys.

Under any other circumstance, why should a mother be allowed to decide the fate of a potential person when it poses no threat to her?

So, harm to one person is more important than another person? No?

So if the mother becomes retarded, say, during pregnancy, it's now okay to abort? Even though the adoption option is still there?

My argument is the same potential life=life. Once the sperm and egg unite I consider it alive. You saying its not is an equally arbitrary and pointless designation.

I don't understand your second sentence.

If potential life=life, then what you are saying is that it's okay to murder someone if someone else lives from it.

And against rape, your saying that it's okay to murder someone if that person might have hurt that persons, mentally and physically, but not fatally.

In extreme cases yes. I would be willing to save the mother at the expense of the child. In a life or death case I could find it acceptable. Not pleasant but its a better reason then because "lol I had unprotected sex but I can just abort it"-no.

 

[Vern]

It's a tumor that can't survive outside of it's host. So no.

 

[RMcD94]

I personally think it is murder. Lumps of flesh don't have ears and eyes, and they don't swallow and have the ability to kick you while in the womb.

There should be a "no, but am still not in favor option".

I understand wanting an abortion if your child will be severely mentally handicapped. Rape victims, I also understand, but I say we should place Lives, no matter how small they may be, over the Pride and Comfort of people who got themselves into the situation on their own.

Define a life.

In this case, something with capacity or potential for a reasonable degree of thought, emotion, and moral reasoning.

And in case you were wondering, I also apply this reasoning to many animals, and therefore I am a vegetarian.

To many animals, but not all? And what (non-human) animal has moral reasoning? I'm pretty sure that definition would allow you to consider the majority of the animal kingdom as not living.

Anyway;

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.

See where I went with that?

Killing sperm is murder.

 

[Snownine]

I personally think it is murder. Lumps of flesh don't have ears and eyes, and they don't swallow and have the ability to kick you while in the womb.

Murder implies the taking of a life. A life isn't defined by thoughtless action, or somewhat human characteristics. It's not murder, foetuses before 24 weeks don't possess conscious thought ergo they're not in possession of life.

Fish do not posses conscious thought. Fish are alive.

 

[Dr. Gorgenflex]

Although I am not morally 100% with abortion I do think any person has a right to do it if they choose. I think its okay until I think about, what if I was aborted, and because i am selfish I start to question the morality of it.

 

[MasterChief892039]

.

 

[Costaine]

If I make the distinction that life starts when the sperm and egg unite its equally as arbitrary as you saying it doesn't. I think we have to agree to disagree.

No. I do agree life start at conception. However I believe it is irrelevant. My position is not arbitrary because my decision is based on actual relevant knowledge. I permit the killing of a being that does not have the three qualities of consciousness, ability to feel pain and ability to feel pleasure.

You however chose something entirely arbitrary; based only upon a sanctity of human life view without consideration of the qualities of the life involved.

"Sanctity of human life view"? Your arbitrary qualifications are just as valid as the next, it is completely a moot point.

Thats your view yes? That we should kill human life since the beginning of conception. Thats called the sanctity of human life position.

My qualifications mean something. Your qualification of being conceived only means your a physical reality. The qualities I define in a worthwhile life actually mean something ergo they aren't arbitrary.

"based on or subject to individual discretion or preference; not based on any objective distinction"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu

eg. We know when the nervous system develops therefore we know when pain and pleasure can be felt. We know when the brain develops therefore we know when consciousness begins albeit at lower levels. Those aren't based on my individual discretion they are based on an objective distinction betweens the different qualities of life.