Poll: Is abortion murder?

[RMcD94]

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

Arbitrary line ageism alert.

Difference between a 31 556 926 seconds old (a year old) child and a 31 556 925 seconds old child, that means they have a right to live.

 

[Teh Ty]

It;s just a cluster of cells, that will become a human after set amount of time, so no, I don;t think so.

 

[soapyshooter]

I didnt say this in my first reply but it has to be said:

Threads like these, ones with controversial topics, do nothing but create ridiculous amounts of rage and eventually get a few people suspended or banned. This is last thing I post on here.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

Oh shit, the abortion threads are back...

 

[imaloony]

Sort of. I certainly classify it as a type of murder.

Basically, you're not giving a person a chance to live. For all you know, you're killing the next Leonardo Da Vinci, Paul McCartney, or hell, even just Average Joe, but they need to be given that chance to live. If the woman doesn't want the baby, for whatever reason, give it up for adoption, but give the baby the chance to live...

 

[Souplex]

An embryo has less intelligence than your average cow. If I have no moral qualms against eating delicious steak, I have none against abortions. That is unless of course I believe in a hierarchy of souls for different species, which I don't. If I did, then I might have some sort of problem with it.
Also:
Wrong video. Sorry.

 

[RMcD94]

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.

Again, extreme cases? What makes a case extreme enough to allow the murder of life to be okay?

It's a better reason, in your opinion.

In fact, you are saying "lol I had unprotected sex but I will be emotionally harmed from being pregnant (which is true in probably every (first) pregnancy, being pregnant is a very emotional experience I hear) I can just abort it", is fine.

 

[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.

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.

My view is that all human life, even at the very start of conception should be respected. Except in few extreme cases where the fetus needs to be aborted to save the mother.

You assume that nervous system development is an acceptable point at with to say "its alive now"? Who says? You? That makes it arbitrary. Because its a distinction that you came up with regardless of the fact that "life" isn't quantifiable that way to everyone.

Saying "It need enough nervous system to feel pain" is just as valid as saying "it needs toes to be alive"

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

If it could live outside of the womb (6-7 months + pregnant), then yes. If not, then no.

 

[subtlefuge]

1. Check the rules under the section for "controversial threads" for the sake of being controversial.

2. People who argue that a fetus is not alive could use a remedial course in biology

3. It is not "murder" in the same way that piracy is not theft. They are both wrong, but there are technical differences. I still have a problem with any individual or society who possesses such a cavalier attitude about human life, regardless of whether they perceive it to be sentient or not. We chose not to practice euthanasia on people in comas or with dementia, how is this any different.

 

[Eldarion]

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.

Again, extreme cases? What makes a case extreme enough to allow the murder of life to be okay?

It's a better reason, in your opinion.

In fact, you are saying "lol I had unprotected sex but I will be emotionally harmed from being pregnant (which is true in probably every (first) pregnancy, being pregnant is a very emotional experience I hear) I can just abort it", is fine.

No, I stated the only exemptions I feel ok with supporting, you are drawing conclusions out of thin air.

 

[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.

Animals:

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

Well, to an extent.

Many other social animals are willing to make sacrifices for their collective-but you're right, not that many that vary from individual to individual.

Two criterions are enough in my mind to have qualms about eating them, though.

 

[BGH122]

Life isn't something that can be quantified and categorized. Weather or not something is alive in other cases is sometimes up for scientific debate. I just can't look at a potential human as a pile of cells. "Life" isn't an absolutely black and white term, to some groups it begins at different stages than to other groups.

This isn't a valid point. The fact that the KKK exists doesn't justify racism. The fact that homoeopathy exists doesn't proof it's useful. These groups are simply wrong in what they're representing.

I also don't thing the abortion debate should be decided on weather or not the fetus is technically "alive" by someones arbitrary designation. I'm not willing to just point at a person in the first stages and go "oh well thats not alive it doesn't have X percent of its brain" or something equally as insipid.

Problem is, you're declaring something insipid and arbitrary without bothering to show why these descriptors fit it. I could declare abortion morally just, but without bothering to show why that's the case the statement is meaningless to everyone except me and certainly isn't worth debating.

Remember that the whole abortion debate started as a womans rights movement or sorts. I just wanted to challenge that aspect of it.

Well I absolutely disagree with this aspect and the concept of women's rights. Rights should be equal, concepts such as women's vs men's rights challenge equality.

I'm gonna have to say that I consider a fetus alive.

Again, this is useless. This isn't how debates work. It's not just a case of having your opinion, it's a casing of proving why others should adopt your opinion.

 

[RMcD94]

We chose not to practice euthanasia on people in comas or with dementia, how is this any different.

A very valid point. Which is why euthanasia should be legal.

If it could live outside of the womb (6-7 months + pregnant), then yes. If not, then no.

Please give me a line in the sand where after one second it will survive outside the womb, and before that it won't. Please.

Sort of. I certainly classify it as a type of murder.

Basically, you're not giving a person a chance to live. For all you know, you're killing the next Leonardo Da Vinci, Paul McCartney, or hell, even just Average Joe, but they need to be given that chance to live. If the woman doesn't want the baby, for whatever reason, give it up for adoption, but give the baby the chance to live...

Standard question time.

Is masturbation murder? (Each one could be Leonardo Da Vinci. As each fertilised egg could be.)
Is contraception murder? (See above)
Is abortion after rape okay?
Is abortion if the mother would die okay?

 

[Costaine]

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.

My view is that all human life, even at the very start of conception should be respected. Except in few extreme cases where the fetus needs to be aborted to save the mother.

You assume that nervous system development is an acceptable point at with to say "its alive now"? Who says? You? That makes it arbitrary. Because its a distinction that you came up with regardless of the fact that "life" isn't quantifiable that way to everyone.

Good we can agree on what your view is. I'm a little worried you don't understand what a nervous system is. Without one a human cannot feel pain. Thats a simple fact, its not arbitrary. Also if you read what I actually said I do agree a embryo and a fetus are 'alive' and they are human. I won't try to deny that like a lot of pro-choicers.

However the mere fact of being alive means nothing in terms of well-being of the unborn. Its the qualities of the life themselves which mean something. Its these qualities that I rest my argument on and its these qualities that are objective facts.

Saying "It need enough nervous system to feel pain" is just as valid as saying "it needs toes to be alive"

Hilarious. Do you really think that?

 

[RMcD94]

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.

Again, extreme cases? What makes a case extreme enough to allow the murder of life to be okay?

It's a better reason, in your opinion.

In fact, you are saying "lol I had unprotected sex but I will be emotionally harmed from being pregnant (which is true in probably every (first) pregnancy, being pregnant is a very emotional experience I hear) I can just abort it", is fine.

No, I stated the only exemptions I feel ok with supporting, you are drawing conclusions out of thin air.

So, all you exemptions are arbitrary, opinionated, and with no basis on anything other than feeling.

Alright, well I can see there's no point continuing this debate then.

Also, I was drawing conclusions out of the LOGIC I thought you were using. I was wrong, you are picking and choosing.

 

[hydroblitz]

I am pro-choice myself. I believe that if the mother does not want to go through the experience of pregnancy and childbirth or cannot support the child after birth, the baby should be aborted. I am not saying whether or not the fetus is "alive" or not. I'm a Cristian and I believe that the innocent should be protected. In a lot of cases, it is protecting them from their unwanting parent that was forced to birth them. now, whether or not the circumstances were rape, a broken condom, or an overzealous boyfriend, they have the choice. in a lot of cases, having a kid can, especially for a teenager, ruin the girls life.

 

[BGH122]

so what your saying there is that if i was to knock up my GF by accident and she wanted an abortion but i wanted the kid. the government should force her to 9 months of pain and limited mobility due to work and what not purely because i want the kid

Dude thats sicker than fucking abortion that there is equivilant to slavery

She knew the risk when she had sex. If she didn't want to risk having a child then she shouldn't have had sex. She doesn't have the right to put a man through the emotional trauma of losing his child just because it'd be physically burdensome. Slaves don't make their own bed and lie in it, slaves are arbitrarily forced to commit to an action to which they don't want to commit through no fault of their own: your analogy is false.

Youd have guys knocking up there GF and wanting to keep the baby in the hope that instead of dumping there ass theyd stick around(or get married) because they would want to see this baby theve been forced to birth. which would inevitably lead to a divorce or a bad home life making the kid have an even worse dynamic

Interesting point, perhaps we should modify this so that when a parent declares they desire an abortion they rescind all rights to interact with the child. This would prevent this as she couldn't simultaneously not interact with the child and live with the man who's legally bound to raise it due to his objection of the abortion.

 

[Nemu]

No.

And I'm not getting into a religious/scientific debate over it on a gaming forum.

 

[BGH122]

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.

Show fish do not possess conscious thought, they have memory so that surely entails consciousness?

No.

And I'm not getting into a religious/scientific debate over it on a gaming forum.

Then why even bother commenting?