Poll: Is abortion murder?

[Danpascooch]

No.

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

What has this got to do with religion in any way, shape or form?

This is a moral, legal, and scientific debate.

Well i just did. A life is a life

But how is that any more alive than a sperm or an egg?

And note, I did not say it was Murder-I would say that the killing of a reasonably developed human is more a crime then killing something in the process of growing it's tenth brain cell (unless the former was a Rapist or something)-but still not the best option.

When does it become murder?

11th brain cell?

It's not any more alive than a sperm or egg, which makes claiming it is murder idiotic, it is not self aware, so it is not murder.

It's all about "where to draw the line" but you know what's convenient? Nature gave us a hugely import and conspicuous event in which to draw that line

birth.


Whether you think it's wrong or not is a personal matter, but murder it is not.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

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.

Abortion is just disbanding a bunch of cells. Technically eating eggs is arguably the same thing. Hell, If you consider it even masturbation is far worse of a crime then abortion anyway. Basically, you end up letting a bunch or tiny organisms die - at least in the hundreds - just so you can get a few joys out. And those said organisms die by being scorched to death.

Hopefully no one will pull that 'but they're not humans' argument because for that I have a response constructed ahead of time which goes like this; Fetus's aren't humans either. They're 'almost' humans. I support abortion for three reasons. Spite, population and rights. Constantly I'm reminded of all the things we do to animals just for the sake of controlling their population - which is far less then ours. I don't feel too much guilt in seeing a few less kids and I certainly don't feel guilt in knowing that the kid didn't have to live a horrible life just because his mother wasn' t ready. Our population is too damn much and we certainly have to take measures to control it. It's not like these methods are compulsory, they are by choice and they are pretty tame.

In Arguments supporting abortion I always hear it's inhumane and cruel. To those arguments I call BS. We are the same species that beat seals over the heads with clubs, sterilize Wolves and shoot their cubs - so I ask why is disbanding a few incomplete cells such a horrible crime? Yeah, 'killing babies' sounds horrible but in a lot of cases it's either they're released from torment before they can feel it or they're thrown into a life that I don't want to even begin speaking about.

My final argument is choice. The female doesn't just say to her self, 'You know what Jeffrey? I want to go get an abortion right now.' Abortion is a serious choice and they probably lose sleep while they constantly think about this choice. They walk through the streets and they know what people will think of them, how people will judge them. To them she is nothing more but a careless slut.

But I ask you this; do these people really know what she went through? Maybe she was raped. What do we do then?

All the time when I ask this to someone that's against abortion they reply 'Well, maybe we should allow it in some cases . . . ' But sadly you can't do that. It's either we got abortion or we don't. Yes, people will be irresponsible and it's sad that the one of the victims will be an unborn child. But these people above everyone else know whether they're prepared to have a child or not and it turns out they're not.

The girls that have abortions aren't demons, they're people and it happens people make mistakes and we shouldn't judge whether or not they're horrible people due to these mistakes.

It's funny. When an abortion happens I usually hear of what an awful slut the girl is instead of hearing what a horrible douche bag the man who fucked her is. The man who probably said he loved her just so he can manipulate her and ran off when she needed him.

Oh well. This is one heck of a serious topic and I enjoyed replying to it. To lighten up the mood a bit here's one of the most cheerful songs I ever listened to -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C17yfGyJjM

 

[Aur0ra145]

I would like to see how many people in this thread have actually had an abortion (you or your girl) and see what they think. The rest of them can just go away, if you haven't had it affect your life yet, then why try to argue?

The only people who should choose laws are the people who it has affected yet?

So only the people who have murdered or have been murdered, or have a partner murderd get to choose whether it's legal or not.

You crazy.

Yep, I'm a man, and I believe all the women in their perspective countries should get to gather and decide, what THEY WANT THE LAW TO BE. Us men shouldn't have any say in the matter.

The emotional and psychological effects of an abortion are way more outstanding than anything us guys can relate to.

 

[LadyRhian]

Mmm... I'd have to say, no. I also want to point out that if abortion is murder, then God is the worst murderer there is. Because hundreds of thousands of fetuses spontaneously abort every year (i.e. Act of God). And if abortion is wrong, why does it suddenly become okay when God does it?

I've had enough experience with Abortion, in friends and family, that I have some pretty strong views on it. From my first cousin who was told over and over as a child that if abortions had been available when her mother was pregnant with her, her mother would have had one- which mentally and emotionally damaged her. To a friend who was pregnant and wanted the baby but couldn't have it because of severe medical problems. When she went to the abortion clinic to have the abortion, it was being picketed by protesters who screamed "Baby Killer!" and worse at her, causing her to have a nervous breakdown.

My opinion now is- it's up to the woman who will have to carry that baby around for nine months to say what happens. Until the day that a man can have the baby sucked out of the woman and implanted in him, and he carry it for nine months, go through the body changes and then give birth- it's not his place to say. It is nobody's place to say but the woman who is carrying it. It's not anyone else's body but hers. You can have an opinion, but you do not have a choice. It's her choice.

 

[RMcD94]

Too vague.
I mean, it counts as abortion right near the beginning, when the subject really is "just a bunch of cells", right up until it becomes an infant.
We need to draw a line, I guess- some point in the development of the brain, during which thought clicks. Cannot we scan baby brains?
THEN we can start the debate.

I agree. The only line that can be drawn is no abortion, or until the umbilical cord is cut.

My logic is as follows:

If you can show me a point in the development of a fertilised egg, where one second prior to it x was false, and one second after x was true, ie, one second before it was legal, after it isn't, then I will happily accept that line.

X being the difference between a non human and a human/abortion and murder.

For me, the difference between abortion and murder is that the umbilical cord is cut, that the organism is independent (the potential of independence means nothing to me).

 

[BGH122]

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.

She didn't sign a contract to have the baby; she has no obligation. If it's emotionally traumatic for him, then HE should have thought about that before he had sex.

This argument doesn't work, this is like saying she knew something she didn't want to occur could occur and so did he therefore it's his problem. You're just forcing men to play the chivalry role which is ludicrously outdated.

They both partook in sex knowing that a child could occur as a result, that was their joint action, so we can assume she gives her consent to a child because otherwise she shouldn't partake in actions which could cause one. This means that we she desires an abortion she's reneging upon their earlier implicit agreement that a child is an acceptable consequence of sex. This makes her the transgressor, the man is simply sticking with their earlier implicit agreement in demanding that she birth the child. She's changing the moral rules ad hoc to suit her, that's immoral.

You're making up moral rules ad hoc either way. You could just as easily say that we can assume he gives her consent to have an abortion by not getting her to explicitly agree not to have one.

No, we couldn't. Implicit in sex is the immediate consequence of a child, not an abortion. An abortion first requires a child which is the immediate consequence of sex. If we're saying that people shouldn't partake in actions which have immediate consequences they disagree with then my 'sex entails children' argument works, your 'sex entails abortion' doesn't, since you've missed out a step.

Yep, I'm a man, and I believe all the women in their perspective countries should get to gather and decide, what THEY WANT THE LAW TO BE. Us men shouldn't have any say in the matter.

The emotional and psychological effects of an abortion are way more outstanding than anything us guys can relate to.

Absolute toss. Let's say, hypothetically, you're at an age where if you don't have children now you'll never get to raise them. You have sex with a woman, she can't be bothered to go through childbirth and so denies you the right to ever raise children. She's committed an act far more grievous than yours.

Men have every right to lay claim to their children. It's absolute nonsense that women's emotional reaction to carrying/aborting a baby trumps mens. You're also biasing child-rearing towards women, as if women have some natural link to this role, by claiming that it's emotionally harder for them to abort a baby, as if they have a stronger link with it.

 

[Nemu]

No.

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

What has this got to do with religion in any way, shape or form?

This is a moral, legal, and scientific debate.

FINE

I shall also not get into a moral, legal, philosophical, he-said-she-said, my-dad-can-beat-up-your-dad, butter-side up or down (et al) debate.

Better?
Seriously, I could enter into this "debate" by just tossing in the gender card, and no-one wants that. This is a personal issue, I don't discuss personal issues with complete strangers on a gaming forum.

 

[RMcD94]

It's not any more alive than a sperm or egg, which makes claiming it is murder idiotic, it is not self aware, so it is not murder.

It's all about "where to draw the line" but you know what's convenient? Nature gave us a hugely import and conspicuous event in which to draw that line

birth.


Whether you think it's wrong or not is a personal matter, but murder it is not.

I 100% agree with you. Birth is where I draw the line. Once the umbilical cord is cut to be precise.

 

[andriod]

You just opened a can of worms. There is going to be some angry words exchanged over this topic...again...

...I don't know what I feel about it... I haven't taken a side yet.

hungry for worms? no hungry for WORDS!

on topic: no its not murder if it has no consciousness. It is a bunch of cells and ff you call killing cells murder then everyone is guilty and should be sent to prison

 

[Simalacrum]

Oooooh boy, touchy subject this one...

I'm kinda on the fence about the whole pro-life/pro-choice conundrum, personally.

Whether its murder or not... that depends. I think that, yes, in the end we are killing a proper human being within the womb. However, that does not automatically mean murder - in some cases, e.g. the child was forced upon the mother through rape, abortion might be considered euthanasia, in a way.

 

[Plurralbles]

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.

Same thing with alcohol and tobacco consumption and driving.

 

[The Last Parade]

No. No concious thought means you aren't killing a true person. That's how I think of it anyway.

interesting fact here, Babies believe themelves to be severed limbs of the mother and do not become self aware for up to a year after exiting the womb, however they indeed are only consious after exiting the womb

 

[RMcD94]

I would like to see how many people in this thread have actually had an abortion (you or your girl) and see what they think. The rest of them can just go away, if you haven't had it affect your life yet, then why try to argue?

The only people who should choose laws are the people who it has affected yet?

So only the people who have murdered or have been murdered, or have a partner murderd get to choose whether it's legal or not.

You crazy.

Yep, I'm a man, and I believe all the women in their perspective countries should get to gather and decide, what THEY WANT THE LAW TO BE. Us men shouldn't have any say in the matter.

The emotional and psychological effects of an abortion are way more outstanding than anything us guys can relate to.

A man has been made to give birth before. It was on the news.

Does he get to go to this universal meeting?

I can't wait till all the speeders and all those who've been injured by a car travelling over the limit in their perspective countries meet up and suddenly the speeders have an overwhelming majority and driving over the limit is no longer illegal.

 

[Normalgamer]

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.

By that standard I could kill a 1 year old since nobody can prove weather or not it has conscious thought, because the baby can't verbalize it.

The baby can feel pain, we've already proved that, so your argument is invalid.

No, his argument was that its not murder because it has no conscious thought, he said nothing about if it can feel pain. We weren't talking about that, at least not in this series of posts between me and BGH122.

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase that well enough, the bebyz have cried when given a tiny pinch or other such thing, thus it registered and they took an action against it, a clump of cells in a womb doesn't have the consious thought to go "Ow them ripping me out of here hurts".

 

[Kiriona]

Personally, I just wish people would kindly take their nosiness OUT of my uterus and start paying attention to more important things. Like the fricking economy. Seriously. No one's interested in a girl's periods, of her pap-smear exams... why the hell does everyone suddenly become so riveted when it comes to a lump of undeveloped tissues being removed?

 

[BGH122]

Personally, I just wish people would kindly take their nosiness OUT of my uterus and start paying attention to more important things. Like the fricking economy. Seriously. No one's interested in a girl's periods, of her pap-smear exams... why the hell does everyone suddenly become so riveted when it comes to a lump of undeveloped tissues being removed?

Uh, because that lump of tissues is a vestigial human being? It's fairly arbitrary that you're female and females happen to birth children. This isn't about women, or women's rights, this is about the child and whether or not it has a right to life and whether or not its right to life trumps your right to govern your own body.

 

[kingpocky]

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.

She didn't sign a contract to have the baby; she has no obligation. If it's emotionally traumatic for him, then HE should have thought about that before he had sex.

This argument doesn't work, this is like saying she knew something she didn't want to occur could occur and so did he therefore it's his problem. You're just forcing men to play the chivalry role which is ludicrously outdated.

They both partook in sex knowing that a child could occur as a result, that was their joint action, so we can assume she gives her consent to a child because otherwise she shouldn't partake in actions which could cause one. This means that we she desires an abortion she's reneging upon their earlier implicit agreement that a child is an acceptable consequence of sex. This makes her the transgressor, the man is simply sticking with their earlier implicit agreement in demanding that she birth the child. She's changing the moral rules ad hoc to suit her, that's immoral.

You're making up moral rules ad hoc either way. You could just as easily say that we can assume he gives her consent to have an abortion by not getting her to explicitly agree not to have one.

No, we couldn't. Implicit in sex is the immediate consequence of a child, not an abortion. An abortion first requires a child which is the immediate consequence of sex. If we're saying that people shouldn't partake in actions which have immediate consequences they disagree with then my 'sex entails children' argument works, your 'sex entails abortion' doesn't, since you've missed out a step.

How does the immediacy make a difference? When the consequences occur doesn't matter. People shouldn't partake in actions which have consequences they can't handle, whether those consequences are immediate or in the distant future. Sex entails possibly getting a woman pregnant, which entails the woman possibly getting an abortion, which entails possible "emotional trauma."

Of course, I think that just puts both the man and the woman on the same level. However, since the woman is the one actually carrying the baby, the consequences are greater for her. Thus, her right to not have the baby overrides his right to force her to have it.

 

[Mad World]

Yes - I definitely think that it is 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.

Same thing with alcohol and tobacco consumption and driving.

I disagree on them too though, though it's so kind of you to take up their argument as well as your own.

Absolute toss. Let's say, hypothetically, you're at an age where if you don't have children now you'll never get to raise them. You have sex with a woman, she can't be bothered to go through childbirth and so denies you the right to ever raise children. She's committed an act far more grievous than yours.

Men have every right to lay claim to their children. It's absolute nonsense that women's emotional reaction to carrying/aborting a baby trumps mens. You're also biasing child-rearing towards women, as if women have some natural link to this role, by claiming that it's emotionally harder for them to abort a baby, as if they have a stronger link with it.

What about the physical effects? I agree on the emotional, but physical?

 

[Danpascooch]

It's not any more alive than a sperm or egg, which makes claiming it is murder idiotic, it is not self aware, so it is not murder.

It's all about "where to draw the line" but you know what's convenient? Nature gave us a hugely import and conspicuous event in which to draw that line

birth.


Whether you think it's wrong or not is a personal matter, but murder it is not.

I 100% agree with you. Birth is where I draw the line. Once the umbilical cord is cut to be precise.

.....so if a nurse delivered the baby, and then WITHOUT CUTTING THE UMBILICAL CORD the nurse drop kicked it over to the doctor, who caught it and stuck a scalpel in it's eye, it wouldn't be murder? It would be awesome though, right?