Should Abortion be Allowed? (1 Viewer)

[Eva]

Firstly, I would say you make the unborn sound more like a paracite than a human, in which case, surely it should be up to the woman to get rid of it if she wishes.

Secondly, what exactly are you terming as "life" is it a sentient being? Is it aware?

Thirdly, would you hesitate to kill a flea? It also lives off you but is separate to you.

Finally, I just cannot fathom the reason for this debate!! If you've had concentual sex then you will surely have taken precautions if your intention is not to conceive?? So what on earth are we debating? If it wasn't concentual then obviously there has to be a case for termination because of the further trauma that can be caused to the victim.

Before answering your question, I'd like some clarification. What do you mean by sentient being and aware. Do you propose that being sentient and/or aware is a requirement of being human and, since human, then therefore possessing some quality that would compel us to protect its existence, the way we do children and adults?

If you believe that the value of a child growing in his mother's womb is analogous to the value of a flea, we should be having a different discussion. However, if you did believe that, you would then be completely accurate in making the analogy and in judging that abortion is no different than swatting a flea. But do you really want to do that? Since I think you would agree that it is wrong to murder another human being (child, adult), then you would have to then determine the point at which that embryo, fetus, whatever, possesses that value that makes it intrinsically different from that of other animals.. If you think humans do not have any more value than a flea or any other animal, for that matter, then there is no compelling reason I couldn't murder someone for the fun of it.

 

[Vassago]

When exactly does fetus=baby?

According to the US scientific and legal definition, life begins with birth, not conception. This means that abortion is NOT legally murder, because there is no unique life being taken that is recognized by the legal process.

One of the most hypocritical arguments of the pro-life agenda is that life begins with conception and that abortion ends that life. Most pro-lifers have the position that in cases of incest, ra**, or when the mother is at risk, abortion is ok. The hypocricy lies in that aspect of a pro-life position. Why is it okay to "kill" the innocent "baby" for the crimes of the father and/or mother (such as cases of incest)? What about when the mother is at risk? Why is it ok to "kill" one "life" to save another?

I believe this should be what it has always been, a decision made on a case by case basis by the potential mother and their doctor. Government should have no business sticking its ugly nose into private practice. Are there and will there continue to be people who take advantage of it? Absolutely! But I truly believe the vast majority of women who have abortions, do NOT do so lightly. They weigh their options and toughly choose what's best for their individual situation. The widespread opinion that women are constantly getting pregnant and choosing to abort without a second thought and repeatedly is just a little ridiculous.

 

[Eva]

According to the US scientific and legal definition, life begins with birth, not conception. This means that abortion is NOT legally murder, because there is no unique life being taken that is recognized by the legal process.

To what definition are you referring? The discussion is not whether abortion is legally murder, it is whether it is in fact murder. The concept of murder transcends legal systems.

One of the most hypocritical arguments of the pro-life agenda is that life begins with conception and that abortion ends that life. Most pro-lifers have the position that in cases of incest, ra**, or when the mother is at risk, abortion is ok. The hypocricy lies in that aspect of a pro-life position. Why is it okay to "kill" the innocent "baby" for the crimes of the father and/or mother (such as cases of incest)? What about when the mother is at risk? Why is it ok to "kill" one "life" to save another?

You are absolutely right. If murder is intentionally and directly killing a human being, and if the newly conceived is alive, then abortion is murder, and it is murder for all people, all places, and all times. It transcends societies and legal systems.

I believe this should be what it has always been, a decision made on a case by case basis by the potential mother and their doctor. Government should have no business sticking its ugly nose into private practice. Are there and will there continue to be people who take advantage of it? Absolutely! But I truly believe the vast majority of women who have abortions, do NOT do so lightly. They weigh their options and toughly choose what's best for their individual situation. The widespread opinion that women are constantly getting pregnant and choosing to abort without a second thought and repeatedly is just a little ridiculous.

I wouldn't say that women are getting second, third abortions without a second thought, but there are huge societal pressures, pressure from the father, pressure from parents, self-induced pressures based on the inconvenience of a child, the ending of a career, etc. Women who do have one abortion are more likely to get another, and if its not alive, why shouldn't she? Why would this even be a tough decision?

 

[Eva]

The idea that life begins at conception.

I quote from the article
"Life does not begin at conception."
The writer explains this statement quite well.

It seems his position is that human life is continuous, beginning at some point eons ago, continuing until some undetermined point in the future, and with many endings in between (deaths).

Since life does not begin at conception but has been continuous since its one beginning, there is nothing significant distinguishing (going backwards) the newly conceived from the pre-fertilized egg. Going forward, then, you must agree that there is nothing distinguishing the newly conceived from itself days later, 3 months later, 9 months later, when it is a 1 day old newborn, 2 year old child, etc. There are no beginnings to life, according to his argument, only one.

You see, if there is only one "life," it is still either all valuable or none of it valuable. And by saying that it is permissible to end the life of the newly conceived, you must be saying that none of it is valuable, and therefore it is permissible to end anyone's life at any time.

 

[Eva]

So two unfertilized eggs also constitutes a human being since between them they have 46 chromosomes. I have little doubt that they could be combined to make a viable embryo, if not now, in the near future.

Fine. And when that happens and a new member of the human species is created, at that point it will be wrong to end its life.

 

[ColinEssex]

A woman that is pregnant is treated differently by our society. Look at Col's recent posts.

I personally don't give a toss if a woman is pregnant or not. And yes they are treated differently.

What I do object to is the state paying them child benefit until the kid is 18.

I also object to women swanning off on paid maternity leave and expecting to walk back into their job after birth. (which they do)

I also object to them demanding time off from work because little Johnny has a snivel or the school is having a non-pupil day.

If you want kids then do it and pay for it yourself. If you're working, then you leave work when it's born.
Society is too bloody cotton-woolish about a self inflicted medical condition. It's very expensive for taxpayers and the economy in current trying times.

If the benefits wern't available, nor maternity leave, then maybe just maybe our drunk teenagers would think twice before dropping their knickers. And maybe parents would think twice if they had to foot the bills in total.

Child benefit money only goes on booze and fags anyway (for the Mum not the kid)

Col

 

[Adam Caramon]

To what definition are you referring? The discussion is not whether abortion is legally murder, it is whether it is in fact murder. The concept of murder transcends legal systems.

I think the more appropriate question is, what definition are you referring to? Not the legal definition, not the dictionary definition, then what? Maybe we could wrap this whole conversation up in a nice ribbon by you telling us what you define as murder, then we could discuss it from there?

 

[Galaxiom]

The consideration of the morality of "taking a human life" in the earliest phases of development is an arbitrary decision.

Some people consider all animal life as sacred and live their life as a vegetarian. Some of them are as adamant as Eva is about the morality of their decision and insist it is "wrong" to kill an animal for food. But once again it is an arbitrary and personal choice.

Fact is a baby CAN exist with the support of anyone who is willing to give it. It would be wrong to deny it the opportunity. The development of a fetus is dependent on a particular person in what is essentially a parasitic relationship. In my morality, the choice to host that relationship remains the choice of the woman.

 

[ColinEssex]

If Eva is adamant that abortion is murder, I wonder how she feels about soldiers killing each other in war. Is that murder?

It is after all, the taking of a life. Yet most countries are happy to allow it to happen.

Is there a difference?

Col

 

[Alc]

You see, if there is only one "life," it is still either all valuable or none of it valuable.
And by saying that it is permissible to end the life of the newly conceived, you must be saying that none of it is valuable, and therefore it is permissible to end anyone's life at any time.

Again, your opinion only, not a fact.
If I or anyone else says that I think {whatever} about one stage of life, it doesn't automatically mean we feel the same way about all stages. As stated before, not everyoine views things in a fixed, binary way.

If we accept that spermatazoa are alive - if only, as one of the later commentors on the link I supplied stated, to distinguish them from those things that are dead - then (by your reasoning) killing any of them would also be 'murder', correct? So, for example, is using a condom murder?

To quote one of the other commentors on the same link
"The reason so many of these people look for such simplistic answers is ....... Because they cannot see shades of gray, they must have precise and absolute categories for each thing they consider. Thus neither egg nor sperm are human; once they fuse to form a fertilized egg, then it must be fully human. If not, the next discrete point in development for them is birth. That won't do as it renders the vast majority of their argument moot."

There's also the point raised by another poster. Is killing in self-defence justifed, in your opinion? What about arbotions in cases where allowing the development to full term would kill the mother but might allow the baby to survive? Since a single fertilized egg cannot be 'murdered' (to use your personal definition of the word - Adam's question is a fair one) under any circumstances, presumably any person threatening to harm you or your family should also be allowed to continue? If not, why not?

 

[Eva]

I think the more appropriate question is, what definition are you referring to? Not the legal definition, not the dictionary definition, then what? Maybe we could wrap this whole conversation up in a nice ribbon by you telling us what you define as murder, then we could discuss it from there?

The direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being.

I had referenced it previously, but I should have been more explicit. My apologies. This definition will need a little unpacking, but it will have to wait until I'm not at work.

 

[Alc]

There's also the point raised by another poster. Is killing in self-defence justifed, in your opinion? What about arbotions in cases where allowing the development to full term would kill the mother but might allow the baby to survive? Since a single fertilized egg cannot be 'murdered' (to use your personal definition of the word - Adam's question is a fair one) under any circumstances, presumably any person threatening to harm you or your family should also be allowed to continue? If not, why not?

Answered partially by post 191.
Killing an innocent person is murder.

Still leaves open the point that, in the opinion of many people (some biologists included), a fertilised egg isn't a person. So, by what definition is the egg considered a person?

Got this from the freedictionary.com website.
This definition seems to be the one that's being used.

A living human.

'Human' being defined on the same website as

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Unfortunately, this is still going round in circles, as it's entirely subject to opinion whether or not a fertilised egg is yet part of this species.

 

[Adam Caramon]

The direct and intentional killing of an innocent person.

That's a swiss cheese definition. If a pregnant woman drinks and smokes and does drugs and that causes the death of the fetus, it would not, by your definition, be murder.

Not to mention defining "innocent". If a rapist impregnates a woman, I would not call that fetus innocent.

I find this definition interesting, as it appears to be a religious-based one. If a person kills another person, that is murder. But if state then performs a lethal injection on the killer, that is not murder as the killer was not innocent (I'm assuming this is what you mean).

Heck, if a vigilante tracks down a murderer and kills him, that would also not be murder under this definition.

Seems very Old Testament-ish.

 

[Alc]

That's a swiss cheese definition. If a pregnant woman drinks and smokes and does drugs and that causes the death of the fetus, it would not, by your definition, be murder.

Not to mention defining "innocent". If a rapist impregnates a woman, I would not call that fetus innocent.

I find this definition interesting, as it appears to be a religious-based one. If a person kills another person, that is murder. But if state then performs a lethal injection on the killer, that is not murder as the killer was not innocent (I'm assuming this is what you mean).

Heck, if a vigilante tracks down a murderer and kills him, that would also not be murder under this definition.

Seems very Old Testament-ish.

I'll jump in here before anyone else does
I agree with virtually everything there, except this bit
If a rapist impregnates a woman, I would not call that fetus innocent.
The fetus itself is innocent, surely? The rapist, not at all, but the fetus?

As for the rest of it, yes it seems a bit old testament. You can kill without it being murder as long as the person you kill has wronged someone first?

 

[Eva]

That's a swiss cheese definition. If a pregnant woman drinks and smokes and does drugs and that causes the death of the fetus, it would not, by your definition, be murder.

Not to mention defining "innocent". If a rapist impregnates a woman, I would not call that fetus innocent.

I find this definition interesting, as it appears to be a religious-based one. If a person kills another person, that is murder. But if state then performs a lethal injection on the killer, that is not murder as the killer was not innocent (I'm assuming this is what you mean).

Heck, if a vigilante tracks down a murderer and kills him, that would also not be murder under this definition.

Seems very Old Testament-ish.

I do not have time right now to respond to all of this, but a few comments:

Woah, the fetus is guilty for the crime of its father???? Please clarify, since that can't be what you mean.

While it may jive with many religious definitions, it is not a religiously based definition. I am keeping all religion out of the discussion.

 

[Eva]

Answered partially by post 191.
Killing an innocent person is murder.

Still leaves open the point that, in the opinion of many people (some biologists included), a fertilised egg isn't a person. So, by what definition is the egg considered a person?

If you'll allow me to correct my definition, I intended to use the word "human being" since "person" has a different definition and is not yet relevant to the debate. Thank you for clarification.

 

[Alc]

If you'll allow me to correct my definition, I intended to use the word "human being" since "person" has a different definition and is not yet relevant to the debate. Thank you for clarification.

Okay, going back to the same dictionary site, a human being is defined as

1. A human.

2. any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage

3. a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child

Ignoring the first definition (as it's of no help and seems a little facetious).

Second definition. Prior to birth, the foetus doesn't possess any of the characteristics listed for Hominidae, so couldn't it be argued that it isn't human? I'm not saying that it's a different species, just that it isn't yet human. In the same way I'd argue that an egg isn't a chicken until it hatches.

The last one is interesting. Clearly, a foetus isn't a man or a woman. Ths same site, on two different lines, comes up with two contradictory definitions for a child.
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. An unborn infant; a fetus
Seemingly, you can take your pick. Either a child starts its existence at birth or it does so earlier. Which brings us full circle.

If you assume 'child' to include unborn fetuses (feti?) and you take 'murder' to be any killing of an innocent, then there is no arguing that abortion is murder.

If, however, you assume 'child' to mean 'has been born' and/or you take 'murder' to mean an unlawful killing, then there is no arguing that abortion is not murder.

Glad we got that sorted.

 

[Adam Caramon]

The fetus itself is innocent, surely? The rapist, not at all, but the fetus?

I don't think so, but that's why innocent is such a subjective term. I would compare this to invaders taking over someone else's land. Sure, the soldiers might kill the natives to make room for the settlers, but are the settlers innocent in any wrong doing? The settlers are there on land that does not belong them due to violent actions taken by others on their behalf.

If the natives return, kill the settlers and take their land back, would you think the natives are suddenly the bad guys? That the settlers were innocent?

Regardless, I don't think a fetus at conception is inside the womb hoping that its mother doesn't terminate. And furthermore, I think it would be a horrible miscarriage of justice to force a woman to have her rapist's baby if she didn't want to.

 

[Access_guy49]

Directed generally towards Eva and the defenition of murder
Your previous arguments were that the intentional killing of a human being is wrong.
Self defence, the killer should go to jail?
If a woman kills a rapist in an attempt to get away, should she go to jail?
If a fetus poses a risk to a mother (Every pragnency carries a risk) could we not infer that the fetus is not innocent? Or is it impossible for said fetus to be anything but innocent because it has yet to start life?

For me, the real question is not if the fetus is even alive, i think likely most people would agree that abortion kills a living fetus. That statment would be very hard to argue.
The question for me is, are there any reasons in which the killing of the fetus should be allowed under man-made law?

Another point to consider,
If two twins were born connected and perhaps shared vital organs, in which doctors could safely assume that leaving the twins connected would cause almost certain death, would it be best to save one twin? or let them both die? should we legally not even give the option and just say "well, your both ef'd cuz that's how god made you?"

 

[Alc]

I don't think so, but that's why innocent is such a subjective term. I would compare this to invaders taking over someone else's land. Sure, the soldiers might kill the natives to make room for the settlers, but are the settlers innocent in any wrong doing? The settlers are there on land that does not belong them due to violent actions taken by others on their behalf.

If the natives return, kill the settlers and take their land back, would you think the natives are suddenly the bad guys? That the settlers were innocent?

In this analogy, the settlers have decided where to settle. Regardless of whether or not they meant to cause harm, they did make the conscious decision to go to that location. A foetus, however, is incapable of deciding this, so has to be innocent? However, since I still believe the foetus isn't a conscious being in the sense that the mother is, applying concepts like innocence or guilt in order to decide if it can be removed is not very useful.

Regardless, I don't think a fetus at conception is inside the womb hoping that its mother doesn't terminate. And furthermore, I think it would be a horrible miscarriage of justice to force a woman to have her rapist's baby if she didn't want to.

Agreed.