Should Abortion be Allowed? (1 Viewer)

[Adam Caramon]

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?

That's true, but even in the case of slaves, for example, who were forced to colonize an area. They wouldn't get a pass from the natives simply because they didn't have a choice in coming there. Its the native's land, and they have every right to kick out an unwelcomed invader.

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.

That is the crux of the matter. I think it bares stating (probably repeating) that no one is truly pro-abortion. No one thinks that abortions are a great thing and want to see more of them. Those people that are pro-choice believe a woman should have the right to terminate if she so chooses.

In these debates, I think the quality of life that the child would have should it be born is often forgotten. I can't imagine being the child of a woman who wanted to have me aborted but wasn't allowed to. That would most likely be a miserable existence fraught with severe psychiatric issues.

 

[Alc]

That's true, but even in the case of slaves, for example, who were forced to colonize an area. They wouldn't get a pass from the natives simply because they didn't have a choice in coming there. Its the native's land, and they have every right to kick out an unwelcomed invader.

True. However, if they were told to move on, it's possible they could settle elsewhere. Even, at the risk of sounding like a BNP headcase, going back where they came from.

That is the crux of the matter. I think it bares stating (probably repeating) that no one is truly pro-abortion. No one thinks that abortions are a great thing and want to see more of them. Those people that are pro-choice believe a woman should have the right to terminate if she so chooses.

In these debates, I think the quality of life that the child would have should it be born is often forgotten. I can't imagine being the child of a woman who wanted to have me aborted but wasn't allowed to. That would most likely be a miserable existence fraught with severe psychiatric issues.

Agreed. I don't think anyone here is arguing they're a good idea, but calling them 'murder' is (at best) debatable, as opposed to being a fact.

 

[Vassago]

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.

Okay, then I refer back to what I believe is the definition of killing. According to the legal and MY definition of killing, something has to be considered alive and by alive, I mean a distinct life that can survive without direct attachment to another life. Based on this, I don't believe that a fetus is alive until it CAN survive on it's own outside it's or another host. So, no, in my opinion, abortion is NOT murder because the fetus is not actually alive.

You also must consider what "innocent" means in your statement. If you're religious (Christian), none of us are "innocent." So if you're providing this fetus with the definition of being a distinct life, and you are religious, you must also tag this life as non-innocent. Right?

 

[MarkK]

Nobody wants an abortion. An abortion is like a social car wreck. It's like a social root canal. Imagine the despair you have to be in for an abortion to look attractive. Imagine how much laughter and joking around there is in the halls of an abortion clinic.

Being 'right' about abortion is irrelevant.

Cheers,

 

[Eva]

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

This definition has serious problems, at best.

The two parts of this, taken equally, implies that a human being must be (ignoring the mention of extinct) both living and have articulate speech and erect carriage. If not, no human being. This would mean that those born seemingly without the ability to communicate, or those who cannot walk are not human. Infants possess none of these abilities. I think, rather, that this definition is unfortunately too ambiguous to be useful.

While I can appreciate that the newly conceived doesn't look anything at all like an adult, or act like an adult, does not communicate like an adult or consume the food an adult does, and that there are many compelling emotional and practical reasons for finding a way for it to not be human, there just isn't any science to support it. Does an embryo look like a 3 month, 1 day old fetus, for those that think abortion is wrong after the 3rd month, does a 3 month old fetus look like a 9 month old fetus, does a 9 month old fetus (still attached to the mother in a "paracitic" way) look like a 2 year old, like an adult, etc. Do any of them act like the other? Do any of them eat the same food or in the same manner? Do all of them display the same level of cognizance?

Regarding the comment about paracitic, until we developed formula, infants were still parasitic. Did they suddenly gain the right to be protected once they were freed from being attached to their mother?

There are many types of developmental processes which that we undergo until death. We are not done cooking, even at birth. The brain is still growing until, some researchers say, until somewhere between 11 and 15 years old. We don't stop growing in height until 22 or 23. We don't start having the ability to communicate until sometime in utero. When we become aged, our bodies start degenerating - backwards development, in a sense. The process is continuous.

If the newly conceived isn't yet human, what makes it human and when does that happen? The definition above will not work unless you deny human status to many groups.

And you can't say that the newly conceived is less human. If so, based on what? Based on the definition above? If so, people that are handicapped are less human
than people that are not. If you were once fully human but then were in a crippling accident, do you become less human?

I am not arguing that their abilities to function as humans is not diminished. It is right and good for us to try to prevent what makes people handicapped or crippled because it would allow them to act in a way that fully actualizes their potential as human beings.

Not to mention we would have to have a scale on which we grade being human.

 

[Eva]

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.

So the instant before birth, a parasite and okay to end its life if the woman chooses, the moment after birth, no? and what about when the baby is delivered but the umbilical cord is still attached?

Parasitic relationship... ouch... are you a parent? Can you look at your children and say, if things had been really tough, your mother and I might have ended your life at 8 or 9 months because you were only a parasite and not worth even the least legal, not even to mention, parental protection?

And don't say that after they were born you knew them and formed a relationship with them and now you couldn't imagine life without them and that is why you couldn't say that to them, but that you would be able to if you hadn't, because that would imply that knowing someone grants them the status of being human.

 

[Eva]

Okay, then I refer back to what I believe is the definition of killing. According to the legal and MY definition of killing, something has to be considered alive and by alive, I mean a distinct life that can survive without direct attachment to another life. Based on this, I don't believe that a fetus is alive until it CAN survive on it's own outside it's or another host. So, no, in my opinion, abortion is NOT murder because the fetus is not actually alive.

You also must consider what "innocent" means in your statement. If you're religious (Christian), none of us are "innocent." So if you're providing this fetus with the definition of being a distinct life, and you are religious, you must also tag this life as non-innocent. Right?

As stated in a previous post to another member, the moment before birth, receiving all sustenance from the mother, it is right to end its life, the moment afterwards, no. Umbilical cord attached yet delivered? Where does that fall?

You can say it isn't alive, but really you are just making up a definition and are going against hundreds and hundreds of years of the definition of what it means to be alive. If that is the case... I don't even know how to respond to that!

Innocence in the definition is to distinguish between killing those that are guilty of something specific and those that are not guilty. Something that truly killed another and truly knew what he was doing, is truly guilty. Something that did not do anything is innocent. It is a state of innocence in the realm of actions, having not committed anything, not in a religious sense of original sin.

 

[Access_guy49]

Something that did not do anything is innocent. It is a state of innocence in the realm of actions, having not committed anything, not in a religious sense of original sin.

"something" as in a fetus and not a "someone" as in a person?

i would suggest that in very short order in life, humans do a guilty act, be it swating a bug, stealing, lieing...
So that would imply that realistically, only people say... 5 years old and under can actually be murderd.
I swore at age 2 apparently. That's not very innocent. Had I been killed there after by my stressed out parents, thankfully they wouldn't have been tried for murder correct?

Would that also mean you are pro death penalty?

 

[Eva]

"something" as in a fetus and not a "someone" as in a person?

i would suggest that in very short order in life, humans do a guilty act, be it swating a bug, stealing, lieing...
So that would imply that realistically, only people say... 5 years old and under can actually be murderd.
I swore at age 2 apparently. That's not very innocent. Had I been killed there after by my stressed out parents, thankfully they wouldn't have been tried for murder correct?

Would that also mean you are pro death penalty?

I guess it goes to show I shouldn't answer posts at 12:30 in the morning. I should have used the word "someone."

I guess I'm a little surprised. Are we really debating what the word innocent means? Not guilty of a particular act, not in the much more general sense you are referring to.

Yes. The death penalty would be justified in cases where there was no other way of protecting the public. This means, however, that in a developed society such as we have in the United States, England, etc., with resources to prisons, confinements, and the like, it might be very difficult to find such justification. This, of course, is predicated upon the right and responsibility of the state to provide some measure of security for its citizens.

This is based on the intentional and innocent part of the definition. The state does not intend to execute the criminal. It intends protect its citizens, and would do so another way if it were possible. When you read the word intend, think motivation. The state doesn't set out to execute criminals because criminals should be executed (the motivation, or intention), but executes criminals when necessary because it has a responsibility to protect its citizens (the motivation, or intention).

 

[Access_guy49]

I guess it goes to show I shouldn't answer posts at 12:30 in the morning. I should have used the word "someone."

Haha, yes I did figure you didn’t mean to do that, but had to use the slip. 

I guess I'm a little surprised. Are we really debating what the word innocent means? Not guilty of a particular act, not in the much more general sense you are referring to.

The thread was debating what murder was defined as... only to define it with an equally ambiguous term.
The point I’m trying to make, is that some words are subjective in their meanings. Innocence is never universal, and the same goes for the opinions on what murder is. (I point back to my previous post in which I refer to a killing in self-defense)

…This is based on the intentional and innocent part of the definition. The state does not intend to execute the criminal. It intends protect its citizens, and would do so another way if it were possible. When you read the word intend, think motivation. The state doesn't set out to execute criminals because criminals should be executed (the motivation, or intention), but executes criminals when necessary because it has a responsibility to protect its citizens (the motivation, or intention).

Seriously, the state does not INTEND to execute the criminal. “Let’s strap this guy to a chair, hit him with a pile of voltage and good amount of current and see if that fixes him… oh, what.. he died?”
It’s very much a “you killed someone, now we will kill you back” theory.
Inmates are on death row for YEARS and during those YEARS they are not a threat to society, so why after 20 years on death row do they become a serious risk which the prison walls can no longer contain?
Using that same logic, one could probably argue that the mother isn’t motivated to kill the fetus. She simply has no other way to ensure that she survives. She is protecting her own body from the risk of a pregnancy. It just so happens when you remove the threat, it dies.

Ok, here’s a question I would love to know your thoughts on based on your opinions.
Which life, is more important to you, the mother’s or the fetus?
Are they of equal importance? If they are of equal importance, is it RIGHT for the government to say that a woman can’t choose to kill the fetus if in fact she is concerned with the risk it poses to herself? If it is right, then again whose life is more important?

 

[Alc]

This definition has serious problems, at best.

Yeah, I'll openly admit that. However, a disabled person would be covered by the other two definitions. I was trying to find some definition of 'human' that could also cover a foetus but didn't manage it. I just felt that saying I couldn't would sound too much like I hadn't tried. Listing the first three I found and explaining how a foetus didn't match up to any of them was the closest I could get.

This is based on the intentional and innocent part of the definition. The state does not intend to execute the criminal. It intends protect its citizens, and would do so another way if it were possible. When you read the word intend, think motivation. The state doesn't set out to execute criminals because criminals should be executed (the motivation, or intention), but executes criminals when necessary because it has a responsibility to protect its citizens (the motivation, or intention).

Yes, it does intend to kill the person. Locking him/her up for the rest of their life would equally protect the rest of the citizens. The decision to kill is probably a lot cheaper than keeping them in prison and I know there are numerous other arguments in favour of the death penalty (as there are against it) but saying it's 'necessary' to kill someone doesn't really hold true.

 

[Eva]

Yeah, I'll openly admit that. However, a disabled person would be covered by the other two definitions. I was trying to find some definition of 'human' that could also cover a foetus but didn't manage it. I just felt that saying I couldn't would sound too much like I hadn't tried. Listing the first three I found and explaining how a foetus didn't match up to any of them was the closest I could get.


Yes, it does intend to kill the person. Locking him/her up for the rest of their life would equally protect the rest of the citizens. The decision to kill is probably a lot cheaper than keeping them in prison and I know there are numerous other arguments in favour of the death penalty (as there are against it) but saying it's 'necessary' to kill someone doesn't really hold true.

I've been entirely too busy to post lately, but I'll post a super quick reply...

If that is what the state intends, then I would say that it isn't justified - I mean in order to do something that is a good action, it has to be a good thing that you are doing and you have to do it for the right reason.

If you help an old lady across the street because you are showing off, well, you may have done a nice thing for the lady, but it wasn't a good action. You have to help her across the street because you are being helpful. Similarly, if you do something evil, but not meaning to do so, you the punishment you receive may be less than it would be if you had done it on purpose.

I would say that in order for the state to be doing something fully good, they would have to be executing the criminal out of protection for society (this really would have to take place in a society where there is chaos, and a prison wouldn't reliably be able to hold a criminal) and not doing so out of revenge.

 

[Alc]

I would say that in order for the state to be doing something fully good, they would have to be executing the criminal out of protection for society (this really would have to take place in a society where there is chaos, and a prison wouldn't reliably be able to hold a criminal) and not doing so out of revenge.

So, since society isn't in that state, all executions of criminals are also to be considered murder?

 

[Access_guy49]

If you help an old lady across the street because you are showing off, well, you may have done a nice thing for the lady, but it wasn't a good action. You have to help her across the street because you are being helpful. Similarly, if you do something evil, but not meaning to do so, you the punishment you receive may be less than it would be if you had done it on purpose.

I would say that in order for the state to be doing something fully good, they would have to be executing the criminal out of protection for society (this really would have to take place in a society where there is chaos, and a prison wouldn't reliably be able to hold a criminal) and not doing so out of revenge.

If you truely belive in what you posted here, would it not stand to reason that a person getting an abortion with the intent to spare a child a life of missery and/or hurt would be a "good action"
or being as killing is ok in your view if it protects society (currently living people) and the mother to be is a currently living person, then she could have an abortion to protect herself from risk of death, and that would be a "good action"....yes?

 

[Eva]

So, since society isn't in that state, all executions of criminals are also to be considered murder?

No, because the person is not innocent and justice is deserved, especially since it is the responsibility of the state to bring about a type of justice so as to provide a safe society. It does, however, make it an abuse of justice and would call for some sort of reform. We all know that the prison system needs reform anyway, just roll this one into it!

If i recall, the reason we are discussing this is because we are attempting to define murder. To repeat, murder can be defined by different societies as having different requirements, however, the concept of murder I am speaking about is something that belongs to the natural law. This is something that transcends legal systems and societal norms. It applies to all people of all times because it is something inherent in nature that is understandable.

We perceive that it is a grave wrong to kill another human being. If a society at any time has or will permit such a thing, we would still perceive it and it would still be a grave wrong, regardless of what the state allows.

I really wish I had more time...

 

[Adam Caramon]

No, because the person is not innocent and justice is deserved...

Which bring up a multitude of additional questions. If someone is found guilty by a jury of their peers, sentenced to death, and eventually executed, but was really not guilty the whole time, would you say that the jury, the state, etc, murdered that individual? They intentionally killed the individual, they didn't think the person was innocent, but he was.

To repeat, murder can be defined by different societies as having different requirements, however, the concept of murder I am speaking about is something that belongs to the natural law.

Natural law means different things to different people. In general, most people would say that killing another person is wrong, immoral, etc. But when you add any number of variables (self-defense probably #1 among them), the killing becomes justified.

The American legal system even differentiates between types of murder (1st degree, planned out, 2nd degree, in anger and such, etc.).

Once again, it seems you're talking from a religious angle. As if there is a higher power than the legal system that all of us must answer to. It may be that way to you, but for many people its not. And in the legal sense, it is most definitely not accurate.

 

[Alc]

Natural law means different things to different people.

Wow! I just looked up 'natural law'. It's a term I've heard before but never realy had a fixed understanding of. Saying it means different things to different people is one hell of an understatement!

 

[Eva]

Wow! I just looked up 'natural law'. It's a term I've heard before but never realy had a fixed understanding of. Saying it means different things to different people is one hell of an understatement!

While there are multiple interpretations of the natural law, all classical interpretations of the natural law would agree that to kill another human being in the way we are discussing is against the natural law. And that is the interpretation of natural law I am discussing. Can we at least agree that to kill someone just because I like to do so is wrong for all people of all times and of all societies - regardless of what the society or law permits?

 

[Eva]

Which bring up a multitude of additional questions. If someone is found guilty by a jury of their peers, sentenced to death, and eventually executed, but was really not guilty the whole time, would you say that the jury, the state, etc, murdered that individual? They intentionally killed the individual, they didn't think the person was innocent, but he was.



Natural law means different things to different people. In general, most people would say that killing another person is wrong, immoral, etc. But when you add any number of variables (self-defense probably #1 among them), the killing becomes justified.

The American legal system even differentiates between types of murder (1st degree, planned out, 2nd degree, in anger and such, etc.).

Once again, it seems you're talking from a religious angle. As if there is a higher power than the legal system that all of us must answer to. It may be that way to you, but for many people its not. And in the legal sense, it is most definitely not accurate.

It jives with many religions, but is not based on religion. It is based on reason. If someone came up to me and said according to their interpretation of the natural law, they are justified in killing whomever they want for whatever reason they want, they are wrong. Not because I think they are, but because according to what is perceptible through our reason. This natural law is not something human beings created, it is something we understand based on nature.

To kill someone in self-defense would be justified because you do not set out to kill the attacker in cold-blood, your motivation or intention is to protect yourself. You did end their life, but you did so because you have a primary responsibility to protect yourself and those in your care.

Remember, you have to meet all the requirements of the definition of murder in order for it to be so. The direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being.

 

[Alc]

Can we at least agree that to kill someone just because I like to do so is wrong for all people of all times and of all societies - regardless of what the society or law permits?

Yes, agreed. However, nobody has argued otherwise?

Ignoring certain deliberately provocative comments one poster made a while back, most people are arguing about:
1. Foetus/Person - is it one or not?
2. Abortion/murder - are they the same?
3. Cases where abortion should be an option e.g. where it endangers the mother's health, ra**, incest, etc.

Surely, nobody has said that you should be allowed to kill because you 'like to do so'.