Addressing the Ethical Debate: The Status of Abortion as Murder

[plus]

Is abortion murder or not?
I think that it is because they are alive and they are humans. I have never heard any argument to discount the above statements. Even if you do not believe them then there has to be some probability that they are true, and if they are then it is murder.
If these playboys and slags want to sleep around then they should be aware of their actions, and not be able to reverse the consequences just because they created a human being.

(I wonder how long it will take for this thread to be locked)

People who are opposed to abortion should not take the attitude that it is everyones choice. Because the rights of the unborn should be respected, and they should be protected from their mothers. Note that in western society it is seen as ok to kill an unborn baby, but in asia it is ok to murder a newborn baby girl. These societal beliefs should be stopped and made illegal.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If these playboys and slags want to sleep around then they should be aware of their actions, and not be able to reverse the consequences just because they created a human being.

(I wonder how long it will take for this thread to be locked)

There would be no reason to lock it if you hadn't included this stereotype sludge. Your first and last paragraphs raise a legitimate phiosophical issue.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think that it is because they are alive and they are humans. I have never heard any argument to discount the above statements.

At what stage of development do you say that a bunch of differentiated tissue is a human ?

And while I recognize that it would be fruitless to attempt a civilized discussion with you, let me ask you the following question. If a couple has a genetic disorder that is likely to be passed on to offspring, should they (or should they not) be forbidden from reproducing ? If they have a child despite the knowledge and the baby inherits this crippling disorder, should the couple be tried for deliberately inflicting suffering on a third person ?

The debate is harder than you make it out to be. But then, that's your style.

 

[BH20]

The debate is a complex one but how I look at it, I believe it is murder. Murder seems to be too strong of a word but it is a termination of potential life. I just do not believe that we should stop a natural process from happening. I don't care how far it is into the process, that's beside the point really. The point is that it has began and if you allow it to develop it will become a human being.

Whether you believe in god or not is beside the point too. Every person is made different, and it should not be up to us what we allow to live in this world and what we don't allow. Would having a child that was disabled be difficult? without a doubt...regardless, they are your child and its only fair that they are given a shot to live. If they are meant to die, human nature will take its course and they will.

The problem in our society is that we don't like to deal with reality. In every sense we like to make things better for ourselve and we forget what is right.
We are at a point where many teenagers use abortion as birth control and that is just not right either.

There is a fine line in everything, but the line I have always drawn is that while I can understand and respect a lot of things people do, its only to the point where it affects them, if it affects someone else, then it has crossed the line.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I would say abortion is murder; however, I support the pro-choice philosophy. A fetus is not in the position to contribute to society within its mother's womb; therefore, it has no value to society.

 

[Kerrie]

i think abortion becomes murder when a mother has carried a child to her 3rd trimester...it is at this point the baby can live on their own, although may have slowed mentality and underdeveloped lungs among other things...

as for aborting in the first trimester, if the child is unwanted, cannot be supported well, or has genetic problems, i am all for it. women who use abortion as a means of birth control will find out later in life if and when they do want to conceive that they will have some serious problems in carrying a pregnancy.

 

[loseyourname]

There would be no reason to lock it if you hadn't included this stereotype sludge. Your first and last paragraphs raise a legitimate phiosophical issue.

Note: Philosophical issue. Unless we're going to discuss the social ramifications of abortion, why is this in social sciences? Sounds like an ethical argument is being made.

 

[selfAdjoint]

And so each of us draws the line according to his or her own opinion. I don't believe there is any way to reach a consensus on abortion. I agree with loseyourname that this thread belongs in the Value Theory forum.

 

[plus]

I agree now that the value theory forum is the best fit for this topic.

At what stage of development do you say that a bunch of differentiated tissue is a human ?

After conception.

If a couple has a genetic disorder that is likely to be passed on to offspring, should they (or should they not) be forbidden from reproducing ? If they have a child despite the knowledge and the baby inherits this crippling disorder, should the couple be tried for deliberately inflicting suffering on a third person ?

If there is a child/adult who is disabled, should they be killed? I say not, although they would be a drain on society. The real debate you are raising is whether certain people should be disallowed from reproducing or not.

The debate is harder than you make it out to be. But then, that's your style.

Do not insult me.

 

[plus]

i think abortion becomes murder when a mother has carried a child to her 3rd trimester...it is at this point the baby can live on their own, although may have slowed mentality and underdeveloped lungs among other things...

Before this stage, the womb is essential for survival. But equally, for adults oxygen is essential for survival. If we are flying in a plane, should we be killed because we could not survive outside the plane? Or should the pilot have the choice to kill us.

as for aborting in the first trimester, if the child is unwanted, cannot be supported well, or has genetic problems, i am all for it. women who use abortion as a means of birth control will find out later in life if and when they do want to conceive that they will have some serious problems in carrying a pregnancy.

So just because the timing is inconvenient, you should have the right to kill. Women who use abortion as birth control may or may not regret it later, but they serve no penal sentance and this does not help the people who were killed.

Do you believe that it is ok to kill the baby girls in asia, because they could not survive without their parents, or any adults to support them?

 

[plus]

I would say abortion is murder; however, I support the pro-choice philosophy. A fetus is not in the position to contribute to society within its mother's womb; therefore, it has no value to society.

This does not make any sense. Why should a murderer have the right to kill others?

 

[russ_watters]

Before this stage, the womb is essential for survival. But equally, for adults oxygen is essential for survival. If we are flying in a plane, should we be killed because we could not survive outside the plane? Or should the pilot have the choice to kill us.

A plane is outside of the normal human habitat, thus the analogy doesn't work.

Do you believe that it is ok to kill the baby girls in asia, because they could not survive without their parents, or any adults to support them?

Not a valid analogy.

If there is a child/adult who is disabled, should they be killed? I say not, although they would be a drain on society.

There are two cases where it is done: people who are brain dead with no hope of recovery often have life support terminated, and people who choose it either through a living will or assisted suicide. In both of these cases, I think it is moral.

After conception.

There is an inconsistent standard applied here by many religions: If a fetus is a full-human with a soul, then birth should not be a factor: why does entry into heaven require baptism after birth (why not have a ceremony where you baptise the woman's stomach?)? Why don't people have funerals for month-old fetuses? [legally] Why do we have "birth certificates" and not "conception certificates"?

It is my understanding that a significant fraction of fertilized eggs never implant into the uterus (can a biologist confirm this please?) or are otherwise lost (menstration doesn't stop?) within weeks of conception. Doesn't this pose a problem for the life-starts-at-conception view?

 

[anti_crank]

I think that it is because they are alive...

So are bacteria, yet your immune system destroys millions in a given day. And it's a good thing that it does so, otherwise you wouldn't last the day. Nonetheless, I'll allow that you don't mean that

... and they are humans.

Be that as they may. Genetically, they're always human. But I'd like you to make an argument as to why we shouldn't kill humans. That's not to say that I support indiscriminate killing, but there have to be good ethical reasons for it - and then we will see whether they apply to the problem at hand. Keep in mind too that there are plenty of circumstances in which most people would approve of killing humans, such as self-defense.

If these playboys and slags want to sleep around then they should be aware of their actions, and not be able to reverse the consequences just because they created a human being.

Again this needs some sort of support.

People who are opposed to abortion should not take the attitude that it is everyones choice.

You need worry nothing in this regard. People who are opposed to abortion are very active in trying to get their views shoved down everyone's throat, and use every means at their disposal, which includes some very underhanded tactics, to pursue that.

Because the rights of the unborn should be respected, and they should be protected from their mothers.

And the mothers shouldn't be protected from the babies? How would you like it to have something you don't want leeching off your very existence, whether you created it or not, and affecting you negatively in any number of ways in the process?

Note that in western society it is seen as ok to kill an unborn baby, but in asia it is ok to murder a newborn baby girl.

Cultures differ. I don't like the idea of choosing boys over girls (it is unsound in any number of ways), but change is hard for old cultures. China has outlawed selective abortion, yet we all know the legal systems can be ahead of times compared to the rest of society. The only effective solution to this problem is education. This costs money, always takes at least one generation to complete, and in the case of China is not helped by the distrust of people in their government. If you have any good ideas, I'm sure the government of China will listen.

These societal beliefs should be stopped and made illegal.

Uh huh. Surely you can give a reason other than your own personal opinion?
Edit: I just noticed something that gave me pause. I certainly hope that you mean the practices should be made illegal, and not the beliefs
Moving on...

Before this stage, the womb is essential for survival. But equally, for adults oxygen is essential for survival. If we are flying in a plane, should we be killed because we could not survive outside the plane? Or should the pilot have the choice to kill us.

Let's suppose our plane crashes in the desert. You have some water that is your own, do I have any right to demand it from you? Again that's not to argue whether you'd WANT to give me some or not; the question is if you have the right to do otherwise. It is your water, you need it for survival and the rescue teams aren't very punctual, and heck you like living as much as the next man. A twist of fate has landed me in a very bad spot; should you not have the right to say "Tough luck buddy, them's the breaks" and save yourself?

As for whether abortion is murder or not and what of it, a few question pop to mind: how do we define 'murder', how does it differ from the physical action of killing a human, and when is murder unethical?

 

[briton]

Is abortion murder or not?
I think that it is because they are alive and they are humans. I have never heard any argument to discount the above statements. Even if you do not believe them then there has to be some probability that they are true, and if they are then it is murder.
If these playboys and slags want to sleep around then they should be aware of their actions, and not be able to reverse the consequences just because they created a human being.

(I wonder how long it will take for this thread to be locked)

People who are opposed to abortion should not take the attitude that it is everyones choice. Because the rights of the unborn should be respected, and they should be protected from their mothers. Note that in western society it is seen as ok to kill an unborn baby, but in asia it is ok to murder a newborn baby girl. These societal beliefs should be stopped and made illegal.

Well what about if the mother's life is in danger? Should she not be able to abort the feotus in self defence? And what about becoming pregnant after being raped - could you live for nine months, and infact for the rest of your life, knowing how your baby was created?

 

[learningphysics]

And the mothers shouldn't be protected from the babies? How would you like it to have something you don't want leeching off your very existence, whether you created it or not, and affecting you negatively in any number of ways in the process?

I've always found this a bizarre line of argument from pro-choicers. The woman's choices led to the creation of the unborn baby (I'm excluding rape cases). You have two lives in an unpleasant predicament... the first was responsible for getting both into the situation... the second is not... Why is the one that is not responsible for the situation punished for the actions of the first?

This is about responsibility... why do we say parents are responsible for taking care of their children? Why does this responsibility only begin after birth?

 

[Kerrie]

Before this stage, the womb is essential for survival. But equally, for adults oxygen is essential for survival. If we are flying in a plane, should we be killed because we could not survive outside the plane? Or should the pilot have the choice to kill us.



So just because the timing is inconvenient, you should have the right to kill. Women who use abortion as birth control may or may not regret it later, but they serve no penal sentance and this does not help the people who were killed.

Do you believe that it is ok to kill the baby girls in asia, because they could not survive without their parents, or any adults to support them?

i am guessing you are male. and as me being a female, the last thing i want to hear or read from a male is what choices i need to make concerning childbearing, especially from a religious standpoint.

 

[cragwolf]

I consider abortion to be a form of murder (I don't shy from that word) but I fully support the practice, as see lots of advantages to it. As for when it should be legal, I'll let society decide (as long as women have a say in that society). Having said that, I don't think that you should send to jail a woman (and a doctor) who has aborted 1 day past the limit set by society. There should be a gradation of punishment. I also support the right of parents to kill babies (via an injection) with very severe physical and mental deformities who are already dying slowly and painfully by dehydration or infection.

 

[anti_crank]

I've always found this a bizarre line of argument from pro-choicers. The woman's choices led to the creation of the unborn baby (I'm excluding rape cases). You have two lives in an unpleasant predicament... the first was responsible for getting both into the situation... the second is not... Why is the one that is not responsible for the situation punished for the actions of the first?

Since we want to explore this point properly, I'll also exclude pregnancies that directly endanger the mother's life. Consequence of a choice is not the same as intent; in fact it is safe to assume the opposite in this case - the woman was intending NOT to become pregnant. In some instances the mother may accept the accidental pregnancy and in others she may not - this is a willing decision by the mother. Would it satisfy you if the baby could be removed from the womb, matured in an artificial life support system and sent to an orphanage thereafter?

This is about responsibility... why do we say parents are responsible for taking care of their children? Why does this responsibility only begin after birth?

In this instance, responsibility only happens if it is willingly assumed. Parents need not be responsible for raising their children. This is simply the way it's always been and likely will be, and society has come to make this expectation of parents (though if you read Brave New World by A. Huxley, you'll see that it's not necessary), however there is no fundamental principle that requires them to. Whether one likes it or not, there is no fundamental responsibility for one human to help another in need. That is not be read that most people won't do it, but that they don't HAVE to do it. So, if the mother decides not to support the baby, case closed. (but refer to above) The alternative is to pass laws to force people to be heroes at any opportunity.

 

[the number 42]

Is abortion murder or not?... If these playboys and slags want to sleep around then they should be aware of their actions.

I love it. More, please.

(I wonder how long it will take for this thread to be locked)

Saint Plus, martyr to hysteria. You'll have to try harder, I'm afraid.

 

[learningphysics]

In this instance, responsibility only happens if it is willingly assumed. Parents need not be responsible for raising their children. This is simply the way it's always been and likely will be, and society has come to make this expectation of parents (though if you read Brave New World by A. Huxley, you'll see that it's not necessary), however there is no fundamental principle that requires them to. Whether one likes it or not, there is no fundamental responsibility for one human to help another in need. That is not be read that most people won't do it, but that they don't HAVE to do it. So, if the mother decides not to support the baby, case closed. (but refer to above) The alternative is to pass laws to force people to be heroes at any opportunity.

Hmmm.. let me get this straight. If a baby is born, it can be ethically abandoned and left to starve, since no human being has any responsibility towards another?

What is your ethical position exactly? Give me an example of a case where someone HAS to do something.

 

[learningphysics]

Since we want to explore this point properly, I'll also exclude pregnancies that directly endanger the mother's life. Consequence of a choice is not the same as intent; in fact it is safe to assume the opposite in this case - the woman was intending NOT to become pregnant. In some instances the mother may accept the accidental pregnancy and in others she may not - this is a willing decision by the mother.

Well, a risk was knowingly taken. She knew pregnancy was possible. If she thought her contraception was full proof, then perhaps the state should take care of the child since the woman didn't receive the proper education.

Why SHOULD it be a willing decision by the mother?

Would it satisfy you if the baby could be removed from the womb, matured in an artificial life support system and sent to an orphanage thereafter?

If we value human life, then of course, yes this is better. If not, then killing of inconvenient adults should be acceptable too.

 

[Zlex]

I think that is partly atavistic genetic wiring; survival of the herd/tribe. A threat by any individual ,or in this case, merely potential individual, to the survival...well being...comfort...life style...and finally, convenience of the tribe 'as a whole' must be dealt with. After all, the tribe is all.

The concept 'individual rights' is a very recent one in the history of the species, and the ancient wiring remains; the herd/tribe must survive at all costs, even if it is necessary to sacrifice a few individuals to make that happen. Sometimes, the 'need' to make that happen is based on implementation of the pet theories of an elitist few, not unlike the tribal voodoo priests of time past. No matter; the morality of that concept applied in any given situation is not relevant to determining the outcome, because the mob/tribe/herd is the de facto strongest of the Jungle's strong, when compared against any individual. When the tribal elders/voodoo priests get their hands on the tribe's Magic Stick--the Talisman that grants them power to speak for the needs of the tribe--the urge to wield that power must be enormous. It is the brute power of Marx's eminent domain that allows the tribe to do what it will, not any moral code. It is the ultimate might makes right; the ultimate will of the Jungle's Strong--the mob/tribe-- over the Jungle's Weak--any one of us.

It is only with the advent of modern civilization that attempts have been made to place reasonable limits on that always irresistable brute force. America and its constitutionally limited democratic republic is one of the latest, modern experiments pulling man from the jungle and declaring that in this tribe, we join together to defend the concept that the power of the tribe, although great, is not absolute. An idea very unlike the totalitarian extremes of scientific statism that have lurched across the rest of the world in the last century.

An idea so great that, it has left a long trail of individuals willing to sacrifice all to defend a tribe dedicated to that idea, so that it might exist somewhere on Earth. When you examine the true meaning of freedom, you find that it means freedom from the absolute dominance of the Jungle's tribe.

So, if I really believe that, then how can I possibly argue against 'free' Choice? Because, respect for individual rights must begin with respect for individual life. A modern tribe that does not defend the quintessential innocent individual life is well on its way back into the Jungle. The 'conflict' of rights in this instance is not one initiated by the weakest member in this conflict.

Any tribe, including a modern one, can enforce its will in any way it chooses; it is the ultimate irresistable force. And yet, I cannot bring myself to argue that our tribal government should use that force to ban abortion. I am encouraged, however, when our tribal elders/leaders use their voices and their positions to educate and press the case for life, so that more of the tribe can evolve out of the Jungle on its own.

 

[Justinius]

I also see abortion as murder. I didn't notice whether or not this idea was covered in this thread but I am going to re-cover it if it already has been.

When is a human being formed? It should be a matter of potency and act. When a male and female have sexual intercourse, there is the potential for a baby to be formed. When the sperm is ejaculated into the woman, all of them have the potential to reach the ovum, and fertilize it. Only one will actualize this potential and fertilize this ovum. At conception, a human being is actualized, or formed, if you will. To terminate the pregnancy any time after conception, is murder.

A human baby can then be defined as "the act of conception," which would give the government/society as a whole no choice but to legally ban abortions, because they would be murder.

A perfect example of this was in the Canadian news recently. A man murdered a pregnant woman and was charged with her murder, and the murder of her unborn child. But, get this: in Canada, we have the most lenient abortion laws in comparison with many other countries. Go figure.

If we value human life, then of course, yes this is better. If not, then killing of inconvenient adults should be acceptable too.

This makes logical sense. If we can kill unborn babies because we "didn't mean to get pregnant," then what's wrong with killing adults or seniors who are inconvenient to us?

 

[derekmohammed]

I guess we could look at this from this stance.

While the baby is in the womb of it mother it is attached to the mother through the imbelical cord. It is therefore a part of its mother, the same as the mother has arms, legs and fingers she also has an unborn fetus attached to her. If she wants to loose a piece of her it is her choice. I can not stop someone from cutting there hair or amputating diffrent parts of there body, it is the mothers choice if she wants to keep this diposable part of her body or not.
Could we call cutting hair and finger nails murder? Since this too, is the act of disposing unwanted parts of your body; is it not?

One must remember that the fetus growing inside the mother belongs to one person and that is the person caring the child. Until the child/fetus is physically removed from the carrier, the fetus belongs to the mother and what she does with it is her choice.

 

[learningphysics]

I guess we could look at this from this stance.

While the baby is in the womb of it mother it is attached to the mother through the imbelical cord. It is therefore a part of its mother, the same as the mother has arms, legs and fingers she also has an unborn fetus attached to her. If she wants to loose a piece of her it is her choice. I can not stop someone from cutting there hair or amputating diffrent parts of there body, it is the mothers choice if she wants to keep this diposable part of her body or not.
Could we call cutting hair and finger nails murder? Since this too, is the act of disposing unwanted parts of your body; is it not?

One must remember that the fetus growing inside the mother belongs to one person and that is the person caring the child. Until the child/fetus is physically removed from the carrier, the fetus belongs to the mother and what she does with it is her choice.

Ok here's a thought experiment. We have a scientist who's engaging in risky experiments that could affect the safety of others. He's warned by everyone in the community of the risks... As a result of one of his experiments, he becomes conjoined/attached to another person (this other person did not willingly participate in this experiment, his involvement is an accident). The other loses almost all his bodily functions, and is dependent on the scientist's body to survive... Fortunately his functions are regenerating, and within 9 months he'll be able to survive independently of the scientist... But the scientist refuses to deal with the 9 months of suffering... and decides to cut loose the other person. Is this morally acceptable?

 

[anti_crank]

Hmmm.. let me get this straight. If a baby is born, it can be ethically abandoned and left to starve, since no human being has any responsibility towards another?

No it cannot. Once the parents accept the responsibility of becoming parents, which assumption happens at birth, they can no longer discard that responsibility, only pass it onto some other entity. This is called the parent-chilld contract. However, I personally have no responsibility to raise an abandoned baby - only to take it to an orphanage.

What is your ethical position exactly? Give me an example of a case where someone HAS to do something.

One has to act in such a way as to not harm others directly, and exercise reasonable care not to harm others indirectly. The latter category restrains actions like throwing stones off a highway bridge in full awareness that they can seriously damage cars below.

Here's a thought experiment...

The scientist is obligated to support the person, but the analogy fails. The other was originally capable of sustaining his own bodily functions, and the scientist robbed him of that ability. More importantly, the other EXISTED before the experiment, and already had a life of his own.

Why SHOULD it be a willing decision by the mother?

Because she can control what happens to her body, that's why, and it is impossible to enforce the opposite unless you take the mother into a hospital-prison until she delivers her baby. Otherwise, she might engage into any number of activities that are unsafe for the baby: smoking, drinking, sky-diving, etc.

This makes logical sense. If we can kill unborn babies because we "didn't mean to get pregnant," then what's wrong with killing adults or seniors who are inconvenient to us?

There are two different contracts at work here:
1) the society-individual contract: the SOCIETY as a whole is responsible for safeguarding the lives and rights of each individual that it admits as members. This contract is indefinite and cannot be terminated when an individual becomes an inconvenience, but parts of it can be invalidated by an individual's criminal behavior. Thus society is responsible for caring for orphaned children, disabled elderly and the like, if the family is unable or unwilling.
2) the individual-individual contract: INDIVIDUALS are required not to harm each other, but they are not required to go out of their way to help each other.

How does one enter a society? By being born into it, naturalization, or other accepted means, NOT by conception. (Just try to get a passport for an unborn child). Upon birth, the baby is admitted into society and its life is protected against arbitrary interference until he dies.

 

[learningphysics]

No it cannot. Once the parents accept the responsibility of becoming parents, which assumption happens at birth, they can no longer discard that responsibility, only pass it onto some other entity. This is called the parent-chilld contract. However, I personally have no responsibility to raise an abandoned baby - only to take it to an orphanage.
One has to act in such a way as to not harm others directly, and exercise reasonable care not to harm others indirectly. The latter category restrains actions like throwing stones off a highway bridge in full awareness that they can seriously damage cars below.
The scientist is obligated to support the person, but the analogy fails. The other was originally capable of sustaining his own bodily functions, and the scientist robbed him of that ability. More importantly, the other EXISTED before the experiment, and already had a life of his own.

Because she can control what happens to her body, that's why, and it is impossible to enforce the opposite unless you take the mother into a hospital-prison until she delivers her baby. Otherwise, she might engage into any number of activities that are unsafe for the baby: smoking, drinking, sky-diving, etc.

Well, you've already shown that it isn't impossible to enforce.

There are two different contracts at work here:
1) the society-individual contract: the SOCIETY as a whole is responsible for safeguarding the lives and rights of each individual that it admits as members. This contract is indefinite and cannot be terminated when an individual becomes an inconvenience, but parts of it can be invalidated by an individual's criminal behavior. Thus society is responsible for caring for orphaned children, disabled elderly and the like, if the family is unable or unwilling.
2) the individual-individual contract: INDIVIDUALS are required not to harm each other, but they are not required to go out of their way to help each other.

How does one enter a society? By being born into it, naturalization, or other accepted means, NOT by conception. (Just try to get a passport for an unborn child). Upon birth, the baby is admitted into society and its life is protected against arbitrary interference until he dies.

Ok, you've mentioned how one enters a society... But we're not discussing how things are, but how things SHOULD be.

Why does the parent child contract begin at birth, or rather why SHOULD the parent-child contract begin at birth? Would it be acceptable to kill the unborn child five minutes before birth? (I know this doesn't happen in the real world, but just as a hypothetical).

 

[Kerrie]

Quote:
Why SHOULD it be a willing decision by the mother?

Because she can control what happens to her body, that's why, and it is impossible to enforce the opposite unless you take the mother into a hospital-prison until she delivers her baby. Otherwise, she might engage into any number of activities that are unsafe for the baby: smoking, drinking, sky-diving, etc.

Anti-crank brings up an excellent point here. Also, if abortion was now outlawed after having been legal for so many years, there will be many underground doctors performing illegal abortions that are unsafe and could ultimately kill a woman. Whose life is more valuable at that point?

And I ask again:

WHERE ARE THE WOMEN IN THIS DISCUSSION? I find it ridiculous that men have so much to say on this topic.

 

[Zlex]

Quote:
Why SHOULD it be a willing decision by the mother?

Because she can control what happens to her body, that's why, and it is impossible to enforce the opposite unless you take the mother into a hospital-prison until she delivers her baby. Otherwise, she might engage into any number of activities that are unsafe for the baby: smoking, drinking, sky-diving, etc.

Anti-crank brings up an excellent point here. Also, if abortion was now outlawed after having been legal for so many years, there will be many underground doctors performing illegal abortions that are unsafe and could ultimately kill a woman. Whose life is more valuable at that point?

And I ask again:

WHERE ARE THE WOMEN IN THIS DISCUSSION? I find it ridiculous that men have so much to say on this topic.

Legal, illegal is not the point here.

That view takes 'morality' out of the equation, when looking at other species. But, not ours, or, so we'd like to think.

Coldly, devoid of morality, this species could survive long term if it selectively practiced abortion; abortion is no obvious threat to the species as a whole.

Ditto, selective murder, or the experiments that Hitler imagined to build what he thought was a better species.

Ditto, selective dumping of garbage or nuclear waste.

The more I examine the contradiction between 'survival of future generations' and 'survival of this instance of a future generation,' the more it looks like simply the mob vs. the individual.

The tribe must survive; species, uber alles. So, the justification to snuff any particular strand of already unwinding DNA can be based on mere convenience without impacting the survival of the tribe.

An invitation to life, withdrawn. Sorry, two adults invited you to launch your DNA process, and you did, but they checked their DayTimers and your arrival is not convenient. So why would we treat 'accidental life' with any less gravity then 'accidental death?'

I don't think OneSIzeFitsAll in regards to accidental life.

What about in the case of rape/incest? Clearly, NOT a mutual invitation. An accidental/unintended life that could very well result in a deliberate death, and the perpetrator(not the victim)should bear the responsibility for that deliberate death, in that case. However, such a decision to abort should only be made by the mother, no one else.

What about in the case of threat to life to the mother? Clearly, an unintended conflict, and better to live to raise another child then to surely die through no fault of your own. Such a decision should be made by the mother, no one else.

What about in the case of 'imperfect' life? I am the cousin of someone who could be easily genetically classifed as imperfect; he is actually missing DNA, up to 50,000 pairs in his Elastin gene. Almost 3 years ago, my family, together, in agreement, went gunning for him, but we and the technology of the time missed him. He got through our littel CVS gauntlet, and made it to Nature's Table, in spite of our best efforts and intentions. We only accidentally didn't murder him, and here he is, imperfections and all. Today, the FISH test for Williams Syndrome deletion exists, and we could catch him. Imperfect or not, he did not miscarry, and in many ways, is healthy as an ox. However, I could never bring myslef to try and convince someone else to bear what they feared to be a too great burden, and I could certainly never convince myself to encourage the guns of government to to aim in that direction. What I could do is simply introduce folks to my little cousin, who was only accidentally not murdered, and let them see what they could be flushing down the sink. Yes, that is because he is 'here' now, and of course I love him to pieces, but what is crystal clear to me is that, the only thing which allowed us to pretend that he was not going to someday be exactly who is now was my convenient temporal bias way back then. The only difference between him then and him now is time and inevitablity, nothing else.

Then, what about merely 'inconvenient' life? Abortion as birth control, in support of a lifestyle. This is disgusting, inhuman, and dispicable. There is no level on which I could respect such a decision, by anybody. That 'inconvenient' life is in conflict with the precious lifestyle of folks who explicitely invited its arrival through their direct actions. They are responsible for the 'conflict,' nobody else. The fact is, if abortions of mere convenience were outlawed, then that unfair burden would not so readily be taken on, as if the act of invitation had no more consequences then the shaking of hands. I could sleep like a baby in a nation that directed the guns of government to outlaw abortions of mere convenience, as well as the unfair burden of consequences from living in a society where the responsibility of inviting life to Nature's Table is taken so lightly.

 

[Hurkyl]

I find it ridiculous that men have so much to say on this topic.

Then, you should spend time rethinking your position. Frankly, I find it ridiculous when women try to shut men out of this. It's like a poor drug addict saying that middle class America has no right telling them that stealing is wrong.


But that aside, I find your position most appalling because you flatly ignore a core issue of the topic -- when does it cease to be a "part of the mother's body" and becomes something more.

Refusing to recognize this issue doesn't make it go away, no matter how much you would like it to do so.

 

[Alkatran]

Killing a fetus compared to killing a baby is as killing a fetus is to menstration/(male)masturbation.

I could easily take the stand that women who allow their period to happen are murderers! Each and every egg has the POTENTIAL to be a real living person! Women who don't sleep around constantly are MURDERING! Also, men should be allowed to take any woman off the street and have his way with her so as not to waste her sperm, which all have the POTENTIAL to be babies!

In fact, men should be required to ensure that each and EVERY sperm gets an egg! Never mind the overwhlem sperm to egg ratio, it will be a fight to the death to see who gets to have the child!


Ahhhh satire.

 

[Zlex]

Killing a fetus compared to killing a baby is as killing a fetus is to menstration/(male)masturbation.

I could easily take the stand that women who allow their period to happen are murderers! Each and every egg has the POTENTIAL to be a real living person! Women who don't sleep around constantly are MURDERING! Also, men should be allowed to take any woman off the street and have his way with her so as not to waste her sperm, which all have the POTENTIAL to be babies!

In fact, men should be required to ensure that each and EVERY sperm gets an egg! Never mind the overwhlem sperm to egg ratio, it will be a fight to the death to see who gets to have the child!


Ahhhh satire.

Neither 'sperm' nor 'egg' are potential members of future generations until explicitely invited by the direct actions of members of group3 to come join the fun.

Besides, they might as well ask kids to shove hubcabs down the front of their pants, the way those cups fit.

Nope; the components 'sperm' and 'egg' and 'Aluminum' and 'Silicon' and 'Carbon' and 'Calcium' and 'Zinc' etc., are all merely required components to materially create animate life, so when your son comes from baseball and runs upstairs alone with the new 'Victoria Secrets' catalog, he's not explicitely risking accidental/wreckless life, or, making any explicit invitations.


It is true that not every nearly potential half of a zygote 'sperm' ever mates with an egg.

It is also true that, with roughly half the population male, and with every single male 'load' consisting of some 3 billion sperm, while a female might only produce a total of maybe 500 eggs in a lifetime, the longshot numbers make this a moot impossibility.

It is true that not every lucky sperm that finds an egg becomes a zygote.

It is true that not every once lucky sperm zygote becomes an embryo.

It is, yes, true that every merely potential member of future generations actually ever becomes a member of the current generation.

It is even true that, not every full term infant lives more than a day, two days, or even 30,000 days.

All of that is true. So, at what point in the midst of all that truth is a merely conceived zygote any _less_ potential then a not even merely conceived member of the generation that will arrive here 20 years from now?

Does that merely not even concieved aggregate of individuals who will be conceived 19 years and 3 months from today have any current rights which the present generation must consider?

This could be resolved simply by making the claim, "Only groups have rights; individuals/instances do not."

This idea of mob rule might yet go over big in America.

You can see the personal calculus being run right now;

"Well, I'm an individual, so I guess that means I have no rights. But, then again, as long as the tribal voodoo priests let me in, I can always claim to be a member of the group, and then reclaim the rights that the annointed few deem I am worthy to hold, as a member of the Holy group."

It goes back to how strong that atavistic herd/tribal gene goes, and how far or near one is yet to the Jungle. You know, where the Jungle's strongest of the strong--the mob/group/tribe, gets to run roughshod over the Jungle's weakest of the weak--any one of us. Eaons ago, for survival. Then...for the slightly more vaporous 'general welfare.' Then...for the even more vague 'well being' of the mob/tribe. Then...'lifestyle.' And fianlly, in the context of the present debate, 'No mere individual--not even, the quintessential weakest of the Jungle's weak---shall threaten the 'convenience' of the Jungle's strong--the mob already enjoying its group rights at Nature's Table.


Not even, if the weak was explicitely invited to take it's longshot seat by the direct, wreckless actions of those in the mob.

So, who is the gatekeeper at the tribal hut who checks for group membership and keeps all those pesky 'individuals' at bay?



Thank you; freedom shown to be defined, once again, as freedom from the tribe.

 

[Alkatran]

Neither 'sperm' nor 'egg' are potential members of future generations until explicitely invited by the direct actions of members of group3 to come join the fun.

Ah yes, but I say by not performing this action they are MURDERERS. If your mother says she's going to knock you out and have an abortion performed on you, are you justified in doing nothing? After all, no direct action of yours will cause the harm!

Good point on the 'conceived' zygote. I didn't even consider women and men were murdering trillions upon trillions upon (depends on how long until humans are whiped out) of people! I shall go outside and begin administering the death penalty. I shall also find myself a lass to relieve my moral obligations.

Come to think of it, people tend to take direct action to NOT have children while taking direct action to have them.

 

[learningphysics]

Killing a fetus compared to killing a baby is as killing a fetus is to menstration/(male)masturbation.

Well, I could say killing killing a baby, compared to killing an adult, is as killing a fetus is to killing a baby.

There are two issues... When does the sperm/egg combination become alive... Second is it acceptable to kill it even if it is alive...

 

[anti_crank]

There's been a lot of points brought up, and I must apologize for not having the time to address them all:

Well, you've already shown that it isn't impossible to enforce

Be that as it may, the method I quoted is a gross violation of rights, and would also necessitate other things such as mandatory monthly examinations of women to check if they are pregnant, etc, etc. I'd sure hate to live in a society like that.

rather why SHOULD the parent-child contract begin at birth? Would it be acceptable to kill the unborn child five minutes before birth?

The willingness to carry out the birth seems to me a good commitment to the child and an indication that the contract was willingly accepted. And it must be willingly accepted; otherwise anyone can be forced into (other kinds of) unwilling contracts for those nine months, and maybe even more.

Would it be acceptable to kill the unborn child five minutes before birth?

I would not like it *personally*, since the baby is capable of surviving on its own at this point and the woman can have it removed without killing it. As far as I am concerned, only one right overrides the unborn's right to life, and that is the mother's right to control her body, from which it follows that she has the right to have it removed by any means necessary; if the unborn's death can be avoided then an effort should be made to do so if society deems it appropiate.

I find it ridiculous that men have so much to say on this topic.

Frankly, I find it ridiculous when women try to shut men out of this...

I've argued that the ultimate decision belongs to the woman, but I'm with Hurkyl on this one insofar as anyone has a right to an opinion on any topic (informed ones preferred), and it does not help the cause to shut men out of the debate, but there's no way to conclude that such an attempt was made here. Women are of course welcome to have their say here; perhaps they're simply unaware of this little discussion, which is no doubt repeated in any number of forums?

when does it cease to be a "part of the mother's body"

Why, at birth, silly.

... and become something more

I believe some explanation is in order before we can tackle this.

when does the sperm/egg combination become alive... Second is it acceptable to kill it even if it is alive...

I've already responded to this, either here or elsewhere.

Apologies again, that's all for now.