Should abortion be considered murder?

[lawtonfogle]

at conception the fetus is not even connected to the mother, it is not until later. Also, at 14 days the fetus has its own nervous tissue, which is like a premature brain.

And (im not trying to be offensive) if one thinks a fetus is worthless, then they should know they to must also be worthless. Where is a adult different than a fetus? What is the scale that all things are rated on there value? Why are killing egals illeagal, yet we can kill our on kids? Where are we different from the millions of bacteria that we kill every time we wash our hands?

For any human to be worth something, it must be worth something to something else than one of its kind, something that can think.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Would not the government kill any human adult or child to protect it self. If abortoin is right, so then is the governments dicession that a person life has less no value any more.

 

[Rev Prez]

That's just the court case

Yes, the ruling that decriminalized abortion.

I am talking about the reasons people were pushing to get abortions legalized.

We can debate the motives of the abortion advocates from here to kingdom come. Suffice to say I have as little interest in that discussion--and even less reason to agree with you--as where it concerns your tangent about conservative compassion for the otherwise unfortunate.

I lived through that time.

A point of fact I neither contest or find terribly relevant to the discussion.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Evo is correct that making abortion illegal isn't going to make it go away, it only makes it less safe.

No he's not. And your evidence only indicates that in developing countries, life is very difficult for women.

 

[Evo]

Did you bother to research why abortion is legal here? This page contains the full text of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.

That just happens to be the case that made abortion legal in the remaining states. Abortions were legal in CA & NY prior to Roe vs Wade, did you know that?

Women's rights to decisions about their bodies and to stop women from being needlessly killed, accidently sterilized and internally mutilated as a result of illegal abortions were the key issues. The ruling in a case is not the same as what was considered the important issues, what is important is that the case was won. The case did not need to go over all the issues.

 

[Rev Prez]

Would not the government kill any human adult or child to protect it self. If abortoin is right, so then is the governments dicession that a person life has less no value any more.

There's no need to even go that far. The simple fact is Roe v. Wade and every pro-choice argument rests on the principle that the fetus is not a person. The most disingenuous argument is that because people are treated poorly in real life, pro-lifers are hypocritically seeking to treat fetuses as human beings. I'm waiting for one of our pro-choice luminaries to explain why it is inconceivable to simultaneously appreciate right to life and equal protection of the unborn as well as the admirable goal of improving the lives of all. Given the quality of responses ("you're a man," "why don't you go feed a real kid"), I'm not terribly hopeful.

Rev Prez

 

[Evo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbear
Evo is correct that making abortion illegal isn't going to make it go away, it only makes it less safe.

No he's not.

You think making abortion illegal will make it stop? Please post your evidence that shows that when abortion was illegal that it wasn't done.

And your evidence only indicates that in developing countries, life is very difficult for women.

Are you saying that the women that died from complications directly related to the illegal abortion were caused by a hard life?

I'm with you Moonbear, this just isn't getting anywhere.

 

[arildno]

"Pro-lifers" are quite consistent in their attitudes:
They couldn't care less about the lives and happiness of actually existing human beings; they live in a fantasy world dictated by simplistic ideas because they are too dumb to face the complexities of real life.

They represent the most primitive segment of the human population, the charitable attitude towards them is pity, I suppose.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Many I have heard say put your money where your mouth is. They say i should not say no to abortion unless I can pay for the child un till he/she is an adult. And in the case of mental retardation, pay for them until they die.

I would like to know how many people who voted on one of the canidates for Presidency could have paid their salary if they won. How about those who voted for the war in Iraq, how many could have paid for the cost, more so how many could pay for the life lost. How many who voted not to have the war could have paid that price. How many who did not vote on the subject could have paid for the bill the results of their response.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonbear
Evo is correct that making abortion illegal isn't going to make it go away, it only makes it less safe.

You think making abortion illegal will make it stop? Please post your evidence that shows that when abortion was illegal that it wasn't done.

Making rape or murder or theft illegal does not stop it. So using your argument, should these be made legal.[/quote]

 

[lawtonfogle]

"Pro-lifers" are quite consistent in their attitudes:
They couldn't care less about the lives and happiness of actually existing human beings; they live in a fantasy world dictated by simplistic ideas because they are too dumb to face the complexities of real life.

They represent the most primitive segment of the human population, the charitable attitude towards them is pity, I suppose.

The world is in such a state that anylife brought into it will fill pain.
While pro-life are 'in there fantasy' are not the pro-choice in their own thinking they can make life better in their own way. There will always be pain, and death.

 

[loseyourname]

That just happens to be the case that made abortion legal in the remaining states. Abortions were legal in CA & NY prior to Roe vs Wade, did you know that?

Abortion was legal everywhere up to the 18th week of pregnancy prior to the mid 1800's in the US. Anti-abortion legislation that proscribes all abortion has no basis in common law. I know the legal history very well, as I've studied the legal and ethical ramifications of abortion in three separate ethics classes and one debate class. According to the Supreme Court decision:

• By the end of the 1950's, a large majority of the jurisdictions banned abortion, however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother. The exceptions, Alabama and the District of Columbia, permitted abortion to preserve the mother's health. Three States permitted abortions that were not "unlawfully" performed or that were not "without lawful justification," leaving interpretation of those standards to the courts. In the past several years, however, a trend toward liberalization of abortion statutes has resulted in adoption, by about one-third of the States, of less stringent laws, most of them patterned after the ALI Model Penal Code.

The ALI (American Legal Institute) model was based largely on the findings of Dr. Alfred Kinsey. His research (much of which is now considered to be dubitable at best) resulted in recommendations by the ALI that, among other things:

• Sodomy be legalized.
• Welfare programs be expanded to increase the benefits given according to the number of children in the household (more babies, more money).
• Decriminalization of adultery.
• Increased ease in the granting of a divorce.
• Redefining rape to include what had previously been minor sexual assault charges that are still usually bargained down to misdemeanors.
• Lowering the age of sexual consent.

The Kinsey findings also resulted in dramatic changes to sex education programs. The aim of the ALI model was to liberalize American sexual norms, not to decrease the incidence of botched illegal abortions.

But anyway, as I've said before, we should not be arguing about how much the other knows. Any argument that targets the arguer rather than his argument is considered to be an informal logical fallacy that is forbidden in structured debates, except when the honesty of the arguer or the expertise of someone passing himself off as an expert is in question. We should instead be discussing the merits of the arguments being presented, something you have yet to do. Given the length I have gone to to present cogent and detailed arguments, I would appreciate it if they were addressed.

 

[Evo]

Making rape or murder or theft illegal does not stop it. So using your argument, should these be made legal.

Legal abortion is about a woman's right to making decisions about her own body, and the ability to have a safe abortion, it does not make it legal for her to go around performing abortions on other women against their will.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Legal abortion is about a woman's right to making decisions about her own body, and the ability to have a safe abortion, it does not make it legal for her to go around performing abortions on other women against their will.

Is the fetus part of the women or its own living being dependent on the mother for food, just like a new born?

 

[Evo]

Is the fetus part of the women or its own living being dependent on the mother for food, just like a new born?

Prior to the end of the 8th week it is not considered a fetus. I'm discussing first trimester abortion for any reason, there is no fetus involved. You keep saying fetus, are you only against second and third trimester abortions then?

 

[megas]

ok very well i will provide facts to back up my statements, first of all though, men don't experience pregnancy, (of course) and wemon do, so kerrie, you are saying that pregnancy is painful and people should be able to have the option of having abortions? ok very well, if wemon can't take the pain then kill the baby, and YES a fetus is a human! a poor little baby, if you don't believe me take a look at these pictures, (very sick pictures, hold your stomach, sorry i had to hold mine, but you guys asked for it)
http://www.carmical.net/features/abortionisprolife.html

But yah that is what happens when a women gets an abortion, killing a child! A fetus is a child, that is reality people! When givin enough time a Fetus will grow up to be a human, if you look at the website and tell me that, that fetus is not human?? My goodness, look at that picture, you can practically see the poor little childs body!

 

[Kerrie]

Prior to the end of the 8th week it is not considered a fetus. I'm discussing first trimester abortion for any reason, there is no fetus involved. You keep saying fetus, are you only against second and third trimester abortions then?

Evo, thanks for clarifying this. I have a feeling many who are oppossed to abortion are thinking about a lady 6 months pregnant going down to her local clinic to have her baby removed by the most gruesome means possible. I don't event think that they are legal after 16 weeks? Maybe someone can clarify that for me. An embryo at 8 weeks is just a ball of cells that is made mostly of blood (not to get totally graphic), she has no appearance of being pregnant. In my opinion, once the fetus is 12 weeks, it becomes a more significant being within her body (speaking from now 3 pregnancies ).

 

[megas]

oh really kerrie? so you think that right when the docter tells a young women that she is pregnant that the baby is JUST a ball of CELLS? Ok where do you get this information, oh wait that was your opinion, an opinion on the side of pro choice, i now would like to show the court this!
http://www.cirtl.org/abfacts.htm
i want you to check that out, now, I am a professional here, i want to tell you somthing, after 18 DAYS of conception, the a BABY HAS A HEART BEAT! a heart beat, and you mean to tell me that this BALL OF CELLS is not a baby? personally I am offended, maybe if that BALL of cells was you?
(sorry don't mean to offend you, just trying to prove my point)

 

[Evo]

I'm going to agree with Loseyourname that we all need to try to have a discussion about the issue.

I think the issue needs to be defined.

I think a good starting point would be the correct biological distinctions between zygote, embryo and fetus. Once everyone has the same understanding, they can then decide if they are only concerned with the fetus or from the instant of conception on or somewhere in between. At least everyone will be on the same page, then we can start clearing up some other misconceptions.

Sound ok to everyone?

edit: I will add to this later, I am working and too busy to spend much time on this. loseyourname, you want to handle the differences above for me? You've already provided some good legal background info. Input from anyone else on how this can be a rational, productive discussion?

 

[Kerrie]

megas, i have had 2 ultrasounds so far in my current pregnancy with 5 pictures to look at daily of my baby. up until i was 12 weeks, it was just a ball of cells with it's own pulse, and i can say that as an expectant mother. again, another male with self-righteous views that don't take a woman's perspective and rights into consideration.

 

[loseyourname]

I will add to this later, I am working and too busy to spend much time on this. loseyourname, you want to handle the differences above for me? You've already provided some good legal background info.

Thanks. I'm taking off right now, but I should be able to put something up later about human embryonic and fetal development, if no one else gets to it first.

 

[misskitty]

No, no, no,misskitty! I didn't mean it that way, I feel terrible. I meant that I am sick of the fact that the topic cannot be discussed in a civil manner.

I'm sorry Evo! I thought you ment this topic makes you sick. I'm sorry, I completely misinterpreted your meaning. My fault, I'm sorry. Truce?

 

[Evo]

Kerrie and I are both mothers. Kerrie also went through something when she was younger that she shared awhile back which made me hold her in very high esteem and the fact that she will defend another woman's right to have a choice just speaks volumes about her as a person.

I have been lucky and have never had to decide whether to continue a pregnancy, both of my children were planned. I don't know if I could personally decide to have an abortion, but I will still protect someone else's right to decide. But we will get into how people view the issue later.

My hope is that we can make some clear definitions here, and people can explain (calmly) why they hold a certain view based on those definitions. Then we can discuss each other's views without attacking each other. I want to see people take a stand and then back that stand up with a clear explanation of why they feel this way. I don't want to see people attacked for their viewpoint. Each person will have the ability to state their view.

Or am I dreaming?

 

[russ_watters]

Or am I dreaming?

I, of course, feel just as strongly about this issue as anyone else. I'm opinionated - its just who I am. But I stay out of these discussions largely because of some experiences in politics chat rooms in the past. While a lot of our discussions in politics turn south, few do it as rapidly and as dramatically as abortion. And I really do prefer a debate to an argument (or flame-fest). But right from the start, there is a bridge that simply cannot be crossed: religious (or just moral) beliefs. If one person believes "Life" starts at conception and another believes it starts at viability around the beginning of the 3rd trimester, there really isn't anything to discuss once that is made clear.

In some ways, its like the evolution debate (science vs religion), but with one huge difference: in this issue, while one side is based on science, evidence, and logic, and the other is based strictly on belief, you still can't really say that the religious belief is "wrong".

 

[megas]

ok i understand, i will wait for everyone to state their views, hey kerrie sorry for what ever happened to you.. I am not sure what happened to you nor is it my business, but I am saying i used to be all pro life, but now that i look at others views i know only 1 reason why to have an abortion, and that is rape. other then that i don't know any others, but hey take care I am going on a camping trip,but when a women believes in her rights, morethen a kid has a right to live just doesn't make sense to me.
kerrie, please, don't wish me dead!

 

[Rev Prez]

You think making abortion illegal will make it stop?

I suggest you re-read my post.

Are you saying that the women that died from complications directly related to the illegal abortion were caused by a hard life?

I'm saying that Moonbear's evidence is worthless in a discussion of the American public health dimension of the abortion debate.

Rev Prez

 

[Moonbear]

Even I've been lazy with definitions here, and of all people, I should know better.

I'm in the midst of running in and out of the lab, but will try to return later with the biological definitions of developmental stages from zygote to embryo to fetus to newborn infant, including what we know about tissue and organ systems present/developing during those stages. I'm not going to rewrite entire chapters of textbooks, but hopefully we can get everyone onto the same page as to what we mean when we call something a fetus.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm saying that Moonbear's evidence is worthless in a discussion of the American public health dimension of the abortion debate.

Why is it worthless? It shows what desperate measures women go to when they live in a society that makes abortion illegal and cannot seek safe, sanitary facilities for those abortions. But you can keep burying your head in the sand and ignore statistics if you'd like.

 

[Evo]

I, of course, feel just as strongly about this issue as anyone else. I'm opinionated - its just who I am. But I stay out of these discussions largely because of some experiences in politics chat rooms in the past. While a lot of our discussions in politics turn south, few do it as rapidly and as dramatically as abortion. And I really do prefer a debate to an argument (or flame-fest). But right from the start, there is a bridge that simply cannot be crossed: religious (or just moral) beliefs. If one person believes "Life" starts at conception and another believes it starts at viability around the beginning of the 3rd trimester, there really isn't anything to discuss once that is made clear.

In some ways, its like the evolution debate (science vs religion), but with one huge difference: in this issue, while one side is based on science, evidence, and logic, and the other is based strictly on belief, you still can't really say that the religious belief is "wrong".

you still can't really say that the religious belief is "wrong". And this is one of the things that I want to emphasize in the discussion, that a lot of the decisions about abortion will be based on religious or spiritual belief, there is no way around it and it is one of the major issues. We cannot say which is right or which is wrong. Some people will say that it is a person from the instant of conception, or perhaps just from a biological viewpoint if they are not religious. From a religious viewpoint they may consider the point when the "soul or sprit" enters the body as the beginning of life. Many religions have believed that the "soul" enters the body at birth, before then it is an empty vessel, which is why "birth" is so significant. Others believe that it is not a "person" until it is physically developed enough to be considered "sentient", a fully developed brain is necessary.

I think we need to clear up some myths and basic biological misconceptions, set a firm, clear understanding of what we are discussing, then people can explain their viewpoints. There won't be a correct answer resulting from this, but perhaps people here will come away with a better understanding and more tolerance for other people's views.

 

[Evo]

Even I've been lazy with definitions here, and of all people, I should know better.

I'm in the midst of running in and out of the lab, but will try to return later with the biological definitions of developmental stages from zygote to embryo to fetus to newborn infant, including what we know about tissue and organ systems present/developing during those stages. I'm not going to rewrite entire chapters of textbooks, but hopefully we can get everyone onto the same page as to what we mean when we call something a fetus.

Yes, you and loseyourname would be the only two qualified to explain this. And you are an expert in reproduction!

Like Kerrie said, some people invision abortion as ripping out a fully developed infant and letting it die. We need to clear up the misconceptions, it doesn't have to change their stand, but at least they will come away with a correct understanding.

 

[russ_watters]

I really hate to get drawn into this argument, but:

ok very well i will provide facts to back up my statements...

http://www.carmical.net/features/abortionisprolife.html

But yah that is what happens when a women gets an abortion, killing a child! A fetus is a child, that is reality people!

You got to be more careful about your sources. That one is, quite simply, bad. This is as far as I read:

What is Abortion?
Capitalism Magazine, the owner of the site, is correct here. Abortion is "the removal of a fetus from the body of a woman which results in the death of the fetus."

That quite simply isn't correct. Besides the fact that what is in quotes is supposed to be a quote from another site, but isn't (, as others have pointed out, there is a difference between a "fetus" and "embryo" and the dictionary definition of abortion ("Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. ") makes this distinction. This is a common tactic of the more extreme pro-life groups: connect abortion to babies as closely as possible. There is a difference between lying and being misleading: this particular site is flat-out lying.

 

[Rev Prez]

In some ways, its like the evolution debate (science vs religion), but with one huge difference: in this issue, while one side is based on science, evidence, and logic, and the other is based strictly on belief, you still can't really say that the religious belief is "wrong".

It's difficult to begin explaining how wrong this remark is. For one, you throw out terms like science, evidence, and logic so carelessly they're meaningless.

The issue is whether or not the unborn deserve personhood status. Personhood is an ethical state, that is it attaches certain moral rights (for example, in the US there is a consensus that human beings have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

Science is a means, the only known means in fact, to uncover empirical knowledge. It is a method to making coherent models of ever improving explanatory and predictive power. It is not an ethical calculus, but an evidentiary one.

Logic is the framework for arriving at rational belief (as opposed to knowledge). Its methods are demonstrably strict supersets of those used to uncover empirical knowledge. It can operate from any set of assumed statements, evidentiary, ethical, aesthetic, etc., and produce rational constructions regardless of whether or not the premise is true under another system.

There is nothing scientific about declaring a fetus to be worthy or unworthy of moral rights because science has nothing to say on the matter. Likewise, it is not necessary to consider the unborn anything other than what they are (say, a clump of cells with no indication of operational sapience at the earliest stages of development) to arrive at the conclusion that the unborn should enjoy the same moral rights as born children.

Rev Prez

 

[Evo]

Shall we go through the list of issues you feel passionate about yet do not bear directly on you in any tangible sense? Tell you what, how about you stop trying to up end me on the moral high ground and try arguing on the merits. I don't need to drag my personal experiences with abortion into the discussion. I don't particularly care about your personal reasons for selfishly devaluing the life of the unborn.

We're going to restart this thread, I suggest you go back and read what we are going to do.

If you would like to learn along with the rest of us and be given a chance to express your view without becoming overly emotional, ok, otherwise don't participate.

Same rule will apply to everyone here. We will not push our personal opinions, beliefs, morals, etc... onto another person. We will not discuss "morals" since that is a different discussion. We will all be EQUAL in our personal opinions.

This is to everyone wanting to participate in this discussion.

 

[russ_watters]

Re: science: you're new here. Trust me when I say this: I do not use the word arbitrarily. I have a reputation for being pedantic and I really am a sticler for definitions (see above).

The issue is whether or not the unborn deserve personhood status.

See, this is part of the problem: the different sides even characterize the issue in completely different terms. To someone who looks at the issue scientifically, when is a huge part of the question.

Personhood is an ethical state, that is it attaches certain moral rights (for example, in the US there is a consensus that human beings have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

True. However, what makes a person a person? Many people believe that's a scientific question. Remember, this isn't the first issue where science and religion have clashed on that exact question (evolution).

Science is a means, the only known means in fact, to uncover empirical knowledge. It is a method to making coherent models of ever improving explanatory and predictive power. It is not an ethical calculus, but an evidentiary one.

Absolutely correct. But it most certainly has ethical implications.

Logic is the framework for arriving at rational belief (as opposed to knowledge). Its methods are demonstrably strict supersets of those used to uncover empirical knowledge. It can operate from any set of assumed statements, evidentiary, ethical, aesthetic, etc., and produce rational constructions regardless of whether or not the premise is true under another system.

I'm with you on that too.

There is nothing scientific about declaring a fetus to be worthy or unworthy of moral rights because science has nothing to say on the matter.

Why not? See, this is why I say the hardcore pro-life side often operates on belief(even faith) alone. Statements such as the above are often taken as a priori/self-evident givens. Sorry, but that just isn't good enough. History is chock full of examples of religious (or other) beliefs that science has proven wrong. At the very least, this requires a logical basis, if not a scientific one.

Likewise, it is not necessary to consider the unborn anything other than what they are (say, a clump of cells with no indication of operational sapience at the earliest stages of development) to arrive at the conclusion that the unborn should enjoy the same moral rights as born children.

Again, you're treating that as an a priori/self-evident given. Why? Clearly, it isn't that simple because there are two people (or potential people) involved with conflicting rights. There are plenty of other examples where rights conflict and require making a choice between the rights of one and the rights of another. Heck, figuring out where one person's rights end an another's begin is the fundamental question in rights.

 

[Rev Prez]

Why is it worthless?

Because your evidence set doesn't control for quality of care period. There's no evidence that abortion's legal status is a determining factor in the maternal mortality due to abortion. The single most determining factor is the availability of antibiotics. And, if you believe as others have stated that abortions can be drastically reduced by addressing other health care issues, the question as to why legal abortion is a necessary component to achieving better reproductive health remains open. In the end, it is not--or at least has not been shown to be. That leaves us with merely the ethical question of balancing the moral rights of the unborn--if they have any--against those of the mother. And, as I've demonstrated in my retroactive rights argument, using sapience to determine worthiness is as ethically arbitrary as using potential.

But you can keep burying your head in the sand and ignore statistics if you'd like.

I've addressed your evidence--decisively, too. You can keep avoiding the issue as long as you wish, but I'll entertain you only so far.

Rev Prez