What Makes Abortion Murder?

[HighStandards]

For everyone that says abortion is murder, what makes you think this? Abortion is legal, so it doesn't fit the definition of murder which is the unlawful premeditated killing of a person, so unless there's some other definition of murder that is simply killing then this is where my confusion stems. It most definitely is killing, but not murder. I know that it's sad and unfair, but murder is not the right term.

[Ethan19]

The argument is directly in the condition you stated. Abortion is premeditated and it is killing a person (just to note, this is not my belief!)
The people that argue this case believe when the child is conceived it is then a person. Further, abortion is legal, up to a certain stage of pregnancy. You will never see an abortion at 30 weeks unless there are extreme circumstances.

[Uniquemind]

Epistemically to me:

It’s the stage of development of when a forceful separation of soul and biological life is ended.


Another difference is murder is the taking of life of something, that it’s mother or parents had given consent to exist in the world, and that consent was violated.

Aborted babies, did not have consent from their mothers to exist through them.

[Spooky_Eli]

Epistemically to me:

It’s the stage of development of when a forceful separation of soul and biological life is ended.


Another difference is murder is the taking of life of something, that it’s mother or parents had given consent to exist in the world, and that consent was violated.

Aborted babies, did not have consent from their mothers to exist through them.
you realize how sick that last bit sounds right?

[Uniquemind]

you realize how sick that last bit sounds right?

It’s epistemic, it’s a method of analysis and thinking that deals with the root of justification, it is unconcerned with offense.

If the OP had phrased the question differently I would have taken emotional guilt into account. But wise people know the reason these debates go nowhere is because there isn’t an answer when the real question is about subjective emotional opinion.

Since the real answer lies in cold logic it was the only appropriate response.




I can further add that this is what separates miscarriages from abortions as well.

[Spooky_Eli]

It’s epistemic, it’s a method of analysis and thinking that deals with the root of justification, it is unconcerned with offense.

If the OP had phrased the question differently I would have taken emotional guilt into account. But wise people know the reason these debates go nowhere is because there isn’t an answer when the real question is about subjective emotional opinion.

Since the real answer lies in cold logic it was the only appropriate response.its a moral argument not an emotional one, if you see abortion as killing or preventing life from ever being, yet do it any way, thats wrong, no cold logic about it,

The argument is directly in the condition you stated. Abortion is premeditated and it is killing a person (just to note, this is not my belief!)
The people that argue this case believe when the child is conceived it is then a person. Further, abortion is legal, up to a certain stage of pregnancy. You will never see an abortion at 30 weeks unless there are extreme circumstances.as iv'e said below, by stoping something that could have been a life you are stopping that life in the future from ever materializing, hence killing it.

Double posts merged. Please edit your first post next time. ~Jinglebottom

[PlasmaHam]

For everyone that says abortion is murder, what makes you think this? Abortion is legal, so it doesn't fit the definition of murder which is the unlawful premeditated killing of a person, so unless there's some other definition of murder that is simply killing then this is where my confusion stems. It most definitely is killing, but not murder. I know that it's sad and unfair, but murder is not the right term.
Well, are you look at murder from a legal point of view, or from a moral point of view? Legally, yes, abortion is not murder. Morally though, that is where the real argument is. I believe that morally, abortion equates to murder, as it is the ending of a life without consent or just reason.

It's a bad practice to base definitions and morality of things upon whether they are legal or not. Getting drunk and yelling profanity at people isn't moral, but as long as you don't get violent then it is perfectly legal. There are many other examples of that, you gotta keep an open mind.



Aborted babies, did not have consent from their mothers to exist through them.
So, that therefore justifies the mother ending the baby's life, without it's consent? Sorry, but I don't understand your logic here. It just seems like you are saying that because someone else violated you, you then have the right to violate an innocent person just because they happened to be someway entwined with your personal violation. One wrong does not justify another wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, but that seems to be the basis of your argument. One person wronged me, so I am justified in wronging another.

[Uniquemind]

its a moral argument not an emotional one, if you see abortion as killing or preventing life from ever being, yet do it any way, thats wrong, no cold logic about it,

Morals are not universal and they change with relativity to time and culture and available knowledge.


If the goal is to decrease abortions, the political right better have a better answer than “just don’t have sex”, oh and btw we know what happens when society doesn’t have sex...you end up with other societal problems like Japan...low birthrate.

[Spooky_Eli]

Morals are not universal and they change with relativity to time and culture and available knowledge. The fact that killing is wrong, universally has almost always been seen as wrong. and for that reason always will.


If the goal is to decrease abortions, the political right better have a better answer than “just don’t have sex”, oh and btw we know what happens when society doesn’t have sex...you end up with other societal problems like Japan...low birthweight.1. Stay on topic, 2. the goal is actually to get the population up, i thought you where paying attention to my argument

[Uniquemind]

Well, are you look at murder from a legal point of view, or from a moral point of view? Legally, yes, abortion is not murder. Morally though, that is where the real argument is. I believe that morally, abortion equates to murder, as it is the ending of a life without consent or just reason.

It's a bad practice to base definitions and morality of things upon whether they are legal or not. Getting drunk and yelling profanity at people isn't moral, but as long as you don't get violent then it is perfectly legal. There are many other examples of that, you gotta keep an open mind.



So, that therefore justifies the mother ending the baby's life, without it's consent? Sorry, but I don't understand your logic here. It just seems like you are saying that because someone else violated you, you then have the right to violate an innocent person just because they happened to be someway entwined with your personal violation. One wrong does not justify another wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, but that seems to be the basis of your argument. One person wronged me, so I am justified in wronging another.

The debate is absolutely in the realm of morals.

The problem is in reality however is making a law founded on a moral situation when it is under a laboratory box.

If the world were perfect, yes absolutely abortion should be outlawed. But when you take into account other variables and the pragmatic reality of enforcing a law in a world banning abortions you create other equally moral dilemmas that are just as morally grey...and pregnancy is time sensitive.

Men will never know the issues females have to medically deal with in relation to their anatomy. Pregnancies can go wrong, legally abortion needs to be an option to a woman.

But the law should not be always in-line with what is moral...that’s life.

The fact that killing is wrong, universally has almost always been seen as wrong. and for that reason always will.


1. Stay on topic, 2. the goal is actually to get the population up, i thought you where paying attention to my argument

At first glance yes killing is wrong. But look at how many times nature has obeyed that, in fact crack open your textbook and look to find a single society that has white and black obeyed that creed...exceptions exist everywhere the concept of this issue even in morality’s context is neutralized at best.




double posts merged ~ Val

[Spooky_Eli]

At first glance yes killing is wrong. But look at how many times nature has obeyed that, in fact crack open your textbook and look to find a single society that has white and black obeyed that creed...exceptions exist everywhere the concept of this issue even in morality’s context is neutralized at best.*sigh* killing defenseless human+wrong. period,what part of that is so hard for you to get?

[Dalcourt]

*sigh* killing defenseless human+wrong. period,what part of that is so hard for you to get?

In the post you quoted Uniquemind it is said killing is wrong at first glance.

But I guess the original question wasn't whether killing is wrong but whether abortion is murder not just killing.

So what's the difference between killing and murder for you and why would you say abortion is murder and not just ceasing the life of an embryo?
This us our question at hand.

For me abortion clearly isn't more than that - ceasing the life of an embryo.
I would be never think of it as murder as much as I would never think of someone being a murderer when he/ she kills in self defense or as a soldier.

However this does not say anything about my moral views...morally I feel ending another beings life is wrong but this then also comprises people who just tried to defend themselves and soldiers in my book of morals then.

So you have the objective view of law on the one side and the subjective view of your own morals/ethics or of the morals/ethical of the society that formed you.

On the objective side therefore this problem is non existing. It is not murder according to law so it isn't murder at all.
On the subjective side there will be millions of individual answers but not an universally true one since this all depends on emotions, personal feelings and morals that may all widely differ.

[Spooky_Eli]

In the post you quoted @Uniquemind (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=115092) it is said killing is wrong at first glance.

thay also said this in a earlyer post : "Morals are not universal and they change with relativity to time and culture and available knowledge." but i digress

[Uniquemind]

Morally for me it comes down to the specific motivations of why a girl seeks an abortion, and because the labyrinthine nature of each contextual situation and the politicization around this issue from religious groups who interfere with the medical decisions of a woman and her doctor.


I have no choice but to support it’s legalization given the collective nature of this issue in reality on a societal level. As seen in Ireland where abortion was banned, sometimes a woman has to medically get one because it poses a life threatening condition, maybe the embryo didn’t implant in the uterus properly, or it was a rape, or if giving birth irreparably harms the woman or puts her in danger of her family sending her abroad to be “honor killed” for shaming the family....

It becomes a larger issue when you think dynamically and not in a laboratory box on this issue.


Don’t think for second that political organizations won’t play the legalization stall game in court, fully aware that as time passes in a trial justifying legal abortion they run out the clock to force that woman to give birth.

Think larger. This is why legalization becomes a necessary evil and why it is inherently different from murder.

This answers the OP’s real question.

I conclude.

[mattsmith48]

Funny how many people who are against abortion because its murdering defenceless children, are often the same that are against gun control that could stop the murdering defenceless children. Just wanted to point that out.

To answer the question the some anti-abortion and pro-life people (Yes there is a difference) say abortion is murder because of what they consider a human life, for most of them it is at conception.

For me personally I think as long as it cannot survive outside of the womb it is part of the mother's body and I am a strong believer that any person is free to do anything the want with their body.

If abortion was to be outlaw, women would still find ways to get an abortion illegally except in most cases for people who thinks abortion is murder it would lead to two deaths instead of one as illegal abortion can be very dangerous and unsafe often leading to complications ending with the death of the mother. If you want to reduce the number of abortions the right way to go is through education and accessible contraception.

as iv'e said below, by stoping something that could have been a life you are stopping that life in the future from ever materializing, hence killing it.

By that logic masturbating and using contraception is also murder.

The fact that killing is wrong, universally has almost always been seen as wrong. and for that reason always will.

Killing is wrong is universal, but the killing of who or what being wrong is not.

1. Stay on topic, 2. the goal is actually to get the population up, i thought you where paying attention to my argument

Population is already too high it needs to be decreased, abortion is not the solution to overpopulation, but a last resort option to prevent unwanted births.

[Spooky_Eli]

Funny how many people who are against abortion because its murdering defenceless children, are often the same that are against gun control that could stop the murdering defenceless children. Just wanted to point that out.


Don't you dare, there is no comparison, people kill people not guns.


By that logic masturbating and using contraception is also murder.


except sperm has an expiration date so it dies anyway.


Killing is wrong is universal, but the killing of who or what being wrong is not.
killing a defenseless human is wrong. period.


Population is already too high it needs to be decreased, abortion is not the solution to overpopulation, but a last resort option to prevent unwanted births.actually we need to colonize the moon

[Tim the Enchanter]

Well, are you look at murder from a legal point of view, or from a moral point of view? Legally, yes, abortion is not murder. Morally though, that is where the real argument is. I believe that morally, abortion equates to murder, as it is the ending of a life without consent or just reason.

Dang straight.

Funny how many people who are against abortion because its murdering defenceless children, are often the same that are against gun control that could stop the murdering defenceless children. Just wanted to point that out.

Boi, I don't think abortion should be totally legal, but I also think there should be gun control...

Don't you F****** dare, there is no comparison, people kill people not guns.

Boi...

[Spooky_Eli]

Boi...

yyeeessssss?

[lliam]

It most definitely is killing, but not murder. I know that it's sad and unfair, but murder is not the right term.


The term "abortion" is usually used instead.

The opponents of abortion use "murder" for moral reasons, because in their view it interrupts a process that leads from a developing conglomerate of networked cells, to a human individual.

And since this is mostly based on religion, "Murder" is the only real label for "abortion" in their opinion.

But it's not about fair or unfair too. We just have to take it as a purely technical process.

Opponents of abortion hardly can follow this pov. They often are too emotionally involved. As said, mostly for religious reasons.

[Ethan19]

So this is the part where everyone realises the debate is stupid and stops, right? Both sides are ignorant towards the others point of view, so the argument goes in circles. Anyone that believes abortion is wrong will argue against anything that doesn't line up for them no matter what, and vice versa. It's an emotional and moral debate, otherwise neither party would have been messaging the way they are.

Also, when constructing an argument the use of melancholy adjectives is stupid. It shows you've let your emotion run over. Which is fine, as long as you admit that and understand it devalues a lot of your argument.

[Spooky_Eli]

So this is the part where everyone realises the debate is stupid and stops, right? Both sides are ignorant towards the others point of view, so the argument goes in circles. Anyone that believes abortion is wrong will argue against anything that doesn't line up for them no matter what, and vice versa. It's an emotional and moral debate, otherwise neither party would have been messaging the way they do.this is the part where we keep poking each other with are sharp sticks until one of us dies.

[Fourth]

We just talked about this earlier during class.

While on some laws, abortion is legal, on a religious point of view...

Dignity of a human person is the image and likeness of God, and it automatically comes with our soul, during conception or the time that the egg and sperm cell meet.

Now, from dignity springs forth our rights, and the most basic right is to live, or to have life. Even if you say that the baby isn't really alive yet because it is too early or it isn't fully developed yet, it already has a right to life or to live, and you, the one who decided to abort it, just took away it's right.

While 'normal' cases of murder, usually the victim tries to fight the killer. But in abortion, you are ending a life of a helpless, and an innocent being. Maybe it is only legal in the eyes of the law, but never in the eyes of God.

[Ethan19]

We just talked about this earlier during class.

While on some laws, abortion is legal, on a religious point of view...

Dignity of a human person is the image and likeness of God, and it automatically comes with our soul, during conception or the time that the egg and sperm cell meet.

Now, from dignity springs forth our rights, and the most basic right is to live, or to have life. Even if you say that the baby isn't really alive yet because it is too early or it isn't fully developed yet, it already has a right to life or to live, and you, the one who decided to abort it, just took away it's right.

While 'normal' cases of murder, usually the victim tries to fight the killer. But in abortion, you are ending a life of a helpless, and an innocent being. Maybe it is only legal in the eyes of the law, but never in the eyes of God.

This is simply one religious point of view, not them all for starts. Secondly, I think it's good to bring in a religious argument because it's needed; but the final clause you sent is just a bit, flimsy. A lot of people don't care about how they look in 'the eyes of god', it also encompasses a lot more weight that introduce other implications invalidating the argument.

[Fourth]

This is simply one religious point of view, not them all for starts. Secondly, I think it's good to bring in a religious argument because it's needed; but the final clause you sent is just a bit, flimsy. A lot of people don't care about how they look in 'the eyes of god', it also encompasses a lot more weight that introduce other implications invalidating the argument.

Yes, I don't really know other's religion point of view about this, but assuming that they have a God and all, I would also assume that abortion to them would be considered as murder or even worse.

I'm really not good in expressing my thoughts, even in my native language, I still have a hard time to find the right words and phrases in English to properly say what I think. I'm trying, though. :P

[NudistFun]

There is the legal definition of murder, as has already been pointed out. But legality cannot always be our compass for morality. At one time slavery was legal and killing your slave would not be considered murder. I think we would all agree that is still murder.

As far as the science, embryology has long agreed when life begins. To act otherwise is to fool yourself. Make no mistake, every abortion ends a human life. Even those who were part of Roe V Wade on the side of abortion agreed that it was so and were bewildered when the SCOTUS ruled that it was permissible because it wasn't ending human life.

Sources - http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

[mattsmith48]

Don't you dare, there is no comparison, people kill people not guns.

That is not the discussion, all I add is that some people are being hypocritical.

except sperm has an expiration date so it dies anyway.

Only when outside the body.

killing a defenseless human is wrong. period.

No one disagrees with that.

actually we need to colonize the moon

When you colonize a place whether its a moon, a another planet, or a new continent you just discovered you send a few people there and its up to them to increase the population when they get there.


Boi, I don't think abortion should be totally legal, but I also think there should be gun control...

I said most people and I said anti-abortion not pro-life there is a difference.

[Spooky_Eli]

That is not the discussion, all I add is that some people are being hypocritical. and i provided a reason to the contrary.



No one disagrees with that.No, but we do disagree on whether a fetus is a defenseless living creature.


When you colonize a place whether its a moon, a another planet, or a new continent you just discovered you send a few people there and its up to them to increase the population when they get there.Obviously a different method would be used.



I said most people and I said anti-abortion not pro-life there is a difference. and this? my bs counter has hit critical mass with this.

[lliam]

It's an emotional and moral debate, otherwise neither party would have been messaging the way they are.



yeah, discussions, debates etc with emotions involved end going in circles anyway. So they get worthless at that point.

[Uniquemind]

This is why i only answered this question with a cold heart.

That’s what I meant by my answer is the only appropriate answer realistically.


The directions you all are taking the thread by not recognizing a moral deadlock tie on either side of the issue is reason why this issue is further politicized.

When emotion fails, turn to logic to resolve the conflict, that resolution may feel emotionally unsatisfactory.

—

Record: the Bible actually tolerates a form of slavery

Slavery and it’s ethics is a different issue with different justification and it fails ultimately because it’s foundation of white superiority Vs blacks or other races is not stemmed from logic but rooted in myth. Abortion Vs murder had a different root of origin.

[mattsmith48]

No, but we do disagree on whether a fetus is a defenseless living creature.

Actually we disagree on when it becomes a human life.

Obviously a different method would be used.

Why?

and this? my bs counter has hit critical mass with this.

There is no bullshit there, someone who is pro-life will still care about the child and the mother after the birth, anti-abortion people only care about the fetus when its in the womb and as soon you comes out you're on your own.

[Spooky_Eli]

Why?
to deal with overpopulation, have you not been paying attention?

[ShineintheDark]

except sperm has an expiration date so it dies anyway.


So do all living things including humans; your point? I'm not even a diehard pro-abortion activist, your logic in that instance is just a little ill-thought out.

In terms of the argument itself, that cannot be answered unless we determine many factors that CANNOT be determined such as: when does the foetus develop full human rights? What makes a person a person? Do foetuses have souls from the moment of conception? Unless those questions are answered, no logical moral conclusions can be made as no side can prove whether a fully realised human being has been terminated (in which case it categorically becomes murder) or just a ball of cells (in which it is no different to masturbation or wiping your table with anti-septic wipes). 'Murder' itself becomes extremely subjective in this instance and I see nowhere in the original post about legality so I think we should just stick to morality for now.

[NewLeafsFan]

I would not support the abortion of an unborn child unless the had medical issues that would prevent them from having any quality of life. I agree that murder is not the correct legal term. Perhaps people look for strong words to use when they are trying to prove a point. That being said, abortion needs to be legal in my opinion, because if it isn't woman could do more damage to themselves by trying to induce early labour as a way of trying to perform an abortion at home. And that is worse.

[Arkansasguy]

For everyone that says abortion is murder, what makes you think this? Abortion is legal, so it doesn't fit the definition of murder which is the unlawful premeditated killing of a person, so unless there's some other definition of murder that is simply killing then this is where my confusion stems. It most definitely is killing, but not murder. I know that it's sad and unfair, but murder is not the right term.

Biologically, an unborn child is a unique human being. There is no objectively valid justification for attacking it, therefore to intentionally kill it is murder.

The laws permitting abortion are wrong.

[Uniquemind]

Biologically, an unborn child is a unique human being. There is no objectively valid justification for attacking it, therefore to intentionally kill it is murder.

The laws permitting abortion are wrong.


The first part of your statement is untrue, there exist objective reasons why an abortion may need to be sought out medically, or for social protection reasons due to various irrational cultural consequences in response to a female’s sexual behavior; in some cases rape.


Your second statement about abortions being wrong because the topic is intensely sad and tragic. Sure, but laws shouldn’t be made on moral feelings alone they need to be made based on epistemic merit and values.

God has his Bible, if that isn’t enough to persuade one’s conscience there is no need to force the Bible to then ALSO become law that crosses a line.

—-

I will also reverse my opinion in the future should future technology allow for a fetus or embryo to be removed safely from the mother.


Also any abortion law’s language will have legal implications of medical fertility treatments and processes doctors need to use in order t do surrogacy work or IVF treatments for couples wanting children with their own genetic code.

[Stronk Serb]

Abortion was always a touchy subject for me, seeing how I was considered for abortion, I simply wasn't planned. I mean in many situations like rape, health problems, or simple inability to raise the child, it is better to have the abortion, but in many cases, I think it is morally wrong because the child can have a normal life, and having a chance to bring something good to this world taken away for selfish reasons is disgusting to me. If my parents actually agreed to it, you guys would not see me here because I would just be another discarded fetus. Think about it, some people who you know and care for might not be here if their parents were selfish.

[Dalcourt]

Abortion was always a touchy subject for me, seeing how I was considered for abortion, I simply wasn't planned. I mean in many situations like rape, health problems, or simple inability to raise the child, it is better to have the abortion, but in many cases, I think it is morally wrong because the child can have a normal life, and having a chance to bring something good to this world taken away for selfish reasons is disgusting to me. If my parents actually agreed to it, you guys would not see me here because I would just be another discarded fetus. Think about it, some people who you know and care for might not be here if their parents were selfish.

Totally understand you here. It's the same for me basically but after some second thoughts my biological mother decided against abortion and gave me up for adoption.

So as much as I might not consider abortion being murder I can see it being morally wrong maybe.

Still since I am male I will never be able to feel the dilemma a female might have making such a decision therefore I second every females right to decide what to do with her unborn child and would never judge someone for having an abortion.

[NudistFun]

The first part of your statement is untrue, there exist objective reasons why an abortion may need to be sought out medically, or for social protection reasons due to various irrational cultural consequences in response to a female’s sexual behavior; in some cases rape.


Your second statement about abortions being wrong because the topic is intensely sad and tragic. Sure, but laws shouldn’t be made on moral feelings alone they need to be made based on epistemic merit and values.

God has his Bible, if that isn’t enough to persuade one’s conscience there is no need to force the Bible to then ALSO become law that crosses a line.

—-

I will also reverse my opinion in the future should future technology allow for a fetus or embryo to be removed safely from the mother.


Also any abortion law’s language will have legal implications of medical fertility treatments and processes doctors need to use in order t do surrogacy work or IVF treatments for couples wanting children with their own genetic code.

So your support for abortion stems from the necessity to do so in the cases when the pregnancy threatens the mothers' life?

[ShineintheDark]

What concerns me is the level of condescension from certain people of this topic towards women who go through with abortions. Whilst, granted,. some abortions have been sought for weak and stupid reasons a vast majority have been sought or carried through with for genuine purposes. A woman can't just stroll in to see her doctor and demand to have it aborted that day. I can only vouch for the UK here but at least in Britain she has to have the permission of two separate doctors as well as a reason valid under UK law to have that child aborted. Even then, the process takes a little while to complete which at any point she can choose to pull out. A woman who chooses to go through all of that to abort her child must have a very deeply ingrained reason indeed.

My mother worked in childcare and adoption for a few years and I can tell you, this whole notion of 'just give your child up for adoption' is deeply damaging to the systems already in place. Thousands of children are already stuck in the same cycle of short-term foster parents and temporary housing with many councils failing to keep up with the workload. Do you really want to place many more thousands into that hell? The simple fact is that, if that child cannot be given the love and attention it deserves from its parents, whether by their choice or simply because they work too hard and long as well as provide for too many children to give that child what they need, the parents may be working in the best interests of that child to stop it suffering before it's even born.

[NudistFun]

What concerns me is the level of condescension from certain people of this topic towards women who go through with abortions. Whilst, granted,. some abortions have been sought for weak and stupid reasons a vast majority have been sought or carried through with for genuine purposes. A woman can't just stroll in to see her doctor and demand to have it aborted that day. I can only vouch for the UK here but at least in Britain she has to have the permission of two separate doctors as well as a reason valid under UK law to have that child aborted. Even then, the process takes a little while to complete which at any point she can choose to pull out. A woman who chooses to go through all of that to abort her child must have a very deeply ingrained reason indeed.

My mother worked in childcare and adoption for a few years and I can tell you, this whole notion of 'just give your child up for adoption' is deeply damaging to the systems already in place. Thousands of children are already stuck in the same cycle of short-term foster parents and temporary housing with many councils failing to keep up with the workload. Do you really want to place many more thousands into that hell? The simple fact is that, if that child cannot be given the love and attention it deserves from its parents, whether by their choice or simply because they work too hard and long as well as provide for too many children to give that child what they need, the parents may be working in the best interests of that child to stop it suffering before it's even born.

What qualifies, for you, as a "genuine purpose" for abortion?

[ShineintheDark]

What qualifies, for you, as a "genuine purpose" for abortion?

I agree with current UK law on this really: if continuing the pregnancy is likely to cause medical or mental damage to either the child, the mother or any existing children of the parents or alternatively if the damage done by aborting the child is less than if that child were to be carried to full term. This covers many of the popular reasons given such as the child being likely born into poverty, cases of rape or incest, children born with debilitating conditions (not just special needs like Downs or autism but also autoimmune diseases or conditions that would have the child die soon after birth regardless) etc. In addition to this the term of around 24 weeks seems pretty reasonable considering all evidence.

[NudistFun]

I agree with current UK law on this really: if continuing the pregnancy is likely to cause medical or mental damage to either the child, the mother or any existing children of the parents or alternatively if the damage done by aborting the child is less than if that child were to be carried to full term. This covers many of the popular reasons given such as the child being likely born into poverty, cases of rape or incest, children born with debilitating conditions (not just special needs like Downs or autism but also autoimmune diseases or conditions that would have the child die soon after birth regardless) etc. In addition to this the term of around 24 weeks seems pretty reasonable considering all evidence.

Abortion for the life-threatening reasons, rape, and incest make up an extraordinarily low percentage of abortions. The majority of abortions are done electively out of convenience as a form of after the fact birth control.

People with downs syndrome and autism can live happy, fulfilling lives. That stipulation strays into the realm of eugenics, which given the history of Europe, specifically Germany, is surprising as a given reason for elective abortions.

And as far as killing someone because they may be poor seems like a failure in logic and morality. If killing a child in the womb because it may be born into poverty is acceptable, why base your actions on the geographical location of the child (womb)? Why not kill children that are already living in poverty and spare them the misery?

[Uniquemind]

So your support for abortion stems from the necessity to do so in the cases when the pregnancy threatens the mothers' life?

Not just in medical cases where the mother's life is at risk, but also in cases where the legal process to obtain one is so lengthy that it puts the girl or woman of retribution from her immediate family or cultural values.


Parental authority has been misused in cases where their culture will dictate they ship their "sinful or shameful slutty daughter" overseas out of lawful jurisdiction to be killed or even worse if a girl befalls pregnant to a guy the family doesn't approve of (for a myriad of reasons mind you).



So no as long as that ethical grey area exists in the pragmatic sense for a myriad of reasons, I will always be on the side of a women's right to choose.


If however centuries from now, a stable medical procedure allows for embryos to be removed safely and continue physical development outside of a woman's body, my stance on this issue shall change accordingly because the epistemological reasoning had changed for why I couldn't support abortion in the past.

[NudistFun]

Not just in medical cases where the mother's life is at risk, but also in cases where the legal process to obtain one is so lengthy that it puts the girl or woman of retribution from her immediate family or cultural values.


Parental authority has been misused in cases where their culture will dictate they ship their "sinful or shameful slutty daughter" overseas out of lawful jurisdiction to be killed or even worse if a girl befalls pregnant to a guy the family doesn't approve of (for a myriad of reasons mind you).



So no as long as that ethical grey area exists in the pragmatic sense for a myriad of reasons, I will always be on the side of a women's right to choose.


If however centuries from now, a stable medical procedure allows for embryos to be removed safely and continue physical development outside of a woman's body, my stance on this issue shall change accordingly because the epistemological reasoning had changed for why I couldn't support abortion in the past.

So you support all abortions based on the marginal cases such as those you listed?

[ShineintheDark]

Abortion for the life-threatening reasons, rape, and incest make up an extraordinarily low percentage of abortions. The majority of abortions are done electively out of convenience as a form of after the fact birth control.

I mentioned them as they are reasons, at no point did I say they make up any majority of the actual reasons for abortion. The fact that these abortions are done after a failure of birth control does not negate any other reason given. It is often a combination of the two: a mother who is in a stable and happy environment who also happens to be accidentally pregnant is less likely to abort than a single woman working minimum wage.


People with downs syndrome and autism can live happy, fulfilling lives. That stipulation strays into the realm of eugenics, which given the history of Europe, specifically Germany, is surprising as a given reason for elective abortions.

Once again, I never said that Downs or autism were legitimate reasons for aborting a child, I simply said that genetic issues go beyond just those problems. However, whilst on this topic I do definitely agree that children with issues such as Downs and autism can live very happy and fulfilling lives but you cannot make that broad generalisations for them all. I don;t doubt that if every family that found out they were having a disabled child could realistically care for that child properly, they likely would. However, no one can deny that having a child with advanced needs can put a heavy strain on two parents that work full time. Even with programs that work to support those families, not every family can be helped.

Once again, I;d like to stress that I'm not saying EVERY family is like this (a grand majority aren't) but we cannot remove some sort of allowance for cases such as these.


And as far as killing someone because they may be poor seems like a failure in logic and morality. If killing a child in the womb because it may be born into poverty is acceptable, why base your actions on the geographical location of the child (womb)? Why not kill children that are already living in poverty and spare them the misery?

I'm not saying we should kill poor children. I'm simply saying that a great number of abortions in the West often come from families that are unstable (whether economically, going through a rough patch in a relationship, whether the mother is too young to realistically look after a child properly etc) and therefore it cannot be ignored as a legitimate reason for why a woman may seek to abort her child.

[Uniquemind]

So you support all abortions based on the marginal cases such as those you listed?

As society exists now yes.


I feel that religious sanctity of life arguments insufficient to be put into law in the USA.

God has his Bible, the arguments against abortion should stay on the laws of idealism, and conscience.

Historically the Bible and other religious books have been insufficient at guiding their followers through morality-stalemates or grey areas as the field of ethics is concerned.


At the turn of the 20th century, marriage and divorce was also just as controversial, and gay marriage wasn't even a discussion yet.

[NudistFun]

As society exists now yes.


I feel that religious sanctity of life arguments insufficient to be put into law in the USA.

God has his Bible, the arguments against abortion should stay on the laws of idealism, and conscience.

Historically the Bible and other religious books have been insufficient at guiding their followers through morality-stalemates or grey areas as the field of ethics is concerned.


At the turn of the 20th century, marriage and divorce was also just as controversial, and gay marriage wasn't even a discussion yet.

What about arguments against abortion that aren't religious?

[NudistFun]

I mentioned them as they are reasons, at no point did I say they make up any majority of the actual reasons for abortion. The fact that these abortions are done after a failure of birth control does not negate any other reason given. It is often a combination of the two: a mother who is in a stable and happy environment who also happens to be accidentally pregnant is less likely to abort than a single woman working minimum wage.



Once again, I never said that Downs or autism were legitimate reasons for aborting a child, I simply said that genetic issues go beyond just those problems. However, whilst on this topic I do definitely agree that children with issues such as Downs and autism can live very happy and fulfilling lives but you cannot make that broad generalisations for them all. I don;t doubt that if every family that found out they were having a disabled child could realistically care for that child properly, they likely would. However, no one can deny that having a child with advanced needs can put a heavy strain on two parents that work full time. Even with programs that work to support those families, not every family can be helped.

Once again, I;d like to stress that I'm not saying EVERY family is like this (a grand majority aren't) but we cannot remove some sort of allowance for cases such as these.



I'm not saying we should kill poor children. I'm simply saying that a great number of abortions in the West often come from families that are unstable (whether economically, going through a rough patch in a relationship, whether the mother is too young to realistically look after a child properly etc) and therefore it cannot be ignored as a legitimate reason for why a woman may seek to abort her child.

Every reason you have attempted to reason out so far has been based on perceived inconvenience and poverty (beyond the very small cases of life-threatening conditions and rape). In the rest of society beyond child-bearing, we do not make our decisions about the value of life based off of possible poverty or inconvenience or possible struggle. Why then do you find it acceptable to apply it to those who have no voice of their own to defend themselves, namely unborn children?

[Uniquemind]

What about arguments against abortion that aren't religious?

Then societies need to create programs and a culture that celebrate single parents so that society doesn't have this strawman argument to say they're burdened by it compared to childless young adult counterparts.


There is a sick culture in the USA, also religious based, that shames single mothers. That is also a change I'm looking for to reverse my positions on this issue.

Would you run into is this "that's your child you're responsible for it, your setting a bad example for not having a man in that child's life etc."

Sick weak arguments, and I'm tired of it.

[NudistFun]

Then societies need to create programs and a culture that celebrate single parents so that society doesn't have this strawman argument to say they're burdened by it compared to childless young adult counterparts.


There is a sick culture in the USA, also religious based, that shames single mothers. That is also a change I'm looking for to reverse my positions on this issue.

I am not following your logic. Regardless of how society treats parents, how do you reconcile abortion, the killing of an unborn child, with how society treats single parents.

You are effectively saying "I am okay with killing children until society celebrates those children's parents being celebrated and supported".

[Uniquemind]

I am not following your logic. Regardless of how society treats parents, how do you reconcile abortion, the killing of an unborn child, with how society treats single parents.

You are effectively saying "I am okay with killing children until society celebrates those children's parents being celebrated and supported".

You'll have to re-read my post maybe on a diff thread, but the difference of how I reconcile it, has to do with a logical difference between murder and abortion and miscarriages.

All involve the death, the last two debate the causation or stage of when that is inflicted.

[NudistFun]

You'll have to re-read my post maybe on a diff thread, but the difference of how I reconcile it, has to do with a logical difference between murder and abortion and miscarriages.

All involve the death, the last two debate the causation or stage of when that is inflicted.

I find no logical distinction between murder and abortion morally beyond the legal distinction which often has little to do with morality.

I'm curious as to how you determine a distinction between wrongful termination of life and a support of abortion.

[mattsmith48]

to deal with overpopulation, have you not been paying attention?

So you say we should colonize to fight overpopulation, but we should make more people before sending them there? This is getting confusing about we get back on subject.

So do all living things including humans; your point? I'm not even a diehard pro-abortion activist, your logic in that instance is just a little ill-thought out.

In terms of the argument itself, that cannot be answered unless we determine many factors that CANNOT be determined such as:

Challenge Accepted

when does the foetus develop full human rights? What makes a person a person?

Answer to both question when it is capable of surviving outside the womb

Do foetuses have souls from the moment of conception?

There is no such thing as a soul.

Biologically, an unborn child is a unique human being.

Biologically, it is literally a bunch of cells, you think its murder fine, but don't sugar coat what a fetus is.

[NudistFun]

So you say we should colonize to fight overpopulation, but we should make more people before sending them there? This is getting confusing about we get back on subject.





Challenge Accepted



Answer to both question when it is capable of surviving outside the womb



There is no such thing as a soul.



Biologically, it is literally a bunch of cells, you think its murder fine, but don't sugar coat what a fetus is.

The science of embryology has determined that a fetus or embryo is not just a clump of cells. This is MODERN embryology.

As far as basing if a life is a life is valuable only if it is capable of surviving outside of the womb is logically flawed.

Babies cannot survive outside out of the womb without the support of adults. Your reasoning is geographical.

Also, if you are in a coma on a respirator from which you may or may not awaken, is your life no longer of value because you cannot exist without support from others?

[Stronk Serb]

Totally understand you here. It's the same for me basically but after some second thoughts my biological mother decided against abortion and gave me up for adoption.

So as much as I might not consider abortion being murder I can see it being morally wrong maybe.

Still since I am male I will never be able to feel the dilemma a female might have making such a decision therefore I second every females right to decide what to do with her unborn child and would never judge someone for having an abortion.

You could feel the dilemma. Imagine being the father of the child, and wanting it to get born, but after an argument or falling out with the child's mother, she decided to abort it.
I am not saying men should dictate women what to do with their bodies, but the whole thing behind abortions and how some people tend to normalise that is appaling to me. I know many women feel depressed after they do it because they got rid of a soon-to-be child. Just, I do not see anything moral in abortind an unplanned child if you can give it a normal life.

And yes, I agree with you that it is not murder. For most abortions carried out, the fetus was not sentient even, but for the reasons carried out, I divide them into wrong and understandable based on my own moral views.

[mattsmith48]

The science of embryology has determined that a fetus or embryo is not just a clump of cells. This is MODERN embryology.

As far as basing if a life is a life is valuable only if it is capable of surviving outside of the womb is logically flawed.

Babies cannot survive outside out of the womb without the support of adults. Your reasoning is geographical.

Also, if you are in a coma on a respirator from which you may or may not awaken, is your life no longer of value because you cannot exist without support from others?

Fine I'll rephrase it to if it is developed enough to survive outside the womb. I am not saying it is not alive, I am saying it is not a human life.

[NudistFun]

Fine I'll rephrase it to if it is developed enough to survive outside the womb. I am not saying it is not alive, I am saying it is not a human life.

So it is alive but it is not human life? What sort of life is it then?

[mattsmith48]

So it is alive but it is not human life? What sort of life is it then?

It is life in the same way than any other cells in your body.

[Uniquemind]

I find no logical distinction between murder and abortion morally beyond the legal distinction which often has little to do with morality.

I'm curious as to how you determine a distinction between wrongful termination of life and a support of abortion.

At that point in the thread morals weren’t part of my analysis, only logic and causation.


Morally all options on either side are no more or less moral.

[NudistFun]

It is life in the same way than any other cells in your body.

There are cells that will become fingernails, hair, etc. There are cells that become a person.

Embryology classifies the cells you are referring to as human life. Not just "cells".

[NudistFun]

At that point in the thread morals weren’t part of my analysis, only logic and causation.


Morally all options on either side are no more or less moral.

I find that to be logically irreconcilable. If you find killing a baby that is born to be morally wrong, then how do you find killing one that is inside of a woman to be morally permissible?

[Uniquemind]

I find that to be logically irreconcilable. If you find killing a baby that is born to be morally wrong, then how do you find killing one that is inside of a woman to be morally permissible?

Intent, and the key words of “will become” versus a baby which is IS as in present tense and now.

[Dalcourt]

Intent, and the key words of “will become” versus a baby which is IS as in present tense and now.

Very much agreed.

A friend of mine asked in out debate club at which point a human really becomes a human on it's own. She felt that an embryo isn't really a human being in itself but more like some sort of "body part" of the mother.
It ended in some interesting discussions involving brain function and similar things. I don't really remember all her points now but it made me think a lot about it.

[mattsmith48]

There are cells that will become fingernails, hair, etc. There are cells that become a person.

Like sperm and eggs, but we don't see those cells as human life, and like a fetus they will not survive very long outside of the body.

[Uniquemind]

So yeah the difference is that the genetic code is there. But has the protein synthesis developed enough to say that that genetic code instructions, have then been executed on and carried out.

Pre-person, post-person, all has to do with the stage of development, and this logically and even emotionally makes sense.


There's a reason we don't charge women for murder, if she miscarries, and despite that logic, there are parts of the USA that have tried to criminalize miscarriages.

[NudistFun]

Intent, and the key words of “will become” versus a baby which is IS as in present tense and now.

Not according to embryology. A fetus is human life.

Like sperm and eggs, but we don't see those cells as human life, and like a fetus they will not survive very long outside of the body.

Yes, because they aren't a fetus, which as I have said multiple times here, is considered by the science that tells us about human life in the formative stages, that it is HUMAN life.

So yeah the difference is that the genetic code is there. But has the protein synthesis developed enough to say that that genetic code instructions, have then been executed on and carried out.

Pre-person, post-person, all has to do with the stage of development, and this logically and even emotionally makes sense.


There's a reason we don't charge women for murder, if she miscarries, and despite that logic, there are parts of the USA that have tried to criminalize miscarriages.

Again, this is all in ignorance of embryology. And a miscarriage is unintentional, an abortion is very much elective.

[mattsmith48]

Yes, because they aren't a fetus, which as I have said multiple times here, is considered by the science that tells us about human life in the formative stages, that it is HUMAN life.

What do they based their claim on? or what confirms that it is a human life? What evidence to they use to say without a doubt it is a human life?

[NudistFun]

What do they based their claim on? or what confirms that it is a human life? What evidence to they use to say without a doubt it is a human life?

It's based on established medical science. You can read more here http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

[Uniquemind]

It's based on established medical science. You can read more here http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

That website is owned by a ministries group...it only seems to serve as a opinion piece that has gathered the opinions of those with medical backgrounds and ran with it as fact.

I’ll also state that past a certain point in pregnancy (25th) week I no longer can support abortion in most cases where development has gone too far.

[mattsmith48]

I’ll also state that past a certain point in pregnancy (25th) week I no longer can support abortion in most cases where development has gone too far.

I'm guessing you are fine with it past 25th week if its done under extreme circumstances?

[Uniquemind]

I'm guessing you are fine with it past 25th week if its done under extreme circumstances?

Keyword extreme, (rape, incest, embryo didn’t implanted into the uterus correctly and there’s hemorrhaging etc.)

Yeah extreme circumstances...

[jack2001]

On the subject of abortion, I think it's best to let the women choose what to do with her own body.

[Uniquemind]

I'm guessing you are fine with it past 25th week if its done under extreme circumstances?

Yes; being that medically a team of doctors has determined with the woman that her and the babies lives are in danger in either scenario of her attempting to carry the baby the full 9 months, or ending it.

Sometimes the body only partially miscarries too, nature messes up, and part of the fetus stays in the body, and rots, causing a toxins to buildup and ultimately threaten the mom or would-be mom.


If you start putting legal walls that scare away doctors from dealing with anything legally considered a “fetus/embryo” (note: legal terms aren’t common sense terms, meaning special interest groups can consider anything and embryo or fetus, it depends on how the lawmakers write the bill/law), then that hurts women.

But again I do believe the woman gets the right to choose, and if she doesn’t believe in abortion, she shouldn’t be forced even in this scenario.

[West Coast Sheriff]

Anything after 28 weeks is cruel and inhumane
20 weeks is pushing it, like right on the edge.
First trimester pregnacy terminations are different.