Abortion is murder

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Here's my criteria.

To be a human you must:

Not be completely encased within another human being
Not receive your nutrients by leeching off of whatever meals they had
and
Have been born, naturally or through C section.


A fetus can not meet all three of those and is as such a parasite.

If you don't agree, then I think you're stupid. You've the right to your opinion, but it doesn't mean I have to respect you or your opinion, I only have to respect your right to have an opinion.

[$haDe]

Legally, the second you became a human or have to be protected as a human being is the second that your parents signed your birth certificate.


WHICH MEAN, we can all whining and complaining about how bad and cruel abortion is. Called it murder, if needed.

It's nothing but a pointless statements. (In legal)

[Sanguine Mind]

I support pro-choice, However I do not condone Abortion as a form of birth control.

My suggestion would be to tax heavily on abotions, unless:

1) the girl is underage
2) she was r@ped
3) the pregnancy could kill her
4) Severe physical Defects ( I'm talking about the ones that would make the childs life miserable, such as harlequin fetus.)
If a woman got irresponsible and didn'y use protection, thats her, and the fathers fault.

Think about it, better the girl gets it done by a professional, than by a back alley abortionist with a coat hanger.

[Utho]

Originally Posted by Maggoty Anne

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

Righto!!!!

[Fastidious]

I'm very much a fence-sitter on this issue...part of that is because of the following reason:

It's ridiculously difficult to define when a human life begins. Personally, I think one of the most wonderfully defining characteristics of humans and all that we are is a certain level of consciousness. Zygotes and other forms of very early human life certainly have no consciousness whatsoever. That's just me, I could be erring in that judgement, but it does give me pause from jumping to either side.

Also, though the specific situations may be rare and largely regulated by chance, I can't dispute that some abortions have likely prevented births that would have led to a young life of hardship, abuse, and potentially early death...that perhaps not living at all WAS a blessing. Again, who's to say for sure? But I'm certain it has happened...unfortunately, we can't predict the futures of unborn children

Basically, there's definite moral pros and cons to each, and I have a very difficult time "picking sides" in an issue rife with unknowns and uncertainties. I think abortion is a moral risk more than anything. Whether it's "right" or "wrong" can likely only determined on a case-by-case basis and even then, I don't think we have the foresight or the facts to know for certain .

In my life philosophy, quality of life trumps quantity...there are far worse things than death.

Having said all that, I do remain on the fence...just wanted to toss out another perspective. I don't think this debate can ever be "won", but it's been interesting!

Quick edit: I should mention that, like others, I think abortion as a cop-out for stupidity and promiscuity leaves a bad taste in my mouth...but that means defining exact situations when taking the moral risk is acceptable and when it is not, and I think that's yet another issue nobody will ever agree on.

[$haDe]

The topic is "Abortion is murder" not "Abortion is killing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with intent or malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Alarica

LMFAO My complete lack of knowledge on brain development milestones? THAT would be you this applies to, not me. I can assure you that being a mother of 4 children, i know far more on not only the developmental process of the developing foetus than you do,

Are you out of your mind?
Being a mother does NOT make you any sort of authority on brain development.

[AshtrayKitten]

Ok, my brain is working again. Let's respond to some of these wonderful gems.

[AshtrayKitten]

Holy macaroni!!

Originally Posted by Alarica

LMFAO My complete lack of knowledge on brain development milestones? THAT would be you this applies to, not me.

Yes, because that was me rewriting the flame you directed at me into a better one. If you've had trouble following then I see where the source of confusion lies.

(I hope that first sentence doesn't fall out of your head by the time you read this one!)
-----

Originally Posted by Raptor

Your points are all true, but whether or not that makes the zygote a person is the argument. What of conciousness? At the begining, the cells are not concious, nor have they been previously. To count this as a person, you either have to decide that conciousness is not required, or that the fact it could later develop conciousness is reason enough to define it as a person.

In that case, in stripping away everything that we can from someone before they are no longer considered a person, we'll come to a point where subtracting anything further will destroy the possibility of consciousness. Thus it can be said that consciousness is the person. Assuming this to be true we can proceed as follows:

Rendering someone unconscious can still see them wake up and continue being a person, and their personhood is not interrupted by the loss of consciousness. The main difference between the person we knocked out and our fetus is the fact that consciousness has yet to exist within the latter.

One might say a person would be fully created when they become conscious the first time. Or at least, this would be the first appearance of said person.

There is a question that has to be asked when confronted with the idea that consciousness is a person, and that is, is whatever provides the capacity for consciousness also the person? I refer to the most basic parts that immediately give rise to consciousness and nothing which sustains those parts, such as a heart and lungs.


I think I can provide an example which makes it even more difficult to separate consciousness from the capacity for it. It's a slightly more extreme version of our incapacitated friend, and may be easy to understand but difficult to explain:


We have someone whose brain has been split in two on our operating table. There is no doubt that they are dead and no longer a person. If our technology could perfectly repair the head, he'd spring back to life. What was once not a person and a lifeless mass of decomposing cells is now back to normal.

But what if this person could slowly regenerate the wound? He or she would be dead and not a person, but if some biological process of healing would begin, the end of which would see the person restored with no external assistance. Does the fact that their consciousness is gone matter?

If the absence of their conscious mind doesn't matter and you were to interrupt this healing process, would you then be killing the party in question?

(I feel I have not satisfactorily explained how this factors in, and will attempt to flesh it out better if it isn't fully understood.)

With the above comparison in mind:

I must humbly ask that the significance of consciousness already having existed within a given organism, as opposed to one where it has not appeared yet but will inevitably (in a manner analogous to our super-healing patient), be explained.
-----

Originally Posted by Xombie

Ashtray, are you a vegetarian?

Negative.
-----

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

This is my point. You consider a zygote human, and others do not. I understand that you can prove that a zygote meets certain biological criteria, but that criteria will certainly not be good enough for some.

You say that homicide is killing a human, and that a human is X. If a zygote has X, then killing a zygote is killing a human. Therefore, killing a zygote is homicide.

Your entire point is based on accepting X as criteria for being human, which, seeing as though there isn't any real way of proving a zygote to be human (short of convincing linguistic flair), many people simply won't accept. Hell, the theory of evolution has all kinds of supporting evidence, but there are still religious fundamentalists that just put on their blinders.

You're basically saying that illogical people will choose to believe whatever they like, something I don't dispute. We can't change what some people choose to believe, but we could show that their belief that a zygote isn't a person holds no more weight than that of a religious person citing divine edict that it is one, and that the logic of a pro-choice individual is contradictory.

As to not being able to prove a zygote isn't a human, well, what makes you a human? Apply those to a zygote. If the requisites are contradictory, such as in the earlier example of zygotes not having hearts and thus not being human, then they are not the correct requisites.
-----

Originally Posted by $haDe

Legally, the second you became a human or have to be protected as a human being is the second that your parents signed your birth certificate.

WHICH MEAN, we can all whining and complaining about how bad and cruel abortion is. Called it murder, if needed.

It's nothing but a pointless statements. (In legal)

A fetus can have legal rights. The spirits of laws can be contradictory and do not serve as very good touchstones. In the United States, killing a mother and a fetus in utero can, in some cases, net you a harsher sentence. Compare this to how a doctor who performs an abortion a minute before birth can get paid, while a doctor who kills a baby a minute after birth can go to jail.

Originally Posted by $haDe

The topic is "Abortion is murder" not "Abortion is killing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with intent or malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries.

This has been addressed. Please read the thread if you want to participate in an informed manner. Thank you and come again.

[Maggoty Anne]

I know this is a sensitive topic, but you all need to lighten up. You aren't going to change anyone's mind, and getting angry at them for disagreeing with you won't solve anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUba4aq8imk

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Maggoty Anne

I know this is a sensitive topic, but you all need to lighten up. You aren't going to change anyone's mind, and getting angry at them for disagreeing with you won't solve anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUba4aq8imk

That video made me split a side, just about when she high fived the doctor XD

[MegearaErotica]

Originally Posted by Maggoty Anne

I know this is a sensitive topic, but you all need to lighten up. You aren't going to change anyone's mind, and getting angry at them for disagreeing with you won't solve anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUba4aq8imk

Hmmm.... Now that'll be stuck in my head for the rest of the day...

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

You're basically saying that illogical people will choose to believe whatever they like, something I don't dispute. We can't change what some people choose to believe, but we could show that their belief that a zygote isn't a person holds no more weight than that of a religious person citing divine edict that it is one, and that the logic of a pro-choice individual is contradictory.

I agree. This is why I choose not to get mired in the pro-choice debate over what makes a human a human.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

As to not being able to prove a zygote isn't a human, well, what makes you a human? Apply those to a zygote. If the requisites are contradictory, such as in the earlier example of zygotes not having hearts and thus not being human, then they are not the correct requisites.

Again, this argument should be avoided. What makes a human a human? Is it autonomic function? Circulatory function? Brainwaves? Digestion? Which, or what combination of these elements and others, is it? Any or all of those can be applied to non-human animals, but we certainly can't classify those things as human.

If we go a different route and cite a human's ability to reason, to think critically, as evidence of being human, then zygotes, lacking the ability to do anything of the sort, do not count as human. I'm sure the pro-life crowd would go to the mat with me over the issue, but we'd still not get anything resolved.



Kudos, though, on arguing with this many people at once.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

We have someone whose brain has been split in two on our operating table. There is no doubt that they are dead and no longer a person. If our technology could perfectly repair the head, he'd spring back to life. What was once not a person and a lifeless mass of decomposing cells is now back to normal.

Why would he spring back to life? If a person died of a heart attack, putting a new heart in the body wouldn't bring them back. But this is just an example and I see what you're saying. As for the other example, I would consider a person as dead if their conciousness is gone and not recoverable. Otherwise as still alive.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

There is a question that has to be asked when confronted with the idea that consciousness is a person, and that is, is whatever provides the capacity for consciousness also the person? I refer to the most basic parts that immediately give rise to consciousness and nothing which sustains those parts, such as a heart and lungs.

If you consider a zygote as not being a person due to not having conciousness, but only a potential of conciousness, then why is an unconcious human body not considered the same, if it has potential to heal itself and regain conciousness? Why is one potential more important than the other? Which I believe is what you asked in this part:

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

I must humbly ask that the significance of consciousness already having existed within a given organism, as opposed to one where it has not appeared yet but will inevitably (in a manner analogous to our super-healing patient), be explained.

Differentiating between two potentials of life, one which has previously exsisted and one which hasn't.
By having previously exsisted, that person has gained knowledge, memories and has affected the world around them. It is not a potential for new life, but for the continuation of life. By killing the body you will end the potential for that person to return, and end their life.
For a zygote, you can kill the cells and end the potential for a life. But there is not yet a person that can be killed. The conciousness is prevented from exsisting, not from returning.

[$haDe]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

This has been addressed. Please read the thread if you want to participate in an informed manner. Thank you and come again.

I mean we were off-topic.

[Alarica]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Are you out of your mind?
Being a mother does NOT make you any sort of authority on brain development.

Oh do grow up, child. I have no intention of explaining to you how i know so much about the developmental process of a human foetus or on brain development and function. I have far better things to do with my time, oddly enough.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Alarica

Oh do grow up, child. I have no intention of explaining to you how i know so much about the developmental process of a human foetus or on brain development and function. I have far better things to do with my time, oddly enough.

Ok, first, it's just asinine to refer to everyone as "child" and expect people to take you seriously.
Second, how the hell is asking you to justify your statements in an argument indicative of immaturity?

You're either stupid and use words you don't understand, or you DON'T know anything more than a layperson about brain development and are using this as an escape.
Which is it?

[AshtrayKitten]

Kudos, though, on arguing with this many people at once.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Raptor

Why would he spring back to life? If a person died of a heart attack, putting a new heart in the body wouldn't bring them back. But this is just an example and I see what you're saying. As for the other example, I would consider a person as dead if their conciousness is gone and not recoverable. Otherwise as still alive.


If you consider a zygote as not being a person due to not having conciousness, but only a potential of conciousness, then why is an unconcious human body not considered the same, if it has potential to heal itself and regain conciousness? Why is one potential more important than the other? Which I believe is what you asked in this part:

Differentiating between two potentials of life, one which has previously exsisted and one which hasn't.
By having previously exsisted, that person has gained knowledge, memories and has affected the world around them. It is not a potential for new life, but for the continuation of life. By killing the body you will end the potential for that person to return, and end their life.
For a zygote, you can kill the cells and end the potential for a life. But there is not yet a person that can be killed. The conciousness is prevented from exsisting, not from returning.

"I would consider a person as dead if their conciousness is gone and not recoverable. Otherwise as still alive."

Unless a person has existed already, it is not a person?

Not to be a dick but I think this argument relies on an established consensus that a person has existed against the uncertainty that a person may or may not exist in a fetus' case, without explaining the significance of the continuation of a consciousness opposed to inevitably of one being born.

I can cite a fetus which has just attained consciousness at 6 months as an argument against the example of someone having interacted with the world in a meaningful way, but those would be semantics of time and a measure of interaction. (Consider it an attempt to make the point as concise as possible)

Even disregarding any possible importance of the capacity for consciousness, I feel the significance of a consciousness having existed needs to be further explained, if the comparison is valid by itself at all.

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Ok, first, it's just asinine to refer to everyone as "child" and expect people to take you seriously.
Second, how the hell is asking you to justify your statements in an argument indicative of immaturity?

You're either stupid and use words you don't understand, or you DON'T know anything more than a layperson about brain development and are using this as an escape.
Which is it?

Ashtray: Abortion is homicide because a fetus is a person, and here's why...

Alarica: NO. Abortions help people in China.


Ashtray: Say you had a hypothetical headless body...

Alarica: GROSS! Why would want to keep it alive? You know nothing. I know all about type 3 anal cancer and premature nitwit syndrome. Your feeble Wikipedia search cannot stop my arsenal of pro-choice talking points. Grow up, child.


Like Ron White says, you can't fix stupid. No point in trying!

[Becca_Lugosi]

I'm pro-choice.
And murder is a choice.
Does that make me pro-murder?
Nahh.

I'm all for babies (future midwife).
But I am not about un-wanted babies.

Abortion should always be an option.
Don't want one?
Don't get one.



~B.L.

[Alarica]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Ok, first, it's just asinine to refer to everyone as "child" and expect people to take you seriously.
Second, how the hell is asking you to justify your statements in an argument indicative of immaturity?

You're either stupid and use words you don't understand, or you DON'T know anything more than a layperson about brain development and are using this as an escape.
Which is it?

God almighty you are a whiney bitch. And I didnt refer to EVERYONE as a child, i referred to YOU as a child, and you are still acting like 1.

Either using words i dont understand or dont know anything more than a layperson? Pretty much the same thing. As i said, I know a hell of a lot about brain development but i do not have the time, patience or degree of boredom necessary to type it all up. Oddly enough I have better things to do. If you want to learn something about brain development, go and speak to a qualified neurological team. Like i did. And take notes. You have internet access too, use it to your advantage.

Aside from that, this thread has pretty much run its course and brain development discussion was in relation to the conversation about the headless foetus. It's old and over with.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Alarica

BAAAAAAAAAW! QUIT REASONING WITH ME, OPHIE!!11

Seriously. That's what it looks like.

[littlemoonfox]

To kill is to kill...the thing is somethings we kill we dont give damn that we killed it. Like to kill cows for food ..or trees for houses...Even if baby kept alive outside mother has feuts...they will still aruge over it...what will happen to it...who will care for it.. are we playing god?..When something dies...someone else will always fight it. Some people fight for trees others fight for critters...some for babies....

Every one has right to their view...what you do with your life up to you...I eat meat so I can live with fuzzy things dying. I cant judge abortion..becuse I never be in spot when I had to choose... I dont judge others when they do it..they accpect it everything comes with it...I think some it just comes down to are willing accpect your going to kill something living...if They choose it can live with it good for them...

[Steele_Mistress]

I'm pro-life but there's absolutely nothing I can do about the "aborting" of an unborn child and there's nothing anyone else that agrees can do either. We just have to wait and see if someone will smarten up someday and realise the government is making a fool of themselves by trying to shove religion down our throats with "gays" being sinful but they cannot see that "abortion" of an innocent child is sinful as well. Isn't that odd?

And NO I am not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. It is your choice to be pro-choice or pro-abortion.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Steele_Mistress

And NO I am not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. It is your choice to be pro-choice or pro-abortion.

Er... isn't pro-choice the side that supports abortion? I think you mean "It is your choice to be pro-choice or pro-life.

I take it that you're pro-life, but support the right to choose your side. So you choose to deny others the choice of whether or not to have an abortion? That's a fucking choice piece of rhetoric.

[Steele_Mistress]

No, I mean what I mean.

Pro-choice means the mother should have a right to choose what she does with the baby whether it be keeping it OR aborting it. It can also mean that the person believes a woman should only abort her child if it is risking her life or things of the latter. Pro-abortion is the side of view where a person thinks abortion is fully fine and some women even use it as a form of birth control for the lack of being able to keep their legs closed [I meant no offense].

And yes, I am pro-life and I do NOT agree with abortion in any way, shape, or form. All I agree with is that people have the right to disagree and fight against my opinion and the opinion of other pro-lifers.