Abortion is murder

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's ridiculous though. It's not abortion. It's a natural death. Like any other. You might as well ask "if God hates murder why does he do it himself so often?" as justification for going around killing a bunch of people and pointing to the fact that people die as evidence of your case. Any natural death can be laid on "God" for the blame and the the stupid arguments follow.

I suppose you could ask that. However, I think that the difference is that in the case of actual murder, you can justify why it's bad in all sorts of ways that don't rely on "God thinks it's wrong."

This issue arises when you rely only on God's say-so as the argument against a thing. And I do agree that this hints at something larger: the only logically consistent way to resolve the Problem of Evil is to argue that everything that happens is necessarily good.

At the very least, I think that we must assume that if everything is the result of the will of an all-powerful, all-knowing God, then the things we see around us reflect the will of God and act as testimony to God's actual desires. Some people cite "free will" as a reason why human actions don't necessarily correspond to what God wants (though I think it's a cop-out when they do this), but if we look at things that have nothing to do with "free will", such as the autonomic processes that occur in a woman's body affecting things like embryonic implantation or fetal development, then we can't use "free will" as the reason for why things go wrong.

 

[Alceste]

Everyone seems to have various points at where they view "life" beginning. It appears I'm one of those odd people that view it beginning at conception itself. I try to look at it from a completely logical and biological POV. At conception you have the formation of a uniquely DNA coded human being. In that, if left to proper natural devices, it will develop as all human beings should and follow the natural development progression human beings do.

We are all in a constant state of development.
From zygote to embryo we are a living human.
From embryo to fetus we are a living human.
From fetus to infant we are a living human.
From infant to baby we are a living human.
From baby to toddler we are a living human.
From toddler to child we are a living human.
From child to adolescent we are a living human.
From adolescent to young adult we are a living human.
From young adult to mature adult we are living human.
From mature adult to elderly adult we are living human.
Until the moment of our death, wherever that may happen along our path of development, we are living developing human beings and that journey begins at the moment of conception.

That is my view on the matter. I know many will disagree with me and perhaps want to debate me on the subject however, this was not posted with intent to debate really, but rather to just give my POV into the conversation for whatever worth it may have.

Thanks for sharing, I will share my POV. I don't really care when "life" begins. I'm a pragmatist, and I don't possess any irrational sentimentality about the sanctity and preciousness human life. I think of harm in terms of suffering. Actions that increase the sum total of suffering in the world are unethical. Those that decrease it are ethical.

An embryo lacks the necessary equipment to feel awareness or sensation, so it can not suffer. Since it isn't known to anyone on a personal level, it's loss can not cause anyone to suffer grief (maybe disappointment, or political outrage, but we do that to ourselves by wishing the world was other than it is). A living breathing woman can certainly suffer, and pregnancy and child birth involve a great deal of suffering. From this perspective, I think it should be entirely up to her to decide whether to take on that suffering, and I simply can not imagine any motive for doing so apart from actually wanting a child, very much. Either that or enough silly sentimentality to cloud her better judgment.

If ethical behavior is determined by a simple calculation of how much suffering is added to or subtracted from the sum total of suffering in the world, things look very different. You begun to realize that eating battery farm eggs or a MacDonald's hamburger is much more unethical than abortion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks for sharing, I will share my POV. I don't really care when "life" begins. I'm a pragmatist, and I don't possess any irrational sentimentality about the sanctity and preciousness human life. I think of harm in terms of suffering. Actions that increase the sum total of suffering in the world are unethical. Those that decrease it are ethical.

I don't care when "life" begins either, but for a different reason: bodily security.

After birth, we consider it an unreasonable infringement of a person's rights and freedoms to compel them to give up so much as one hair off their head for their child, even if the child would certainly die as a result. Heck - this holds true even if many of the person's children would die as a result.

We can have discussions about how much value the law should recognize in a fetus; people have different opinions from "no value at all" to "as much as a child", but I think it's unreasonable to value a fetus more than a child (and more than a group of children, actually). In the case of a child, society has unequivocally declared that a person's right to bodily security outweighs any number of lives, so I don't see why we should make an exception for a fetus.

 

[Draka]

Thanks for sharing, I will share my POV. I don't really care when "life" begins. I'm a pragmatist, and I don't possess any irrational sentimentality about the sanctity and preciousness human life. I think of harm in terms of suffering. Actions that increase the sum total of suffering in the world are unethical. Those that decrease it are ethical.

An embryo lacks the necessary equipment to feel awareness or sensation, so it can not suffer. Since it isn't known to anyone on a personal level, it's loss can not cause anyone to suffer grief (maybe disappointment, or political outrage, but we do that to ourselves by wishing the world was other than it is). A living breathing woman can certainly suffer, and pregnancy and child birth involve a great deal of suffering. From this perspective, I think it should be entirely up to her to decide whether to take on that suffering, and I simply can not imagine any motive for doing so apart from actually wanting a child, very much. Either that or enough silly sentimentality to cloud her better judgment.

If ethical behavior is determined by a simple calculation of how much suffering is added to or subtracted from the sum total of suffering in the world, things look very different. You begun to realize that eating battery farm eggs or a MacDonald's hamburger is much more unethical than abortion.

Quick question to you. Do you have personal ethics as to time limits on abortions? You talk about suffering and that embryos don't have the ability to suffer yet, but further along in development they do. So I'm just asking, what is your stance on how you feel about when an abortion should be done?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You talk about suffering and that embryos don't have the ability to suffer yet, but further along in development they do.

Are you sure?

Brain function in the fetus is generally depressed until the first breath. The change from the uterine environment to the environment outside triggers all sorts of changes. Until that point, normal respiration and cardiac function are suppressed (they have to be, since until this point, the fetus is relying on fetal circulation patterns and is getting its oxygen from the mother via the placenta). If these lower-level brain functions aren't present yet, I'm not sure why we should assume that higher-level ones are.

And this is a change that occurs at the moment of birth, regardless of gestational age.

Adaptation to extrauterine life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Curious George]

Quick question to you. Do you have personal ethics as to time limits on abortions? You talk about suffering and that embryos don't have the ability to suffer yet, but further along in development they do. So I'm just asking, what is your stance on how you feel about when an abortion should be done?

I don't know that anyone suggested ALL mothers be liable for spontaneous abortions. But we would need to hold mothers who did not do everything in their power to safeguard these globs of cells criminally liable. If there is a spontaneous abortion then we would need to have a police investigation. Which brings us back to the point that a woman passing a glob of cells would then need to be held liable for corpse abuse if she flushes. In fact, since many women are never even aware they had a pregnancy (they just think they had a large period), we will have to have doctors examine the menstrual flow of all sexually active women.

Most people say they believe life begins at conception. However, they act otherwise. Would you have a funeral for a spontaneously abortion? Do you find it appalling that many spontaneous abortions are tossed in trash cans or flushed down toilets?

Yet most would likely have services for a baby. Moreover, many would be outraged if people were flushing dead babies down toilets and tossing them in trash cans even when they died of SIDS or some other natural ailment.

Then, finally, were someone to get an abortion how would you treat them? I know I would treat them very different from a mother who murdered an infant. I believe most people would also.

People often espouse that "life begins at conception" however their actions show something entirely different. I guess I am a believer in the concept that you can know a person by their works. Words are easy to say, actions are harder. I believe this discrepancy illustrates that many people do not actually know their own beliefs, and while they would like to believe they think one way or another, ultimately they don't.

 

[Draka]

Are you sure?

Brain function in the fetus is generally depressed until the first breath. The change from the uterine environment to the environment outside triggers all sorts of changes. Until that point, normal respiration and cardiac function are suppressed (they have to be, since until this point, the fetus is relying on fetal circulation patterns and is getting its oxygen from the mother via the placenta). If these lower-level brain functions aren't present yet, I'm not sure why we should assume that higher-level ones are.

And this is a change that occurs at the moment of birth, regardless of gestational age.

Adaptation to extrauterine life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you would assume that since it doesn't breathe as it would outside the womb that it's nerves don't function either? Is that your argument? It can react to sound, it's mother's voice, can be born and survive at around 21 weeks, yet you are saying that it doesn't have the capability to "suffer" until it magically pops out of the vagina? Is that the argument?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you would assume that since it doesn't breathe as it would outside the womb that it's nerves don't function either? Is that your argument? It can react to sound, it's mother's voice, can be born and survive at around 21 weeks, yet you are saying that it doesn't have the capability to "suffer" until it magically pops out of the vagina? Is that the argument?

No, I'm not. I just question how certain you are of a statement you gave as an apparent fact.

However, I think your point about viability at 21 weeks is irrelevant. It ignores the point I was making.

And even people in vegetative states can have some reaction to stimuli, so I'm not sure how you can say that fetal reactions to sounds are evidence of higher-order brain function.

 

[Draka]

I don't know that anyone suggested ALL mothers be liable for spontaneous abortions. But we would need to hold mothers who did not do everything in their power to safeguard these globs of cells criminally liable. If there is a spontaneous abortion then we would need to have a police investigation. Which brings us back to the point that a woman passing a glob of cells would then need to be held liable for corpse abuse if she flushes. In fact, since many women are never even aware they had a pregnancy (they just think they had a large period), we will have to have doctors examine the menstrual flow of all sexually active women.

Most people say they believe life begins at conception. However, they act otherwise. Would you have a funeral for a spontaneously abortion? Do you find it appalling that many spontaneous abortions are tossed in trash cans or flushed down toilets?

Yet most would likely have services for a baby. Moreover, many would be outraged if people were flushing dead babies down toilets and tossing them in trash cans even when they died of SIDS or some other natural ailment.

Then, finally, were someone to get an abortion how would you treat them? I know I would treat them very different from a mother who murdered an infant. I believe most people would also.

People often espouse that "life begins at conception" however their actions show something entirely different. I guess I am a believer in the concept that you can know a person by their works. Words are easy to say, actions are harder. I believe this discrepancy illustrates that many people do not actually know their own beliefs, and while they would like to believe they think one way or another, ultimately they don't.

You know, there is such a thing as going too far. Yes, one can believe that life begins at conception because, biologically, that is a fact. Biologically, it is also a fact that many times a life doesn't implant and dies before it has a chance to develop. This is a natural cycle of life. It is hard to mourn a life lost when it is never known about. Those who do know about being pregnant, and want to be pregnant, and lose that pregnancy due to miscarriage do indeed take it quite hard. Sometimes just as hard as losing any other child. They may indeed have a service, even if they have nothing to bury.

As to how to treat others who may have had abortions, that part may become trickier. It can sometimes be hard to separate how one personally feels about such a subject with someone else's reality. The thing to remember is that you are not them. You have not walked in their shoes. There are some reasons why abortion may be a valid option for some. As I have said before, I can see some benefits of it in cases of rape and where the health or life of the mother is jeopardized. There are cases of extreme abuse in a relationship where abortion may be called for as well. As to other reasons why a woman may have one, well, I can't really speak to those reasons, and whether or not I agree with them, I'm not those women and I don't make their decisions for them.

 

[Draka]

No, I'm not. I just question how certain you are of a statement you gave as an apparent fact.

However, I think your point about viability at 21 weeks is irrelevant. It ignores the point I was making.

And even people in vegetative states can have some reaction to stimuli, so I'm not sure how you can say that fetal reactions to sounds are evidence of higher-order brain function.

Is suffering only a matter of higher order brain functioning? What is your definition of suffering?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is suffering only a matter of higher order brain functioning?

I'm not sure. I think it's probably of a higher order than our cardiac reflex, though.

What is your definition of suffering?

What's yours? Presumably, you had one in mind when you were making declarative statements about suffering.

 

[Draka]

I'm not sure. I think it's probably of a higher order than our cardiac reflex, though.


What's yours? Presumably, you had one in mind when you were making declarative statements about suffering.

A very simple one that comes to mind...does it feel pain?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A very simple one that comes to mind...does it feel pain?

All right. And you're arguing that it has in fact been determined that fetuses can feel pain? How was this done, exactly?

 

[Curious George]

You know, there is such a thing as going too far. Yes, one can believe that life begins at conception because, biologically, that is a fact. Biologically, it is also a fact that many times a life doesn't implant and dies before it has a chance to develop. This is a natural cycle of life. It is hard to mourn a life lost when it is never known about. Those who do know about being pregnant, and want to be pregnant, and lose that pregnancy due to miscarriage do indeed take it quite hard. Sometimes just as hard as losing any other child. They may indeed have a service, even if they have nothing to bury.

As to how to treat others who may have had abortions, that part may become trickier. It can sometimes be hard to separate how one personally feels about such a subject with someone else's reality. The thing to remember is that you are not them. You have not walked in their shoes. There are some reasons why abortion may be a valid option for some. As I have said before, I can see some benefits of it in cases of rape and where the health or life of the mother is jeopardized. There are cases of extreme abuse in a relationship where abortion may be called for as well. As to other reasons why a woman may have one, well, I can't really speak to those reasons, and whether or not I agree with them, I'm not those women and I don't make their decisions for them.

Well now I have known people who have lost fetuses via miscarriage and I have unfortunately known parents who have lost children. I cannot say that these are similar experiences. While both parties suffer, I would never consider comparing the two.

And I agree with the sentiment of going to far. Thus, we can say that life may begin at conception as long as we are willing to concede that a glob of cells is not a human being. If we do say that life begins at conception and a glob of cells is a human being then we must act accordingly. We don't. So how can we compare the two? You have suggested that comparing spontaneous abortions to medical abortions is not a fair comparison. Well, I would hold that comparing a zygote to a baby is not a fair comparison. Consequently, aborting a zygote is by no means comparable to taking the life of a baby. To what then is aborting a zygote comparable?

Well, I would suggest that aborting a zygote is more comparable to a wife having a regular menstrual cycle while the husband relieves himself into a Kleenex. The elements of life were present. We had living cells, albeit haploid. And, the couple chose not to try for a baby.

 

[Draka]

Well now I have known people who have lost fetuses via miscarriage and I have unfortunately known parents who have lost children. I cannot say that these are similar experiences. While both parties suffer, I would never consider comparing the two.

I have, and I would. Remember, I said some people. Now, moving on.

And I agree with the sentiment of going to far. Thus, we can say that life may begin at conception as long as we are willing to concede that a glob of cells is not a human being. If we do say that life begins at conception and a glob of cells is a human being then we must act accordingly. We don't.

What is "accordingly" to you?

So how can we compare the two? You have suggested that comparing spontaneous abortions to medical abortions is not a fair comparison.

It's not. One is natural while the other is forced. It would be like comparing SIDS to smothering a baby with a pillow and saying they are equally the same thing.

Well, I would hold that comparing a zygote to a baby is not a fair comparison. Consequently, aborting a zygote is by no means comparable to taking the life of a baby. To what then is aborting a zygote comparable?

Well, I would suggest that aborting a zygote is more comparable to a wife having a regular menstrual cycle while the husband relieves himself into a Kleenex. The elements of life were present. We had living cells, albeit haploid. And, the couple chose not to try for a baby.

You are speaking of aborting a zygote. As if a woman usually finds out she is pregnant when it is in that stage. By the time a woman finds out she is pregnant it is in the embryonic stage. Well past the stage where it is usually naturally expelled in menstrual fluid. Women don't go in and have zygotes medically aborted.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Responsibility implies some kind of control. Where she has some control, then yes, she is liable. Where she has none, then she is not liable. She is not liable for natural occurrences such as you noted. She is liable for where she has control, such as if she decides to go on an alcoholic bender or shoot up.

She has complete control of what should happen to her body. If she goes on any binge, she is responsible first for how her body is affected and then how the fetus is impacted as a result of her health. She is then responsible for how to respond to the current situation of the health of her own body.

I don't apply the terms "liability" or "fault" to the woman when it comes to an unborn fetus.

 

[Curious George]

You are speaking of aborting a zygote. As if a woman usually finds out she is pregnant when it is in that stage. By the time a woman finds out she is pregnant it is in the embryonic stage. Well past the stage where it is usually naturally expelled in menstrual fluid. Women don't go in and have zygotes medically aborted.

Day after pill anyone?

 

[Curious George]

I have, and I would. Remember, I said some people. Now, moving on.

I sense this is a touchy subject- remember it might be for me as well. You want to move on yet you persist in having this last word, reasserting your opinion, after I have acknowledge your opinion and stated a very different one. We can leave it alone or we can persist- balls in your court.

 

[Curious George]

What is "accordingly" to you?

Accordingly, is that when a human being dies there needs to be an investigation. This can be avoided if there is either no "life" or no "human being." If we hold that a medical abortion is the intentional destruction of the life of a human being we are putting it on par with murder. So, if we continue down this road, the death of a human being is cause for an investigation. There need not be murder involved for a death. Thus, all spontaneous abortions should be investigated. Now if the body of a human life is this glob of cells then it proceeds than the disposal of such body is criminal corps abuse. If we are not going to hold to this line of reasoning we have to establish why. We do not say, some unexplained deaths need to be investigated and others do not. We need a rationale for investigation. Any rationale we come to will leave us with because we are dealing with a zygote, or and embryo we do not need to investigate. At this moment we are placing a value judgment on life. We are differentiated between one life and another. We can play semantics but the bottom line is we are actually implying one is a life and the other is not.

It's not. One is natural while the other is forced. It would be like comparing SIDS to smothering a baby with a pillow and saying they are equally the same thing.

Are SIDS cases investigated? I am not saying that the two are comparable. I am saying that the value you are placing by calling a zygote a human being and life needs to be held. When we do this ridiculousness follows. Therefore, we should not do this.

 

[Draka]

Day after pill anyone?

I was wondering if you were eluding to that, but you were talking as if she knew she was pregnant. Pregnant, technically, eludes to not only conception, but implantation as well. Since the morning after pill prevents implantation and mimics what you were talking about, the ejecting of a fertilized egg in menstrual blood, then there is no pregnancy to begin with to abort. So I wasn't sure what you were talking about as one can't really abort a zygote.

I sense this is a touchy subject- remember it might be for me as well. You want to move on yet you persist in having this last word, reasserting your opinion, after I have acknowledge your opinion and stated a very different one. We can leave it alone or we can persist- balls in your court.

I was simply restating that I said some people. Just because you would not say they are similar and would never compare the two doesn't mean that some others wouldn't. Can you at least give that some people view loss differently?

Accordingly, is that when a human being dies there needs to be an investigation. This can be avoided if there is either no "life" or no "human being."

Medically, when a woman has a miscarriage, this is already done on a level. It is deemed "natural causes", much like many other deaths.

If we hold that a medical abortion is the intentional destruction of the life of a human being we are putting it on par with murder.

Legally, it is not held as such so there is nothing to worry about. The rest of your post is rendered null and void. There is no road to continue down. No investigation need be done. No abuse of zygotes or what-have-you.


At what point in this thread did you miss the point that I made about supporting the legality of abortion? At what point in this thread did you miss me stating that there are valid causes for abortion? At what point did you miss me stating that although I hold to the biological fact that the progression of human life begins at the moment of conception that the choices a woman makes about abortion are her own regardless of how I may feel about them? What is your purpose in arguing with me? What is your goal? What is it you are trying to change my mind about?