Abortion is murder

[Curious George]

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?

Not trying to change your mind. I am simply allowing that if you are correct implications follow. Do you have any idea why abortion is not considered illegal? It has to do with the legal definition of life and human being. We have chosen this definition because not doing so will result in many complications. So for you to disregard that reasoning and insist that life begins at point X and at that point that life is a "human being" requires rationale for how we act. If this is true we should act accordingly. If this is not true we should not act accordingly.

 

[Alceste]

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?

Yes, I do. Research indicates that fetuses lack the hardware to feel pain before the 24th week, and the presence of certain hormones indicates they are anesthetized and sedated in the womb until birth. I would support certain limitations after the first twelve weeks, which leaves room for a pretty massive margin of error. However, that acceptance is conditional on there being NO obstacles to accessing safe and legal early abortions. Mandatory counseling and Trans-vaginal ultrasound laws are obstacles, as are lack of access to clinics, groups of protestors, inadequate funding for family planning centres, poor sex education, and generally every single thing the anti-choice activists are trying to accomplish. They all make it harder to get an abortion, and so extend the length of time it might reasonably take, so I can not in good conscience support any limit before total viability.

 

[Draka]

Not trying to change your mind. I am simply allowing that if you are correct implications follow. Do you have any idea why abortion is not considered illegal? It has to do with the legal definition of life and human being. We have chosen this definition because not doing so will result in many complications. So for you to disregard that reasoning and insist that life begins at point X and at that point that life is a "human being" requires rationale for how we act. If this is true we should act accordingly. If this is not true we should not act accordingly.

I'm not asking or demanding that anyone act according to a certain way am I? Just because a legal definition exists doesn't mean that it is in accordance with a biological understanding and it doesn't mean that I have to personally hold to the legal definition within my own core of ethics does it? I'm not asking or demanding that anyone else does, am I? As long as I uphold the legal definition when in dealings with the law and respect others' legal decisions and their rights to make them then what else can you ask of me?

 

[Curious George]

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 am sorry, but whether there is a zygote or not the introduction of specific hormones can cause the shedding of the uterine lining. Whether a zygote is implanted in said lining or not this will happen. There can still be a pregnancy.

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?

Yes, but to accept your position would be to thwart all bonding and attachment theory. This is not just hoopla, espoused by psychologists and medical professionals. I agree there is suffering either way. I would even concede that ones suffering is not comparable to another person's suffering. However, given a parent who has both had miscarriage and lost a living child- let us ask them which was cause for more suffering or if the experiences were equal. I have no doubt to their answer. I can not speak for all people, and were such a person to insist that the two were equal to them I would concede that you are right. However, until such a period I can only speak from experience and theory. Both, hold you wrong.

 

[Draka]

Yes, I do. Research indicates that fetuses lack the hardware to feel pain before the 24th week, and the presence of certain hormones indicates they are anesthetized and sedated in the womb until birth. I would support certain limitations after the first twelve weeks, which leaves room for a pretty massive margin of error. However, that acceptance is conditional on there being NO obstacles to accessing safe and legal early abortions. Mandatory counseling and Trans-vaginal ultrasound laws are obstacles, as are lack of access to clinics, groups of protestors, inadequate funding for family planning centres, poor sex education, and generally every single thing the anti-choice activists are trying to accomplish. They all make it harder to get an abortion, and so extend the length of time it might reasonably take, so I can not in good conscience support any limit before total viability.

What is "total viability"? Are you talking 24 weeks or a full 40 weeks? What about areas in which it is much easier to get an abortion?

 

[Curious George]

I'm not asking or demanding that anyone act according to a certain way am I? Just because a legal definition exists doesn't mean that it is in accordance with a biological understanding and it doesn't mean that I have to personally hold to the legal definition within my own core of ethics does it? I'm not asking or demanding that anyone else does, am I? As long as I uphold the legal definition when in dealings with the law and respect others' legal decisions and their rights to make them then what else can you ask of me?

No, I do not believe you are asking such. But such things still need to be discussed, if we are going to resolve the issue for our society. If you maintain, that "while I believe biologically X, we still need to define legally Y, to remove potential problems in society, then by all means I understand your position. However, if you are asserting that X is when life begins. Then you must reason your way through the ethical dilemmas that your view presents.

My original point is that people may espouse your belief verbally, they in reality act completely contrary to that belief. There is a concept in ethics which asserts that people say the believe one way, yet act in another fashion. What beliefs are more true? The way they talk or the way they act? I believe it is the latter.

 

[Draka]

I am sorry, but whether there is a zygote or not the introduction of specific hormones can cause the shedding of the uterine lining. Whether a zygote is implanted in said lining or not this will happen. There can still be a pregnancy.



Yes, but to accept your position would be to thwart all bonding and attachment theory. This is not just hoopla, espoused by psychologists and medical professionals. I agree there is suffering either way. I would even concede that ones suffering is not comparable to another person's suffering. However, given a parent who has both had miscarriage and lost a living child- let us ask them which was cause for more suffering or if the experiences were equal. I have no doubt to their answer. I can not speak for all people, and were such a person to insist that the two were equal to them I would concede that you are right. However, until such a period I can only speak from experience and theory. Both, hold you wrong.

I never said equal, I said "almost as much". Some women, especially when trying very hard for a pregnancy, get quite attached to their little one while still in the womb. Their hopes, their dreams, all attached and centered around it. The loss of which can be quite devastating. They may already have a name, identified with it. I never claimed equal.

 

[Draka]

No, I do not believe you are asking such. But such things still need to be discussed, if we are going to resolve the issue for our society. If you maintain, that "while I believe biologically X, we still need to define legally Y, to remove potential problems in society, then by all means I understand your position. However, if you are asserting that X is when life begins. Then you must reason your way through the ethical dilemmas that your view presents.

My original point is that people may espouse your belief verbally, they in reality act completely contrary to that belief. There is a concept in ethics which asserts that people say the believe one way, yet act in another fashion. What beliefs are more true? The way they talk or the way they act? I believe it is the latter.

What would you rather have me do? Go around calling people murderers and acting like a complete jerkwad like the OP? Don't you think it possible to be civil and hold personal beliefs and ethics and yet know how to behave in modern society? I hold to my ethics and beliefs and I don't expect anyone else to. Much like my religion. I hold to my beliefs and my practices and rituals and I don't expect anyone else to. I don't personally agree with abortion for means of birth control, so for me, abortion isn't an option. Isn't that simple? Much like how people who have issues with same sex marriage should simply not marry someone of the same sex. They don't need to inflict this view on others, just live by their own code of ethics privately. How hard is that to do?

 

[Curious George]

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.

Then the mistake is mine. I interpreted this as implying that some took it equally.

 

[Draka]

Then the mistake is mine. I interpreted this as implying that some took it equally.

Perhaps bad wording on my part then. I meant "almost as much".

 

[Curious George]

What would you rather have me do? Go around calling people murderers and acting like a complete jerkwad like the OP? Don't you think it possible to be civil and hold personal beliefs and ethics and yet know how to behave in modern society? I hold to my ethics and beliefs and I don't expect anyone else to. Much like my religion. I hold to my beliefs and my practices and rituals and I don't expect anyone else to. I don't personally agree with abortion for means of birth control, so for me, abortion isn't an option. Isn't that simple? Much like how people who have issues with same sex marriage should simply not marry someone of the same sex. They don't need to inflict this view on others, just live by their own code of ethics privately. How hard is that to do?

And therein lies the rub.

If someone is acting in a way that is contrary to your ethics, at what point do we no longer owe tolerance? If someone is doing something we consider an egregious wrong how far are we to go to stop them?

We cannot maintain some theoretical view that says live and let live, when we continually act to the contrary. Would you have me believe that if you were to witness a hate crime you would not act? are you to have me believe that you feel we should have just stood by during the Holocaust? Armenian Genocide? Rwandan Genocide? No one themselves should have opposed slavery or civil rights- they should have just personally held to their ethical standpoint? Japanese internment camps? Violation of the Sioux treaty?

You see problems generate from this theory that you have now espoused as well. Sure you can hold to your theory, but as the ethical dilemmas mount in either direction you have to wonder are you just closing your eyes and saying "la la la la."

There have been several instances where women have murdered one or more of their children. These women should be punished? no? Society should do something? we should do something? or shall we let them live by whatever philosophy they may and try not to judge them? Civilization just does not work in that manner.

 

[Curious George]

Perhaps bad wording on my part then. I meant "almost as much". I've lost children. In more ways than one. I know what I meant, even if it didn't come out that way. Sorry to confuse.

no worries. I misunderstood as well. I think we came to a resolve. It is hard to work with words when there is experience and passion behind them.

 

[Draka]

And therein lies the rub.

If someone is acting in a way that is contrary to your ethics, at what point do we no longer owe tolerance? If someone is doing something we consider an egregious wrong how far are we to go to stop them?

We cannot maintain some theoretical view that says live and let live, when we continually act to the contrary. Would you have me believe that if you were to witness a hate crime you would not act? are you to have me believe that you feel we should have just stood by during the Holocaust? Armenian Genocide? Rwandan Genocide? No one themselves should have opposed slavery or civil rights- they should have just personally held to their ethical standpoint? Japanese internment camps? Violation of the Sioux treaty?

You see problems generate from this theory that you have now espoused as well. Sure you can hold to your theory, but as the ethical dilemmas mount in either direction you have to wonder are you just closing your eyes and saying "la la la la."

There have been several instances where women have murdered one or more of their children. These women should be punished? no? Society should do something? we should do something? or shall we let them live by whatever philosophy they may and try not to judge them? Civilization just does not work in that manner.

At this point, you are talking about standing up for victims. For the ones who cannot stand up for themselves. While this argument can be used in the abortion debate it does get quite heated when you get head-to-head with women's rights. Then you have those who want to define whether or not you can even assign personhood to the unborn to even call them victims. Legally it becomes quite the battle. Which is why the most logical compromise in the legal arena becomes the time limit and the ban on partial birth abortions. I believe this will turn into a whole other debate though and I'm honestly 1. not really that interested at the moment and 2. have to go take care of getting my kids to clean their room before I make dinner

But, in general, there is a difference between personal ethics and codes of conduct and beliefs, and crimes against persons and against humanity.

I'll be back later.

 

[Alceste]

What is "total viability"? Are you talking 24 weeks or a full 40 weeks? What about areas in which it is much easier to get an abortion?

Total viability would be the stage of development when the infant is likely to survive outside the womb. I don't think it world be practical for each region to have its own rules. That in itself could be an obstacle, since women would need to find out what restrictions are in place in their particular area before they could get an abortion. Also, wherever conditional restrictions are in place, we risk a system that compels women to justify their decision, which I think is very private and personal, and really nobody's business but theirs.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

For a person to abort 'for the sole purpose of not wanting an unwanted child' is a High Crime in God's eyes.

 

[Alceste]

For a person to abort 'for the sole purpose of not wanting an unwanted child' is a High Crime in God's eyes.

Phew, good thing not everybody believes in such a misogynistic God.

 

[s2a]

So, I thought I'd post this here, as I didn't know where else to post it. Abortion is murder. I actually believe that, and I'd appreciate your thoughts here, on that.

Brilliant.

No one has offered such a premise before...

...and...

...before we go any further...

Just curious as to how you would qualify within the definition of a "murder" (for context); a "justifiable homicide"? A "righteous killing"? A "Righteous War"? A trial by jury legal execution of a convicted criminal?

Would you present any compelling argument of any sort that the killing of any human being, at any time, under any situational ethics (ie., to stop a hostage taker from torturing your children to death; to prevent the "mad bomber" massacre of thousands; to prevent a psychopath from raping your wife/mother/daughter), no matter the circumstances, ever...is simply "murder"?

If so, please offer your case.

Thank you.

 

[InfidelRiot]

For a person to abort 'for the sole purpose of not wanting an unwanted child' is a High Crime in God's eyes.

You mean the god that does not exist?

 

[NIX]

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.

This really is the compelling issue. We do not ever force our citizens to give blood or bodily fluides or 'donate' the use of their organs or tissue for use by someone else, no matter how badly in need that someone else may be. Our laws do not require anyone to sustain or save anyone else's life via the use of their own biology- not even their own children.

Imagine a mother has a child in need of her body parts. Tissue, blood, organs. If the mother feels this is something she cannot continue to do (for whatever reasons) should she be forced? Should the father? Should the nearest compatable person be forced by law to sustain that child's life, simply because theirs is the only biology that can?

This is the bigger question.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

For a person to abort 'for the sole purpose of not wanting an unwanted child' is a High Crime in God's eyes.

I don't believe in YOUR god...So what now?

Why should a woman's right be subjected to your religious view...?