Is abortion homicide?

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am speaking from a traditional Hindu perspective. Half of Hinduism nowdays is in actuality Neo-Hinduism (the whole new-age business). I would be happy to have a debate with you on this.

Most traditional schools of Hinduism, including the Shaivas, Shaktas, Vaishanavs and even Smartas believe that the atma enters the body at the point of conception. Sruti also supports this. They all accept that human birth is rare and precious from that moment of conception, and therefore abortion creates huge karmic penalties. Scripture also supports this view. I recognize that Hinduism is diverse, but the majority of the traditional schools would be in agreement with me here. Adi Sankaracharya (the founder of the Adwaita school) for example in his Vivek Chudamani, declares that human birth is the most rare and precious birth there is. One of the tenets of Hinduism is this principle of ahimsa and respect for all forms of life. The killing of the fetus (garbha hatya) is one of the five great evils.

I'm not very interested in what may be considered traditional in Hinduism. I take Kalikua Shaktism to what appears to be its logical conclusion, imo. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I'm not very interested in what may be considered traditional in Hinduism. I take Kalikua Shaktism to what appears to be its logical conclusion, imo. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

Personally I've never heard of a school known as Kalikua Shaktism (or how its different from Shaktism as a whole), so I would be happy to read more about its views (who founded it, what scriptures does it follow etc). Googling it also seems to give me no information. But even mainstream Shaktas (those who get their beliefs from scriptures like Devi Bhagavatam) hold that abortion is a sin. Check out, for example the the 11th Book, 19th Chapter of Devi Bhagavatam which compares abortion as a sin equaling to killing one's parents or a cow.

The reason I am saying this is because my original statement is not simply from a Vaishnav Perpective. It is a perceptive that takes into account the claims of scripture which is accepted by many, if not most Hindu schools.

 

[Terese]

I voted Yes.

It is Homocide, because I also believe that the fetus is a person with the right to life.

Is it evil? Yes, well in the Hindu perspective it is. By ending the life of a fetus, you are depriving her of a rare human birth, which is only attained after many many rebirths. A human birth is the only birth in which one can understand and have a relationship with God and hence gain liberation (Moksha). By the act of abortion, you have denied the fetus this rare human birth and barred her spiritual progress. This is the greatest evil to a person.

Should it be illegal? No. I believe it should be heavily restricted, and only considered a last resort. There are certain cases where abortion is permissible I think, like when the mother's live is in danger. It should never be used as a way of convenience killing. No one can decide whether a fetus' life is worth living or not, not even the mother.



Yes, there is a paper, written by philosopher Phillippa Foot (link here) where she explains this theory with regards to abortion.

I have the same perspective as you, but i am reluctant to call it homicide.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Personally I've never heard of a school known as Kalikua Shaktism (or how its different from Shaktism as a whole), so I would be happy to read more about its views (who founded it, what scriptures does it follow etc). Googling it also seems to give me no information. But even mainstream Shaktas (those who get their beliefs from scriptures like Devi Bhagavatam) hold that abortion is a sin. Check out, for example the the 11th Book, 19th Chapter of Devi Bhagavatam which compares abortion as a sin equaling to killing one's parents or a cow.

The reason I am saying this is because my original statement is not simply from a Vaishnav Perpective. It is a perceptive that takes into account the claims of scripture which is accepted by many, if not most Hindu schools.

It's the school of Shaktism that focuses on Kali as Brahman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktism#Kalikula:_family_of_Kali

I think sacred writings have their place but I don't view them as ultimate authorities.

 

[Neo Deist]

So, I believe that abortion is homicide because I believe a baby to be human, but I believe that even homicide can be the lesser of two evils. I would rather my mother put me out of my misery than be an unwanted pregnancy.

Having been in multiple jails, psyche-wards, and chemical dependency centers, I know too often what becomes of unwanted pregnancies. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions to the rule, but sociopathic tenancies run higher in people from broken homes, and I would rather be aborted than be the fruit of an unwanted pregnancy or raised in the dysfunctional households without a Father that are typically the ones getting abortions.

The people that are equipped and ready to raise children to be healthy productive members of society are usually not the ones going to the abortion clinic.

Do I think abortion is homicide? Yes
Do I think abortion is evil? Yes
Do I think it should be illegal? No, I consider it sometimes the lesser of two evils, and sometimes the most merciful thing to do both for the child and the mother.

Regarding the Poll question. Here is the definition for homicide:
hom·i·cide
(hŏm′ĭ-sīd′, hō′mĭ-)
n.
1. The killing of one person by another, regardless of intention or legality.
2. A person who kills another person.

Yes, abortion is a form of homicide. However, it is important to understand that homicide does not mean murder. There is a saying we use in law enforcement when we teach a class to academy cadets: Every murder is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder.

Homicide is merely the killing of another person, which can include self defense, accidental deaths, industrial deaths, traffic collisions, war/combat, lethal injection/electric chair, abortion, sports injuries as well as murder.

 

[Nous]

The victim of a homicide must have been living. The aborted pre-viable fetus does not qualify as such because it is not viable outside of the woman's body.

 

[निताइ dasa]

The victim of a homicide must have been living. The aborted pre-viable fetus does not qualify as such because it is not viable outside of the woman's body.

Viability has nothing to do with living (the biological definition at least). Our cells are living too. The questioon here is not about the living (status), but rather whether the fetus has a right to life. Homocide, in a moral sense is the disruption of the right to life. If such a disruption is unjustified, then it is called murder.

For example, if a mother is with child, and a shooter shoots the mother and the child also dies, then that is classed by the law as double homicide. The reason why abortion is so controversial, is because it asks us to concider what property of human beings grants us human rights. The answer is not clear cut, because it asks us humans to define our very being (what makes such 'persons').

It's the school of Shaktism that focuses on Kali as Brahman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktism#Kalikula:_family_of_Kali

I think sacred writings have their place but I don't view them as ultimate authorities.

Ahh Kalikula (not Kalikua). That is what confused me. Yeah you are entitled to have those beliefs, but they are not representative of even the whole school, esp since Shaktism is a traditional school of Hinduism.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I have the same perspective as you, but i am reluctant to call it homicide.

Yeah, it depends on how we define Homicide. Some people take the legal definition. Others take the moral definition. I think it important that we always look at the context under which abortion is done rather than defining the action itself as illegal/legal.

 

[David1967]

I voted yes. I think it is one of the most evil products of our society and should not be legal except in extreme cases such as, rape or if the mother was in danger (physically not mentally), and never late term.

 

[Nous]

The victim of a homicide must have been living. The aborted pre-viable fetus does not qualify as such because it is not viable outside of the woman's body.

Viability has nothing to do with living (the biological definition at least). Our cells are living too. The questioon here is not about the living (status), but rather whether the fetus has a right to life. Homocide, in a moral sense is the disruption of the right to life.

The OP asks a separate question as to the moral status of abortion. The first question asked in the OP is the title question, which is what I was limiting my response to.

In regard to the issue of "a right to life," the very concept of "a right" implies to my mind some legal dimension. In the US, a pre-viable fetus literally does not enjoy "a right to life"--the woman upon whose body that fetus depends has the right to terminate her pregnancy of a pre-viable fetus (as well as to terminate her pregnancies for other reasons than mere pre-viability).

For example, if a mother is with child, and a shooter shoots the mother and the child also dies, then that is classed by the law as double homicide.

Not all states have fetal homicide laws. Such laws are a recent development (which, as far as I know, began in the US). In any case, an assault or homicide of a pregnant woman resulting in the termination of her pregnancy is not equivalent to abortion. Even while some fetal homicide laws define a fetus or embryo at any stage as a "person" for purposes of increasing criminal penalties against the convicted person, this definition does not carry over into the issue (or statutes) relating to abortion. In fact, generally fetal homicide laws avoid the issue of "rights" of the fetus.

Anyway I knew someone was going to raise the issue of fetal homicide laws. (निताइ dasa, I must say that every time I read a post of yours, I'm just floored by the fact that you are only 18. You are invariably intelligent.)

 

[Laika]

Is abortion homicide- Voted "yes".

Is abortion evil- no, its probably a "lesser evil" even if it were.
Should abortion be legal- no (to the best of my kniwledge).

 

[निताइ dasa]

In regard to the issue of "a right to life," the very concept of "a right" implies to my mind some legal dimension. In the US, a pre-viable fetus literally does not enjoy "a right to life"--the woman upon whose body that fetus depends has the right to terminate her pregnancy of a pre-viable fetus (as well as to terminate her pregnancies for other reasons than mere pre-viability)

All good I do admit as a non-american , I feel that Americans view rights with more of a legal lens rather than a moral lens (not that they are mutually exclusive). I've noticed that for many Americans the fundamental rights derive from legal documents such as the constitution. It is the constitution which gives the government the mandate to act in certain ways. This is a consistent approach, but I feel like it lacks explanatory power if it is distanced from morality. For example, if the "right to free speech" is simply a right because it derives from the constitution, then it doesn't actually explain why "right to free speech" is a fundemental right (nor does it give a convincing argument for it).

However, in my own assessment of rights, I think them to be moral principles (rather moral "ought not" principles). A right to autonomy, means that we as agents morally ought not to do an action which would disrupt the autonomy (i.e act against bodily, thought or property autonomy) of another individual (who holds that right). These rights are therefore morally valuable. Then the next step is to assume, that the government has a strong mandate to protect these morally valuable rights (by which I mean prevent the disruption of, and prosecute those who disrupt them). That is why, when I argue for rights, I think the legal dimension is irrelevant, because it is dependent on and derives from the moral dimension. Those who argue from a legal/cultural dimension are called moral relativists (a philosophy that I have the uttermost spite for). For example, in 1939, the Nuremburg Laws in Germany defined the Jews' as subhuman members of society and as a result many of the fundamental rights would not longer apply to them. For me, this is an example of where legality can be wrong.

I also do recognize the differences of opinion that people hold on this matter However, I don't believe that abortion is an issue of women's rights at all. Rather it is an issue about whether a fetus has a right to life or not. There are generally two conclusions which I think are reasonable. The first (my conclusion) is that the fetus does have a right to life (based upon my definition of what constitutes 'personhood'). and abortion is a disruption of that right, and hence the government has a strong mandate to restrict it. The other acceptable argument is that fetus does not have a right to life (or rather they develop a right to life at a certain point in pregnancy) and they will reach their own conclusions based upon that (that abortion is permissible or permissible at certain points). These two positions are reasonable. This is usually the pay philosophers (whether they are pro-choice or pro-life, argue this).

The problem I have however, is with people who admit that even when a fetus has a right to life, still abortion is acceptable because autonomy>life. These people think that abortion is okay even up to the day before the child is born. For me this type of argumentation conflicts heavily with the moral intuitions we have today. Let me present an example. Let's say I am a mother and I have an infant. Now, while this infant is not inside me, they are still dependent on me for survival. I must sacrifice a portion of my income in order to buy food and other necessities for that infant (i.e my right of property is being disrupted in a sense). Also, as a mother, I also have to give my breast milk to that infant (if no other source is available) for her to survive. Now, would it be legally acceptable for me, to go out into the backyard and shoot my child as a means to restore my rights (of autonomy and property)? Most of our moral intuitions would say no, and if a parent did that, the state would treat that as murder. If the parent decided to withdraw the resources (and the child died as a result) then that would be considered child neglect by the state. I see no difference between this example and the example of pregnancy. That is why, I think that if the unborn fetus has a right to life, then the government has a strong mandate to restrict abortion (with exceptions of course). The rights of the autonomy are irrelevant here.

A similar example could be given of a country. A country is like an individual in that it has the right of sovereignty (which is analogous to bodily autonomy of persons). Only the country can decide who to let into their borders and who they can kick out. Now consider the following situation. A refugee enters into a sovereign country without its permission, fleeing from danger (which would kill them, or harm them). Now, would it be acceptable for the country to exercise its right of sovereignty and kick the refugee out knowing that they will die if they lose the protection of the country? I (and many people) would argue no, we cannot act to restore sovereignty/autonomy at the cost of disrupting the right to life. It is of a stronger imperative to protect rights, then to restore already violated rights. This scenario is analogous to pregnancy. If the fetus is unwanted, then the mother's right of autonomy has been violated (and the violator should be punished in the case of rape). However the mother cannot end the fetus' right to life (assuming she has it) in order to restore her autonomy, hence abortion is wrong (morally).

I actually have no problem with people who believe that a fetus doesn't have a right to life. They have taken their assumption to a reasonable conclusion. I however have a huge problem with people who assume that even though the fetus has a right to life, the mother's autonomy is more important. This is a view that if accepted sets an extremely dangerous moral (and legal) precedent.

(निताइ dasa, I must say that every time I read a post of yours, I'm just floored by the fact that you are only 18. You are invariably intelligent.)

Hahaha no need to flatter. I don't think I'm that intelligent. Most of my ideas and arguments come from others.

 

[Acim]

Yes - abortion is homicide, murder or killing by another name
No - not evil
Yes - ought to be illegal

I find it a bit absurd that it is not illegal. Yet, also see the basis of anti-Life/pro-choice position as true with all other types of murder, in that you always have a choice whether or not to murder someone. And you can make that choice (to murder). Nothing in reality says you cannot. People/rules may strongly suggest you ought not to, but nothing to really stop you. And in some cases of killing we've managed to make it legal, i.e. self defense, war, and abortion. But even with murder, you could conceivably get away with it, so nothing to stop you and possible you won't face legal consequences. Probably will, but might not. So, the choice part remains alive and well.

The 'not evil' part is, to me, significant aspect of the equation, that not sure I really want to get into, in this post. Not even sure how that comes up in Philosophy section, or am interested in hearing how anyone in this thread is making such a judgment and how they reconcile that with 'basis of philosophy?'

I do think it possible to be Pro Life and Pro Choice and is partially what my first paragraph is getting at. But because I see abortion as immoral / killing, I think it ought to be illegal. Choice is still there even if it's illegal.

To save the mother's life, having an abortion be necessary to save her life, is I think the only exception I would allow for whereby I would not see it as immoral, and even on that one I'd find it debatable, but do realize as things stand right now, that truly is up to the doctor and between doctor and woman. Every other case of abortion scenarios that I've ever heard of (and heard of all the ones noted in this thread prior to this thread existing) I see it as homicide/killing, and immoral, and thus would rather that be treated by the law as illegal. Or let's just make it so no murder is illegal. After all, why not be consistent with the Pro Choice position?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I "liked" the OP because of the emotional part. Yes, unwanted pregnancy/birth is a problem. It is sad that people do things without considering the consequences, and here it is the willing actions that cause the unwanted pregnancy.

I do believe the baby in the womb is a living being, but I also believe it becomes alive at some point, not once the pregnancy starts (that's why I didn't vote). I believe this is a good chance to consider abortion if the right reason presents itself.

So basically, at some point of the pregnancy I do consider abortion murder, and at some other point I don't.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Do I think abortion is homicide? No. A foetus is not a person nor is it aware as we are. If we consider killing balls of cells 'murder' then taking Domestos to the kitchen worktop should be consider murder too.
Do I think abortion is evil? No.
Do I think it should be illegal? Absolutely not.

 

[Thanda]

Couldn't abortion save souls? I mean, many of those aborted fetuses would have done a lot of harm to themselves and others. Some of them were very lucky they were aborted.

In fact, I have to go before the judge with enormous amounts of sin on my soul. If my Mother would have aborted me, I'd have a clean slate.

I don't consider this world to be our home anyway, so to die innocent, I count as a great privilege.

The righteous, not the innocent, will enter heaven.

 

[Thanda]

How subjective is it? should we take a poll on which action is kinder, A) to let an innocent baby into heaven or B) leave it banned from heaven because some priest didn't poor water over it's head and mutter some words.

Which would you say is more kind and more charitable treatment of a baby?

Obviously letting the innocent child into heaven is more kind and loving, therefore, my approach is more kind and loving than your God. There is nothing subjective there.

(at least, were God to be as you are describing.)

You are again confusing innocence with righteousness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Legalistic deficiencies have no bearing on the morality of the matter of whether or not abortion is permissible in some cases. See my reference to double effect earlier in this post.Halappanavar should have been granted the termination in my opinion. Unfortunately, the technicalities of Ireland's abortion law appear to have gotten in the way.

The "technicalities" weren't the problem. Ms. Halappanavar's death speaks to a fundamental problem with "life of the woman" exceptions to abortion bans: by the time it was clear that she would die without an abortion, it was already too late to save her.

Medical science generally isn't precise enough to make these "life of the woman" exceptions work. They're really only in place as a way to sell these anti-choice laws as less monstrous than they really are; they aren't an effective way to save women's lives.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The souls of unbaptised infants do not inherit salvation. If they did, why would we oppose abortion? We'd be right to refer to so-called 'abortion mills' as 'salvation mills' if this were true.



As above. Innocence does not warrant salvation in of itself.



Okay.

FYI, this theology - this "we can't say for sure that newborn children aren't such little balls of evil that a merciful and righteous God would be justified in torturing them forever" stuff - repelled me from the Catholic Church even more than the whole "existence of God" thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, it depends on how we define Homicide. Some people take the legal definition. Others take the moral definition. I think it important that we always look at the context under which abortion is done rather than defining the action itself as illegal/legal.

That's good, because the question of whether it's legal is usually pretty explicitly defined in each jurisdiction.

For instance, here in Canada, it's a settled matter of law that abortion is legal. It doesn't matter what twisted redefinition someone might come up with of the words in the Criminal Code; it has been established by the courts (including the Supreme Court) that abortion is legal here.