Abortion.

[Nadril]

Where do you personally draw the line?

I know that wasn't really a general question but I've been sitting on my own answer to it for like three pages without finding an opening, so I'll throw mine in:

 

 

 

Totally fine by me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bluelancer, what do you believe the difference between murder and killing is? Where does killing an animal cross the line into murder?

 

 

 

I don't know if we should bring animals into this, its a lot different of a subject (IMO) than humans.

 

 

 

 

 

Also I draw the line at the same time BlueLancer does, which is usually around the 3 month mark.

 

 

 

 

 

I've been trying to think of a good analogy but most of them really aren't correct. There isn't anything I can really compare to a fetus in a mothers womb.

[BlueTear]

Which is not a good line to draw, because the child is dependant upon the mother for oxygen, food, and other needs until birth,

Without doing any kind of research whatsoever, I feel reasonably confident when stating that no child has ever ended up outside the womb and the mother without experiencing some form of event that could be classified as a birth. If - with the aid of modern medicine - they can then manage to survive, their rights are no longer superceded by the right of the woman to her own body.

[assassin_696]

BlueLancer and BlueTear's definition of the cut-off point beyond which it is unacceptable is the exact same as mine. I'll just clarify a bit on my thoughts (again).

 

 

 

When the foetus is capable of being supported outside the mother's body by medical science, and the mother is no longer contingent to the baby's life, that's the cut-off point for me.

 

 

 

The earliest a premature baby could be reasonably expected to be kept alive by advanced medical techniques is probably about 24 weeks, although the baby will still potentially suffer serious long term damage if it is born so early.

 

 

 

Before this point in my mind the baby cannot be considered viable as a seperate entity and so cannot be defined as a human being and so aborting it is not murder.

 

 

 

That does not mean abortions should ever be done lightly, but before that point it should be the decision of the mother who has ultimate control over the baby.

 

 

 

I've stated these opinions before, hopefully this makes them slightly clearer. An unconscious person, or a comatose person can clearly be considered viable as a seperate entity so this reasoning does not apply to them.

 

 

 

Another point of interest for religiously motivated pro-life people to consider is this; if a zygote is so precious, so special and so sacred, why is it that biologically 1 in 3 pregnancies results in a miscarriage?

[Barihawk]

Who said pro-life sentiments are religiously motivated. Many religious groups support the movement, but not all pro-lifers are motivated by religion.

[Bauke]

BlueLancer and BlueTear's definition of the cut-off point beyond which it is unacceptable is the exact same as mine. I'll just clarify a bit on my thoughts (again).

 

 

 

When the foetus is capable of being supported outside the mother's body by medical science, and the mother is no longer contingent to the baby's life, that's the cut-off point for me.

 

 

 

The earliest a premature baby could be reasonably expected to be kept alive by advanced medical techniques is probably about 24 weeks, although the baby will still potentially suffer serious long term damage if it is born so early.

 

 

 

Before this point in my mind the baby cannot be considered viable as a seperate entity and so cannot be defined as a human being and so aborting it is not murder.

 

 

 

That does not mean abortions should ever be done lightly, but before that point it should be the decision of the mother who has ultimate control over the baby.

 

 

 

I've stated these opinions before, hopefully this makes them slightly clearer. An unconscious person, or a comatose person can clearly be considered viable as a seperate entity so this reasoning does not apply to them.

 

 

 

Another point of interest for religiously motivated pro-life people to consider is this; if a zygote is so precious, so special and so sacred, why is it that biologically 1 in 3 pregnancies results in a miscarriage?

 

 

 

Quoted for truth. Exactly how I feel about it.

[Korskin]

A former teacher of mine expressed his views about abortion:

 

 

 

Should abortion be compared to genocide?

 

 

 

In genocide people are killed because they are unwanted or non-human - exactly like abortion.

 

Genocide is legal, culturally accepted and institutionalized - exactly like abortion.

 

Genocide is often defended by that it's the least evil solution to a difficult problem - exactly like abortion.

 

In Genocide, the executioner has direct contact with the victims humanity and rationalizes ("if I don't do it someone else will" or "I was just doing my job") and denies ("they aren't people") or blame the victim ("Jews are parasites", "the fetus is a parasite/intruder") - exactly like abortion.

 

 

 

Then what are the differences?

 

Genocide kills mostly born people.

 

Abortion only kills unborn people.

 

Genocide kills mostly developed people.

 

Abortion kills only undeveloped people.

 

Genocide kills mostly conscious people.

 

Abortion kills mostly unconscious people.

 

 

 

What is there to say about the differences and similarities? I have difficulties to see how the differences are morally relevant to abolish the similarities. The only thing that can make the comparison invalid is if you can prove that embryos and fetuses aren't humans, or that all humans don't have human dignity. None of these two premises are very controversial. But it leads to that 35000 abortions per year (for reason we would never dream about is enough to kill born people) is some kind of genocide.

 

 

 

Hopefully I managed to make a fair translation. I pretty much agree and I feel disgusted with the way abortion is treated today. In Sweden there is virtually no debate whether abortion is right or wrong. If you're pregnant and contacts a midwife, chances are big that the first question you get is: Are you going to keep the baby? Abortion is no longer a last resort, it's an alternative as good as keeping the baby.

[warri0r45]

Going by the legal term, it's not murder. You could, of course, manipulate the semantics to your liking too, if you try hard enough.

 

 

 

We are discussing whether or not abortion is moral or not. It was always my perception that killing was the moral form of murder, and vice-versa. If we determine abortion to be immoral, then it is not killing - it is the immoral version of killing, which I define as murder.

 

 

 

Sounds good. If we agree to go by this, we can avoid ambiguity. The difficulty is agreeing on abortion as an immoral act. As yet, I'm unconvinced that it is immoral, especially in earlier stages. The later it gets and the more receptive the embryo gets, the less I'll be comfortable with it happeneing.

 

 

 

Where do you personally draw the line?

 

 

 

Generally anything before the fetus develops pain perception is fine by me. I see zygotes and blastocysts especially to be open slather to abortion (be it through a pill or otherwise), and, more importantly in my opinion, stem cell research.

 

 

 

But, to be honest, I'm pretty laissez faire about abortion as a whole. No particular opposition to it, I'm just favourable of not taking it irresponsibly and of keeping it within some sort of legal time frame. I'm open to more research into fetal development to refine those barriers if need be.

[assassin_696]

Who said pro-life sentiments are religiously motivated. Many religious groups support the movement, but not all pro-lifers are motivated by religion.

 

 

 

The vast majority of people who are committed to pro-life stances are religiously motivated. Although it wouldn't really constitute a proper study, this forum thread shows evidence in favour of that. Of course, the inverse is not true, i.e. all religious people are pro-life, or all atheists/agnostics pro-choice.

 

 

 

And that still doesn't answer the question.

[The Real ET]

Who said pro-life sentiments are religiously motivated. Many religious groups support the movement, but not all pro-lifers are motivated by religion.

 

 

 

The vast majority of people who are committed to pro-life stances are religiously motivated. Although it wouldn't really constitute a proper study, this forum thread shows evidence in favour of that. Of course, the inverse is not true, i.e. all religious people are pro-life, or all atheists/agnostics pro-choice.

 

 

 

And that still doesn't answer the question.

 

 

 

Because God doesn't want the 3rd baby. They still have a soul, it just goes right to heaven.

 

 

 

Yeah, I pulled that out of nowhere, I have no idea how to answer that in a religious prospective other than: "Because those are God's plans." That seems to work with most things.

[WolfhunterXZ]

The problem is for those who say that they shouldn't have a kid in the first place, some women don't think they'll get pregnant (It's only this once RIGHT?), they don't like the feel of condoms (or other birth controls), or they forgot to use birth control/put a condom on the man.

 

 

 

But I am pro-choice, it's their body, their kid, their choice. They can decide if they want the child or not. It's not up to old white male politicians who are steeped in their religious rules to decide for them.