Abortion

[Rainy_Day]

No, because sperm cells aren't humans. They're cells - cells that don't contain human dna. They're a part of a necessary whole.

 

Do you even know what a miscarriage is?

 

Yes.

Then how is a random biological event murder?

 

Because you have killed a being that has potential human life. Usually a genetic defect, but it still caused death to a innocent being.

Yes, but no one specifically caused it. Therefore at most you could say mother nature murdered it.

 

Mother nature needs a good long jail sentence. Preferably with no chance of parole.

I dare say, I think your name is misleading judging by your posts.

[Assume Nothing]

No, because sperm cells aren't humans. They're cells - cells that don't contain human dna. They're a part of a necessary whole.

 

Do you even know what a miscarriage is?

 

Yes.

Then how is a random biological event murder?

 

Because you have killed a being that has potential human life. Usually a genetic defect, but it still caused death to a innocent being.

Yes, but no one specifically caused it. Therefore at most you could say mother nature murdered it.

 

Mother nature needs a good long jail sentence. Preferably with no chance of parole.

I dare say, I think your name is misleading judging by your posts.

 

Unless you can reverse it without costing me 1 name :(. On topic; I'm generally pro-life, but with exceptions (such as rape, incest, genetic defects, mental disability of child, harm to mother carrying the baby, etc)

[Orpheus]

Define "life" first. I should have posted this earlier in the thread. What is "life"?

[sees_all1]

First of all; the term used by those who oppose abortion is an untruth: they are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion. If they were pro-life, they would oppose the death penalty and be completely vegetarian.

Vegetarians eat plants... the filthy murderers.

 

The term used by those who support abortion is an untruth: they are pro-abortion because its the only side they're pushing. Take a look at the pregnancy thread, and county how many replies are "You should get an abortion." Ask how many of those individuals would label themselves as pro-choice.

When someone insists that a fetus, stem-cell, etc. has the rights of a human being, I will laugh at them. Loudly. I will not restrain myself in expressing contempt of either an evil and archaic set of religious and moral beliefs, or the lack of a basic understanding of what constitutes a sentient being.

So basic thought makes a human? That's an opinion or a belief, just like the religion you mock. What makes up a human being, to the least common denominator is a complete set of genetic material and the ability to develop. A sperm cell or egg doesn't fulfill this basic requirement, it only has half a set of genetic material. Same with a skin cell or liver cell - they can't divide, multiply and develop into a completely new organism. The only distinguishable point in a person's life between when they were and when they weren't is at fertilization. That isn't religion, its science.

 

but with exceptions (such as rape, incest, genetic defects, mental disability of child, harm to mother carrying the baby, etc)

These are awful reasons that led to Nazi policies...

 

EDIT: also, on the OP

Firstly, there are certain Pro-Life people who will do very idiotic things for their cause. I think it's kind of stupid that a Pro-life person would murder doctors, to prove that killing is wrong.

 

You need to take this out of the original post. These documented incidents of "pro-lifers" causing violence towards abortionists are few and far between. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has only happened twice in the past 20 years (May of 2009, murder of Tiller; July of 1994, murder of Britton). Contrast that with the 1,251 documented homicides of pro-abortionists. (summary here: http://www.abortionviolence.com/, more in depth stuffs here http://abortionviolence.com/0.HTM)

[magekillr]

What makes killing a human wrong? What makes humans special?

[Dupin]

What makes killing a human wrong? What makes humans special?

Instinct. Instinctually, we must preserve our species.

[magekillr]

What makes killing a human wrong? What makes humans special?

Instinct. Instinctually, we must preserve our species.

 

Really? I'd like to see evidence for that claim, as for a species that's supposedly out for the preservation of our species, we're at war with one another an awful lot and don't seem to care about the impending effects that climate change will have (as there's a lot of evidence that severe climate change in the past almost made humans extinct, bringing numbers down to mere thousands).

 

This also does not reflect on the implicit wrongness of killing.

 

Or take Peter Singer:

 

Presumably no society could survive unless it had some restrictions on its members killing each other. But the prohibitions that societies have on killing vary greatly. In Greek and Roman times to be a human - that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens - was not sufficient to guarantee that one's life would be protected. Slaves or other 'barbarians' could be killed, under conditions that varied from time to time; and deformed infants were exposed to the elements on a hilltop. The coming of Christianity brought a new insistence on the wrongness of killing all born of human parents, in part because all humans were seen as having an immortal soul, and in part because to kill a human being is to usurp God's right to decide when we shall live and when we shall die. Non-human animals, on the other hand, remained unprotected because they were believed to have been placed by God under man's dominion. This doctrine of the sanctity of all (and only) human life remains the orthodox view on the morality of killing.

 

That's not a sufficient argument, sorry.

 

If it were, however, it would only be moral to be actively pro-abortion due to insufficient resources on this planet to keep up with our consumption. In essence, preserving our species through killing large swaths of it, actively.

[sees_all1]

If it were, however, it would only be moral to be actively pro-abortion due to insufficient resources on this planet to keep up with our consumption. In essence, preserving our species through killing large swaths of it, actively.

 

Whatever. Just don't go shooting up the Discovery Channel Headquarters because of distorted views on life and morality.

[magekillr]

If it were, however, it would only be moral to be actively pro-abortion due to insufficient resources on this planet to keep up with our consumption. In essence, preserving our species through killing large swaths of it, actively.

 

Whatever. Just don't go shooting up the Discovery Channel Headquarters because of distorted views on life and morality.

 

What makes my views on morality and life distorted? You've done nothing to back up that claim but with assertions. My views could be distorted, but you've yet to state why.

 

Why would it be more moral to accept that all humans should die rather than preserving the species through the active killing of part of it? My way some live, your way all die. That's not to say that I believe that the reason killing of a fully sentient being is wrong is because we're trying to preserve our species, but that would be the view I'd take if it were what I believed. Some living would be preferable to all dying, and I can't see how it'd be more moral to give the entire species a death sentence due to some perverse view that human life is more special "just because." There would be a logistical problem of deciding who should live or die, to be sure, but we do that already in other ways, especially when it comes to people who belong to our own tribe. We value the lives of our American soldiers more than we do the innocent Afghans all of the time, and this is readily apparent with the use of our drones that actively kill innocent civilians to keep our own tribe from dying.

[sees_all1]

If it were, however, it would only be moral to be actively pro-abortion due to insufficient resources on this planet to keep up with our consumption. In essence, preserving our species through killing large swaths of it, actively.

 

Whatever. Just don't go shooting up the Discovery Channel Headquarters because of distorted views on life and morality.

 

What makes my views on morality and life distorted? You've done nothing to back up that claim but with assertions. My views could be distorted, but you've yet to state why.

 

Why would it be more moral to accept that all humans should die rather than preserving the species through the active killing of part of it? My way some live, your way all die. That's not to say that I believe that the reason killing of a fully sentient being is wrong is because we're trying to preserve our species, but that would be the view I'd take if it were what I believed. Some living would be preferable to all dying, and I can't see how it'd be more moral to give the entire species a death sentence due to some perverse view that human life is more special "just because."

 

 

Humans are special because we're able to have this discussion. Not that everyone participates in it, but take two specimens from our species, cross them, and given the appropriate background they can chime right in. You can't say that about any other species.

 

Anyhow, there's nothing to suggest that all of humanity is going to die out because there are too many of us. Sure, the population may be limited at some point, but at least it will be naturally and not artificially - and when it happens we'll know the limit, and we won't have to guess the magic number.

[Zygimantas]

If it were, however, it would only be moral to be actively pro-abortion due to insufficient resources on this planet to keep up with our consumption. In essence, preserving our species through killing large swaths of it, actively.

 

Whatever. Just don't go shooting up the Discovery Channel Headquarters because of distorted views on life and morality.

Haha, "distorted" and "views on life" don't mix. All views are equally distorted. :)

[sees_all1]

If it were, however, it would only be moral to be actively pro-abortion due to insufficient resources on this planet to keep up with our consumption. In essence, preserving our species through killing large swaths of it, actively.

 

Whatever. Just don't go shooting up the Discovery Channel Headquarters because of distorted views on life and morality.

Haha, "distorted" and "views on life" don't mix. All views are equally distorted. :)

 

How about mainstream versus fringe?

[Zygimantas]

If it were, however, it would only be moral to be actively pro-abortion due to insufficient resources on this planet to keep up with our consumption. In essence, preserving our species through killing large swaths of it, actively.

 

Whatever. Just don't go shooting up the Discovery Channel Headquarters because of distorted views on life and morality.

Haha, "distorted" and "views on life" don't mix. All views are equally distorted. :)

 

How about mainstream versus fringe?

What about them?

[Zierro]

The fetus is not aware of what's happening. The mother is. It's the mother's decision.

 

What? What does self-awareness have to do with anything? It's just as "wrong"/"right" to murder someone in their sleep than when they're awake.

[Saru Inc]

What makes killing a human wrong? What makes humans special?

 

 

This is not a question, this can almost be seen as a statement.

 

I say that because the answer you are looking for, is not the genuine answer. It's the answer you want to see, and in fact, it's opinion. So if I were to say why I thought so, no matter what I say, I will be wrong. Because you have a specific answer in mind, and nothing else can even be close to the truth according to you.

 

 

And that is why I get so perplexed, Magekillr, when you ask these questions that not only have no answer to them, but have no question to them as well.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------

 

 

I'm 100% prolife, I never think a baby should ever ever be aborted. I don't care if the mother may die, (unless it's the case where they both most likely will die, and only then wait until you're 100% certain.) I don't care if it's rape, incest, etc. etc. etc. However, if I'm ever asked to vote on the ballot of pro life or pro choice, I think I would vote pro choice. Because while I believe abortion is a major major sin, and should never be done; I also don't know if whether or not I was a girl, would I get it done. I have no way of knowing what it's like to be pregnant, to have something growing inside of you, and so I really shouldn't make judgments against people who do want to kill off life.

[aeternitatis]

Abortion? High-five!

[OldJoe]

I won't contribute much, but i'll write as i've done in the many other abortion threads.

 

It's your choice. If you want to have an abortion, do it, if you want to keep it, do it. But one must (and does of course) weigh in the consequences. I think however that it shouldn't be used as a contraception.

I also think that if a couple has sex, and the condom breaks and the girl gets pregnant and wants to keep it. And if the man doesn't want to be a father, he shouldn't have to. Neither in love/passion/support or economic support.

[magekillr]

What makes killing a human wrong? What makes humans special?

 

 

This is not a question, this can almost be seen as a statement.

 

I say that because the answer you are looking for, is not the genuine answer. It's the answer you want to see, and in fact, it's opinion. So if I were to say why I thought so, no matter what I say, I will be wrong. Because you have a specific answer in mind, and nothing else can even be close to the truth according to you.

 

 

And that is why I get so perplexed, Magekillr, when you ask these questions that not only have no answer to them, but have no question to them as well.

 

Uh, what? It's a question to get you to think philosophically and ethically about it because most people seem to think "What kind of question is that? OF COURSE IT'S WRONG TO KILL A PERSON!!!" Have you ever thought about why this is the case? It's most certainly not a question rendered into a question by most universities, as these discussions take place all of the time.

 

It's a serious question that others have different views on. Some think it's wrong because of religion, others -- as noted above -- believe it to be instinct, whereas others have other reasons.

 

Of course it's an opinion. Who said otherwise? Some people believe that killing anything is wrong, including animals. Anything in philosophy and ethics cannot be proven, and is nothing more than opinion. Where did you ever get the rationale to believe otherwise?

[Saru Inc]

What makes killing a human wrong? What makes humans special?

 

 

This is not a question, this can almost be seen as a statement.

 

I say that because the answer you are looking for, is not the genuine answer. It's the answer you want to see, and in fact, it's opinion. So if I were to say why I thought so, no matter what I say, I will be wrong. Because you have a specific answer in mind, and nothing else can even be close to the truth according to you.

 

 

And that is why I get so perplexed, Magekillr, when you ask these questions that not only have no answer to them, but have no question to them as well.

 

Uh, what? It's a question to get you to think philosophically and ethically about it because most people seem to think "What kind of question is that? OF COURSE IT'S WRONG TO KILL A PERSON!!!" Have you ever thought about why this is the case? It's most certainly not a question rendered into a question by most universities, as these discussions take place all of the time.

 

It's a serious question that others have different views on. Some think it's wrong because of religion, others -- as noted above -- believe it to be instinct, whereas others have other reasons.

 

Of course it's an opinion. Who said otherwise? Some people believe that killing anything is wrong, including animals. Anything in philosophy and ethics cannot be proven, and is nothing more than opinion. Where did you ever get the rationale to believe otherwise?

 

 

I'm not arguing whether or not it's an opinion. I'm arguing the validity of asking such a question, if your mind is already made up.

[fakeitormakeit2]

If one were a psychopath and needed to vent their urge in killing innocent defenseless people, than I suggest they skip becoming Dexter and instead become a gynecologist who performs abortions.

 

In all seriousness, I find it really strange that people can even argue wanting or not wanting to "keep" a life, I find it completely ridiculous. People referring to living beings as possessions to kill or keep is beyond me. And people who support abortion would most likely be against killing birthed children just because they don't like the blatancy of the situation. Injecting fully grown-birthed children with a painless solution is more humane than ripping them [in a fetal state] apart piece by piece, which I would presume is extremely painful. And in addition why if it is moral to abort can we not euthanize the senile, as they just consume resources and are a burden. As well as the mentally impaired. While we're at it we might as well euthanize the unemployed and those who suffer from substance abuse, as they are unproductive.

[Alg]

Which is the case if you want to extrapolate.

It could be argued that killing is wrong because humans are sapient. The majority have memories, are capable of higher thought, and have the potential for accomplishment. Furthermore, most also have family connections, and their lives directly affect others.

Killing effectively removes all of that. You know what being human is like, I assume. Picture those qualities on someone else, then picture it forcibly removed partway through its life. That is why we consider killing wrong.

 

Yes, other species have similar qualities, but to our knowledge, ours is the only one with these to that degree.

[Zierro]

And in addition why if it is moral to abort can we not euthanize the senile, as they just consume resources and are a burden. As well as the mentally impaired. While we're at it we might as well euthanize the unemployed and those who suffer from substance abuse, as they are unproductive.

 

Do you consider contraception or masturbation to be genocide? Is killing animals for food and resources immoral? What about plants? Unless we draw a line somewhere (which is still bound to be faulty - I know this), it would be considered immoral to wash your hands - which sounds even faultier.

 

It could be argued that killing is wrong because humans are sapient. The majority have memories, are capable of higher thought, and have the potential for accomplishment. Furthermore, most also have family connections, and their lives directly affect others.

Killing effectively removes all of that. You know what being human is like, I assume. Picture those qualities on someone else, then picture it forcibly removed partway through its life. That is why we consider killing wrong.

 

That's a pretty nice explanation. Props.

[Skeptical]

In response to essentially the last three pages:

 

• Morality is a human construct. The idea that something is right or wrong is not anything innate.
  
• A desire to protect other members of our species is usually only extended to the weak, young, old, and female... interesting pattern there concerning evolutionary advantage, is there not?
  

[Iamdan]

I've said it once or twice here, I often post like an arrogant [bleep] in debate threads because it's more likely to get my views challenged. I like having my views challenged, because it keeps me on my toes and it makes me constantly think about my beliefs, alter them if necessary and keeps me from sticking to them blindly. I could be all passive and start every sentence with "in my opinion," but I find that posts like that get challenged less than the guy acting being a bit more obnoxious and controversial.

Why is it so incredibly hard to comprehend that this issue is about a set of morals that is different from person to person - and one is not better than the other.

 

It's ridiculous and unfair to make assumptions about why I'm pro-life when I've constantly reiterated that I believe a fetus is a human life.

I'm often the first to remind people that morals are relative. I don't think one set is better than the other. I merely posted my opinion.

 

Most pro-lifers keep sweat shops in business? Most pro-lifers contribute to animal deaths? Most pro-lifers spend money they could use to save lives in 3rd world countries etc?

 

Where the hell do you get the blanket authority to assume every pro-lifer follows your ridiculous stereotypes?

 

Find me a pro lifer who is a vegetarian, grows their own food without pesticides, (harvesting machines kill animals) does not buy clothes made from sweatshops, does not slap mosquitoes, and who buys the bare essentials for their survival and donates the rest.

 

I don't think it's a ridiculous stereotype to say that very few of these people who do this by choice exist.

 

Does it matter? It's relative. I just personally find it hypocritical.

 

However, let's start with my personal views. I'm pro-life. I believe a fetus is a human being, and thus should be protected. I believe in a right to life for all humans. Sweat shops are inhuman places where the right to life of many is severely hindered and sometimes taken completely. Wow, guess what? Looks like my "[cabbage]" pro-life views make me extremely anti-sweat shops? What a surprise.

 

I'm a little confused by what you mean as contributing to animal deaths. I eat meat. Not often, but from time to time. I don't hunt, I don't deliberately kill animals, yet somehow...Look guys, I'm pro-life! I absolutely must be a mass baby-seal murderer!

 

Do you go out of your way to buy clothes/products not made in sweatshops? If so fine, but if not.. It's fine and dandy to me to be anti sweatshop, but keeping them in business because it's convenient even though you're against it isn't so cool.

 

imo, contributing to less animal deaths than the next guy is no better.

 

You don't spend any money at all, right? You take your paycheck and ship it right off to the red cross, correct?

 

No, but death doesn't really concern me unless it effects me. It's psychopathic, but it's how I feel. I'm not the most emotive person in the world, and I have lots of similar thoughts, for example:

 

I don't like that many people are more ok with animals like pigs and ducks suffering than a cute puppy or something.

 

We're hardwired to protect our own species, and we can obviously relate more to people than other animals. This seems to be the emotional reasoning behind the idea that humans are better than other animals. While it makes sense emotionally, logically we shouldn't have any priority over any other animal. In fact, we do more damage to the planet and we kill each other. What makes us so great?

 

I mean I still have the emotive side somewhat. I would be more angry/horrified at a puppy suffering than a cow. It's probably less so than the next guy, and I feel that I shouldn't be like that.

If all beings have a natural instinct for self-preservation and preservation of the species, as I believe you have stated in the past, then wouldn't killing a fetus be contrary to those instincts? Then, logically, you are fighting your instincts, and have a chemical imbalance in the brain. If you have a chemical imbalance in the brain, then you are not capable of making your own decisions, and therfore your choices need to be regulated by the government.

 

This is the logical reasoning you used to support your anti-suicide views in another thread, if I remember correctly. Why does it not apply here?

 

I'm not sure where you got that last bit from. I don't believe it and I'm pretty confident that I never posted it.

 

In any case my argument in the suicide thread included having a natural instinct to protect ourselves, not our species.

 

It goes like this basically:

 

me> those who have similar genes> those who contribute to my survival and reproductive value > those who contribute to the survival and reproductive value of those who have similar genes> those who contribute to the survival and reproduction of my race in general> everyone else

 

In the case of killing a fetus, the bolded part shows how I think it's ok.

 

This. An unborn child under 23 weeks has next to no thought process. If it can't think, it's not alive. So what's wrong with killing something that's not alive? That being said, I'd still regard it as murder if someone else were to abort another person's child without the mother's expressed permission (that is if the mother is capable of consenting).

 

Biologically, it's alive. Science is 100% clear on that fact.

 

What defines thought, anyway? A newly born child has next to no thought process. Most animals have next to no thought process. People with mental disabilities have limited thought processes.

 

It's alive, but not human. (Which doesn't really matter, since I've long given up that argument)

 

It could be argued that killing is wrong because humans are sapient. The majority have memories, are capable of higher thought, and have the potential for accomplishment. Furthermore, most also have family connections, and their lives directly affect others.

Killing effectively removes all of that. You know what being human is like, I assume. Picture those qualities on someone else, then picture it forcibly removed partway through its life. That is why we consider killing wrong.

 

What makes these properties more important than others?

[Shazarabbit]

I'm always borderline about this subject, it can be abused in so many ways. In the case of a rape, I do think it is extremely difficult to make everyone happy. It ultimately does come down to the fact of each individuals personal belief. What defines a living person? Does it have to be fully developed? Does it need to have it's first breath of fresh air? The victim of rape may not be able to cope with looking at the child as it grows up everyday. But does that still warrant enough cause to terminate the pregnancy?

 

As mentioned earlier on: It should be legal if the baby has or will cause: maternal life, health, mental health, rape, and/or fetal defects [Thanks Iconic]

 

This should not be a bandaid for the irresponible idiots in the world who think it is okay for them to sleep around and not be careful. Along with adoption, it's just an easy fix in most cases.