Forums / General

195,881 total conversations in 5,393 threads

+ New Thread


Can someone please explain how abortion can possibly be considered not murdering?

Last posted Dec 05, 2012 at 08:40PM EST. Added Oct 31, 2012 at 09:05AM EDT
138 conversations with 53 participants

I’m agnostic as fuck, and I dislike abortion, myself. Mature fetuses can be nearly as developed as a newborn baby, so where do you draw the line? I find it harsh, cruel, and unfair to punish a child for a mistake you and your partner made.

This is my opinion of course, and I don’t give a shit what other people do regarding abortion, as it’s there conscience and their problem.

Oct 31, 2012 at 10:55PM EDT
Quote

@BSOD
No, no, you misunderstand entirely. A few people here were making completely unsubstantiated claims like how “it’s basic human morality” and “solid facts”, then demanding apologies and claiming it was turning into a shitstorm even when it never was and hastily leaving (while still refreshing the page for responses). And they just happened to be pro-life.


Let’s break down a sensible argument, shall we, this time courtesy of Random21, whose posts aren’t nearly as gargantuan as Verbose’s:

I’ve always been against abortion, and I still see it as murder is as sense.

-Qualifying his opinions
-Not attacking anyone directly

You can debate all you like on whether the baby is actually alive for it to be murder, but the truth of the matter is you are taking a child’s life away. Even if not breathing and lively then, it will eventually, so it’s still technically killing the child as you are taking away the option for the child to live.

-Appealing to logic instead of solid facts and basic human morality
-Still qualified in context of the rest of the post

I’m struggling to try and find the way to word it, so I guess what I’m trying to say overall is that before abortion, the child still has the option of life, and abortion would kill that option, no matter how far along the pregnancy you are.

-Avoiding offense
-Acknowledging his own struggles
-Calm
-Didn’t have to compromise his own position
-Allowing others to understand his point of view
-No one rages
-Positive karma
-A++++


I’m going to refrain from adding my own viewpoint here because as much of an ardent pro-choice person I am, I feel like I would unjustly and inconsiderately frame my arguments, as I and others have done before.

And yes, if I suddenly became pregnant right now (yeah right _), I would abort. Not only would I not be able to take care of the baby, but also it would be detrimental to myself, as well as others around me. I’m just not ready for that sort of commitment yet, and I probably won’t be for a long while.


I hate to bold things, but can we all remain considerate of other people’s beliefs and viewpoints and maintain a calm, rational discussion in which we can all learn from and understand each other, even if we don’t all subjectively agree?

Last edited Oct 31, 2012 at 11:16PM EDT
Oct 31, 2012 at 10:59PM EDT
Quote

This is one of those issues where I like to be a centrist. Both sides make very good points. The biggest thing I agree with is Opspe in that the decision should be made by women, as men never give birth.

Oct 31, 2012 at 11:05PM EDT
Quote

@Blue Screen: I apologize if you think my last post was aimed at you, but in actuality I hadn’t even seen your post yet before posting mine because you posted yours while I was still writing mine. If you look at my edited post, you’ll see I actually gave your post a lot of praise for making the most sense and being one of the least offensive posters out of the bunch.

Oct 31, 2012 at 11:05PM EDT
Quote

@Twins

Okay, I confess that I didn’t read everyones post in full detail. You got me. I just had the strangest urge to get a point out ASAP. But I’m glad I’m not alone in my thinking.

And yes, if I suddenly became pregnant right now (yeah right _), I would abort.

And thats okay. As you can see in the bottom of my previous post and in my response to crimson, I understand why we have abortion and why it’s needed. I may not like it but if it’s the only option, then it’s the only option.

If I want to see change, then it’s up to me to help find an alternative solution, not a dictation.

I just want to see it used for good reasons only, maybe then it wouldn’t be so controversial and create so many shitstorms. And if it may be possible to let the kid live without so much detrimental cost to yourself, give it some thought, you never know.


@Crimson

Oh, okay. Sorry about that. This is turning into a crazy thread.

[edit]

Now that I have seen your edit, I also believe that if there is a right step to make in the whole abortion matter then it is definitely education

My sex-ed classes taught the same thing: That sex makes babies and babies are serious stuff.

We were also taught that abstinence is the only way to protect yourself 100% but we practiced applying condoms anyway because our schools are not naive. Teaching kids about the risks and responsibilities of childbirth and how to go about it safely is most definitely an effective deterrent against unwanted births, which cuts the problem from the source

The abstinence programs might also teach responsibility, but they skip all the stuff about protection so when kids ultimately do it anyway, they don’t know what they are doing and knock each other up.

Education might not stop things like rape but it’s a start

Last edited Oct 31, 2012 at 11:37PM EDT
Oct 31, 2012 at 11:12PM EDT
Quote

I actually think a karma bomber might have come through here and that’s why it seems like all the pro-life comments have nega-karma

Oct 31, 2012 at 11:16PM EDT
Quote

BSoD wrote:

I just want to see it used for good reasons only, maybe then it wouldn’t be so controversial and create so many shitstorms.

And I don’t think anyone here ever stated otherwise, that abortion because you prioritise your jeans is good. I am pro-choice, that shouldn’t even be argued after all my posts, but that doesn’t mean I’m against reasoning. Things like when the reason is correct and when a fetus can be seen as “life” (and with that, abortion as murder) are entirely up for debate, and as shown in this thread differ per individual, something which I perfectly accept.

I confess that I didn’t read everyones post in full detail.

I advice you to. Regardless of the way karma is handed out here by some, it gives you a good overview on people’s points, and even can change your opinion slightly. It can also avoid you misinterpreting posts.


Solaire wrote:

I find it harsh, cruel, and unfair to punish a child for a mistake you and your partner made.

That is your opinion, and as you admitted you don’t give a shit about other people’s opinions, I am not going to try and counter this. But I do ask of you to look at different scenarios when abortion is the choice made by the mother, as “a mistake you and your partner made” isn’t always the situation.


@"Let the child have a vote in this."

Yes, some of you have mentioned this again. This is a strong point, and mentioning the argument in a discussion is most certainly in your favor. But I have to point out that I find this argument very invalid. It is impossible to answer that question if you don’t have direct experience with it, and seeing how we are all posting here, nobody here is currently in a situation that he has to vote for his own life.

Wheatley and I both had a 50% chance of getting aborted (me for a possible disease, she for financial issues, reasons people see as legit), both of us were lucky and here we are alive and well. Both of us don’t blame our parents for the fact that they would’ve aborted us if the situation was different, and we fully understand their reason behind it if it would’ve been the case.


Crimson wrote:

Do you know why? Because sex is awesome. It strengthens relationships, it is one of the ultimate expressions of love. etc. etc. etc.

You do know that you are bringing up all these points surrounding sex on the internet right, the biggest hive of masturbation and virginity?

Last edited Nov 01, 2012 at 12:17AM EDT
Oct 31, 2012 at 11:57PM EDT
Quote

I like to think of this issue from the child’s perspective. Do I remember being in the womb? No. Did I most likely have a personality, thoughts, consciousness, or emotions for the majority, if not all of my prenatal state? Probably not. Would I have given a shit if I was aborted? Not likely.

I don’t have pity for those who were aborted: The dead do not need nor desire pity. They have no experience, they do not exist. And, as basic math has always taught me, a negative is less than nothing. Children are born constantly to parents who are not qualified in the slightest to take care of them. There is so much suffering in the world, and if the child is not guaranteed happiness, if the parents are unfit, abusive, or downright cruel then the only humane thing to do is return it to zero.

My only pity is given to the living, those children covered with cigarette burns, who spend a lifetime dodging shitty situations throughout a double dozen of foster homes, whose parents treat them as a burden, a chore. But these kids are rarely acknowledged by anti-abortion’s proponents. The negative, to them, is worth more than the zero.

I’ve always found it lunacy that people consider suffering existence to be better than nonexistence.

Last edited Nov 01, 2012 at 01:26AM EDT
Nov 01, 2012 at 01:25AM EDT
Quote

Pseudogenesis wrote:

I like to think of this issue from the child’s perspective. Do I remember being in the womb? No. Did I most likely have a personality, thoughts, consciousness, or emotions for the majority, if not all of my prenatal state? Probably not. Would I have given a shit if I was aborted? Not likely.

I don’t have pity for those who were aborted: The dead do not need nor desire pity. They have no experience, they do not exist. And, as basic math has always taught me, a negative is less than nothing. Children are born constantly to parents who are not qualified in the slightest to take care of them. There is so much suffering in the world, and if the child is not guaranteed happiness, if the parents are unfit, abusive, or downright cruel then the only humane thing to do is return it to zero.

My only pity is given to the living, those children covered with cigarette burns, who spend a lifetime dodging shitty situations throughout a double dozen of foster homes, whose parents treat them as a burden, a chore. But these kids are rarely acknowledged by anti-abortion’s proponents. The negative, to them, is worth more than the zero.

I’ve always found it lunacy that people consider suffering existence to be better than nonexistence.

I suppose I shouldn’t ask your opinion on suicide then.

Nov 01, 2012 at 01:49AM EDT
Quote

I’m prolife (shocker). However, in the case of rape or when the mother’s life would be put at risk through birth, I really do think it should be the mother’s call. (Also, this might be a good opportunity for a quick little PSA- you can actually discreetly get condoms online for free so you don’t have an excuse to not be safe during sex you guys! Don’t be silly. Wrap your willy.)

Nov 01, 2012 at 02:54AM EDT
Quote

Patrick wrote:

I’m prolife (shocker). However, in the case of rape or when the mother’s life would be put at risk through birth, I really do think it should be the mother’s call. (Also, this might be a good opportunity for a quick little PSA- you can actually discreetly get condoms online for free so you don’t have an excuse to not be safe during sex you guys! Don’t be silly. Wrap your willy.)

A lot of college campuses give free condoms too

Nov 01, 2012 at 03:11AM EDT
Quote

Pseudogenesis wrote:

I like to think of this issue from the child’s perspective. Do I remember being in the womb? No. Did I most likely have a personality, thoughts, consciousness, or emotions for the majority, if not all of my prenatal state? Probably not. Would I have given a shit if I was aborted? Not likely.

I don’t have pity for those who were aborted: The dead do not need nor desire pity. They have no experience, they do not exist. And, as basic math has always taught me, a negative is less than nothing. Children are born constantly to parents who are not qualified in the slightest to take care of them. There is so much suffering in the world, and if the child is not guaranteed happiness, if the parents are unfit, abusive, or downright cruel then the only humane thing to do is return it to zero.

My only pity is given to the living, those children covered with cigarette burns, who spend a lifetime dodging shitty situations throughout a double dozen of foster homes, whose parents treat them as a burden, a chore. But these kids are rarely acknowledged by anti-abortion’s proponents. The negative, to them, is worth more than the zero.

I’ve always found it lunacy that people consider suffering existence to be better than nonexistence.

I hope you don’t believe suicide is an option for a miserable life.

I agree with all but your final paragraph/sentence, and I’ll tell you why.

Because existence in of itself is a joy. Having been depressed before and having a considerable amount of time to ponder on the nature of living in that time, I have come to the conclusion that I would rather suffer in existence than die or cease existing. Because no matter how bad things got, taking a moment to reflect on the fact that I exist made all the miseries seem smaller, inconsequential, or even a moot point, because I existed. And as long as I continued to exist, I had the chance to affect infinite possibilities on this universe. As long as I continued existing I would always have the chance to find happiness, and that knowledge alone is enough to make existing and the chance to experience existence a happiness all its own. Though life may be filled with those positives and negatives they both still hold absolute value, which in my opinion is better than nothing. To quote the Doctor, life is a pile of good things and bad things; the good things don’t always soften the bad things, but vice versa the bad things don’t always spoil the good things or make them unimportant.

I was beginning to spill my guts a bit there, (^_^) sorry about that, but I felt a MIGHTY NEED!
Just to reclarify, agreement on all but the last paragraph/sentence.

Nov 01, 2012 at 03:25AM EDT
Quote

To be honest, I really don’t care. And you shouldn’t either. Because it doesn’t effect you in any way, and you are not gaining, nor losing anything from it. But if it came down to it, I would be pro abortion. Say if you were raped, or if your were poor, you wouldn’t have another choice.

Nov 01, 2012 at 04:59PM EDT

I don’t know who locked this thread, but if you don’t mind I am going to unlock it (again). Seeing all the posts made, I can disagree with you if you believe this should be locked due to a present or possible shitstorm. Ever since the first page passed, we weren’t even remotely close to a shitstorm, and even on the first page I’d hardly say one was present.

Please explain yourself, because as it’s currently standing this thread if perfectly civile, especially if you consider what the topic is about. You might convince me though that it’s better off locked if you give your reasons, but being left clueless won’t make me change sides.

Last edited Nov 01, 2012 at 10:34PM EDT
Nov 01, 2012 at 10:25PM EDT
Quote

I was wondering what the lock was for myself. I don’t see any reason to abruptly end discussion here (I bet it was Chris).

That said, I don’t think there is much left to discuss anyway. We’ve answered OP’s question quite thoroughly and hashed out all the factors to be considered and argued. I accept the reasonings we’ve laid out so far.

At this point, discussion is coming down to individual take on the whole abortion matter

Nov 01, 2012 at 10:37PM EDT
Quote

Blue Screen (of Death) wrote:

I was wondering what the lock was for myself. I don’t see any reason to abruptly end discussion here (I bet it was Chris).

That said, I don’t think there is much left to discuss anyway. We’ve answered OP’s question quite thoroughly and hashed out all the factors to be considered and argued. I accept the reasonings we’ve laid out so far.

At this point, discussion is coming down to individual take on the whole abortion matter

(Please don’t accuse moderators of actions you don’t have certainty of)

But that doesn’t mean we should lock the thread imo. With question threads I understand the reason for a lock the moment the question gets answered, as the thread then no longer serves any purpose.

But this is a discussion thread, and we shouldn’t take the right away for people to chip in and share their opinion about the subject, just because others already shared most points amongst a small group. One user might drop by here and bring up a point that makes us go all “Fuck, how could we be so blind?”I don’t see it happen shortly, but it can happen. And the discussion can go everywhere from that point. Like last time, I take full responsibility should this still turn into a shitstorm eventually.

And to say we ansered OP’s question, not so much. Most have stated their opinion about abortion and when it is a justified decision or not. But OP’s question was whether we consider it murder, regardless of the reasoning behind it. I have answered that on the past page, when I mentioned the legal “life” age multiple times, but others here haven’t by my knowledge. Given though, this discussion about the reasoning and justification surrounding aborting or keeping the child is way more valuable than “Is it murder?”, so I don’t see answering the OP question as a must anymore, most users already answered it indirectly anyway.

Nov 01, 2012 at 11:01PM EDT
Quote

It’s usually not a baby yet. A fetus and a baby are two different things. It’s still developing, so it’s not considered a human YET. Same goes with stem cell research. When it starts the process of growing into an infant, it’s just a bundle of stem cells. It’s not a baby. I’m not against abortion. If you don’t want it, get rid of it before it’s too late. Especially in the case of rape. It’s not a baby yet, so it’s not wrong.

Last edited Nov 01, 2012 at 11:18PM EDT
Nov 01, 2012 at 11:16PM EDT
Quote

@Random

(Please don’t accuse moderators of actions you don’t have certainty of)

Err….sorry.

But that doesn’t mean we should lock the thread imo.

Indeed, I certainly wasn’t implying we should. Otherwise we’d have to go on a locking spree on every single dead topic.

One user might drop by here and bring up a point that makes us go all “Fuck, how could we be so blind?”I don’t see it happen shortly, but it can happen

Good point.


@Turtle

A fetus and a baby are two different things.

Unfortunately not everyone agrees with that distinction or believes it is relevant. On a technical or objective level it is correct. A cocoon is not a moth, an egg is not a chicken and a fetus is not an infant

However on a general, associative and also spiritual level, a human is still a human at any stage of development. A cocoon is not a different species from the moth it spawns. An egg is not a different species from the chicken it spawns. No matter how it changes, it’s still the same creature.

It also feels like an argument that largely misses the point. One that was created a cheap way to logic oneself out of a tough philosophical question. because no matter how non-human a fetus is, that doesn’t detract from the fact it will be a human eventually with its own independent life and the right to have it.

Of course all of this seems to come down to personal opinion or perspective on life so either way it probably doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong here. It’s just one of those moral standpoints that may influence how murderous an individual might think abortion is.

Note that I’m not arguing with you here, just trying to understand why it’s such a commonly argued and debated point.

Nov 02, 2012 at 01:19AM EDT
Quote

Time for some hot, fresh opinion!

Not actually, this has been said. I think abortion should definitely be up to the parent of said fetus, regardless of the reason for the abortion. The government However, it is only acceptable morally, to me, in the first four or so months after conception for the following reasons:
A) At this point the baby is entering the stages of being human. It isn’t capable of thought or anything, but it’s well on its way towards being conscious.
B) A woman should have already decided whether or not to give birth by four months, why would they wait so long to abort if they don’t want to have a child?

I like these threads, it’s nice to see other people’s viewpoints, opinions, and facts. We should do this with another topic when this thread dies.

Nov 02, 2012 at 01:24AM EDT
Quote

glad this thread was unlocked, i wanted to read everyones view on this.
i’m writing down the rules that i was brought up with. although i understand the reasons for these views, i don’t know if these are my personal views on abortion. i’d just like to see everyone’s opinion on it.

- priority #1 – ensure the safety of the mother at all costs – this rule is more important than any other rule. no exceptions.

- if the mother was raped, she has the final say in if she should abort the child or not (she wasn’t given an option before, she deserves to have her say)

- if the child was conceived consensually, then the child should not be aborted (you have all sorts of contraception and a lot is given for free)

- if the parent(s) do not have the funding or knowledge to raise a child, others in the community will help. (before any of you say “nobody does that”, this is the way i was brought up. the community was tightly-knit so everyone knew and helped everyone. i know this rule doesn’t mean much to anyone who doesn’t have this option.)
some countries, like the United Kingdom, offer aid (child maintenance / child support, for money, NHS for advice, counselling and medical help, government gives higher priority to offer a home to you, etc) to help out if you cannot cope by yourself. if you have these options then you should try to avoid aborting as necessary help is being given to deal with the situation

- the child has signs of life by proxy of the parent (respire, excrete, etc) but once the child gains all life processes (movement, responds to stimuli, etc) you cannot abort under any circumstance. (rule #1 is still more important than this rule)

- if the child is found to have a condition that will severely affect the quality of life (vegetative state, etc) it is the parent(s) decision if they wish to abort, but only before the unborn child has begun to fully develop. (every now and then, i’ve read in the newspaper how a parent goes insane and smothers their child to death with a pillow because they, the parent, cannot cope. even when their child has been alive for more than 10 years)

- if the mother is incapable of making a decision for herself (unconscious, etc), all other relatives must make a decision on her behalf, if this is not possible, a group of well informed people (doctors, etc) must make the choice

i was told how it is acceptable to abort a child if there is a very good reason, and only if there is a very good reason. but nobody said when is the latest a person can abort. most agreed that once the unborn child begins to take the shape of a human, you should try to avoid aborting. but none of them said “no abortion” due to rule #1. i think there were some more rules but i cannot remember them

Last edited Nov 02, 2012 at 05:02AM EDT
Nov 02, 2012 at 05:01AM EDT
Quote

@Silver Universe
That is a very good set of rules, except I have a slight problem with this one

– if the child was conceived consensually, then the child should not be aborted (you have all sorts of contraception and a lot is given for free)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this sounds like you assume unplanned pregnancies can be completely avoided by using birth control. In a perfect world, all forms of birth control will work 100% of the time, but at most they hold a 99% success rate. One could argue that if a couple took all the necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy but were unlucky enough to slip into that 1% then they should have the right to choose whether to keep the child or not.
Nov 02, 2012 at 12:42PM EDT
Quote

Crimson Locks wrote:

@Silver Universe
That is a very good set of rules, except I have a slight problem with this one

– if the child was conceived consensually, then the child should not be aborted (you have all sorts of contraception and a lot is given for free)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this sounds like you assume unplanned pregnancies can be completely avoided by using birth control. In a perfect world, all forms of birth control will work 100% of the time, but at most they hold a 99% success rate. One could argue that if a couple took all the necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy but were unlucky enough to slip into that 1% then they should have the right to choose whether to keep the child or not.

if the contraception fails, then it’s not the fault of the couple, so they have the right to make the decision to keep the child or not.

that rule is more for people who use abortion as a means of contraception. as in, people who have unprotected sex and then casually abort a perfectly healthy foetus

Nov 02, 2012 at 01:15PM EDT
Quote

Well… Acceptable or not, abortion is still a murder because abortion takes away (the chance of) life from something. Therefore, I will think of it as “acceptable murder” and “inacceptable murder”

Nov 02, 2012 at 02:14PM EDT
Quote

I think women have the right to choose, but shouldn’t abort if they don’t have to.

Nov 02, 2012 at 02:56PM EDT
Quote

How can abortion possibly not be considered murder? Certainly from the POV of the unborn child, they just don’t give a fuck. It’s not like they have a developed mind anyway. which is why I think it’s arguable that abortion, even in those stages is “murder”.

So I’m going to assume that it’s not painful to the unborn child to kill it. Either that or I’m just ignorant as fuck; you decide.

It can be a good thing as abortion can prevent a rape survivor from further trauma. I think that Random Man made a good point about the OP being in the shoes of the father of a rape survivor, or maybe even the rape victim herself. In that case, I’m sure abortion doesn’t seem like a bad thing.

It can prevent children from suffering in the future as well. If a woman knows that theres no way that her child will be able to live a happy life, it makes more sense to just spare them. Don’t forget that for whatever reason sometimes adoption isn’t an option for people, so abortion might be considered a better idea there too.

But I’m more or less pro choice (to a point) so I’m biased even though I try not to be. I do however agree that abortion is only acceptable if it is the ONLY option. If not, then give the child its right to life. I alsothink abortion and pregnancies should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Nov 02, 2012 at 04:15PM EDT
Quote

@Jolly Jew

For the record, a fetus isn’t breathing, as you stated that it was “Living and breathing”. What do you think the umbilical cord is for? It doesn’t just push food through. The other also supplies it with a significant amount of oxygen. That’s why when it’s given birth to, then they have to make it breath by itself.

Nov 02, 2012 at 04:30PM EDT
Quote

GoingMenthol wrote:

if the contraception fails, then it’s not the fault of the couple, so they have the right to make the decision to keep the child or not.

that rule is more for people who use abortion as a means of contraception. as in, people who have unprotected sex and then casually abort a perfectly healthy foetus

as in, people who have unprotected sex and then casually abort a perfectly healthy foetus

I’m quite certain this happens 0% of the time. Do you have any idea how much time, money and legal crap it takes to get an abortion? Birth control is much easier.

Nov 02, 2012 at 05:33PM EDT
Quote

Personally I’m Pro choice and I don’t think people should stop others from a choice of whether they abort or not. If your pro life it should be YOU choose for YOUR foetus to grow into a baby and live.

But that does not mean you should if the baby has OK or better living conditions (with the exception of rape, incest or failed contraception).

And fas for the debate of murder I think if you think aborting a foetus is murder because its stops a chance of living you should consider contraception as murder.

Nov 02, 2012 at 07:00PM EDT
Quote

Coming back in (ha…that’s part of the problem…because you…um…well, nevermind.)

Anyway, like people are now bringing up, I don’t think that should be the decision of the mother that their child will have a bad life. If that was the case, then I think that they should wait until they are actually suffering. Ideally, the child determines for itself that life sucks and they want to commit suicide.

Another point (in regards Liam) to being mostly pro-life is that a sperm cannot become a human on its own. It will not happen. Same for an egg. Your logic here extends to people being abstinent too. If you say that using contraception is murder, then people who aren’t having sex at all are also committing mass murder every time they masturbate or don’t have unprotected sex/complete a menstrual cycle.
 
I think the best point that I can’t combat at all is that the child wouldn’t know at all that they were being aborted. In that case, the point is moot anyway: they wouldn’t care. I don’t know if the fetus feels pain during the process of abortion.

But I would also apply that logic to a 6 month old kid. No one really remembers much when they are that young, and if you do, then at that point of time, you’re not developed enough to fear death or fear or comprehend pain.


So I’ll pose that question to pro-choice people: Would you extend abortion to a point after birth? In terms of being “conscious,” I personally don’t see a difference between a newborn and a fetus. Neither remembers much about its life, and they don’t have experiences as being autonomous that early in life. Neither can make the decision to live or die for themselves.

I’m not really trying to make a point or a “zing” statement. I just don’t see the difference between a 2 month old and a fetus in regards to experience, consciousness, autonomy, or other related factors that I’ve seen raised here.

Or is it fact that it just “feels” different to abort an infant?

Nov 02, 2012 at 07:51PM EDT
Quote

I am generally against abortion. It’s an extremely difficult question of: “Where do you draw the line?” Killing baby = bad. Getting minor surgery to avoid social or health complications = good. When is it a minor surgery and when are you killing a baby? Some say conception. Some say birth. Many say somewhere in between.

As such, I really REALLY want all women to have access to birth control so that we don’t have to ask so many COMPLICATED MORAL QUESTIONS with VERY SERIOUS RAMIFICATIONS.

Going even further, it becomes, (like so many things) a philosophical, metaphysical question. What makes a human human? Intelligence? Recognition of “self”? Cell structure? If you’re religious, does an unborn child have a soul? Why do we count age from birth instead of conception? Is a fetus technically part of it’s mother’s body, even though it has distinct DNA?

TL;DR Life Motto: Everything is more complicated than it seems at first.

Nov 02, 2012 at 07:58PM EDT
Quote

@Philip

0%…among smart people that is

Don’t underestimate how stupidly irresponsible some people can be with pregnancy.


@Verbose

I’m not really trying to make a point or a “zing” statement. I just don’t see the difference between a 2 month old and a fetus in regards to experience, consciousness, autonomy, or other related factors that I’ve seen raised here.

This is why you are one of my favorite posters here.

We create all these logistics to confirm to ourselves that a fetus is not a human being: No heartbeat, no conscious, no independent processes etcetera. But they always leave me asking: “Where do you draw the line?”. When does a fetus cross that border from sack of meat growing off the mother to a person with a life to live? Just last night, that question had me thinking how many cells I need to divide before I earn my humanity.

After much thought I decided that there is no need to try and justify Abortion in that regard anyway because Abortion is not something that is justified by it’s morality and fairness (obviously). It’s justified by it’s current necessity. So if we agreed that abortion is murder because fetii are human (or not), it don’t think it would really change anything because abortion seems to be one of those necessary evils

We may not like it, but as I said before: it’s not like we have many alternatives to it

Last edited Nov 02, 2012 at 08:29PM EDT
Nov 02, 2012 at 08:08PM EDT
Quote

Verbose wrote:

So I’ll pose that question to pro-choice people: Would you extend abortion to a point after birth? In terms of being “conscious,” I personally don’t see a difference between a newborn and a fetus. Neither remembers much about its life, and they don’t have experiences as being autonomous that early in life. Neither can make the decision to live or die for themselves.

I’m not really trying to make a point or a “zing” statement. I just don’t see the difference between a 2 month old and a fetus in regards to experience, consciousness, autonomy, or other related factors that I’ve seen raised here.

Or is it fact that it just “feels” different to abort an infant?

Wikipedia

Abortion: Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.

I’ll start by pointing that out, because by logical terms, your argument simply makes no sense.

But alright, fair enough and a good argument overall, because like BSoD said, where does one draw the line? I’ll direct you back to a point a brought up on the last page: Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. After that time period, the fetus has developed enough to live on its own, albeit with some help. Logic is my ally, and this period is the guide I follow when judging abortion based on time (not when judging reason, just to make that clear).

I just don’t see the difference between a 2 month old and a fetus in regards to experience, consciousness, autonomy, or other related factors that I’ve seen raised here.

Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. I am not concious when I’m asleep, does that make me the same as an infant or a legit subject to murder?


In Tate terms, the word abortion refers to any pregnancy that does not end in a live birth, and therefore can refer to a miscarriage or a premature birth that does not result in a live infant.

So here’s a question I ask you Verbose (and others) in resonse to yours : Would you place other preganancy end results like miscarriage on the same scale as abortion?

Take in consideration to this question that miscarriage can occur due to medication the mother is on. Smokers also have an icreased chance of miscarriage (even when the father smokes). Other things that increase the chance of a miscarriage are exposure to environmental toxins, caffiene, and even positive things like exercise.

Would you place mothers who suffered a miscarriage due to one of the above reasons on the same scale as women who killed their babies? Would a mother who follows a tight fitness scedule be listed as a murderer to you if she has a miscarriage?

Last edited Nov 02, 2012 at 09:45PM EDT
Nov 02, 2012 at 09:22PM EDT
Quote

Blue Screen wrote

After much thought I decided that there is no need to try and justify Abortion in that regard anyway because Abortion is not something that is justified by it’s morality and fairness (obviously). It’s justified by it’s current necessity. So if we agreed that abortion is murder because fetii are human (or not), it don’t think it would really change anything because abortion seems to be one of those necessary evils

We may not like it, but as I said before: it’s not like we have many alternatives to it

Bam. Right here. This is the reason I am pro-choice, because I feel it is currently a necessity that has few alternatives.

To answer Verbose’s question on why it would be different to kill a baby that has already been born: There is no question that an unborn child is alive starting from conception because it is made up of cells and human DNA that continues to grow and develop organs, a mind, etc. It is also true that a newborn still can’t make decisions for itself and doesn’t even understand what is going on around it. However, I think the main thing that draws the line between when most pro-choicers think it’s ok to abort and when they think it’s not is when the child will actually be able to survive being separated from the mother. I believe that’s what makes aborting an unborn fetus in its early stages different from killing it after it is already born or in the later stages of development in the womb. After the child no longer has to be dependent on the mother’s body for life is when the mother can no longer have a say in whether it lives or dies. The child, basically, now has ownership of it’s own life.

Also, I disagree with the idea that someone taking their own life is better than the parents deciding to abort in order to avoid any potential pain and hardship that the child may suffer. I can understand the idea that the person should have the choice to take their own life rather than have somebody else make that decision but there are flaws in this logic. First off, this is implying that suicide is even an ok thing to do to begin with. Second, this means that whoever was close to the person who committed suicide is now devastated by the loss and may even go into depression and take their own lives. In other words, you’re basically saying that somebody committing suicide and causing others to suffer for it is better than having somebody aborted and causing much less hardship because of it. You could argue that at least the person got a chance to live and form those connections, but in the end that person still lived a miserable enough life that they wanted to end it. Some could argue that a life like that is worse than not living at all.

Last edited Nov 02, 2012 at 09:39PM EDT
Nov 02, 2012 at 09:34PM EDT
Quote

Well honestly abortion is something that I could see as justifiable in the case of rape or something when the mother could die, but otherwise I’d just use contraceptives if you’re that hell-bent on having sex, and maybe put it up for adoption if you don’t think you’re ready to raise it yourself.

(Oh and saying that fapping kills millions is like saying that you just cut down a forest because you threw away some acorns.)

Nov 02, 2012 at 10:18PM EDT
Quote

I couldn’t claim to draw my moral or political views from media by any means, but this quote from House M.D. speaks more eloquently than I could. His character is made to be inflammatory and extreme, but this on this issue we agree:

House: “The nice thing about the abortion debate is that we can quibble over trimesters but ultimately, there’s a nice clean line: birth. Morally there isn’t a lot of difference. Practically, huge.”

Last edited Nov 02, 2012 at 10:25PM EDT
Nov 02, 2012 at 10:25PM EDT
Quote

I’m Roman Catholic

Obviously, that means I’m pro-life.

Yes, I do see abortion as a form of murder. A child, though unborn, is still a life. It is wrong to take it. I acknowledge that my opinion is not shared by everyone, and that I am probably one of the few who thinks the way I do. However, I will stick to my beliefs, and I will not waver.

If the child is the product of a rape or an unwanted pregnancy, then one should know that despite the trauma of it, that there are plenty of couples in search of child. If you don’t want it, they will love to have one. Trust me; I know a few of these families. They adopt and others are in search of child.

So consider that please.

Nov 02, 2012 at 11:33PM EDT
Quote

PopperFett the Mandalore wrote:

I’m Roman Catholic

Obviously, that means I’m pro-life.

Yes, I do see abortion as a form of murder. A child, though unborn, is still a life. It is wrong to take it. I acknowledge that my opinion is not shared by everyone, and that I am probably one of the few who thinks the way I do. However, I will stick to my beliefs, and I will not waver.

If the child is the product of a rape or an unwanted pregnancy, then one should know that despite the trauma of it, that there are plenty of couples in search of child. If you don’t want it, they will love to have one. Trust me; I know a few of these families. They adopt and others are in search of child.

So consider that please.

Very well put.
I would agree that the best possible option would be to go Juno style and try to find a family that will take the baby for you (and will pay for all of the treatments and medical care if possible) That way, even though you will still have to go through the stress and/or trauma of pregnancy, your child will be almost guaranteed a happy life with a family fit to take care of him/her and you will make a couple who might not even be able to have kids of their own unimaginably happy.

Nov 02, 2012 at 11:48PM EDT
Quote

You’d have to not deconstruct the terminology to a certain extent. I’m well aware that technically a birth means that abortion cannot occur, but based on my question, I did not (and may not currently) call it any difference.

The alternative in my understanding would be to call “abortion” “murder,” but I didn’t want to do that.


Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. I am not concious when I’m asleep, does that make me the same as an infant or a legit subject to murder?

Well, you’ll wake up. And it’s not like you haven’t lived a life before then. It’s the same sort of logic I’d apply to a fetus. At some point (assuming everything goes well in the pregnancy, because a healthy pregnancy and birth (although a very serious procedure/medical event) is more likely than a known miscarriage), the child will come to be born. If you get pregnant, the assumption is that the baby will be born and will have minimal if no problems. I believe my point still stands in regards to that.

(Although, I haven’t tried to think of a counter to Crimson Locks’ rebuttal yet. There may not be one that I could pose.)
 
As for using time, then I can’t argue a period of time. It seems like saying that most children would be able to make adult decisions by age 16/17/18/20/21/25 would be true, but it varies. You set the age to catch most people who would be able to make informed decisions with a “full set of cards.”

But I wouldn’t chance the fact that some children (or fetuses) might be able to feel the pain of death unless it was really necessary (and “necessary” is up for debate.)


Would you place other pregnancy end results like miscarriage on the same scale as abortion?
 
Oh, of course not. That’s easy.

In all cases, miscarriage is not an intentional act. At worst, it involves carelessness or ignorance, but it’s not due to a decision made to actively end a human’s life/potential for life.

Take in consideration to this question that miscarriage can occur due to medication the mother is on. Smokers also have an increased chance of miscarriage (even when the father smokes). Other things that increase the chance of a miscarriage are exposure to environmental toxins, caffeine, and even positive things like exercise.

Well, medication brings in the mother’s life. The mother is on medication for her own good, so getting off that medication is endangering her physiological well-being. Smoking should be intervened upon.

But like I said, intentional death of a baby which will occur in an act whose main function is to kill whatever is in the womb is different from the 15% increased likelihood of a miscarriage where smoking/drinking/exercise/poor nutrition plays a role but isn’t used to kill the child/fetus.

There’s a big difference between the two, even when miscarriages can be attributed to health behaviors of the mother.

You could argue that the life of the child would also affect the mother’s well-being, but an accidental miscarriage is different in my eyes still than an intentional abortion.


I had a couple of comments to Crimson Locks’ points made earlier, but I thought they were well-conceived.

I can’t really argue the difference between values in what she believes sex offers to a relationship and the responsibility to the child and what I believe, because those are generally personal.

In her mind (in my opinion), she would rather kill a kid that was due to her own, intentional actions than to have the kid (even while being aware of the risk of having sex.)

In my mind, (in her opinion), I would rather remain abstinent and only have sex when I know that I can handle that 1% chance that the condom or other contraceptive methods fail. I have had many people say that they couldn’t be in a relationship with me, because of my abstinence, and I wouldn’t know that sort of intimacy until I felt like I could handle the effects of that risk.

I don’t think we’re missing anything, and I don’t think our logic is flawed. I’m willing to sacrifice one thing, and she’s willing to sacrifice something else. Our values differ.

But in regards to what I value personally, I think what I call a human life outweighs missing out temporarily on sexual intimacy. It’s a pretty easy call for me to make, but it’s just as easy (in theory) a decision to make for her.

I would never hope that she has to make that decision to abort a child, mind you, and it wouldn’t be easy to make in practicality. I don’t think a massive majority of women undergo abortion “very easily,” but I say “easily,” because logically, it doesn’t make sense for her to have a child right now. And I can’t tell her that she should think differently.

However, since I think it’s something akin to murder, I do feel that it’s not something that could be made solely upon the basis of the mother. Again, I take it to a point where the young child is a great burden to the mother and the child is greatly disadvantaged in life by not having resources in place. But you don’t decide to kill it. Again, as it stands, I don’t see the difference between 3 months old and 10 weeks in regarding how the baby feels about it or it’s “right” to life or the potential of life.


However, I think the main thing that draws the line between when most pro-choicers think it’s ok to abort and when they think it’s not is when the child will actually be able to survive being separated from the mother.

I think that’s a great point, but I still disagree.

If you leave a 3 month old kid to fend for itself, then it will die. If you leave a 1 year old kid to fend for itself, then it will probably die by eating something that it has no business eating or somehow endangering itself

Now you might say that someone could come by and take care of the child that was crying and would eventually die. Technically…that’s adoption. The only difference (again, in my eyes) is the pregnancy and birth that the mother is exposed to. However, I don’t think that’s what most of the pro-choice opinions here are concerned with. They are concerned with the choice of the mother in regards to the rest of her life after the child is born.


In regards to the child making this decision for themselves:

First off, this is implying that suicide is even an ok thing to do to begin with. Second, this means that whoever was close to the person who committed suicide is now devastated by the loss and may even go into depression and take their own lives.

Does it imply that suicide is OK? Of course not.

It does explicitly state that I think the child should have the choice as to whether or not they want to live. So yes, I believe that suicide would be preferable to abortion…
 
…even (now considering the second point,) when you leave behind friends and family when deciding that life is not worth living.

The reason is because I’m still looking at the alternative. I won’t say in what contexts due to privacy, but abortion and suicide have reared both of their heads in my life. In both instances, they would have sucked to the greatest degree. And for my situation (note that I am not the suicidal person nor am I the potential aborted child,) I would have preferred the abortion.

…That’s me.

If you gave me the choice at life or having another person decide whether or not my life was worth living (based upon her life), then I would have taken the choice. No, I would hate, hate, hate being a burden to my mother.
 
But that’s not my fault nor is it my responsibility. I cannot see past that part. On principle, I do not like someone making a decision for someone else.

It’s interesting, because I’d be advocating for the government to do the same thing, but infringing on life’s potential strikes me as entirely different from preventing a decision that infringes upon life’s potential.
 
As for the actuality of suicide of the child?

Out of all of the children born to people who weren’t planning or prepared for it, how many actually choose to commit suicide?

In terms of death for just about anything, it won’t be many out of that population. So most children do actually decide that their life as an accident and their life into a situation their parents weren’t prepared for is better than death.

Suicide is something I do study, so I won’t say anything about it lightly.


So yes, I think my points still stand as my values stand.

I think the main thing here is that I still value potential life and personal responsibility (for the mother and child) over accidental births into unwanted situations.

I’m not asking people to change their minds, but as Western values for life stands, I do think that using abortion in specific situations is the best way to reconcile bad situations with those values.
 
Again. That assumes certain values, but I think those who are pro-life (or lean that way) only want to interfere (I would hope), because of the same reasons they interfere with any mother wanting to kill their born children.

Last edited Nov 03, 2012 at 12:22AM EDT
Nov 03, 2012 at 12:11AM EDT
Quote

Verbose, your big walls of text are always such a pleasure to read. I respect your opinions on this matter just as you respect mine, and I agree that there is probably little we can do to change the other’s mind. I feel that I have a much better understanding of the way you see this matter now. I will admit that I have no idea or evidence of how many unplanned children commit suicide. I too have had unplanned pregnancy/abortion and (attempted) suicide indirectly involved in my life, and that is why I had those questions about the why you saw the abortion vs. suicide matter the way you did.

Also, in your last paragraph, did you mean to say “those who are pro-life”?

Nov 03, 2012 at 12:40AM EDT
Quote

Yes…I’m pretty bad at making changes as I type. Sometimes, I’ll change a sentence speaking to one side of the issue and will change it without changing all of the text so that it makes sense. That was the case in that sentence (and a few others that I typed.)

But yeah. It’s something I’m conflicted about as a feminist, as I’ve said before. It makes me uncomfortable to say that a woman should do something based upon my beliefs (which at least partly stem from my experience as a man and without personal knowledge of the disadvantage of women.) Normally, with things such as faith, I have no problem with the Constitution (of the United States: my own country) being interpreted so that it is not specific to a faith.

Nov 03, 2012 at 12:58AM EDT
Quote

As I have said plenty of times, I am completely against the idea that being pro-life means that you have “zero understanding of how women really feel and you don’t understand their problems WAAAAAAH” I have especially strong feelings about this now that it’s election season and (being in a democratic state) I almost constantly see democratic candidates running for president/senate/etc. using “against abortion” as “this man is obviously evil and you shouldn’t vote for him” in their political ads. I think it is important to understand the reasons for people being pro-choice before deciding to be pro-life and vice versa. This is definitely not the type of subject that is completely black and white.

Nov 03, 2012 at 01:10AM EDT
Quote

i wonder why people classify themselves as ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’… would that mean i’m ‘pro-situational’?

@Philip
i’d love to live in the same world as you. a world where everyone has common sense and it is not a legal requirement to state that a bag of peanuts may contain traces of peanuts

@Sir-ful Turtle
it is possible to get stem cells from the umbilical cord of a newborn baby. it’s not the same kind of stem cells that can become anything, but it still has the regenerative properties that can be used for medical purposes and doesn’t require the loss of life. you can also get stem cells from an adult too (although it’s from bone marrow so you’d need to drill down to get that)

Nov 03, 2012 at 05:22AM EDT
Quote
i wonder why people classify themselves as ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’… would that mean i’m ‘pro-situational’?

Law has trouble being situational. You can’t have a court judge every single abortion to be legal or illegal. Plus there’s a lot of grey area, so leaving it up to the mother is probably the most practical ‘situational’ option.

Nov 03, 2012 at 03:20PM EDT
Quote
This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.


Why do you guise SRSLY argue religion, abortion, politics, etc? Especially in a Jolly Jew thread?

Nov 03, 2012 at 05:50PM EDT
Quote

Derpy Vazquez wrote:


Why do you guise SRSLY argue religion, abortion, politics, etc? Especially in a Jolly Jew thread?

Well, why not?

I don’t see any shitstorms ensuing here, do you?

Course I’m not familiar with Jolly Jew’s threads so if this is flamebait then I can’t argue that.

Nov 03, 2012 at 06:28PM EDT
Quote

@Daniel

Uh, Daniel. Have you noticed that this discussion was welcomed in this thread? Not derailed?

This has also been a pretty civil discussion so far

Nov 03, 2012 at 08:01PM EDT
Quote

All I’m gonna say is that there is a huge difference between Sperm and a fetus. Leave sperm in your balls and it will die and be replaced, leave a fetus inside you, it will be a baby. I think its kind of silly for a baby to only be considerd human once it leaves its mothers vagina. Still, people can do whatever they want, I’m not going to waste my life worrying about stuff they doesnt affect me whether it not I agree with them. I’m with solaire on this one, I think its cruel and selfish, but it’s not my problem.

Last edited Nov 04, 2012 at 01:40PM EST
Nov 04, 2012 at 01:37PM EST
Quote

There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists
There are Hindus, and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed but
I’ve never been one of them.

I’m a Roman Catholic
And have been since before I were born
And the one thing they say about Catholics is
They’ll take you as soon as you’re warm

You don’t have to be a six footer
You don’t have to have a great brain
You don’t have to have any clothes on
You’re a Catholic the moment Dad came
Because

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God shall make them pay
For each sperm that can’t be found

Every sperm is wanted

Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon
Spill theirs just anywhere
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood

Every sperm is useful
Every sperm is fine
God needs everybody’s
Mine, and mine, and mine

Let the pagans spill theirs
O’er mountain, hill and plain
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that’s spilt in vain

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

Nov 04, 2012 at 07:47PM EST
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Sup! You must login or signup first!