Forums / Discussion / General

I don't care im going to get Karma raped. i have an opinion and i wish to say it out.

Abortion is murder. How on earth can people consider it to moral and ok?
and Im not saying from any religious stand point. it's plain murder in simple dry reality.

Im not an expert on the matter but from i understand an abortion can be properly done only after the fetus is about a few months old

The fetus already has all of his organs developed when it's 10 weeks old. – after that time it's a leaving breathing human creture. it can move a bit and can hear what's outside. It's fully concious

Killing the fetus at that stage is outright murder. it's pretty much the equivelent of murdering a baby. Just because it's still dependant on motherly nourishment and still helpless inside her doesn't mean the mother has the right to killl her baby.

Saying that the mother has the right to decide what to do with her body is also incredibly wrong. killing an innocent helpless creature – especially if it's human should not be allowed. period.
maybe the mother has the right to decide what do with her money so she won't feed her baby and let it starve?

Of course not. it will be considered as an outright murder, so why murdering a baby that is inside his mother gets completely different treatment?

I could understand Abortion if the Fetus has a terrible disablity or desiease but that's rarely the case.
I could also understand if the abortion was done easrly – before the fetus is fully developed and still not concious…

But again. that's rarely the case. for the most, the Fetus is killed when it's fully concious, and when no life threat is envolved.

People prefer to murder their child because it will make life harder… and that's somehow ok!?

For myself, I just see the life of a person who already has an established life, relationships, and experiences to be worth more than the potential for life.

Also, these always turn into flaming threads, so I'm just going to go ahead and lock this. No one is going to convince anyone else to change their viewpoint on this.

Actually Chris, I'm going to unlock this for now to see where it goes. Various "There be a shitstorm, lolololo, so original xD" turned out more civile in the end on KYM. Remember the religion thread, that went on great.

If it still turns into a shitstorm, feel free to lock it and blame me, as it was me who made the decision to see where it goes.

As for the topic:

I don't see abortion as murder. The fetus hasn't developed itself to such a level that it can be considered murder imo. Once we're half way alongst the pregnancy, that's a whole different story of course. But for the 10 week period you're mentioning here, nope, it hasn't developped a mind or personality of its own yet at that point. Take with consideration in this that I'm Dutch, our country is one of the most civil out there on topics like abortion and euthanasia, so of course I'm milder on stuff like that.

But you have to remember a very important thing here Jolly, something you are forgetting obviously in your post: The reason they chose for abortion.

Let's give a scenario here: Jolly, you're a father, your daughter of 15 became the victim of rape. And to make matters worse, the unknown individual (no chance to find him by now) made her pregnant. So there's your minor daughter, doomed to give birth, from a criminal who raped her nonetheless. That's something you rather want to abort. Your daughter has the right to keep her live going, giving birth due to that is surely going to destroy it, both socially and financially. Now you can say stuff like "I'll raise it for her", but not every person is capable to do that, remember that as well.

And it's scenario's like that why abortion can be a good thing.

Sometimes the way the fetus was created isn't good. Sometimes the mother herself would in no way be capable to raise the kid (drug addict, money issues, reasons vary). By aborting the child you safe the live of the mother (and most likely those around her), instead of destroying both her life and that of the fetus who is very likely to live an unhappy live once he gets born. It's kinda inappropriate to say "for the greater good" here, but I'll go with that.

Abortion is still a choice, not something for others to control.

I also have to point out to you a bit Jolly. You told us multiple times before that you often post without thinking it through, and threads like these are commonly a result of that. So it's hard for me right now to see how serious you are in this thread, or just felt like emptying your heart.

I can't help put feel that putting a child up for adoption would be better for everyone involved. The woman would not have to raise a child if she either could not, or desires not to, the child has a chance at life, and parents that potentially would never otherwise have a chance at having a child could have one.

Allow me to introduce a pictorial quote here:

Whether or not you consider it to be murder, the point remains. It's not your choice to make. You have no right to impose your beliefs on women.

The problem at the moment is that adoption agencies are already full of children that don't get adopted.

Wow, Jolly Jew actually said something I agree with. Surely this is a sign of the end times.

There is such a thing as the morning after pill; this effectively kills the egg after it's been impregnated by the sperm, and can be ingested immediately after intercourse. At this point the egg has not developed into a human baby, and is only beginning the process of adapting the necessary chromesones.
I firmly believe that abortion is acceptable only in cases where the mothers life is in danger. As for abortions in cases of rape, this would be like suggesting all of Genghis Khan's descendants should be killed because of his actions. If the mother doesn't want to keep the baby, it can be adopted. The child's life will probably be horrible, but its better then nothing.

Absolute morality is my pet peeve. It shows how people can't think differently in different contexts.

Abortion is a touchy subject when it comes to that, so I'm not sure what to say…

MDFification wrote:

The child’s life will probably be horrible, but its better then nothing.

That's extremely debatable! After all, let us not forget the quality of life factor here.

I have no problem if people are pro-choice or pro-life. However, the moment that they start imposing their view on others is where I start to have an issue with them.

Personal matters = personal choice.

Edit: Just re-read the title. Well, this is getting into rough seas.

The whole abortion is murder stance basically depends on where you think human starts so that the baby is not just a mass of cells anymore, otherwise known as personhood. Those who believe that personhood starts at conception or fairly early in life will believe that abortion at any stage = murder.

I don't believe that human life starts until near the end of the first trimester, but again, it all depends on your personhood definition.

From a legal perspective, rights are a contract between the government and the people.
We impose our beliefs on murderers, rapists, thieves… since most people are capable of performing those actions, we expect them not too. If they do, we penalize them.

If we reach a consensus that abortion is murder, then it's the same as any other murder. I don't acknowledge a mother's right to the life of her child. In our society, nobody owns another person's life.
Women have the right to choose when to bear a child. I am for all forms of birth control. However, we cannot have this contradiction in our laws. Killing a human being is never acceptable, except as a means to prevent greater damage to human life. Seeing as you and I both live in a country without capital punishment, you probably agree with this.
If abortion is murder, it's not a gender issue. It's just a modern variation of a crime that's existed as long as humanity has. Abortion being murder or not being murder should be the only point debated.

If it weren't murder, I'd agree with you. But what I know of the subject suggests that it is the act of taking a human life, not a potential life. We are not suddenly alive once we leave the womb; we have merely migrated to a different environment. Once a child can be considered an organism, it is alive. That stage occurs in my opinion long before birth.

@Quantum
I'm not sure what you want to debate about that statement. People do have different qualities of life. However, another person's life is supposed to be inviolate. If death is really better then life for that person, as far as I'm concerned they can choose suicide. I'm sorry that they had to experience that suffering, but as a person who doesn't believe in an afterlife, being sent to oblivion before they had the chance to experience anything or leave any mark on the world is a greater crime.

Well yes, we do have laws that could be construed as putting our beliefs on others, but these are for the massses and society as a whole. When you start getting into abortion, it gets much more personal.

Explain to me how the masses and society is not composed of individuals.
Also, how the vast numbers of pregnant women who would be affected aren't a group.

1. You're right, and that point cannot be argued. However…
2. Every case is different. Sometimes, the mother cannot carry the child to term without extreme risk to herself. Sometimes, the mother has no means to support the child after delivery. Sometimes women get impregnated by rape and don't want the child.

Every pregnancy is different and has to be handled on a case by case basis.

MDF wrote:

If it weren’t murder, I’d agree with you. But what I know of the subject suggests that it is the act of taking a human life, not a potential life.

Whether a fetus is a potential life or already a human life can be seen as an opinion. The Wiki article for life starts of with the following:

"Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate."

Legally, a fetus can be considered a "life" around 24-28 weeks, as from that point on it's capable to live outside of the whomb (albeit with some help). Religiously and scientifically are of course different cases, as those say life starts at the moment of conception. But what you mentioned in your post was when abortion can be considered murder, so we go with the legal "life" age here. And as it legally stands, it can't be considered murder for up to 24-28 weeks.

As I said before, this of course differs per individual. You say life starts at the moment of conception, I say later. We can of course try to disprove the other, but our opinion most likely wouldn't change.

MDF wrote:

Once a child can be considered an organism, it is alive. That stage occurs in my opinion long before birth.

ITT: Swallowing is cannibalism.

Society is made up of individuals, but that's not how the laws are oriented. They're meant for society as a whole, not on an individual basis.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second point.

Edit: @JollyJew

The problem is that you are defining murder (I don't mean to be inflammatory about that, but needed to point that out).

A life sentence is incredibly harsh. I believe the average for a single murder is a 20-year sentence, but you want life?

Abortion does not mean "chopping someone into bits." Please, let's stick with facts here.

The fetus already has all of his organs developed when it’s 10 weeks old. – after that time it’s a leaving breathing human creture. it can move a bit and can hear what’s outside. It’s fully concious

The point at which a human can be considered 'conscious' is very much up to debate. It's not like you hit the ten week mark and then suddenly you have a working mind comparable to our own. If you look at the chart here, you'll see that the human brain isn't complete by 10 weeks, and it's definitely not of a significant size by then, so it's hard to argue that a 10 week old fetus is a thinking being (it could even be argued that recently born infants don't think in the same sense that we do). It may be able to react to it's environment to a small degree, but that's hardly the same as being sentient, sapient, or conscious.

I'm not opposed to abortion, though only up to a certain point. Once you get to about 17 or 18 weeks or so, you enter a huge grey area where it's hard to tell exactly how 'human' it really is. I don't buy the idea that it's human at conception. Of course it's human in a genetic sense, but otherwise, a fertilised egg is pretty much indistinguishable from that of any other mammal. At a cellular level, life is pretty much just molecular machinery, so I don't see how we can assign any human qualities to it.

Saying that the mother has the right to decide what to do with her body is also incredibly wrong. killing an innocent helpless creature – especially if it’s human should not be allowed. period…

I could understand Abortion if the Fetus has a terrible disablity or desiease but that’s rarely the case.

I can't see how you can hold both of these beliefs simultaneously. It seems to imply that murder is wrong as long as the person being murdered is able, but if they're disabled in any way then it can be acceptable. Personally, though I'm not opposed to abortion, I don't like the argument that 'it's okay as long as the child will be disabled'. There's always this horrible implication that the child is better off not being born than it is to be born with disabilities. I can understand the argument if the parents aren't prepared to look after someone who would be in need of constant care, but to pretend that you're doing the child a favour by aborting it seems kinda messed up to me.

Edit:

As for the rape victims, as MDF said, there are pills that are effective 72 hours after the incident to precent pregnancy.

Those pills aren't even close to 100% effective, so in the cases where they don't work, would you still think it would be wrong for them to abort? You'd end up with situations where rape victims would be forced by law to bear their rapist's child just because they were unlucky enough for the pill to fail.

Jolly Jew wrote:

how would you feel if that fetus being chopped up to bits was YOU? would you still agree to die because your mother is not ready for having a baby yet? hmm? answer me with honesty.
as much as i hate myself. i would still refuse to die like this.

Dear lord Jolly, learn to use capital letters.

And "chopped to bits", you're just adding drama at this point. If you want us to take you seriously, please take it serious yourself as well.

As for it being me, I would be unaware of it in those stages of life. It is impossible for a person to give an opinion on this, as at the point if you would be aborted, you can't have a vote in this yet.

In my family runs muscular dystrophy, a disease of which only men can suffer. Women can get it too, but in they'll become carriers, not sick.

My mother is a carrier, and there was a 50% chance at my conception that I would become sick (being male), my life was almost a penny toss at that stage. I was in the lucky 50% and didn't become sick, so from my point onward the disease has left the family (my little sister can still be a carrier, but we haven't let that checked yet).

My parents told me that if I would be in the unlucky 50%, and therefore would've become sick, they would've aborted me. A choice for which I don't blame them should it have occured. One of my uncles from my mothers side has muscular dystrophy, and seeing him and the work my grandma and other close friends and relatives have with it, I know the consequenses to a mother's life if you get a child with that. So again, I don't blame them for the decision of aborting me if I would've been a child who would get muscular dystrophy.

I Agree with you

Sperm are human organisms now?
By what definition?

Other then that, people should remember that I never said life starts at the moment of conception. Seriously, people. Just because I'm against abortions after the beginning of a legal life doesn't make me a fundamentalist.

Edit: @Emi all laws affect people at a personal level. I don't see how abortion is different.

you know what's more important than comparing abortion and murder?

- overpopulation
- increasing number of children with fucked up childhoods because their parents suck and didn't choose abortion
- said children growing up to become shitty parents (I don't care if you're a special case where this doesn't apply to you, your cases are far and few between)
and the cycle goes on

I think many of you have missed my point. This debate is entirely esoteric as it is now, because it's being debated by men.

The biggest problem is with the way anti-abortion people consider the decision that women face. According to JJ and MDF, women think "Oh, I don't want this baby anymore, let me just flush it out."

Do you really think any woman could ever make that type of decision so lightly?

If you believe women think like that, then you're clueless, and to quote Dr. Ginsberg again, you're thinking of women as "less than full adult human[s] responsible for [their] own choice[s]." Basically, you're saying that women are incapable of making complex moral judgments on their own, and that you have to make their decisions for them. That's just disrespectful and misogynistic.

And I'm back in because of this blatant insult.

Are you kidding my Opspe? I never stated anything like this. You have assumed that I hold this opinion merely because I am anti-abortion. I am quite offended.
What does the emotional state and though process of the individual who chooses to have the abortion have to do with its moral acceptability? A man who shoots his wife for cheating on him is still a monster, and he still goes to jail. Nobody would suggest that his actions were more or less evil because of the suffering the victim caused him, and to do so would be barbaric.
As I have previously stated, unless the life of the mother is endangered, I do not believe that anything justifies ending the life of the child after it has met the legal definition of life. Anything.
If you are going to call me disrespectful and misogynistic without reading my points, and assume that I hold these opinions simply because others who have argued against abortion have held them, then I am not going to acknowledge your argument as serious any further.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I believe I was trying to leave this thread before a shitstorm developed. Try not to repeat actions such as your above post, or a flamewar probably will develop. Frankly, you should know better.

MDF wrote:

Nobody would suggest that his actions were more or less evil because of the suffering the victim caused him, and to do so would be barbaric.

I have to correct you there, as murder by self-defense is something that can result in a considerable loss of jail time or even no punishment at all. Something which I agree with btw, a person shouldn't always have mercy with a burgler who was pushed down the stairs and broke his legs when he was caught in the act.

I do not believe that anything justifies ending the life of the child after it has met the legal definition of life. Anything.

As I said before, the legal definition of life is 24-28 weeks, something which I agree with can be considered murder as the fetus has developed enough at that point to be considered a human being.

It's the earliest stages of the fetus we disagree with.

The funny thing is; its not up to us, or the government, or even family. Its all up to the woman bearing the child, whether she can support it or not. I respect President Barack Obama for his stand on Pro-Choice, its not up to the government to decide on something like this.

And this doesn't mean that I, or Obama, really support the idea of abortion, just that its up to the mother and father.

Whatever, I’m out of this thread.

There you go, the reason why I don't bother getting into debates like this online; it's all opinionated, whatever you say is your opinion and stating it seems pointless as it isn't really changing anything.

However, it's alright for the ethic of discussion, but getting into argumental state ruins the discussion and then it just ends up becoming a flamewar.

And that…is why I didn't post anything more in this thread.

Just saying.

@Random: I never said anything about self defense. I discusses a person who had severe emotional trauma inflicted to him, and made the choice to kill. It's basically what Opspe said, when he raised the mother's decision and feelings as a way to call me a misogynist.

As for the rest of this thread, I give up. You are for the most part not willing to counter my points, only place an argument unrelated to what I'm saying on the page, distorting the discussion.
I thought we could have a thread on this controversial topic without resorting to immature, irrational or overly rhetorical behavior. I am saddened that I was wrong.

Opspe, I'm going to ask for an apology from you for your unjustified slander of me. Whether or not you grant it is up to you. I'm more upset that you'd say such a thing than that other people seem to be believing it.

I actually love the idea of having a thread like this.
As many people have said before, a lot of this has to do with when you consider something to be a human being (I think the "an unborn child can be considered human at conception" thing is very ridiculous). I personally am pro-choice, and think it's alright to abort before about 24 weeks, but I can understand why some people can see abortion as murder. However, I think some pro-life arguments do not show an understand of the full consequences or implications of keeping a child, or even just going through the pregnancy so that the child could later be given away. Think of this: Going through a pregnancy is expensive. It can cost $6,000 to $12,000 from start to finish to get all the treatments necessary before and during delivery. That's a lot of money. And then you have to buy maternity clothes, and clothing for your child (you can't keep that fucker wrapped in a blanket forever) and if you're gonna keep it, you gotta get a crib, toys, special formulas, etc. Not everyone can pull $12,000+ in a matter of 9 months. And then you have to pay up an extra $7,000-$9,000 a year to support the child. Now, for those who say "You can put the child up for adoption", consider this: there are 7 billion people on this green Earth right now, we are having problems with over-population all around the world. Think of how much the population would increase if we suddenly stopped having abortions all around the world. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of children put up for adoption that never get adopted. Not to mention you have to go through a ridiculous amount of paperwork to put the child in the adoption home. You can't just plop them on the place's doorstep and say "We don't want this, here you go". Now, so far I've only been crunching numbers, and haven't even touched on the human element of having a child.
Raising a child is a very hard process. There is a reason people only do it when they are financially and mentally capable. Pregnancy isn't just "Your belly gets big for 9 months and then a child comes out". Once the child starts to get into later development, the woman will start to feel serious fatigue. A woman who gets pregnant by accident might not be completely mentally stable. The stress on their body physically and mentally might cause them to do something that could cause harm them and the child. A girl who isn't even out of high school would be less likely to be able to handle the stress of pregnancy than a woman just going into her 30s. There are also many health risks that could come with pregnancy. Some of them may be rare, but they still happen. There are plenty of times when a woman going through a pregnancy despite health risks could cause harm or even kill both the child and the mother. And then, once the child is born everything is a whole new ball game. Your life comes to a standstill and you now need to give this child your almost complete and full attention. Do you think every woman is ready to be able to give a child almost complete attention until the child is 18?
Imagine being a woman who ended up pregnant but had no conceivable way of being able to take care of and support the child. I personally would rather abort before the child had a chance to live rather than bring it into a life of starvation and misery that it probably didn't even want to begin with.

In the end, there are plenty of reasons abortion can be considered the right thing to do, and there are plenty of reasons why it can be considered the wrong thing to do. Frankly, If a woman does not want to spend the rest of her life taking care of a child that she didn't plan on having to begin with then it should be her choice to abort the pregnancy before the child has developed into what could be considered human. I believe that everyone has a soul, and that when a person dies then that soul will be moved to another life. So when a fetus is aborted, it's basically saving a soul from potentially going through a lot of hurt and suffering.

Finally, an actual female perspective on the issue. Thank you.

As for what I said earlier, let me just highlight something from the above post:

Pregnancy isn’t just “Your belly gets big for 9 months and then a child comes out”.

The way it seems to me that many anti-abortion/pro-life people approach the issue (i.e. equating abortion with murder) is with great oversimplifications of what it means to a woman to undergo pregnancy, and what it means to consider terminating that pregnancy. As a man, I recognize that I have no right to come to any conclusions on the issue without carefully considering what women think and feel. And I do think that anyone who claims that abortion is not a gender issue needs to think about what they're saying.

So, to MDF. Perhaps implying that you're a misogynist was hasty on my part, so I'm sorry for that, but I really think that you need to consider female perspectives before you come to any conclusions on an issue that affects women.

Not so much hasty as completely unwarranted Opspe.
I don't accept your point. "Female perspectives" are not aligned solely with pro-abortion. I was never arguing about women's right to their body. I was arguing on whether or not the fetus constituted a human life. It doesn't matter how anybody feels if it's a murder.
I thank you for your limited apology. I would still like you to acknowledge that I wasn't even debating the grounds you're using to insult me, however, as it is still a distortion of my argument calculated to make me appear like someone I would despise.

We just got a women posting in an abortion thread that was male only before that.

MDF wrote:

I never said anything about self defense. I discusses a person who had severe emotional trauma inflicted to him, and made the choice to kill.

Correct, you did not. But the reason for abortion can be seen as self defense in a different way. Kill or hurt a person who was about to inflict the same to you, it was you or him → Self defense. Aborting a child due to life destroying reasons explained in Crimson's post → Self defense in a different way.

This argument is very far fetched, I am fully aware of that, but I'll go with it anyway.

As for the rest of this thread, I give up. You are for the most part not willing to counter my points, only place an argument unrelated to what I’m saying on the page, distorting the discussion.

So is the risk of discussion MDF. One cannot join a discussion expecting everything to go his way. A discussion is about proving oneself correct and disproving others, insults are simply a risk in this (prime example: Politics). I didn't made my posts with the assumption people would blindly agree with me, and if they wouldn't, I would accept that, as I cannot enforce my opinion onto others. You are creating the assumption here that you expected everything in this discussion to go your way.

And our counter arguments aren't completely of topic compared to yours, and I'm quite disappointed you believe that. You mention what you consider life in a legal way, I counter this by what I consider life in a legal way with facts to back it up, a counter statement that is perfectly on topic. Same to Algernon countering Jolly's statements of when a fetus can be considered concious, perfectly on topic.

And to be quite honest, do people even have to counter your points? This is a thread centered around opinions. Stating ones opinion isn't always centered around disproving another, it's about sharing what you believe. And if their beliefs don't match yours, that is still perfectly on topic with the thread and discussion.

I will apologise to you now, as I'm certain some points in this post can be seen as insulting.

So my apologies for it.

Random, please stop trying to disprove my reasoning for feeling wronged.

I do not intend to be involved in this debate further, considering what has happened in this thread. I would love to debate with you, but if you still want to we'll have to do it somewhere else.

Discussing your second point, I do not assume that debates will be full of rational people (which you seem to assume I think means people who agree with me) and I would appreciate you refrain from belittling me over it. I was stating my disappointment with how this discussion has turned out, and my reasoning for attempting to disconnect from it. Unfortunately, people keep drawing me back in as I'm unwilling to see people distort what I am saying without my true opinions being represented.
I am not saying there are no counter arguments that address my points. Your points on whether or not the fetus is alive is on topic.
When people quote me, and write a post that appears to be refuting my points, then I expect them to truly counter them. Countering Jolly is not countering me. When I am quoted, or mentioned, as saying something, and the person who quotes this argues that what I said (when I actually said it) is wrong, they are trying to counter my points. I'm not particularly offended that you said this, because I never said anything that asserted I did not believe what you said.

Finally, I think I should explain in more detail why I am offended by Opspe's post.
Associating me with JJ's sensationalist rhetoric is misrepresenting my considerably more moderate attempts at debate.
I was, without justification, called prejudiced and hateful. I cannot see why this is acceptable.
Even after Opspe apologized for flat-out insulting me, he continued to state that I was arguing something I wasn't. Saying I need to consider women's opinions implies that I was making my whole argument solely from my own arrogance and ignorance. My argument was unrelated to gender, focused purely on the status of the fetus and the justification of taking human life in general. Relating my arguments about biology and my moral position to what he stated I believed is impossible. My arguments simply do not state anything about gender, or women's rights. Morals do not bend for gender. If men were pregnant and considering abortion, my argument would be the same.

I have been slandered and misrepresented considerably, and I am currently experiencing a justified anger. However, my anger is a rational anger.
Good day.

This has nothing to do with belief, it’s basic human morality and solid facts.
I can’t really respect the mother’s belief when it’s a matter of human life at stake.

When the Fetus is killed it’s already at stage when it’s a living, breating, concious creature. NOT a mass of cells by any stretch of the imagination.

First of all, babies still in the mother's womb are neither breathing, nor conscious until the third trimester. First you said that all abortion is wrong, now you're only claiming that late-term abortion is wrong. That's called "moving the goalposts".

A woman that murderes her baby gets a life sentence.

A woman that murders her baby that hasn’t come out yet is totally acceptble. how is that? maybe we should leagalize the murder of babies by their patents as well? it only makes perfect sense.

Both are helpless and completly dependant on their parents. it’s their choice whever to murder it or not hmm?

In the first two trimesters, it would take incredible leaps of logic to call it "a baby".

As for the rape victims, as MDF said, there are pills that are effective 72 hours after the incident to precent pregnancy.

This is a very ignorant thing to say. Plan B pills have awful side effects, and using them more than two or three times in one's life is very detrimental to one's health.

As for the other cases: drug addicts etc. there are enough ways to save the child from an awful life. in my country alone there is a big organization for saving babies who were supposed to be aborted.

The Earth is overpopulated enough. The more people that organization needs to take care of, the less resources they can use per person. All you're doing is dooming these children to a miserable life.

One last question to those who support abortion:

How would you feel if that fetus being chopped up to bits was YOU? would you still agree to die because your mother is not ready for having a baby yet? hmm? answer me with honesty.
as much as i hate myself. i would still refuse to die like this.

What. The. Fuck.

"Chopped to bits"? That's how you think abortions work? If you're gonna debate something, please know what it is you're talking about.

Oh, how glad I am that this thread was allowed to remain! (^_^) Hello everyone.

But I must say, this thread has become quite heated. and to think the moderators have essentially placed themselves at the eye of the storm. Quite the spectacle.

However, in the interest of getting the thread back on course, I will now share with you all my own perspective on the matter.

@Jolly Jew on the subject of being chopped to bits:
How would I feel? I wouldn't.

@the general discussion:
All this line-drawing and negotiating over morality, ethics, and where life begins, they all (in my humble opinion) hold moot authority over the woman's choice in the matter. They hold no more sway than all the planets in the solar system combined can hold mass on a scale against Jupiter. The only force which may sway the decision is the internal forces of the woman in question. It is her beliefs, her feelings, that ultimately lead her to her decision and nothing more. And it should be only her decision as it will affect her life more than anyone else's.
Good on you, anghstyHoodie.

On a slightly unrelated note, I don't consider it inherently right or wrong to kill a non-sentient living thing. Killing one without reason may be rather senseless or irresponsible, but not wrong.

(^_^) I await with such anticipation the responses this post will receive. I hope the thread doesn't die soon.

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

>mfw I killed millions of possible people whilst I fapped.
As one of those guys could've been breathing one day.

Larger version

@Those who think rape isn't a reason to abort a child.

It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape. These women have it tough enough already because of it, and adding illegitimate pregnancy to that only makes the situation worse. Sure, the child can be adopted afterwards, but that doesn't take away that the female still has to suffer the whole 9 months of pregnancy, carrying a child from a criminal she doesn't even want to begin with, while pregnancy in general is already a period hard enough for reasons explained in Crimson's post.

Women don't have the choice of birth when the conception was the result of rape. Sure, there's the morning after pill, but that doesn't guarantee 100% succes and already has negative side-effects by itself. You're putting the woman's health and life on the line here so that a criminal can have its offspring walk around.

Go join Todd Akin.

While I do agree that life begins fairly early on in human pregnancy, and it may be considered murder to abort a child, I do agree with Harley on the matter. Every case is unique, and while the murders of fully-sentient men and women are nearly impossible to justify, this is due to the fact that they have minutes-upon-hours-upon-days-upon-years of life experiences, relationships, hopes, and dreams--and not to mention a future clearly ahead of them. And yeah. They're rather sentient. I couldn't kill babies to put a stop to overpopulation or disease, but a fetus in the very early stages of development is fair game considering the situation it'd be born into.

I do believe in cut-off dates, because after what..I think it's somewhere around three or four months? Unborn babies develop cognitive skills in the womb, such as hearing and even dreaming.

I was a coin toss away from being aborted myself. My mother was still in high school, and my father just graduated. I was not planned, and if my father hadn't insisted on it, my mother would have gotten rid of me. But as much as I can imagine how tough things would be for the people I know and love if I wasn't around, I know the world would have kept turning in my absence, and I wouldn't have been any wiser to the life I could have had. I don't tell my mom "hey thanks for not aborting me". I am grateful for my life, but I would have equally accepted being denied my existence a little longer if it was to prevent from being a burden on anybody. I know for a fact that I would have had a sibling too, but my mom decided not to go through with it. While I mourn the brother or sister I could have had, I know there's a rhyme and reason to why things happened as they did. I eventually got that brother and sister later on in my life when my dad re-married, and would have NEVER happened if my mom had another kid. And I love those little fuckers. I love them more than anything in the world.

So if it sounds like I'm justifying the murder of tiny human beings, then maybe I am. And I honestly don't think the government can tell us whether or not it's legal.

In all fairness though, I doubt it'll ever become illegalized in all fifty states.

Until then, everybody will have their choices in life to make, this being one of a myriad. If you believe God will judge you for it in the end, that's fair. May your choices be forever your own and his. But leave everyone to their own personal journeys. We'll share opinions instead. c:

Why, oh why, did you start this thread on KYM? This isn't exactly our area…

saying that killing a young fetus is murder is like saying that using antiseptics is genocide.

If it can communicate that it does not want to die, don't kill it, if it cannot, it's up to whoever is in control of it to choose.

There's a difference, this is about when the child is inevitable (as in pregnancy already started).

@ Random 21

Don't worry. I'm just joking.

I wish I could add a few good points, but everyone has already covered what I wanted to say.

This is kind of like a thought that occurred to me earlier today whilst thinking about this discussion. If you're a minor and, say, went into a coma and had the option to pull the plug or not you would have no way of communicating your choice so the choice goes to the parents. Now, say the parents had no way of keeping you on life support because of financial issues. They would have no choice but to pull the plug. It's grim, but it's reality. Or maybe you had little chance of surviving the coma and if you did you'd be horribly disfigured for the rest of your life, then the parents have to decide "Does he really want to live this way". You would have no way of communicating whether you wanted to live or not, and so the parents would have to make the decision.

To answer Jolly's question about how I would feel if I was aborted: If my parents were not fully ready to have me (whatever the reason may be) and they aborted me then I would thank them. I would only want to be born if my mom and dad were fully ready to love and take care of me, and I would understand if they weren't ready. I have plenty of friends who were from unplanned pregnancies (some when the mothers were still teens) and to see how much harder life can be for some of them because they weren't born at the right time breaks my heart to see. Of course, some unplanned pregnancies go smoothly like my younger brother's, but not all of them.

Even though I am pro-choice the destruction of a potential life is sad to me, as it probably is for a lot of people. To say people who are pro-life are obvious women haters is an unfair accusation. And as I have said before I can understand the decision to be pro-life, as long as you understand the full implications of that decision.

(dammit I can talk for a long time about abortion)

@Supreme

Well put, on all fronts. Some of the mods might have goofed a bit in all of this.
 
I have my own opinion on this as well, and what you say (and a lot of what others are saying) hold merit. I'll try to abbreviate my thoughts:

All this line-drawing and negotiating over morality, ethics, and where life begins, they all (in my humble opinion) hold moot authority over the woman’s choice in the matter…And it should be only her decision as it will affect her life more than anyone else’s.

I gave you karma, even though I disagree. That's probably the main thing we're discussing. I consider myself a feminist (although many feminists would say that I am no credit to the team.) But in my opinion, feminist values are values of equality and not of just doing what is best for the woman in the matter. I think that whereas I might undervalue the woman's choice here, I think others undervalue the right to life of the child.

And it's very hard to argue personal values in a matter like this. Well, argue to where you change another person's values, anyway.

There is something inherently sexist about a government largely run by men making decisions for women. Can't work around that.

However, even with the knowledge (theoretically) of carrying and bearing a child and the social obligation to care for the child well beyond their 18th birthday, I do not think that choice outweighs what I consider an intentional death.

So there are two values in my mind at play:

• Life of the child (the actual life)
• Potential (if not probable) life changing event for the mother and a potential (if not probable) difficult life for the child

As much as it would suck to have your life changed by having a child before you're ready and as much as it would suck to have a kid born into poverty, I don't think it justifies killing a child.

I said it once in a women's studies class to the entire class: If life is that bad for the child, then let the child make the decision to take himself out of it. Not the mother. I could care less what the government thinks outside of enforcing what I think are violations of rights.

In the issue where the rights of two people are in direct conflict (again, the presumption that the child has rights to life,) I say that the right to life outweighs the right to a life without a massive, life-changing event.

If choice was the main option here, then I think abortion should still be a valid option after birth. Even if the kid can dream, the child isn't going to remember anything until they're about 1, and that's pushing it, because most people don't remember anything before they were toddlers.

This also assumes that the fetus cannot feel pain. They can't really advocate for themselves, and I don't know enough about human biology to know if a fetus can feel pain and after how many weeks in the womb. Heck, abortion might be exposing babies to excruciating pain. But that's something I don't know.

Now there are some assumptions here that I can't really argue such as considering a fetus to be a living human, which qualifies whether or not the death is as serious as the intentional death of a born child. Like Random 21 (and others,) I think that if the child will likely live without much intervention, then I'd call it intentionally caused death, at least.
 
There is also the assumption of responsibility, which plays heavily in my mind. If a person has been raped, then the mother did not accept the risks of having sex and potentially conceiving. Same with a person who cannot "mentally" consent (e.g., minors, those who don't have the mental facilities to grasp what sex and having a child means before having sex.)

If that's the case, then I find it to be terribly unfair to expose the mother to bearing and raising a child for something she wasn't responsible for. She did not choose to take those risks. If the rapist could bear the child and be socially obligated to care for the child, then I'd easily say "Hey, it comes with the responsibility of having sex, and you made that choice." But that's not possible, so it's not really something to consider, I guess.

I don't think an accident is a reason to "kill a child" (again, my presumption is that abortion is killing a child,) because a consenting choice to have sex is also accepting the responsibilities of what might occur. But rape/coercing a woman to have sex against her better judgement or simply against her will is not an accident. The male (assuming male on female rape) unfairly forced the female to take on responsibility for something she didn't want to do.

I'm already hesitant to tell a person that they must bear and care for a child when they, weighing all other options, do not want to. But adding in the fact that they did not have sex under their own will and did not accept the risks that comes with having sex, I think then it outweighs the life of the child.
 
There's also the assumption that the child's life is likely to be long and fulfilling. If a kid has Tay Sach's, then there's really no point. The child will live in constant, physical pain, and they will die before they get to high school. Some would argue the same for a child with Down Syndrome. With a life that isn't likely to be long and happy in hard instances such as this where there is no chance for improving one's lot, then I could understand not exposing a child to that sort of life. For a child that doesn't have a chance to become masochistic, pain isn't something they'll want to live with constantly before they have to deal with the reality of death before entering Kindergarten.

Due to matters of faith (uh oh), I think I weigh life to be more important than others. But on a rational level, I do recognize that before a certain point of any life, the child isn't going to remember anything about their life. They wouldn't even feel or comprehend the pain of death in the same way as a more developed human.

That's why I can't be too angry on the issue when someone presents a case for being pro-choice. However, I think choice isn't the main thing to be considered here, because I think the choice of life of any sort outweighs the option for having to take care of that life.

I like how everyone who suggested even just an inkling of support for pro-life got downvoted

I thought this forum could handle differing opinions. Was I wrong?

Look, I like to think that nobody here in any way supports perspectives that breach the rights of a woman in any way. I don't think Jolly Jew or most of those pro-life types would really stand in the way of another persons liberties. They simply don't believe abortion is the best option and they are allowed to suggest why they don't see it as a reasonable idea and they are allowed to beg the considerations of alternatives. Don't punish them for that and don't punish me for saying this either

They might be considerate of the rights of mothers just as much as everyone else, the difference is that they also consider the rights of unborn children or at least that is the way I see it.

Nobody here wants to stand in the way of the rights of others and their way of life. Especially when it comes to life changing matters like pregnancy which should always be ones own call. Not me, not anyone. That's what kind of civilised and respectable people we are

But when you go around condemning those pro-life people when they suggest that a baby has the right to be born if it can do so safely…when you go around arguing the vague and arbitrary point where a human is legally human…do you consider that a human has as much right to be born as a human has as much right to abort? We want to think we are considerate of everyone's rights…shouldn't the unborn have a chance to speak too by our own moral standards?

This goes back to what Crimson is saying above. I know that we are comparing the unborn to the comatose; where in that case we have to make decisions on behalf of those who cannot speak and that's a good point to me. Crimson made a fair comparison. But I also want to add that unlike someone in a Coma: a fetus has much better chances of gaining conscious and speaking for themselves eventually

Frankly, I think every human deserves a chance at life. That's why I try to stop people from committing suicide. I'm sure the pro-choicers do as well, but the difference here is that a developing fetus that is actively splitting chromosomes, multiplying cells and churning that Krebs cycle is just as much a living human being to me as a fully developed one (under the condition, of course that is has the potential to develop and live it's own life.)

It only makes logical sense to me to make that distinction.

It makes no logical sense to say a caterpillar is dead because it's not a butterfly.

It makes no logical sense to say a human fetus is not a human when it has perfectly human DNA

It makes no logical sense to say a human is dead due to a lack of heartbeat when it is actively growing a heart and will soon have one while continuing normal bodily processes. Why do we consider amoeba to be alive then? What's the difference?

It makes no logical sense to say a human is dead because it has no conscious. Are tree's dead too?

I just don't understand those arguments that try to define fetii as inhuman. Those arguments seem like weak red herrings to me. They don't sound rational at all. I believe most pro-lifers see it that way. Can you really blame them?

But the one argument that I do understand is that a mother has the right to decide her fate, even if it involves her own children. Nobody should be forced into motherhood that they cannot accept or support. THAT makes sense to me

If a mother can't support her children, she should not be forced to do so. Normally I would suggest adoption like how two of my cousins were given to my family for adoption rather than aborted. My cousins are cool. I'm glad their mother made that choice

…but if abortion is the only answer to that problem, so be it. I'll accept it if there is no alternative and to be fair: there are not many alternatives. I'd only ask for consideration, not restriction

If the pregnancy could kill the mother, or if the child has no chance of survival then abortion is absolutely fair here as well.

See I'm not being conservative here, I'm just going by what I see is right and fair here for everyone involved, child included.

If someone has consensual, unprotected sex, gets an unwanted pregnancy and then aborts only so they can keep fitting in their dress even though they could totally support a child, only then would I object to the abortion. That scenario is extremely irresponsible to me

For all other intents and purposes: fair go. Mothers call. I don't want to see people's lives ruined by kids they don't want.

I just don't buy this hype that it's the best solution our society can come up with. I'll always find it sad and insufficient. I wish we had a better idea of how to handle this (less rape and more sexual responsibility could be a start)

Nor do I buy this hype that a fetus isn't alive. That goes against what I learned in biology

Now that the rambling is aside, lets answer the OP's question:

Q: How can abortion possibly be considered not murder?

A: It's complicated. Not every parenthood works out. And when it doesn't, sometimes a choice needs to be made between the parents life and the childs life. The life of someone already living (The parents) is simply more valuable. It's better to view it as mercy rather than murder and that's exactly what we do.

It would be nice to have a better solution, but right now nobody seems to have one

Ooh boy, it's going to be tough to size up to all these TL;DR posts.

So I'm not going to.

You can throw around a ton of arguments for and against abortion, eg. it's murder, it's the woman's choice, etc., but in the end, it's a matter of principle. And if there's one thing that people will stubbornly hold onto, it is their most deeply held convictions. Not going to argue on that.

Jolly Jew, other people have their opinions too. Just because you see something one way doesn't mean you can't possibly understand why others would see differently. The KYM population was sensible enough not to karma bomb you, but if anything, you deserve one for the absolutely sensationalist title. I know it wasn't your intention, but the way you phrased the title almost seems like you purposefully tried to incite something.

If you don't understand how insensitive you were being, imagine if I started a thread saying "How is Israel not supporting terrorism?" Or for you religious types out there, "How could one possibly believe an imaginary being is God?" Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate here. Yes, I do have a point.

You too, MDF. It's one thing to calmly debate something; it's another to go "lolololo you guys are all wrong my arguments are correct everyone that disagrees with me is stupid #YOLO." Like others have said, the problem here is that you are defining morality in your own terms, which may or may not be compatible with others', and forcing them upon them. And if anything is stupid, it's that.

While I fall on the pro-choice side of this debate, I'm open to reasonable arguments acknowledging one's personal biases, as so evidenced by Verbose, as well as numerous others in this thread.

(well that was longer than I expected)
(guise what are you doing it's halloween)

To say choosing abortion is the irresponsible choice is very unfair to those who have had to make that choice. Abortion is technically the easiest option, but it's not the easiest decision to make. Some people have that decision weighing on their minds for the rest of their lives, and calling them irresponsible is a huge disrespect to them. Most consenting adults and teenagers understand the risk of having sex. They know birth control and the morning after pill can fail and that the best form of birth control is abstinence, but they still have sex even when they don't want a child. Do you know why? Because sex is awesome. It strengthens relationships, it is one of the ultimate expressions of love. Sex is a primal urge, people aren't going to stop doing it just because there is a risk of having an unwanted child. Before I had sex with my boyfriend, we talked about what we would do if I accidentally got pregnant, In the end we decided abortion was the best choice. Because it was the easiest? No, because it made the most sense. He's still in high school and doesn't have a job while I just graduated high school and am saving up for college. I don't have $12,000 lying around to give to the doctors when it's delivery time. I can't afford to take a few months off of work. I can, however, afford the couple hundred dollars it'll take to have an abortion. Does this mean I should just never have sex until I either have the money to go through with the pregnancy in a few or am ready to raise my own child? Does that mean I shouldn't share that connection with my boyfriend who might not be there anymore a few years down the road? Am I an irresponsible person because I will get an abortion if I get pregnant in the near future? Call me selfish for making these decisions if you want, but never call me irresponsible for making them.

@Verbose: I give you so much credit for being able to state your opinions on abortion in front of a class that was probably mostly women.
@Blue Screen: That is possibly the best post I've seen on this thread. Not to take a dump on everyone else's posts, but this one seems to put the most thought into both sides of the matter. It definitely is sad that this is the best solution we can seem to think of is children. I believe better sexual education in schools would cause at least a minor drop in the number of abortions performed each year. I was lucky enough to receive sex ed in school that actually explained what intercourse was, the multiple forms of birth control that could be used, the dangers and risks involved, and that the only thing that protects you 100% is abstinence. Unfortunately, some schools insist on giving an "abstinence only" sex ed that has been proven time and again to do nothing to help teens protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs because it doesn't even really explain what sex is and any ways of protection, it only tells kids to not have sex.
@Twins: Obviously the best way to spend Halloween is to have abortion debates

@Crimson

Lets take another look at what I said

If someone has consensual, unprotected sex, gets an unwanted pregnancy and then aborts only so they can keep fitting in their dress even though they could totally support a child, only then would I object to the abortion. That scenario is extremely irresponsible to me

I bolded the important part.

I never said abortion is irresponsible. I said that abortion can be used irresponsibly just like anything else that can be abused. That's the only thing that concerns me

Good responsible reasons to abort:

• Because you can't afford the child


• Because you can't parent


• Because it would cause serious harm


• Because the child would not have a healthy life


• Because there is nobody that could care for the child


• Because you are a rape victim

Irresponsible reasons to abort:

• Because you want to remain fitting in your jeans

Please understand that I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I am pro-responsibility.