Abortion: Murder

[pgrmdave]

I hope those who are pro-life do not get their way with this right women have. I am sure the results will be nothing that they imagined.

 

It may be true that bad things come of good ideas, or that good things come of bad ideas, but I wonder whether or not we should base morality off of the outcome. I don't believe that the ends justifies the means, and using that same logic, the ends cannot make the means immoral. I don't think that it is ever right to kill someone, no matter what. If that person then goes on to kill many more people, it still wouldn't justify murdering him beforehand.

[Cedars]

It may be true that bad things come of good ideas, or that good things come of bad ideas, but I wonder whether or not we should base morality off of the outcome. I don't believe that the ends justifies the means, and using that same logic, the ends cannot make the means immoral. I don't think that it is ever right to kill someone, no matter what. If that person then goes on to kill many more people, it still wouldn't justify murdering him beforehand.

 

Do you think a womans right to have an abortion should be overturned?

 

Do you think a parent has the right to unplug a child from machines keeping him/her alive or to refuse heroic medical efforts (DNR) for their child?

[motherengine]

technically abortion is the killing of a life form but not murder (in the united states anyway). the act of abortion is a doctor's behavior initiated by a woman's choice. the act itself is neither a child or a choice. the only non-pointless debate i can see concerning abortion is whether the inevitable back alley horror shows are worth a forced moral law.

[Tarantism]

technically abortion is the killing of a life form but not murder (in the united states anyway). the act of abortion is a doctor's behavior initiated by a woman's choice. the act itself is neither a child or a choice. the only non-pointless debate i can see concerning abortion is whether the inevitable back alley horror shows are worth a forced moral law.

*applaudes

[robnibg]

Okay, here goes.

 

Could everyone who is for abortion sum up all their arguments in clear and brief bullet points, and could the same be done by those who are against it, please.

 

Thank-you....

[Queso]

I think you're going to have to go thru 25 pages of this very informative thread.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Could there be tests for when a fetus begins creating brain waves? If so, then it can feel. And if it can feel then no one has the right to do so. But before it begins to think on its own its part of the woman. Killing anything can be justified, but its more righteous not to do so.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Also, why is this choice just a woman's right? If a woman wants to have an abortion, can the father stop it? If he wants her to have an abortion but she doesn't, is it fair that he still has to pay to take of the child he didn't want? Of course a man should take care of his responsibilities, but it seems unfair that conception and raising of a child are joint efforts, but the choice over having the child is solely the womans.

[Rincewind]

Could everyone who is for abortion....

 

I don't think anyone is "for" abortion as such. Many are for allowing a woman and her partner (if appropriate) and doctor having abortion as an option available; albeit a choice of last resort.

[Zythryn]

Although not 'for' abortion I am for the right of a woman to have a choice.

I fall into the category of feeling the fetus has rights once it is viable without the mother's body supporting it. Generally I think that is somewhere around 6-7 months with today's technology?

 

As for why is it a woman's choice... because it is the woman's body. If the man carried the baby in his stomach, I would be all for giving the man the choice;)

[CraigD]

Could there be tests for when a fetus begins creating brain waves? If so, then it can feel.

IMHO, this is a problematical approach, as the lung and other critical organ development necessary for a premature infant to survive (about 22 weeks of gestation) occurs before the brain is developed enough to exhibit the characteristic activity necessary for brain waves or process any sort of sensation (about 30 weeks). Very premature babies don’t initially have recognizable brain waves, the ability to blink, reflexively react to stimulation and pain, etc, yet can, with proper care, survive outside of the uterus, developing into a normal infant, and, eventually, a normal adult. (Sources: Meriter Health Services - Preemie Health - Chances of Survival and Disability - Chances for Survival; Prenatal development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

“The ability to feel” is a difficult concept to define, and when this event typically occurs a subject of debate and controversy. A reasonable argument (based, for example, on the argument that one must be capable of remembering to be considered of feeling) can be made that it doesn’t typically occur until sometime after full term birth! Yet few reasonable people would argue that, due to the neurological limitations, normal infants lack “feeling”, or that infanticide should be permitted.

 

IMHO, it’s necessary to recognize and accept that the legitimacy of abortion, or even infanticide, is determined by cultural attitudes, not by any clearly defined biological event. As such, the question to me appears more related to discussions such as the legitimacy of capitol punishment, warfare, and other socially sanctioned killing, than of embryology or obstetrics.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Then on the assumption that cultural attitudes are what detemine right and wrong, then killing all the unproductive people in you society could easily be justified. You alleviate thoses sources of consumption, and you also encourage production from your citizens.

[Pyrotex]

Then on the assumption that cultural attitudes are what detemine right and wrong, then killing all the unproductive people in you society could easily be justified. You alleviate thoses sources of consumption, and you also encourage production from your citizens.

So? What's wrong with that? Cultural attitudes determine ALL our moral and ethical rules. In certain cultures, killing your wife or sister is considered mandatory, not "murder". In the ancient Hebrew culture, it was mandated that you had to kill your son if he was habitually disobedient or contrary. That wasn't considered "murder"--neither was it considered violating "Thou shalt not kill". In other cultures, especially nomadic ones, killing the unproductive folks was a necessary fact of life--do it, or the tribe dies. It had nothing to do with morals. The ancient Greeks took malformed infants (birth defects) and also the "excessive" infants and "exposed" them (left them in forests or on mountain sides to whatever fate the gods chose). It was not "murder" at all. There was always the chance that the gods would intervene and provide a "rescue" for the infant.

 

Now we have OUR culture, which is actually a partially blended amalgam from several cultural sources. We still permit the killing of humans where it is NOT considered "murder": war; execution of criminals; suicide (killing of oneself); to prevent an act of criminal violence.

 

We (as a country) kill humans ALL THE TIME -- and it is NOT considered "murder". It isn't even considered objectionable to perhaps the majority of our citizens. Even upstanding, christian, pro-lifers can easily be found who would willingly pull the trigger on another human being without the slightest qualm of conscience...

 

...and yet are morally outraged at terminating a pregnancy. I have yet to hear any explanation for this discrepancy, from anyone.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

The problem lies in killing anything. The difference lies in whether you believe in anything outside of yourself and this single life. If not, then you must do what you can when you can to survive, even at the expense of others.

 

If you believe that existance isn't bound to this single life then you don't hold on to it so tightly that you commit wrongs against others.

 

Harming others is wrong, no matter how technical you get with it. The debate arises over the necessity of violence to prolong life. Violence only creates more conflict, and it won't stop any of us from dying.

 

That said, no judgment can be passed against anyone for their decisions. They are a seperate entity having to cope with reality. But peace makes the journey so much more pleasant. Abortion is the choice of a person to alleviate themselves from the responsibility of their actions, or the actions of someone else in the case of rape.

 

Abortion is an effect of fear. Anytime is it is chosen, it is out of fear; fear for the mother, fear for the child, or fear for society. But in that case, then it can be argued that no children should be brought into a world in this state.

[Pyrotex]

The problem lies in killing anything. ...

I'm sorry, but you apparently did not read what I wrote. Please try to get along. The point on the table for discussion is:

Even upstanding, christian, pro-lifers can easily be found who would willingly pull the trigger on another human being without the slightest qualm of conscience...

.

So let me put the question more simply.

 

Why does terminating a pregnancy count MORE than killing an adult, aware human being?

 

Why is the first an outrage and the second one just business as usual? Answer that FIRST, and THEN I'll let you ramble off on whatever it was you were about to rant about.

[Theory5]

I really should know better not to argue in anything BUT a science forum because I have strong opinions even though Ive only lived 16 years. BUT I shall argue a LITTLE bit. Please tell me if I get aggressive or I'm totally wrong or anything.

When you ejaculate is that murder? you kill lots of sperm

When you step on a bug, is that murder? you kill the AWARE bug

When the goverment asks you to go to war or to help the war effort is that murder? you kill "enemies" of The United States of America, or where ever you live.

And what about that steak sitting on your plate that you have no trouble devouring. was THAT murdered?

 

Just some things to think about.

-Theory

[TheBigDog]

Not all killing is equal. When KMart responded to Michael Moore's appeal in Bowling for Columbine by remove ammunition from their stores they were applauded as supporters of life. When WalMart refused to stock RU486 in their pharmacies, a move to preserve the sanctity of life, they were denounced as opponents of womens rights and forced by the courts to put the drugs on the shelves.

 

Bill