Abortion

[Theotherguy97]

abortion is murder

 

[Aiii]

abortion is murder

No it's not

 

[Theotherguy97]

No it's not

didn't ask

 

[Aiii]

didn't ask

What's up ffa pro

 

[Shredderbeam]

abortion is murder

Why do you think that?

 

[Fight Caver]

Murder shouldn't be legal just because it makes your life more convenient.

Where do you draw the line on legalising murder? please don't answer with "babies are small"

 

[Shredderbeam]

Murder shouldn't be legal just because it makes your life more convenient.

Where do you draw the line on legalising murder? please don't answer with "babies are small"

My dude, you're ignoring one of the biggest cruxes of the issue - pro-choice people generally don't agree that abortion actually IS murder.

 

[Fight Caver]

I don't see how it helps their argument to pretend abortion isn't murder.

If I suddenly say killing my parents for their inheritance isn't murder, it's a "financial investment" am I suddenly in the right for doing it?

Personally I view deliberately killing another human as murder. I can see that isn't a popular opinion, it's just my two cents :L

 

[Shredderbeam]

I don't see how it helps their argument to pretend abortion isn't murder.

Pro-choice people aren't "pretending". Generally, they see murder as the intentional killing of a human that has a developed mind. As in, for it to count as "murder", there has to be somebody who actually suffers. A 1 month old fetus can't suffer as it has no consciousness - it's morally equivalent to stepping on a snail.

If I suddenly say killing my parents for their inheritance isn't murder, it's a "financial investment" am I suddenly in the right for doing it?

No, because your parents are capable of suffering.

Personally I view deliberately killing another human as murder. I can see that isn't a popular opinion, it's just my two cents :L

You probably don't actually view it that way. Consider the following situations:

- Killing another person in self-defense.
- A soldier shooting another soldier.
- Pulling the plug on a brain-dead person.
- A terminal cancer patient agreeing to be euthanized by their doctor in order to die with dignity.
- A surgeon separating conjoined twins when it is certain that one will die and the other will not.
- An abortion performed to save the mother's life.
- A prison guard shooting a prisoner to stop them from escaping.
- A father tracking down and shooting a man who raped his 4 year old daughter.
- A murderer being executed.

I'm not saying that these situations are all examples of justified killing, and you certainly don't have to address each one, but I'm guessing that at least 2-3 (if not more) wouldn't count as murder to you. If that's the case, then you need to re-examine what you think "murder" means.

 

[Fight Caver]

Generally, they see murder as the intentional killing of a human that has a developed mind.

Firstly, this is deliberately changing the criteria of murder to suit their
argument.
Secondly its fine to kill someone who's mentally retarded? they don't all have developed minds. Some psychologists believe the human mind is still going through a process of development until late teen years, so should it be fine to kill 14 year olds as their minds aren't developed?

No, because your parents are capable of suffering.

They may be "capable" of suffering but if i shot them both in the back of the head while they weren't looking they wouldn't be suffering.
It would still be cruel yes; because by doing that I would be preventing them from living the rest of their lives - which is the same as aborting a baby.

You probably don't actually view it that way. Consider the following situations:

- Killing another person in self-defense. Murder. If you legalise this then people would abuse it and murder whoever they like and say it was self defence.
- A soldier shooting another soldier. That's murder, but I wouldn't prosecute people for doing it under the right circumstances.
- Pulling the plug on a brain-dead person. Murder, may be costly to keep them alive, but hospitals should do what they can to give them the best chances of recover.
- A terminal cancer patient agreeing to be euthanized by their doctor in order to die with dignity. If the doctor agrees he's a murder. Personally if i had terminal cancer I would just jump off a bridge and not make it political.
- A surgeon separating conjoined twins when it is certain that one will die and the other will not. I have no knowledge in this subject area, but it doesn't sound like murder's involved here.
- An abortion performed to save the mother's life. Saving lives by murdering others is murder. (I know I'm really in the minority with this one)
- A prison guard shooting a prisoner to stop them from escaping. No explanation needed, that's murder.
- A father tracking down and shooting a man who raped his 4 year old daughter. That would be the definition of murder.
- A murderer being executed. An eye for an eye? Nope, that's a hypocritical example of murder; I would ensure the best efforts to rehabilitate him.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Secondly its fine to kill someone who's mentally retarded? they don't all have developed minds. Some psychologists believe the human mind is still going through a process of development until late teen years, so should it be fine to kill 14 year olds as their minds aren't developed?

No. I said that the criteria is that there has to be somebody who suffers. Teenagers and the mentally retarded have a capacity to suffer - a one month old fetus does not.

They may be "capable" of suffering but if i shot them both in the back of the head while they weren't looking they wouldn't be suffering.
It would still be cruel yes; because by doing that I would be preventing them from living the rest of their lives - which is the same as aborting a baby.

I should've been clearer - when I say "suffer" I don't just mean the capacity to experience pain, I mean the capacity to suffer anything - be it pain, loss, etc. If you kill a teenager instantly, there is a mind that lost its ability to keep experiencing. If you kill a one month old fetus that has no mind, there was no loss.

- Killing another person in self-defense. Murder. If you legalise this then people would abuse it and murder whoever they like and say it was self defence.
- A soldier shooting another soldier. That's murder, but I wouldn't prosecute people for doing it under the right circumstances.
- Pulling the plug on a brain-dead person. Murder, may be costly to keep them alive, but hospitals should do what they can to give them the best chances of recover.
- A terminal cancer patient agreeing to be euthanized by their doctor in order to die with dignity. If the doctor agrees he's a murder. Personally if i had terminal cancer I would just jump off a bridge and not make it political.
- A surgeon separating conjoined twins when it is certain that one will die and the other will not. I have no knowledge in this subject area, but it doesn't sound like murder's involved here.
- An abortion performed to save the mother's life. Saving lives by murdering others is murder. (I know I'm really in the minority with this one)
- A prison guard shooting a prisoner to stop them from escaping. No explanation needed, that's murder.
- A father tracking down and shooting a man who raped his 4 year old daughter. That would be the definition of murder.
- A murderer being executed. An eye for an eye? Nope, that's a hypocritical example of murder; I would ensure the best efforts to rehabilitate him.

Again, I wasn't saying that those are all examples of justified killings, but you're at least mostly consistent with your beliefs on murder. A few issues, though:

- Killing another person in self-defense. Murder. If you legalise this then people would abuse it and murder whoever they like and say it was self defence.

First of all, it generally is legal in most places, and society isn't plagued by murderers claiming self-defense.

Second of all, just for clarification, let me describe a scenario: A person invades your home, smashing your belongings and being generally violent, and then comes at you with a knife. You shoot him to protect yourself/your family, and he dies. In your eyes, is that morally equivalent to killing your parents to get your inheritance sooner?

- A soldier shooting another soldier. That's murder, but I wouldn't prosecute people for doing it under the right circumstances.

Why not? What about that situation is different?

- Pulling the plug on a brain-dead person. Murder, may be costly to keep them alive, but hospitals should do what they can to give them the best chances of recover.

To clarify - what if the person is irreversibly brain damaged, with zero potential for recovery?

- A surgeon separating conjoined twins when it is certain that one will die and the other will not. I have no knowledge in this subject area, but it doesn't sound like murder's involved here.

Every surgery is different, but in the example I provided, the doctor (and parents) must choose which twin is most likely to survive, and cut the other one off, killing them.

- An abortion performed to save the mother's life. Saving lives by murdering others is murder. (I know I'm really in the minority with this one)

Fair enough. What about a situation where, without medical intervention, both the mother and child will die? Is an abortion to save the life of the mother justified then?

 

[Fight Caver]

I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on this issue tbh

If you kill a teenager instantly, there is a mind that lost its ability to keep experiencing. If you kill a one month old fetus that has no mind, there was no loss.

"Denying the ability to keep experiencing"
I see this as the important part, I think denying a teenager the ability to experience life is the same as denying a fetus the ability to experience life.

First of all, it generally is legal in most places, and society isn't plagued by murderers claiming self-defense.

Second of all, just for clarification, let me describe a scenario: A person invades your home, smashing your belongings and being generally violent, and then comes at you with a knife. You shoot him to protect yourself/your family, and he dies. In your eyes, is that morally equivalent to killing your parents to get your inheritance sooner?

In the US guns are used 2,500,000 times in self defence a year, that's roughly once every 12 minutes, so the US is plagued by murders claiming self defence.
Whereas in the UK which has significantly stricter rules on self defence theres barely 100 murders in self defence a year.
Is your scenario morally equivalent to killing parents for inheritance? No, because I chose to use the parent example knowing it was morally wrong, as I was comparing it to abortions.
Would it still be right to kill the invaded? No, if he's the victim of mental illness or drugs (which it sounds like) then he shouldn't be held responsible for his actions and doesn't deserve to die. He should instead go through a process of rehabilitation to attempt to get him to live a normal life again. As for what I would do in that event... RUN!


(Military)

Why not? What about that situation is different?

I think it would still be murder for a soldier to kill another soldier, I just see military's as a necessity for societies protection. Whereas abortions aren't necessary for society, if you get pregnant and you don't want the baby you can just let someone adopt it.

In the US there are an estimated 2 million parents waiting to adopt a child, who may not be able to have a child themselves. Under this circumstance abortions are having a negative impact on society preventing people from becoming parents.

To clarify - what if the person is irreversibly brain damaged, with zero potential for recovery?

I haven't heard of any situation where this has been the case, but I still wouldn't want blood on my hands.

Every surgery is different, but in the example I provided, the doctor (and parents) must choose which twin is most likely to survive, and cut the other one off, killing them.

Would this after birth? Sounds like murder to me, but if possible to wait for one to die then saw off the corpse is available I would opt for that.

Fair enough. What about a situation where, without medical intervention, both the mother and child will die? Is an abortion to save the life of the mother justified then?

Yes, that is just plain and simple saving a life at no real expense to another.
Under that specific circumstance you could see the fetus as already dead depending on your philosophical point of view, as it has no potential to live.
I know some view prolife as medieval and old fashioned, but most would agree with me on this, Ben Shapiro being one example.


I take it as you agree with me on the crime based examples as you didn't quote me on them.
I know the rehabilitation argument is entirely separate from the abortion debate, please don't rip me for those comments (on this thread at least )

 

[little account trainer]

Abortion isn't really murder IMO. All they're really killing off is a potential, and it could go either way. They could end up curing cancer, or they could end up being the next Stalin or Hitler If women aren't allowed to make the choice to abort what is simply a potential from their bodies why are men allowed to waste millions of babies on the daily? The world is already overpopulated as it is, and life is short so why people waste so much time about abortions is a mystery to me.

 

[Fight Caver]

Abortion isn't really murder IMO. All they're really killing off is a potential, and it could go either way. They could end up curing cancer, or they could end up being the next Stalin or Hitler If women aren't allowed to make the choice to abort what is simply a potential from their bodies why are men allowed to waste millions of babies on the daily? The world is already overpopulated as it is, and life is short so why people waste so much time about abortions is a mystery to me.

Killing a 2 year old is just killing off their potential for life too though. Technically by that logic killing a 20 year old or a 40 year old is just killing their potential for living the rest of their life too.

Kill a fetus = it cant experience 70+ years of life
Kill a 40 year old = it cant experience 30+ years of life

I don't think anyone's making a case for saving every single individual sperm cell, as those are literally cells. this debate stems from the point of conception.

Overpopulation isn't a reason to abort either:

 

[little account trainer]

Killing a 2 year old is just killing off their potential for life too though. Technically by that logic killing a 20 year old or a 40 year old is just killing their potential for living the rest of their life too.

Kill a fetus = it cant experience 70+ years of life
Kill a 40 year old = it cant experience 30+ years of life

I don't think anyone's making a case for saving every single individual sperm cell, as those are literally cells. this debate stems from the point of conception.

Overpopulation isn't a reason to abort either:

I just don't see it as big of a deal as killing a toddler, or a 20 year old, or a 40 year old. if you make the case that the sperm is literally cells, so is a fetus. literally just cells, nothing else.

 

[Fight Caver]

I just don't see it as big of a deal as killing a toddler, or a 20 year old, or a 40 year old. if you make the case that the sperm is literally cells, so is a fetus. literally just cells, nothing else.

If you poke yourself with a needle your killing thousands~ of blood cells
If you have a wank your killing millions of sperm cells
If you have an abortion your killing a human (small, but human).

The human life should be considered more than blood cells or sperm cells.

Also after just 3 weeks the fetus has began developing a central nervous system and heart, its not just a cell at that point

 

[4mmog]

Human beings should have the right to do what the want.

 

[Shredderbeam]

"Denying the ability to keep experiencing"
I see this as the important part, I think denying a teenager the ability to experience life is the same as denying a fetus the ability to experience life.

But that's why I said the ability to keep experiencing life. A fetus has not yet begun to experience life as it doesn't have a mind - there's no consciousness there. In my previous post I stated:

No. I said that the criteria is that there has to be somebody who suffers. Teenagers and the mentally retarded have a capacity to suffer - a one month old fetus does not.

There is no capacity for that fetus to suffer, just as there's no capacity for a single skin cell, or a rock, to suffer.

In the US guns are used 2,500,000 times in self defence a year, that's roughly once every 12 minutes, so the US is plagued by murders claiming self defence.
Whereas in the UK which has significantly stricter rules on self defence theres barely 100 murders in self defence a year.

...In 2010, there were 278 killings done by U.S. civilians that were found to be justifiable:

Expanded Homicide Data

I don't know where you're getting those numbers from.

Is your scenario morally equivalent to killing parents for inheritance? No, because I chose to use the parent example knowing it was morally wrong, as I was comparing it to abortions.

They're not equivalent, but they're both still murder?

Would it still be right to kill the invaded? No, if he's the victim of mental illness or drugs (which it sounds like) then he shouldn't be held responsible for his actions and doesn't deserve to die. He should instead go through a process of rehabilitation to attempt to get him to live a normal life again. As for what I would do in that event... RUN!

What if you can't run? Even if the invader is having a psychotic episode, and every reasonable person would agree that they're not in control of their faculties, why should the victim be held responsible by getting stabbed and dying? Again, if somebody's coming at you with a knife, is it reasonable to say "I could shoot them dead, but they're probably insane, I'll let them stab me instead"?

(Military)

I think it would still be murder for a soldier to kill another soldier, I just see military's as a necessity for societies protection. Whereas abortions aren't necessary for society, if you get pregnant and you don't want the baby you can just let someone adopt it.

I'm assuming you're male, but correct me if I'm wrong. It's nowhere near that simple - pregnancy can be physically/psychologically traumatic even in cases where rape/incest aren't involved.

In the US there are an estimated 2 million parents waiting to adopt a child, who may not be able to have a child themselves. Under this circumstance abortions are having a negative impact on society preventing people from becoming parents.

If the negative impact to society comes from denying prospective parents an adopted child, then abortion isn't the only thing that does that. Birth control does that, abstinence does that, infertility does that, etc.

Besides, a very small percentage of U.S. babies end up adopted:

Fact Sheet | Off and Running | POV | PBS

I haven't heard of any situation where this has been the case, but I still wouldn't want blood on my hands.

Most of the time, peoples medical situation doesn't make the news, but Terri Schiavo was a very famous case in the 90's and 2000's.

I'm sure you can imagine the idea though - somebody who is fully and completely brain-dead, with zero potential for recovery. If you kill them (hopefully through medical euthanasia), there's nobody inside who can suffer, and there's nothing that actually "experiences" dying. All that's left is a shell.

Would this after birth? Sounds like murder to me, but if possible to wait for one to die then saw off the corpse is available I would opt for that.

As far as I know it's after birth, and by the definition of taking active steps to kill a human, it would be a murder yes. I believe it's generally not possible to wait until the other dies, as usually multiple organs are shared, and there's a least a lot of blood being shared.

I take it as you agree with me on the crime based examples as you didn't quote me on them.

Yeah, I'm sorry, if I don't quote something it means I agree lol.

I know the rehabilitation argument is entirely separate from the abortion debate, please don't rip me for those comments (on this thread at least )

I actually agree with you here that rehabilitation is most important for criminals. Were it possible to avoid killing somebody while still protecting myself/family, I'd absolutely do so.

 

[Fight Caver]

But that's why I said the ability to keep experiencing life. A fetus has not yet begun to experience life as it doesn't have a mind

Honestly, what does that even matter?

"keep experiencing life" "experience life"
The point of murdering someone is that it takes their future away from them, their past has no relevance to the future they may live.

I would still argue that murdering a fetus is worst than killing a 40 year old, as the fetus would be able to live 40 years~ longer than the current 40y/o.
If I got told I had 24 hours to live my first thought would be "So many things I never got to do", that would be a lot worse for killing a fetus.

There is no capacity for that fetus to suffer, just as there's no capacity for a single skin cell, or a rock, to suffer.

This isn't a debate on "Do we have a right to never suffer"
its a debate on "Do we have a right to murder to make our lives more convenient"
I suffer when I go to work, when i clean dog shit, and when I'm stuck in traffic. I'm not arguing the case that these things should never happen to me, I'm arguing the case that people shouldn't be able to murder.

...In 2010, there were 278 killings done by U.S. civilians that were found to be justifiable

I don't know where you're getting those numbers from.

Sorry I wasn't very clear, guns were used 2,500,000 times in self defence in the USA, but not all of those involved killing.

As it happens though, the USA has murder rate of 5.35 and the UK has a murder rate of 1.20 and the majority of murderers initially plead not guilty so I'm still right; the USA has a high density of murderers who try to hide behind self defence claims.

What if you can't run? Even if the invader is having a psychotic episode, and every reasonable person would agree that they're not in control of their faculties, why should the victim be held responsible by getting stabbed and dying? Again, if somebody's coming at you with a knife, is it reasonable to say "I could shoot them dead, but they're probably insane, I'll let them stab me instead"?

I never said I'd hold the victim responsible for getting stabbed.

Also lets evaluate your scenario:
- They are burgling you, and for some reason also smashing all your belongings
- They run at you with a knife even though your holding a gun
- You happen to be in a wheelchair/unable to run

The best example for justified murder you can give is the most unrealistic scenario I've ever heard.

Yes okay, if I was being burgled by someone smashing all my things, running at me with a knife while I was holding a gun in my wheelchair I would shoot them.

However I would expect to get in trouble though. If this was made legal, then people could shoot non violent intruders, throw a few vases around and put a knife between his fingers and go "yeah, self defence".

I'm assuming you're male, but correct me if I'm wrong. It's nowhere near that simple - pregnancy can be physically/psychologically traumatic even in cases where rape/incest aren't involved.

It's traumatic when someone threw up on a plane next me me. I didn't murder someone over it.
Struggling to sympathise for people who decide they want kids then think "hey, no one told me I'd throw up while being pregnant, this sucks"
This looks like a classic example of people choosing the murder option for their own convenience.

If the negative impact to society comes from denying prospective parents an adopted child, then abortion isn't the only thing that does that. Birth control does that, abstinence does that, infertility does that, etc.

Besides, a very small percentage of U.S. babies end up adopted:

Fact Sheet | Off and Running | POV | PBS

Birth control, abstinence and infertility are not examples of murder
I'm not arguing the case that people should have more babies, I'm arguing the case that you shouldn't be able to murder.

I know that a small percent of US babies are adopted, that's because of abortions. If someone doesn't want to keep their baby and don't have the option to murder it they'll likely let someone adopt it.

Most of the time, peoples medical situation doesn't make the news, but Terri Schiavo was a very famous case in the 90's and 2000's.

I'm sure you can imagine the idea though - somebody who is fully and completely brain-dead, with zero potential for recovery. If you kill them (hopefully through medical euthanasia), there's nobody inside who can suffer, and there's nothing that actually "experiences" dying. All that's left is a shell.

Tbh, I'm not particularly strongly opinionated on this, likely as I haven't really looked into it.
But I think murdering someone's "shell" is definitely a lot worse than murdering a fetus or young child.

I assume the purpose of pulling the plug of someone's shell is so their family can have their funeral closer to the time of their brain losing all function?

As far as I know it's after birth, and by the definition of taking active steps to kill a human, it would be a murder yes. I believe it's generally not possible to wait until the other dies, as usually multiple organs are shared, and there's a least a lot of blood being shared.

Yeah, again an area where I have 0 knowledge, just from a first glance I would say that's fine given the options are:
- Kill 1 life, save 1 life
- Let both die
I still wouldn't make this an easy process to go through, throw some legal hurdles in there to ensure it doesn't get abused.

 

I don’t see why there is so much drama on this subject. Nobody should be forced to give birth if its not a good time for them to have a baby.

This shouldn't even be a problem. Don't have unprotected sex if you're not ready to support a child. Period. The End.