Home› A Moving Train

At what stage does abortion become murder?

LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
edited July 2006 in A Moving Train
..and who decides this stage?



I'm pro-choice, but I always question my own beliefs..

At what moment is it "ok" to scramble a developing humans brains?

1 month into pregnacy?.. 3 months?.. 5.871 months?.. maybe 18 years of age?



Maybe war is just a big post-poned abortion for many "unwanted" humans..



At what point do humans become self-aware? Feel their first pain???

At what second does a human life become worthy of being saved?








.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13456

Comments

  • rightonduderightondude Posts: 745
    Really really early. Nothing past week 7. Once it's beyond mere cell division in globule form, and resembles a human form with brain, eyes, beating heart, etc... it's feeling everything.

    As a rule I would say no later than the first trimester:

    http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml

    What a terrible thing to have to do (and think about)... I feel like I need to pray now for some reason.
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    rightondude wrote:
    Really really early. Nothing past week 7. Once it's beyond mere cell division in globule form, and resembles a human form with brain, eyes, beating heart, etc... it's feeling everything.

    As a rule I would say no later than the first trimester:

    http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml

    What a terrible thing to have to do (and think about)... I feel like I need to pray now for some reason.
    But what if its 7.1 weeks and the girl is intent on having it done?.. when does her need outweight the need of the baby?
  • keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    But why if its 7.1 weeks and the girl is intent on having it done?.. when does her need outweight the need of the baby?

    Good question. I don't have an answer.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • rightonduderightondude Posts: 745
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    But why if its 7.1 weeks and the girl is intent on having it done?.. when does her need outweight the need of the baby?

    Well you can't stop people from doing anything...period. As a doctor I would make an assessment of her emotional condition and choose to tell her the implications of her decision and that yes, something inside her is going to feel a great deal of pain, and suffer greatly (unless humane injections can be used).

    It's a wide, wide ocean of where to draw the line. However the bottom line is that she can chuck it in the trash bin after, if she decides to. Or kill herself, or the traditional coathanger method...

    You just can't make decisions for people on this stuff. The question was when is it murder? I say anything after 6-7 weeks is murdering a sentient life form.
  • IWillLiveForeveIWillLiveForeve Posts: 427
    Bush just used his first 'Veto' to negate a bill that would have allowed stem cells to be pulled from embryos. He said it was robbing from a life. I believe he even dragged out kids that were adopted as embryos. He said, and this is the precise quote: "These kids are not spare parts." Weak.
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,026
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    But what if its 7.1 weeks and the girl is intent on having it done?.. when does her need outweight the need of the baby?

    I don't think the intent of the girl factors in here (unless it is life threatening). You're question was when is it murder. For example, killing a one-year old child would be murder. This is because for various reasons a one-year old child is considered a human being. Now, if the mother kills a one-year old, it would be murder, regardless of her intent, right? Just because she really doesn't want the child, it doesn't mean she isn't guilty of murder. So, for a one year old child, the intent of the mother does not factor into whether or not it is murder. So why should it be any different for an unborn baby considered human?

    For example, if the criteria for a fetus to be a human is said to be met at 7.1 weeks (which was your original question), then killing it after this time, regardless of intent, would be murder. Reason being we are saying the fetus is just as much a human at 7.1 weeks as it is as a one-year old.
  • keeponrockinkeeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    IWillLiveForeve wrote:
    Bush just used his first 'Veto' to negate a bill that would have allowed stem cells to be pulled from embryos. He said it was robbing from a life. I believe he even dragged out kids that were adopted as embryos. He said, and this is the precise quote: "These kids are not spare parts." Weak.

    Did anyone watch the Daily Show?
    "Every Life is Precious..."
    (skips to another interview)
    "How many Iraqi civilians died in Iraq"
    "30,000 more or less"

    Makes you wonder
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • rightonduderightondude Posts: 745
    IWillLiveForeve wrote:
    Bush just used his first 'Veto' to negate a bill that would have allowed stem cells to be pulled from embryos. He said it was robbing from a life. I believe he even dragged out kids that were adopted as embryos. He said, and this is the precise quote: "These kids are not spare parts." Weak.

    Yeah and somone pointed in another thread out that Bush should then abolish all animal testing then on the same principle of robbing from life. There are three types of stem cells

    as per wikipedia:
    * Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells found throughout the body that divide to replenish dying cells and regenerate damaged tissues. Also known as somatic (from Greek Σωματικóς, of the body) stem cells, they can be found in children, as well as adults.

    * Embryonic stem cells are cultured cells obtained from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of an early stage human embryo (sometimes called a blastocyst, which is an embryo that is between 50 to 150 cells).

    * Cord blood stem cells are derived from the blood of the placenta and umbilical cord after birth.

    Embryonic are the most controversial due to the fact that fetuses are harvested. Some people cannot handle the concept. However if they are throwing life in the garbage can anyway, why not at least achieve some level of benefit from it.

    To just throw away life instead of learning and benefitting from it is more retarded. I mean we shouldn't start harvesting babies for organs but there are always people that will freak out the situation. Gilrls will start getting knocked up and selling their fetuses or something wierd like that and the whole thing will roll over again...

    Sigh what to do.. I say yes to stem cell even though.
  • IWillLiveForeveIWillLiveForeve Posts: 427
    keeponrockin wrote:
    Did anyone watch the Daily Show?
    "Every Life is Precious..."
    (skips to another interview)
    "How many Iraqi civilians died in Iraq"
    "30,000 more or less"

    Makes you wonder

    Actually, it doesn't make me wonder. This man is a fucking embarrassment. You know that last 'shit' sound bite that made news? What really scared me is not the fact he said 'shit'. What scared me is the sentence he used it in.

    For those who haven't heard it, Tony Blair is talking/whispering to him about how to get another leader to talk/manipulate another leader (this is called politics, don't be shocked) in an effort to ease up aggressions in the mid east. bush looks up at him, and off-handedly says, 'we need to get Hezbollah and Israel to knock this shit off and we'll be OK.'

    OH REALLY DOCTOR? YOU ARE TRULY THE PEACE MAKER. HOW DID WE NOT THINK OF THAT BEFORE? I AM SO FUCKING EMBARRASSED.
  • rightonduderightondude Posts: 745
    IWillLiveForeve wrote:
    Actually, it doesn't make me wonder. This man is a fucking embarrassment. You know that last 'shit' sound bite that made news? What really scared me is not the fact he said 'shit'. What scared me is the sentence he used it in.

    For those who haven't heard it, Tony Blair is talking/whispering to him about how to get another leader to talk/manipulate another leader (this is called politics, don't be shocked) in an effort to ease up aggressions in the mid east. bush looks up at him, and off-handedly says, 'we need to get Hezbollah and Israel to knock this shit off and we'll be OK.'

    OH REALLY DOCTOR? YOU ARE TRULY THE PEACE MAKER. HOW DID WE NOT THINK OF THAT BEFORE? I AM SO FUCKING EMBARRASSED.

    You know what? The funny thing is I think he was all out lying. It was a total bullshit fabrication. This new war is perfectfor the US gov't. It is progression for them. More bargaining chips and angles to swing that mighty axe of power, and carve up the region further.

    There is no fucking way the pentagon and the whitehouse is going to allow the president of the united states to look like a complete ass on national television like that. Mind you he looks like and ass the rest of the time though.

    Think about it. It's a perfect case scenario for the US gov't right now. They are sitting pretty and shit is getting done. sit back and watch and strike deals and keep dangling that carrot or support, and aide, like big brother helping you win a fight from the neighborhood bully. They know the area was ripe to hit and what to do. Don't underestimate a thing.

    Their plan is progressing nicely as intended. Including this little G8 summit thing to appear more UN friendly. Keep your eyes WIIIDE open right now. This is where the plot is given away if you look closely. That's how you can tell a good driver from a bad one - the changing of the gears.


    oh shit sorry this is rediculous Off Topic now....sigh...see what you did? :D
  • IWillLiveForeveIWillLiveForeve Posts: 427
    rightondude wrote:
    You know what? The funny thing is I think he was all out lying. It was a total bullshit fabrication. This new war is perfectfor the US gov't. It is progression for them. More bargaining chips and angles to swing that mighty axe of power, and carve up the region further.

    There is no fucking way the pentagon and the whitehouse is going to allow the president of the united stated to look like a complete ass on national television like that. Mind you he looks like and ass the rest of the time though.

    Think about it. It's a perfect case scenario for the US gov't right now. They are sitting pretty and shit is getting done. sit back and watch and strike deals and keep dangling that carrot. They know the area was ripe to hit and what to do. Don't underestimate a thing.

    Their plan is progressing as nicely as intended. Incluiding this little G8 summit thing to appear more UN friendly. Keep your eyes WIIIDE open right now. This is where the plot is given away if you look closely. That's how you can tell a good driver from a bad one - the changing of the gears.

    Dude, it was an open mike. That fucker doesn't have the ability, nor does his staff, to manipulate an 'accidental' situation. He sounded like a man that doesn't understand a situation, states a solution after looking at a problem for 2 minutes, and doesn't understand why it isn't easy. Remember, this no talent ass clown actually lost money running a MLB team. YOU HAVE TO BE FUCKING RETARDED TO LOSE MONEY OWNING A MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM. THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SHERMAN ACT. THIS MEANS THEY FUNCTION OUTSIDE THE US ANTI-MONOPOLY LAWS. SERIOUSLY, GEORGE W. BUSH DOES NOT HAVE A SINGLE SUCCESS ON HIS RESUME. FIND ONE, AND I WILL DIGRESS.
  • rightonduderightondude Posts: 745
    IWillLiveForeve wrote:
    Dude, it was an open mike. That fucker doesn't have the ability, nor does his staff, to manipulate an 'accidental' situation. He sounded like a man that doesn't understand a situation, states a solution after looking at a problem for 2 minutes, and doesn't understand why it isn't easy. Remember, this no talent ass clown actually lost money running a MLB team. YOU HAVE TO BE FUCKING RETARDED TO LOSE MONEY OWNING A MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM. THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SHERMAN ACT. THIS MEANS THEY FUNCTION OUTSIDE THE US ANTI-MONOPOLY LAWS. SERIOUSLY, GEORGE W. BUSH DOES NOT HAVE A SINGLE SUCCESS ON HIS RESUME. FIND ONE, AND I WILL DIGRESS.

    yeah I know. I could expand on the open mike thing, but were hijacking this thread like gangbusters.

    Hit one of the current bush threads they're everywhere :D I'll be there
  • danmacdanmac Posts: 387
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    I don't think the intent of the girl factors in here (unless it is life threatening). You're question was when is it murder. For example, killing a one-year old child would be murder. This is because for various reasons a one-year old child is considered a human being. Now, if the mother kills a one-year old, it would be murder, regardless of her intent, right? Just because she really doesn't want the child, it doesn't mean she isn't guilty of murder. So, for a one year old child, the intent of the mother does not factor into whether or not it is murder. So why should it be any different for an unborn baby considered human?

    For example, if the criteria for a fetus to be a human is said to be met at 7.1 weeks (which was your original question), then killing it after this time, regardless of intent, would be murder. Reason being we are saying the fetus is just as much a human at 7.1 weeks as it is as a one-year old.


    A one year old child can live without the support of its mother. A foetus can't. Simple concept, really.
    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
    are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
    god-fearing and pious: Aristotle

    Viva Zapatista!
  • danmacdanmac Posts: 387
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    I don't think the intent of the girl factors in here (unless it is life threatening). You're question was when is it murder. For example, killing a one-year old child would be murder. This is because for various reasons a one-year old child is considered a human being. Now, if the mother kills a one-year old, it would be murder, regardless of her intent, right? Just because she really doesn't want the child, it doesn't mean she isn't guilty of murder. So, for a one year old child, the intent of the mother does not factor into whether or not it is murder. So why should it be any different for an unborn baby considered human?

    For example, if the criteria for a fetus to be a human is said to be met at 7.1 weeks (which was your original question), then killing it after this time, regardless of intent, would be murder. Reason being we are saying the fetus is just as much a human at 7.1 weeks as it is as a one-year old.


    Why 7.1 weeks?

    Where does the sanctity of sperm itself come into the equation?

    Am i murderer if i 'kill' sperm when masturbating on to a tissue or withdrawing and letting them flounder on a bedspread? If not, why not. It's alive, it's 'human' by your above mentioned standards.

    Am i murderer?
    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
    are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
    god-fearing and pious: Aristotle

    Viva Zapatista!
  • stonesgstringstonesgstring Posts: 4,613
    It's an individual thing. Some people seem to think it's ok to murder adults, so they blatently wouldn't care.

    Not something you can say is very clear cut.
    20/04/06 ~ 23/08/06 ~ 09/09/06

    14/09/06, 16/09/06, 17/09/06, 19/09/06, 20/09/06 ~ The Stone lookalike leg of the 2006 tour

    18/06/07 - Amazing, just amazing

    04/07/06 ~Proud to be part of the AIC Astoria Crew~

    Rockin' out to Creadles
  • danmacdanmac Posts: 387
    Isn't it weird how a country of people that so vehemently opposes abortion and stem cell research to protect the sanctity of human life, so easily promotes the destruction of thousands of actual living human beings.

    It's psycopathic, if you ask me.

    Bootlegger10, do you support the war in iraq, the war on terror, or the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Gaza?

    And to confirm a point a made above, this is a picture of a dead child, killed by the people (Israel) who are sponsored by and permitted by the people who so vehemently defend the rights of unborn foetuses, to unleash actual destruction on living human beings.

    http://www.videos.informationclearinghouse.info/ragdoll.gif

    Is it becasue these children ARENT americans?
    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
    are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
    god-fearing and pious: Aristotle

    Viva Zapatista!
  • Riot_RainRiot_Rain Posts: 348
    danmac wrote:
    Why 7.1 weeks?

    Where does the sanctity of sperm itself come into the equation?

    Am i murderer if i 'kill' sperm when masturbating on to a tissue or withdrawing and letting them flounder on a bedspread? If not, why not. It's alive, it's 'human' by your above mentioned standards.

    Am i murderer?

    Well, maybe you should save your sperm for 9 months and see if it grows into something?

    ;)

    The thing with sperm is, that the body naturally gets rid of it once there's a certain amount if it. Or else you'd explode. So yeah, a little bit of you dies. I don't think it makes you a murderer. In that case, my involuntary ovulation has to be stopped as well! Let's keep all those eggs inside people!
    Like a cloud dropping rain
    I'm discarding all thought
    I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
    I'm like an opening band for the sun
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    But what if its 7.1 weeks and the girl is intent on having it done?.. when does her need outweight the need of the baby?
    Never.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • danmacdanmac Posts: 387
    know1 wrote:
    Never.


    Why?

    And why are you so interested in interfering with a stranger's life, the free choice of an adult, human being?
    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
    are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
    god-fearing and pious: Aristotle

    Viva Zapatista!
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    keeponrockin wrote:
    Did anyone watch the Daily Show?
    "Every Life is Precious..."
    (skips to another interview)
    "How many Iraqi civilians died in Iraq"
    "30,000 more or less"

    Makes you wonder

    This is very true and the hypocrisy is amazing. That being said, it's not an argument for keeping abortion legal. It's an argument for banning abortion and stopping war.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    danmac wrote:
    Why?

    And why are you so interested in interfering with a stranger's life, the free choice of an adult, human being?

    Because that person is interfering with another stranger's life without giving that other person free choice. And it's not just interfering, it's ENDING that life.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Riot_RainRiot_Rain Posts: 348
    know1 wrote:
    Because that person is interfering with another stranger's life without giving that other person free choice. And it's not just interfering, it's ENDING that life.

    By forcing her to keep the baby, you would be interfering as well... it's not like you're giving the baby more choice.
    Like a cloud dropping rain
    I'm discarding all thought
    I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
    I'm like an opening band for the sun
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    rightondude wrote:
    Really really early. Nothing past week 7. Once it's beyond mere cell division in globule form, and resembles a human form with brain, eyes, beating heart, etc... it's feeling everything.

    As a rule I would say no later than the first trimester:

    http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml

    What a terrible thing to have to do (and think about)... I feel like I need to pray now for some reason.

    I would ask, is it up to us--you, me, anyone--to decide that at any point it's okay to take a life that is progressing and that is not our very own life?

    The mere cells you are speaking of are a new life--the cells are no longer the mother or the father, but a new developing human. Given this, do you still feel that because this life has not developed traits that you feel give it it's humanness, that it is not valid as a developing person?

    I'm not speaking about other issues here, such as limiting choice. I'm speaking to the specific point: do we have the right to end a life that is not our own in the context of abortion?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Riot_RainRiot_Rain Posts: 348
    angelica wrote:
    I'm not speaking about other issues here, such as limiting choice. I'm speaking to the specific point: do we have the right to end a life that is not our own in the context of abortion?

    Nicely put :)

    Looking at it from another angle: this life only exist because of the mother and father. Should we then force people in this position to give their children up for adoption? Surely, this is interfering with life as well...
    Like a cloud dropping rain
    I'm discarding all thought
    I'll dry up, leaving puddles on the ground
    I'm like an opening band for the sun
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    danmac wrote:
    Am i murderer if i 'kill' sperm when masturbating on to a tissue or withdrawing and letting them flounder on a bedspread? If not, why not. It's alive, it's 'human' by your above mentioned standards.

    Am i murderer?

    The flaw in this argument is that a developing fetus is a new life-form that has it's own entirely unique identity. It is not just your sperm, or just the mother's egg. It is a unique identity. You can do what you want with your sperm. Are you entitled to do what you want with a developing unique life that is not your own?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • surfanddestroysurfanddestroy Posts: 2,786
    If somebody gets pregnant and really doesn't want a child it is totaly right to have an abortion, what is the point in bringing more people into this world to be unhappy and unloved.
    Astoria 20/04/06, Leeds 25/08/06, Prague 22/09/06, Wembley 18/06/07,
    Dusseldorf 21/06/07, Manchester 17/08/09, London 18/08/09, LA 06/10/09, LA 07/10/09.

    Ain't gonna be any middle anymore.
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    Riot_Rain wrote:
    Nicely put :)

    Looking at it from another angle: this life only exist because of the mother and father. Should we then force people in this position to give their children up for adoption? Surely, this is interfering with life as well...

    I'm about addressing the root of the issues, so we can make decisions that are healthy and affirming for ourselves. If we ignore that the life we take is a unique life and not our own life, if we minimise the value of this life, we are not making informed decisions in our own best interests.

    I would say we do not force anyone to do anything.

    People have free will, whether we like it or not. I believe in supporting people so that they may come to understand to the best of their ability what choices they have. So they may make informed decisions. The consequences of uninformed decisions can be brutal over a lifetime.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 16,026
    danmac wrote:
    A one year old child can live without the support of its mother. A foetus can't. Simple concept, really.

    The point of my post was that the intent of the mother does not factor into whether or not killing a fetus or child is murder. What does matter is the status of the fetus/child. 7.1 weeks was the arbitrary date that I referenced from the post that I replied to. You need to think more critically when reading these posts because you are really missing the points of them.
  • danmacdanmac Posts: 387
    angelica wrote:
    The flaw in this argument is that a developing fetus is a new life-form that has it's own entirely unique identity. It is not just your sperm, or just the mother's egg. It is a unique identity. You can do what you want with your sperm. Are you entitled to do what you want with a developing unique life that is not your own?


    Its all in the measurement.

    A sperm is, fifty per cent of the human making process. Without them, we'd be (un) f*cked.

    How fare back do we go? 24 weeks, 16 weeks, 7.1 weeks, 2 weeks, a day, the moment? Life is a chain. And for anybody to decide at what point on that chain is the optimum point where life becomes 'life', is ridiculous.

    At what point do we stop?

    And at what point do the same people who support the war(s) and support a total ban on abortion start having equal respect for the life of children all over the globe?

    Ia a hundred dead Iraqi children this week not worth one aborted American foetus?
    A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
    are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
    god-fearing and pious: Aristotle

    Viva Zapatista!
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    danmac wrote:
    Its all in the measurement.

    A sperm is, fifty per cent of the human making process. Without them, we'd be (un) f*cked.

    How fare back do we go? 24 weeks, 16 weeks, 7.1 weeks, 2 weeks, a day, the moment? Life is a chain. And for anybody to decide at what point on that chain is the optimum point where life becomes 'life', is ridiculous.

    At what point do we stop?

    And at what point do the same people who support the war(s) and support a total ban on abortion start having equal respect for the life of children all over the globe?

    Ia a hundred dead Iraqi children this week not worth one aborted American foetus?
    You didn't answer my question: Are you entitled to do what you want with a developing unique life that is not your own?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.