At what stage does abortion become murder?

know1 · July 2006

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.

Riot_Rain · July 2006

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.

angelica · July 2006

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?

Riot_Rain · July 2006

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...

angelica · July 2006

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?

surfanddestroy · July 2006

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.

angelica · July 2006

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.

bootlegger10 · July 2006

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.

danmac · July 2006

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?

angelica · July 2006

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?

know1 · July 2006

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?

But if we're unsure of the point of the genesis of life, shouldn't we err on the side of NOT MURDERING? I guess that just seems like common sense to me and nobody else.

The war arguments go both ways. At what point do people who oppose the war and are pro-abortion start having equal respect for the life of children all over the globe?

The only consistent answer is to be against war and against abortion.

bootlegger10 · July 2006

danmac wrote:

Why?

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

Why are you so interested in killing a child instead of a woman being inconvenienced for 9 months because of choices she made?

danmac · July 2006

bootlegger10 wrote:

Why are you so interested in killing a child instead of a woman being inconvenienced for 9 months because of choices she made?

Which child?

How about this. A woman doesnt want the mixture of sperm and eggs in her womb, then the government can look after it, or the pro-life campaigns can. Remove the foetus, see how far it survives. Simple, really.

danmac · July 2006

angelica wrote:

You didn't answer my question: Are you entitled to do what you want with a developing unique life that is not your own?

How do you mean, "that is not my own?"

Human beings are, or should be, free to do whatever they want with regards their own bodies. If the mother didnt exist, the foetus wouldn't. But the mother exists without the foetus. The mother comes first, middle and last.

angelica · July 2006

danmac wrote:

Its all in the measurement.

I agree totally.

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.

If sperm is 50% of a human, when you add sperm and egg, what do you get? You get a new life. How far back do we go? How about to where the new life begins? It's not like we can just ascribe the beginning of life to it and declare life beginning at, say, when the life develops feelings. The new life begins when the new life does begin. When two individual cells from two separate people come together and create a synapse that sparks the beginning of a new life, it's pretty clear what is happening.

danmac · July 2006

angelica wrote:

I agree totally.

If sperm is 50% of a human, when you add sperm and egg, what do you get? You get a new life. How far back do we go? How about to where the new life begins? It's not like we can just ascribe the beginning of life to it and declare life beginning at, say, when the life develops feelings. The new life begins when the new life does begin. When two individual cells from two separate people come together and create a synapse that sparks the beginning of a new life, it's pretty clear what is happening.

So a sperm swimming, fighting its way to the egg, is not 'alive', is not 'life'?

Its all about the bending of degrees. The argument against abortion, i mean.

If we accept sperm is life, the start of life, then today, well last night actually, i was a mass murderer, responsible for the detahs of millinos of, not children, but little lives, pre-foetuses, whatever you want to call them.

Call the UN, get a resolution passed, get my house invaded. I'm a genocidal maniac.

angelica · July 2006

danmac wrote:

How do you mean, "that is not my own?"

Human beings are, or should be, free to do whatever they want with regards their own bodies. If the mother didnt exist, the foetus wouldn't. But the mother exists without the foetus. The mother comes first, middle and last.

I agree, humans are free to do what they like. I'm a female. I do what I want with my body.

I have the right to have an abortion, legal or otherwise, because I have free will.

If I choose to end the life of a unique developing human being who is dependent on me for survival while unborn, am I accountable for taking that life--a life that is not my own? Is it a morally sound thing to do? Do I put my right to choose over the right of the developing human to live? Is doing so the ethical choice?

danmac · July 2006

angelica wrote:

I agree, humans are free to do what they like. I'm a female. I do what I want with my body.

I have the right to have an abortion, legal or otherwise, because I have free will.

If I choose to end the life of a unique developing human being who is dependent on me for survival while unborn, am I accountable for taking that life--a life that is not my own? Is it a morally sound thing to do? Do I put my right to choose over the right of the developing human to live? Is doing so the ethical choice?

That life is your own, in a not so roundabout way. Without you, it could not survive. Without it, you are alive and well.

It's not about being morally sound. When a woman chooses to abort a foetus, she does so after weighing up the balance of what life would be like for that child. A small percentage of abortions are for 'convenience' purposes, the majority are due to economic. I see the far right attacks upon abortion as nothing more than an attack on the poor of America. Look at the percentages of how many abortions are taken by afro-american women, compared to white. Working class to middle class, etc.

Ethichs don't come into it at all. If a woman decides she cannot provide for a child in the manner she would like to, which would be detrimental to that child's life, then she decides against bringing that childinto the world. And that choice should be hers, and hers alone.

So Cruel · July 2006

surfanddestroy wrote:

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.

That is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. Are saying that everyone who's adopted is unhappy & unloved? I'd like you to talk to my cousin who has raised and loved her 3 adopted children.

angelica · July 2006

danmac wrote:

That life is your own, in a not so roundabout way.

Very interesting. So because this new life would be in my body, even though it possesses it's very own DNA, completely separate from me, you think the life is my own? Do you mean because it's in my "possession"? Or because it happens to be inside my body instead of outside of it? It sounds like you are saying because it is dependant upon me for survival that it is therefore my life, even though it is an entirely unique person unto itself. I'd like to hear some other opinions from others out there.

It's not about being morally sound. ...
Ethichs don't come into it at all.

So you are saying that when it comes to deciding what is "right" or "wrong" for the individual, in making an important life decision such as this that it's not about ethics or about morals? I wonder, then, what you think ethical/moral decisions are about.

At what stage does abortion become murder?

Comments

Categories