Abortion vs Murder: The Line is Officially Blurry

[Balog]

Seenterman:

First, I don't think you've any room to whinge about people's tone given your brief but "colorful" history here.

Second, why are you prevailing on us to show some type of "proof" that 51% of pro-deather's feel a certain way? You assume they don't then rail on about our lack of proof. Show us yours and we'll show you ours.

Last, you want a list of people who are ok with this sort of thing? Howza bout: the doctors who perform partial birth abortions, the nurses who assist them, the hospital admins who allow it, the Planned Parenthood worker who recommends it to the mom, the lawmakers who voted to keep it legal, the lobbyists who tried to talk more policritters into voting that way, and all the rank n' file who supported those people and orgs. I can't give an exact % of the overall pro-death community those groups make up, but I'd be willing to wager it's a far more substantial number than you want to admit.

[AZRedhawk44]

Please do not think Pro-Choice people want this, or are anywhere near supporting this. The baby took a breath on his/her own, that means he/she was alive and capable of living on his own. The very definition that Pro-Choice supporters use as the mark of human life.

My little brother was on a heart monitor for the first 18 months of his life.

He was also on a respirator for a few days when he first prematurely popped out.

Was he not alive?

[Balog]

Your Mom wanted him, so he was alive. If she hadn't he would be "potential life."

Ain't moral relativism grand?

[Seenterman]

Sooo, if it's breathing on it's own, it's alive; but if the baby is getting it's breath through it's mother it's not?  I'm confused.  What about people on ventilators, are they alive?  Does your soul magically enter your body when you take your first breath?  What about if you draw the baby out of the mother, but kill it just before it has a chance to take it's first breath?  Is that OK?

Do you believe abortion is unethical?  Would you reccomend someone get one?

You make some good points, but you miss THE point--which is, a life is a life, whether it is in the womb or breathing on its own. That is what makes abortion wrong, not some semantical difference over whether it is really "alive" by a definition set up by the abortionists.

I will concur that the article needs more detail about the situation in question, but the issue remains the same.

Wow you guys debate like its 1930 and abortion is illegal. Get with the program abortion is legal, all of you missed the point. Im not going to argue Roe Vs. Wade all over again because the decision is already made.

But to answer your questions Yes I do think abortion is unethical to a degree, bringing a child into this world you can not take care of is also unethical to a degree.

Would I recomend someone get one, Thats the mothers decision ultimatly and im a male, but yes I would suggest it as an option if the mother did not / could not keep the baby.

The baby was already born, out of the mothers womb and breathing. It was then killed. This wasn't an abortion, abortions happen inside the womb. Im not going to argue partial birth abortions because I dont support them but im not going to agree with the general tone that "All abortions are bad". Morally maybe but its not your choice its the mothers.

[Balog]

Geez guys, get with the program. The Supreme Court already decided slavery is legal. I'm not gonna debate that with you. Is slavery unethical? To a degree maybe, but who are you to deprive a man of his property?

[AZRedhawk44]

The baby was already born, out of the mothers womb and breathing. It was then killed. This wasn't an abortion, abortions happen inside the womb. Im not going to argue partial birth abortions because I dont support them but im not going to agree with the general tone that "All abortions are bad". Morally maybe but its not your choice its the mothers.

If that's your belief, then you are seriously messed up.

I could stuff you inside an elephant's womb and icepick your head in and call it an abortion, under that definition.

The only scant ground you possibly have to differentiate between abortion and murder, is disconnecting the fetus/child from the uterus and bringing it out into the world.  Once you start stabbing the head to intentionally FORCE it to be nonviable, you are murdering.

A clump of cells scraped off the uterus at 2 months is one thing (and still quite arguable).

A 2-3 pound human shape that has muscle contractions, brain activity, pulse and respiratory capacity should not be forcibly stabbed and executed, whether in the womb or out of it.

[Gewehr98]

Gentlemen (and I use that term loosely...),

We will play nice in this thread.

Abortion threads are one of those few things that give forum staff migraine headaches.

I'm all for minimizing the pain to the overpaid hired hands around here, but I'll let the thread live for the time being - but only if we use our indoor voices, Capiche?

Otherwise, to the bit bucket it goes, and unheeded repeated warnings to certain members for not abiding by forum rules will result in their user accounts winding up in that very same bit bucket.

I trust I've made myself clear on this matter.

[One of Many]

What is life? When is something alive? I say that life is the process of taking in nourishment from the surrounding environment, and growing new cells, and reproducing cells as they deteriorate and die. Animal life and plant life achieve this by different methods, but the result is similar and easily recognizable. We know when something has died, because it soon rots and decays away to fertilizer.

Once we accept that a human life is taking in nourishment from it's environment (the womb of the mother), and growing new cells and regenerating cells as it develops, we have to ask when that human achieves a legal status as a person. The gist of the abortion argument is that a human baby at any stage of development is not a person if it has not been separated by natural processes from the womb, and person-hood is only available for those babies that have drawn breath after exiting the womb. This argument allows people to artificially open the womb and destroy the baby before it draws air outside the womb. It allows instruments to be inserted into the womb to achieve the same result. These operations deliberately end the life of a human being, sometimes prior to that baby being able to sustain life with assistance outside the womb, and sometimes well after the baby is capable of sustaining life with assistance outside the womb. What is so magical about the ability to breath air, that we force the definition of person-hood to depend on that ability. We have medical situations where adults are kept on respirators in order to maintain their life - do these people lose their status as persons due to inability to breath without external assistance? NO. Then why does a baby have to be able to breath independently in order to receive status as a person?

The double standard when it comes to human life and animal life is simply amazing. We pass laws to protect the EGGS of birds, fish and amphibians from human predation and interference in the life cycle of that species. We say that endangered species should be protected to prevent extinction of the species, yet we allow human life to be exterminated like vermin, for little or no reason. What makes the egg of some non-human life more precious than a human life? Why do we say a non-person animal life has more rights than a non-person (legally speaking) human life? I personally believe that a human at any stage of development should have the same rights of person-hood as any human that has been born and is breathing on it's own, whether assisted or not. Once the human egg has been fertilized by the human sperm, a complete human individual is developing. To say it is OK to destroy that individual as long as it has not achieved some arbitrary ability to sustain itself without assistance from the parent is fallacious. If that argument is followed, we could allow parents to starve their infants and small children to death and call it abortion.

[mtnbkr]

My brother was 2 months premature, the result of an accidentally induced early labor from a fall.  He's 24 years old now.

Both me and my brother were born 2 months premature.  I had a heart defect, he caught meningitis in NICU and ended up having a stroke. 

I'm 35, have an MBA, and am a semi-serious cyclist.  Bro turns 30 this year and just got his Masters of Library Science. 

Indeed, that's why there really is no justification for late-term abortion. If it was a "life of the mother" issue, such as severe preclampsia, or internal bleeding, the proper medical answer would be a C-section to get the baby out anyway. In most any case you can imagine, a vaginal delivery is always more dangerous.

My wife developed preclampsia towards the end of Thing 2's term.  Because of that and because the baby appeared to be under stress, they did a C-section two days later.  Other than being a bit underweight, Thing 2 is alive and well.

Chris

[Blakenzy]

The problem is that fetuses don't get to vote!
 
A lot of the debate concerning abortion is about when the  baby/fetus/or "tissue growth" actually achieves "consciousness", or when must it be extended the same rights as bonafide humans :rolleyes:

One could argue that before the CNS develops, the organism cannot attain consciousness. Others might say that from conception the embryo is embodied with a soul. I believe we will never be able to gauge what mental or behavioral processes constitute a Human Being. If so, what pattern of brain activity will be accpted as humanity? 

If mental processes and intelligence are what make us human, then how much intelligence is required? If a fetus is not human because it lacks adult-like intelligence, then what stops us from extending that to mentally challenged individuals? Should we destroy them ala Third Reich or use them as unpaid labor and keep them in pig pens?

Well, one thing is sure though, and this cannot be disputed: as soon as the zygote is formed, a new, original and unique DNA sequence is created. This human DNA, a form of ID accepted in courts around the world as evidence of one's existence, does not belong to the mother or father, but to a third, separate individual. I believe that that in itself grants recognition of the "growing tissue" as a true Human.

One day society is going to look back at the "OMG I was so drunk but he/she was so hot and we did it in the club's bathroom" abortions and realize just how criminal we were.

That being said, I believe exceptions should be made for rape/incest/sexual molestation of children, through, and only through a genuine court order. Abortion should never be allowed as routine birth control for the lazy, careless or ignorant; there are too many other forms of effective devices to avoid pregnancy.

[Hawkmoon]

I'll never understand why it is legal to have an abortion (one out of convenience, that is), yet killing a mother and baby gets is two counts of murder.  Obviously, the latter is the correct view.  How come they aren't consistent?

Why is the latter "obviously" the correct view? It isn't obvious to me.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The baby took a breath on his/her own, that means he/she was alive and capable of living on his own. The very definition that Pro-Choice supporters use as the mark of human life.
 
no  for all the reasons so ably listed before this


"This wasn't an abortion, abortions happen inside the womb. Im not going to argue partial birth abortions because I dont support them but im not going to agree with the general tone that "All abortions are bad". Morally maybe but its not your choice its the mothers. "


nice dodge  partial birth abortions do happen and are legal and are abortions  but you aren't gonna argue that . nice moral position

how about if after a while the mom wants to off herself?  why is that illegal and a partial birth abortion is kosher?


and that drivel about bringing an unwanted baby into the world?  you try to adopt recently?  wonder why folks pay big bucks to go overseas and adopt?  the babys are wanted  just an inconvienience to someone.   and of course many of those whop made that choice have to support it now  or face the realization they made a mistake.  funny thing i work with recovering addicts, amongst the ladies you would be amazed how many of them regard making that "choice" as a turning point in their life. and how many describe the feelings as a result as being a lifelong albatross around their neck. gotta hear em talk 10 or more years later about "today would be my babys birthday"   funny how the feminist sisters are there for the medical procedure  but long gone for the aftermath. sometimes the babies life isn't the only one sacrificed

[Gewehr98]

nice dodge  partial birth abortions do happen and are legal and are abortions  but you aren't gonna argue that . nice moral position

Enough.

A subtle hint for future threads - attack the argument, not the individual.