You're welcomeMindFreeza wrote:captain_crunk wrote: A valid arguement on your part, but not relevent to the topic at hand. This is an ETHICS discussion, not a LEGAL discussion. Thank you.
No need to yell. I was referring to the question of whether or not abortion is murder. Murder is a legal term. Also, the study of law does not exist apart from the study of ethics, the two are inter-woven. Not to mention the fact that the person to whom I was addressing chose to rebut the opposite argument from the one I was outlining. Thank you.
Is abortion murder?
-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: March 1st, 2007, 5:45 pm
- Location: Harrisburg, PA
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: March 1st, 2007, 11:22 pm
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: March 12th, 2007, 11:09 pm
Abortion is murder by definition. I'm stamping out the life of something that is growing inside a woman's body. I'm fine with that. I'm against partial birth abortions though, because that's just messed up to me. Anyhoo, I'm fine with the idea of killing that thing. And here's why.
I don't think that an entity which has not developed an identity but is called "human" has the same standing as a human. Why should I consider it a human?
I'm asking this question so that maybe you guess could respond and then I would be forced to defend my opinion, thus eliciting my underlying feelings about the issue for me.
-
- Posts: 74
- Joined: March 13th, 2007, 7:39 pm
- Location: Winston-Salem, North Carolina
- Contact:
Most abortions, by the way, are done way before the fetus is formed that well...and most people who get them done when they're past the 6th month are irrational imbeciles who are putting themselves in serious danger.
People often do not think about the mother's life. They talk about being pro-life, but in the process, ignore life and they ignore life that has the rights. Fetuses do not have rights. They are not individual functioning beings. They are growths inside of a female that can potentially be born. And potential has nothing to do with actual. I'm tired of all the talk from some I've debated with about it potentially will be a human and be born. Unfortunately, the actuality is that it is either a bunch of cells, or a clinging lifeform only there by the choice and right of the mother. Potentiality does not exist without choice...Actuality exists 24/7.
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 7:06 pm
This is not to say I support the murder of a human being. I assume none of us remember being fetuses. I also assume that a fetus would not feel pain or betrayal while being aborted. I don't believe people should ruin their lives because they believe nothing should ever die.
-
- Posts: 202
- Joined: March 7th, 2007, 9:51 pm
-
- Posts: 597
- Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: September 7th, 2007, 11:33 pm
DanteAzreal, I find this comment very confusing. To me, it seems that the potential for a fetus is not the fetus itself, but the gamete cells before the mingling of sex cells. And what is an “individual functioning being.” You use a very specific terminology here, and I want to understand what you precisely mean by “individual,” “functioning,” and “being.” (most especially functioning.) For, if we take the idea of a fetus functioning to the good, a fetus can only be a fetus to the best potentiality that a fetus can; thus, it is good, and has a right to life. In addition, I think your statement that “a potential has nothing to do with the actual” is a fallacious, since there is no way that an actuality can exist if there was never a potentially to begin with. I cannot expect a rock to burn when I throw it in the fire because it never had the potentiality to be a burning object, yet, when I place a log in a fire, it does have the potentiality to burn. Semantics, yes, but it is important.Does the child have the right to be in the womb...Fetuses do not have rights. They are not individual functioning beings. They are growths inside of a female that can potentially be born. And potential has nothing to do with actual.
Thestateimin, I do not find this answer satisfying either, as I see the human person as a more important being, than, say, a skin cell. My skin cell, when it does, never has the capacity for higher-level thinking, producing humanity, or even intelligible communication. To be certain, a zygote or fetus, a collection of cells, does have this capacity. Also, if we assume you are right, we need to see ourselves as no more important than an amoeba, belittling our status as a rational animal.You wouldn't believe how many things each and every one of you kills daily. Every time you have an itch, you kill millions of skin cells that are living.
As for me, I find myself in a grey area between political rights and philosophical belief. In terms of political rights, I believe that a woman has full right over her body and that, if she wants to have an abortion, she ought to have the right. However, I do not necessarily think it is a good thing. Indeed, there are times when a woman’s body, because of particular physiology, will not be able to maintain the health of a child and her own health, that perhaps the mother would prefer her own life to the life of a developing human – and while most cases like this are indeed sad ones (I doubt very highly that most of these parents willingly give up their child), it is understandable why one would choose an abortion. In contrast, when one willingly aborts a fetus, it shows that, more likely than not, that individual did not have a sound moral standard to begin with. When one partakes in intercourse, there is, no doubt, no matter how many precautions you take, the risk of creating a pregnancy. If one partakes in sexual activity, it seems to me, that one should be aware of this risk (sounds like a stupid statement, but it really is not) and be prepared to deal with the circumstances if they exist. As opposed to an easy way out strategy, most people do not think of the implications of what that zygote is, or rather, they dehumanize it to be only a cluster of cells.
Now, we move to the idea of whether a zygote or a fetus is a life or alive. To be certain, the cells are never inert. For myself, I believe that it is fully alive, but only at a very specific point: at the point where the cluster of cells comes to be conscious of itself, or the point of emersion of consciousness. Now, I know there will be debate as to when this happens, but, to be certain, a fetus is aware of certain things while in the womb, and being aware means being actively present, implicating, at least for myself, that the soul has conjoined itself with the body. At this point, the soul, or the organizing principle of the body, exists in conjunction with the body, and this matter-form dichotomy is that of a human. In this way, once soul is meshed with body, it is a human life.
Thus, what it comes down to, for myself, is that, in most cases, choosing an abortion is ignoring a specific moral and ethical system, implying that “since the government says it is okay/not okay, it is okay/not okay.” If they actually looked at the being inside of themselves as a living being, or even the potentiality for a living being, they would probably be a lot more critical of the situation. Perhaps it would be better to carry the fetus to term, and then give the child up for adoption, but even that becomes hard, because there is an attachment to a real, living person, both in the mother and the father; but even then, there would not be a wasted life or potential for life.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: November 13th, 2007, 8:47 pm
- Location: test
-
- Posts: 597
- Joined: September 5th, 2007, 4:25 am
- Contact:
In the same way? Yes, indeed.NSUSA wrote:Abortion may be murder in the same way killing animals for food is murder or taking antibiotics to kill bacteria is murder.
The woman is not a slave to anything growing inside of her, whether it is a brainless and nerveless human embryo or a bacterial infection.
Not murder.
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: December 18th, 2007, 3:06 pm
- strike
- Posts: 27
- Joined: December 15th, 2007, 2:40 pm
- Location: london, Ontario
i agree how can a woman be slave to something inside of her, as well saying abortion is murder is like saying spermicide or a condom or birth control are murder weaponsInvictus_88 wrote:In the same way? Yes, indeed.NSUSA wrote:Abortion may be murder in the same way killing animals for food is murder or taking antibiotics to kill bacteria is murder.
The woman is not a slave to anything growing inside of her, whether it is a brainless and nerveless human embryo or a bacterial infection.
Not murder.
- Samhains
- Posts: 193
- Joined: December 15th, 2007, 2:56 pm
strike wrote:i agree how can a woman be slave to something inside of her, as well saying abortion is murder is like saying spermicide or a condom or birth control are murder weaponsInvictus_88 wrote: In the same way? Yes, indeed.
Not murder.
Strike..A woman is not slave to the embro inside her..she is HOST to it and must nurture it not see it as a growth or bacteria.
Killing sperm is killing live DNA, like the egg is DNA, but both together using the spark of life generate life..like three links in a chain or a holy trinity..with out one there is no other..
there must be both mixed to spark the life..like two flint rocks, you need two to make the third..life, spark..once the egg is fertilized it is alive..no matter how small..
have you ever seen a red spider? or a zeba jumping spider? just think how small their babys are, befor they hatch from the web nest...we see them moving inside..like we do our own babys in the mother..
Do not be fooled by the size of the embreo..for life comes in all shapes and sizes.
Remember the spark of life, the unity of deulity between the sperm and the egg, once the unity is complete, the spark of life is present.
Thus alive!
- strike
- Posts: 27
- Joined: December 15th, 2007, 2:40 pm
- Location: london, Ontario
but as long as it is apart of her and not independant the woman can choose to kill the life inside of her
a little blunt, but its the way it is, if i were female i would want the ability(to abort) if needed
- Samhains
- Posts: 193
- Joined: December 15th, 2007, 2:56 pm
There is still no need to abort..you've made so sence you say that she has no control over her own body. To but it "blunty" as you said it -she opend her legs and got some* Period. It is a well known fact that a woman can only get pregnent on a particular week of her menstol cycle..SO she knows the times she is at risk of pregnacy..SHE chose to have sex =sex is a risk of getting pregnant..she has full control over if she has sex or not.. THUS control..if she choses to have sex she must except the enevitable concequence..of getting pregnant..aan abortion is some one who is not excepting the concequence of their actions...strike wrote:the woman is yes a host, but does have control over there own body wether or not there is something living in her it is hers until it is born and no longer apart of her
but as long as it is apart of her and not independant the woman can choose to kill the life inside of her
a little blunt, but its the way it is, if i were female i would want the ability(to abort) if needed
A rape victum is a differnt story. But some one who CHOOSES to have sex THUS had CHOICE...
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023