Continued from http://www.progressiveu.org/024736-step-step-argument-abortion-introduction
The main argument against abortion is that the xygote/embryo/fetus is, in fact, a person, and killing an innocent person = murder. If indeed it's murder, then the argument for or against abortion changes completely - it becomes an argument about when it's okay to kill an innocent person to save your life, and it automatically makes any abortions not medically necessary "murder".
The definition of "person" is a bit difficult. According to the dictionary, a person is a human being, but what about other sentient creatures? Books that feature sentient fantasy creatures or extra-terrestrials typically refer to them as people as well. So let's redefine "person" as "a sentient being." This could potentially include some animals, such as dolphins and whales, but that's a different argument.
I define a sentient being as a being that can not only feel physical pain, but also has emotions. It is concious and self-aware. Killing a sentient being is murder, unless done in self-defense (you might consider that "justifiable murder". It's a matter of semantics, really).
So, is an unborn human sentient?
Let's take a look at fetal development, step by step.
First you have the sperm and the ovum. Each contains a big chunk of human DNA and is typically considered a form of human life, though a very, very incomplete one. Shortly after the sperm fertilizes the ovum, and a new entity is created - the xygote.
Could the xygote be considered sentient? It is a tiny blob of matter. It has no recognizable body, no nervous system or brain or organs. It's a little bundle of cells and DNA - nothing that would be considered "sentient".
If the xygote is very lucky, it will manage to develop into an embryo. At three weeks the embryo's about the size of a pencil point and resembles a very, very tiny worm. Its heart starts beating at this time. Does a heartbeat somehow make it sentient? No. It was "alive" (much in the sense that bacteria, etc are "alive") before its heart began to beat - nothing changed except it now has a new organ.
At seven weeks the embryo is starting to look human. Sort of. Vaguely. It's about half an inch long but if you take a microscope and look at its face, it'll look sort of vaguely mammal-ish. It's kind of human shaped - it has a head and a torso and little beginnings of arms and legs. At this point it develops pain receptors - however, it still cannot feel pain as its brain is not yet developed.
At ten weeks the embryo is a fetus. It still has no higher brain fuction and no conciousness. At thirteen weeks it's about three inches long and weighs maybe an ounce. 90% of abortions are performed before the thirteenth week.
At twenty-two weeks things start to get a little more questionable (though in most places abortion is only very rarely allowed after the twentieth week). The fetus's lungs may be developed enough that it has a miniscule chance of surviving outside the womb with very intensive medical care. The survival rate is about 14%. The rate for survival without brain damage is around 7%. However, the fetus is still not sentient. It has a body and a brain but it has no feeling, no awareness, no conciousness.
At twenty-six weeks, the higher brain functions turn on. The fetus can feel pain and pleasure. It has brain waves. It's concious, feeling, and aware - thus, sentient. At that point, abortion might be considered murder, unless it was done in self-defense to save the mother's life (and personally I think the life of an intelligent and highly self-aware being comes before that of a being that not even capable of thought).
Let's run over a few facts.
52% of abortions in the USA are performed before the ninth week. That is, they are performed before the embryo is even a fetus. The thing that is killed has less self-awareness than an earthworm. In fact, it has NO self-awareness at all. Nor can it feel pain - or anything. As said above, 90% are performed before the 13th week - when as far as self-awareness, the fetus is still far below the earthworm. Only 1.4% are performed on or after the twenty-first week - typically only when the mother's life is in serious danger, i.e., in self-defense.
So please, what's all this fuss about abortion being murder? It's not murder when I kill a virus in my body or if I step on an ant or swat a mosquito - so why is it "murder" to kill something that does not even have a brain? That can't feel pain? That has no thoughts, no awareness, no conciousness? How can that "life" be compared to that of a thinking, feeling, suffering person?
Sources: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm
http://abortionfacts.com/statistics/gestation.asp
Please feel free to discuss and debate - however, please do so with respect, and try not to back out in the middle of an argument. Also, please try to keep the debate to whether or not a xygote/embryo/fetus is a sentient being and if killing it is murder or not. Staying on topic is a GOOD thing at times, really.
And if you enjoyed this post (or didn't enjoy it, but thought it was well-written), please rate it! :)
Should get plenty of comments on this one, haha. I'm one that's completely for abortion within the first 9 weeks, and my main argument is this: if you can't decide in that amount of time you shouldn't be allowed to make the decision at all, and to be a person (which would grant murder) you would have to be a thinking thing, and there is nothing within a 9 week old fetus that is capable of thinking.
Wait, why nine weeks? A fetus can't think for twenty-six weeks, so what's with the nine-week cut-off?
A girl/woman may not be able to make such a huge decision in nine weeks. She may not even realize she's pregnant by then, if her periods aren't always regular or if she thinks she just missed one because of stress or something.
They typically give abortions at or before the 9th week because it is lessed developed. They can either give you medicines that kill it like a viral infection or clean your uterus and actually scoop it out. The second way, it just looks like a dustball.
I think that murder is murder no matter what stage the baby is in. If you didn't want the child to begin with, you probably should not have been having unprotected sex or sex completely. Some say that it was an accident, but i say that every action has its consequence. If you are thinking about getting an abortion, close ur legs and not have sex. It is simple, it doesn't take a brainer to figure this out. Your mother didn't abort you so don't abort your daughter/son.
I think that murder is murder no matter what stage the baby is in.
Why?
And if so, is swatting a mosquito murder?
If you didn't want the child to begin with, you probably should not have been having unprotected sex or sex completely.
What about married women who don't want another child?
I strongly recommend you read this: http://www.progressiveu.org/061328-step-step-argument-abortion-teen-sex-...
I just want to follow comments, and don't know how to subscribe other than by commenting. I did rate though.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
Love those ratings. :D
In my humble opinion, murder has little to do with statistics like 9 months; 3 inches long; or one ounce in weight. The real tragedies come when a child is basically unwanted and when uncaring parents bring one into the world in the first place, not really realizing that the child is going to be effecting total and profound changes in their relationship with each other for the next 18+ years.
A child who is basically not wanted is murdered emotionally and spiritually every day of her life, because she has needs much more vital than what you can meet by things you can buy --- food, water, shelter --- needs for more vital things that go unmet.
In that case it will not matter if you are "killing" "someone" who weighs one ounce or who weighs 100 pounds: to be ignored and feel unloved and unwanted and to become convinced you don't matter and never will, and your dreams don't matter and they never will --- and unable to purge out of those sets of toxins --- is just as lethal and probably more lethal to the mulberry of cells or to the, say, nine-year-old or 16-year-old involved --- than is, say, a D&C or a noose made from a belt or a scarf.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon
That was some powerful stuff.
Not to mention all the cases we hear about little kids getting beaten to death or shaken to death by their parents or stepparents. I wonder sometimes after hearing some of those stories, would abortion have been a less gruesome and painful experience for those lives?
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
From what I've seen, there's a lot of fascinating biomedical research going on, pointed toward what an unborn child feels and what it does not: something as simple or as complex as a change in the pH of amniotic fluid, for example, and the reaction to that, or the nonreaction to that. Of course it comes down to a definition of what "feeling" is --- as Ki points out. This is science on an objective basis, quite apart from moral essays or legal proscriptions or religious decrees.
Of interest is the approach that a pregnant mom can do an extensive number of things to control and shape the development [or, the non-development] of her child as she is carrying it to term. If you can posit the idea of "programming" a later behavior pattern into a pre-born child, then you assume that some kind of system exists within the mulberry / embryo / fetus that can receive that programming.
"Remembering Your Life Before Birth", by Michael Gabriel
"The Secret Life of Your Unborn Child", by Thomas Verny. Verny is a physician.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." : Joe Gideon
In a weird way, when somone gets an abortion, they kind of are killing a person. They are killing a little person and a part of themselves.The person that I mentioned on my other post felt bad as hell weeks later after she got the abortion. What did she do to ease her mind? Go get really drunk, party and then just try to get over it. It wasn't that easy for her to get over but day by day seemed to get better for her. Now you would think she wouldn't do it again but she did. It is wrong no matter how much you try to cover it's flaws. Most women try to hurry up and get the abortion within a few weeks because they don't need that "thing" showing a bump on their stomach. Yes they do medically try to make women get a abortion when the baby gets stuck in their tubes. So is it right for that women to think about herself? Because doctors say if she does not terminate her (eptopic) pregnancy, then she and the baby will die. So who do you trust? Yourself or the doctor?
An embryo is not a "little person."
In a case of ectopic pregnancy, of course I'd trust the doctor. Ectopic pregnancies are ALWAYS FATAL. x.x
f you trust yourself over competent medical advice, you can trust yourself [and babykins] right into the next world, depending on what your beliefs are.
Of course, I'd get a second opinion. When a Fallopian tube ruptures for that reason, two fatalities are quite likely...if IMMEDIATE medical intervention does not happen.
Two other therapeutic words: (1) contraception; (2) adoption.
The first gets you out of the situation before you get into it. The second grants your baby life with foster parents who want her, and that is just as much a birthright as the ability to breathe and yowl about it, in my opinion.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting. " :Joe Gideon
I love your point. I've tried arguing the same idea to people, but its hard for them to get past the idea its murder to kill a child.
Children will always invoke strong emotions in people. And most people consiter the fetus, no matter what age, as a child.
As for abortions done to save the mother, people are far more understanding. Even the church accepts abortion for this. They too agree that the mother comes first, before this child which may never make it to birth. They understand that when beeing with child threatens the mothers life, its pointless to keep the child. If you keep the child both the mother and the child shes caring die. If the child is aborted then the mother can survive.
Its not murder to kill something thats unaware of life. Its a hard point to make, but if people were able to look at the situation with pure logic, they would see that what your saying is absolutly the truth.
Very well written!
"...so why is it "murder" to kill something that does not even have a brain?"
I like that you chose to use the word "kill" in that sentence. I think it shows guts, and it totally helps the entire point.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
I like this post a lot. It's really good.
The main argument against abortion is that the xygote/embryo/fetus is, in fact, a person, and killing an innocent person = murder. If indeed it's murder, then the argument for or against abortion changes completely - it becomes an argument about when it's okay to kill an innocent person to save your life, and it automatically makes any abortions not medically necessary "murder".
I reject the anti-choice framing of abortion as an act of violence against an innocent party. Having sex is not illegal. Women suffering with unwanted pregnancies are completely innocent people. They did nothing to warrant heavy-handed government intrusion in to their private parts.
Pregnancy is harmful to women. Every pregnancy carries health risks (far more than early abortion). Every pregnancy has side effects. Every pregnancy is a burden on a woman, that changes her entire life. Pregnancy is one of the biggest responsibilities a human being can undertake. Every abortion is an act of self-defense. That's why abortion bans do not work.
Well said, t-park!!
The trillion or so cells that are programmed into making a baby follow immensely complex patterns of development. It's amazing that in many cases, things DO go correctly and healthy babies are born.
I'm not sure that I agree with "every abortion is an act of self-defense" -- but many of them surely are. Spontaneous abortions [generated by nature not med people] certainly are.
In the heat of abortion discussions, the rights of the mother are frequently ignored or marginalized, and that is appalling. Fathers, too!
I think that considering how little we actually know on a factual basis regarding this, it's best to keep abortion to a bare minimum. Politically, I'm not opposed to first trimester abortion. However, one should always be skeptical of scientific reasoning and explanations because personal gain as well as general misconceptions occur frequently in the scientific fields.
...I am not skeptical of scientific FACTS that have been proven time and time again.
...and by different researchers, too. Scientific research methodology is very complicated and painstaking, and those who do it know exactly what to avoid in terms of subjective bias. They even have to report on the shortcomings of their own research and identify needs for further investigation that lie beyond the scope of what their own studies are designed to explore.
Well. That's an involved way of saying that scientists have to watch their ass or their reputations go down the drain and their careers can end, quite suddenly.
The people most skeptical of research on pre-birth condiions are other researchers, not us. They repeat the research to find out if they get the same results. We benefit from their thoroughness.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon
For the past 5 years, I have been living in an Independent, Fundamental, Conservative Baptist home...can you see where this going?
Of course, Abortion=Sensless Murder and Selfishness in my household.
Ironically, I have had an abortion and am still a member of the church...not by choice.
Being 17 years old and having religion forced is obviously a very idiotic mix, but try explaining that to those with the Iron Fist.
I had no regrets about my abortion, even when everybody from every angle in my life tried so hard to tell me no. I, on the other hand, am not going to follow my Mother's footsteps. I refused to be a teen mother, I refuse to be another Stereo-typical Latina woman having babies because I have breasts and hormones. I have a mind, I have a personality, and I would be damned if those were going to be thwarted or changed by a child that I am not prepared to raise. I feel that it was a great decision, but I am still human. All these emotionally targeted commercials and billboards. Having to hear preaching against it. The things that are said in these sermons would make any human feel little. Why should I, as a free, American, of age person have to hear all of this and be cut down day after day. I have told only a few people close to me. There's no way in the world I would ever tell my mother or stepfather. I am not even supposed to have sex until I am married, or I am a, and I quote: "Loose, wordly woman that no one will ever love like the Lord would have us to be loved...", yea-great right?
So I really do appreciate an open view and a stand up for those of us that can't openely stand for what we believe. Or say how we truly feel. It helps more than I can express.
Thank You for your intelligent approach and factual blog.
"Sometimes you need to forget how you feel, and remember what you DESERVE."
-Maca
Sounds like you are remarkably intelligent for someone who's grown up in such an oppressive household. *applause*
...is what this is all about. It's great that you escaped all the damage of the Iron Fist and I wanna stand right up with Kiota and applaud you too!
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is just waiting." :Joe Gideon
I love how you back up your stance with scientific facts and logic - it's really hard to beat down that, though people still try :).
I couldn't agree with you more and I'm glad that there are people still out there who can talk about their beliefs and opinions with intelligence.
Alright so your trying to determine if aborting would be murder in certain stages of abortion, right?
One huge thing you missed out on, which to me is what should be the only controversy, is if humans have souls...
Conception= thats when soul is made, that is if you're assuming God is real.
so therefore if you're God fearing, then killing that embryo, fetus. etc. etc. at any stage is murder. And in my opinion of the worst kind. I mean really your taking the ONLY completly harmless inocent thing in the world, and destroying it.
But whatever... moving on
let's say you don't beleive in God, Then yes I would say it is relevant to discuss stages or development of the fetus or whatever, becuae then that "soul' isn't there and you have to make sure it's not murder according to the law. So hey if your agnostic or atheist etc., then all these points are pretty valid or relevant.
But...lets hit the facts.
NO ONE knows or can prove that God does or does not exist.
Therefore, there might, or might NOT be a soul.
Therefore since we cannot disprove God or that the human "SOUL" exists, then all that other garbage is irrelvant.
We might be killing babies. We might be destroying the only innocent humans. And by the butt load!!!
I think since you can't disprove that your killing innocent souls, than we shouldn't be aborting...EVER!
Honestly....think about it.
alternative # 1 --- we find out that God isn't real ( I personally think He is up there) and all this time we have been missing out on all this baby killing!!! gosh darn it!!!!
alternative #2 --- we have been proceeding with the baby Holocaust and have complelty legalized abortion...then Oh wait, jugdement day comes and we realize that we have been behaving WAY WAY worse than HITLER. We're actually making him look like Mary Poppins and we all suffer the consequeces. Not only of God, but the mere fact that all this time we have been living unjustly, and I for one thought that that was the point of these great UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?!?!?!?
You're assuming the soul is made with conception. I believe in God, Jesus too, and I don't believe that, just like I don't believe abortion is murder.
p.s. I am not the writer. I was just throwing in one opinion.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
You are assuming too many unprovable things for this to even be an argument.
1) There is/are (a) god, gods, intelligent thingy.
2) God, gods, intelligent thingy care(s) about what humans do.
3) You know what god, gods, intelligent thingy want(s) us to do.
4) God, gods, intlligent thingy want(s) us to keep humans alive.
5) God, gods, intlligent thingy defines human as something given a soul at contraception.
6) We're all in deep shit if god, gods, intelligent thingy find(s) out that we are killing what it/they define(s) as human.
If you could prove any one of those then we might be getting somewhere, but as you cannot, let's leave the debating to rationality.
T.k.
Your argument is that since we can't disprove the existence of God we should all be running around in fear that we might be pissing it/him/her off and stop doing whatever it is we're doing. That's not an argument. What else should we not do because God may or may not exist? What about Allah? Maybe he exists, maybe he doesn't. Maybe I should be a Muslim just in case.
It's totally illogical.
We don't know if animals have souls. We might be committing murder every time we kill an animal. Who knows? I'm not going to base my behavior on "what if". What if, in fact, God WANTS child sacrifices? In some cultures, gods demand living human sacrifices. The people do it because they believe that's what God wants. But I'm not going to start sacrificing people just because God MIGHT want it.
If a soul exists, it's what we think with, feel with. If a xygote, embryo, or fetus had a soul, surely they'd also have higher brain functions. But they don't, so I conclude they don't have a soul.
Also, a soul has never been scientifically proven. So we're back to the ridiculous "what if".
Also, if there IS a soul, it wouldn't be affected by the abortion, because a soul does not need a body to exist. A soul is not a material thing.
Abortions will happen whether or not they are legal. Keeping abortion legal is a way to keep women safe. It doesn't matter if you or anyone approves anything about abortion. The fact is, it is ultimately an individual woman's decision and she will be the one dealing with the consequences. Just because it doesn't work for some does not mean it should be unavailable to all.
In your scenario, if you don't give or perform an abortion, I guess you'll be fine on judgment day, so isn't that enough?
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Your right. I never thought about it that way...
I can agree with what you said Miss Stotic...and we should't be running around fearing about what God might punish us for doing.
Alright but after reading it again I can see where you problem is.
Yeah I am saying since we can't disprove God...
But really the main point of that comment was to say that we MIGHT be killing innocent babies.
I mean just how we cant disprove God or no God or anything else it just seems terrible that we might be doing this.
But even though it might sound complelty crazy, I mean what logic do you follow for all your other opinions about what is right and wrong. I mean why can't someone go to your house and pick up your TV and run off with it. and Im talking about the law...very imperfect example but I hope you know what I mean. I mean if I'm being so illogical, than please tell me...what logic should we follow for making right or wrong desciions.
I mean this whole abortion thing...I don't know for sure. But I do not think anyone does!!!
I guess that's why I say we shouldn't do it, I mean it seems to be pretty bad of an ordeal if it were immoral.
I don't think it's that illogical..
Should people have the right to kill other people. why or why not? and if theres not a soul than how could you make an argument for it. This thought process seems to be going in circles but please inform me becuase that little tiny comment you wrote made alot of sense.
For what Kiota was talking about, as well as myself, with the timeline for human gestation, these fetuses/embryos/zygotes are not babies yet. I don't consider it a baby until after its born, and scientifically speaking considering how it can't even think or process pain up until around so many months, I don't really consider that a sentient being - it's certainly living, but its on the same level as an insect at that point.
Again, you're just really playing with "ifs" here. If it's immoral, if there's a God... Morals aren't absolutes - they're based on an individual and cultural basis. To some people it is immoral and to others it isn't. When it comes to morals there are hardly absolutes, even with killing people. The government has the right to kill people all the time, through wars and through the death penalty, but people are comfortable with that kind of killing because they're taught to be - they're "acceptable losses" in a sense. But then, we're also dealing with full on living, breathing, thinking, feeling sentient beings, not a cluster of cells that may or may not develop into a human being, so that area becomes much more gray to me.
If you really want to get esoteric and spiritual, you could just believe that even if you did get an abortion, the soul that would have been in that body (or was already in that body) would just go into the body of the child you decide to conceive and give birth to. That's just a personal belief of mine though :).
Those to comments prior to Miss Stotic didn't follow me.
I am not assuming anything!
I KNOW that you can't prove one thing indefinatley one way or another. GOD, souls, murder of a baby...etc. etc.
so I am saying since the abortion thing will never be resolved absolutley, becuase we dont know if souls exists and if we do ,we dont know when they come to be!!!
So when it comes to possibly taking an innocent life, which we might be doing....we should def. not do that act....
I realy need to work on my writing skills...but this is my second language so don't critique me too much....
From everything I know about religion, you only suffer or are punished for what you personally do. So my advice to you is to not work in an abortion clinic, and you'll be fine.
Also, abortion will still happen, very unsafely, if it is made illegal. I can think of a half dozen reasons that I could imagine, personally, abortion being the only option. Rape and tubal pregnancy just being the top two. However, on the issue of rape, with the day-after pill widely available now, it's not as much of an issue. (By the way, the morning after pill blocks the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, meaning it is technically not even an abortion.)
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Those to comments prior to Miss Stotic didn't follow me.
I am not assuming anything!
I KNOW that you can't prove one thing indefinatley one way or another. GOD, souls, murder of a baby...etc. etc.
so I am saying since the abortion thing will never be resolved absolutley, becuase we dont know if souls exists and if we do ,we dont know when they come to be!!!
So when it comes to possibly taking an innocent life, which we might be doing....we should def. not do that act....
I realy need to work on my writing skills...but this is my second language so don't critique me too much....
Proof is irrelevant here. Whether you realize that it cannot be proven or not, the fact is that your entire argument was based on a "What if?" statement. Now, talking about taking "an innocent life" is actually on topic. Could we hear more about that, only minus the whole God bit?
By the way, I get the whole foreign language thing. What works best for me when I have to get a lot out in a short period of time is to type it out in English (my native language), run it through an online translator, and fix as many mistakes as you can find. It goes faster than trying to struggle through a limited vocabulary an uneasy grammar.
T.k.
WHOOOPS!!
You can click on the edit button underneath your comment to fix things so you don't have to make an additional post to correct yourself. Just a tip :).
Thanks! I also really liked your message about the personal belief of where aborted babies go...very optimistic. Let's hope for the sake of people having abortions all over that your right!
Oh, and are you not ganna respond to my message. I really wasn't being sarcastic when I said you made a good point and you should write another message in response to YOUR RIGHT, I NEVER THOUGHT.....
Why not give the child up for adoption?
...I'd assume because the girl/woman does not want to go through the pregnancy for whatever reason...?
Anyway, I'll be covering adoption later.
In a lot of circumstances where a woman had an abortion there is no financial stability or, there is religious oppression, or domestic fear. These are problems that you cannot possibly know the magnitude of unless you've lived them. Excommunication, family loss, abuse...pregnancy itself is hard. What if your family has a history of bad pregnancies and premature births? Do you really want to risk it? And to those who were on birth control, but something went wrong...is it your fault? If pregnancy were a three-week ordeal and people wouldn't be able to tell, I assure you, there'd be a helluva lot more babies given for adoption. But, unfortunately, that isn't the case.
-Monica
But just as a thought, is it right to kill something that has a heart beat?
i like how you presented your topic, but i think that there are down sides to thinking like this, such as the people that go out have one night stands, get pregnant, and think 'oh wow i can just go and get an aborition!'. i think this is abusing the right to have the freedom to take this option. I hear about girls all the time that get pregnant and just say 'well its not my mistake' not once, but about four or five times. so how do you regulate something like this? or what about rape victims that don't want a child to come from thier horror? i don't know i think that there are many different regulations that need to be done in order to make aboriton completely necessary and completely legal.
good topic though! i enjoyed reading it!
But just as a thought, is it right to kill something that has a heart beat?
Um, do you eat meat? Do you swat mosquitos? I did address the part about a heartbeat (and how it's irrelevant) in the post. Just because something has a heartbeat doesn't mean it's "alive" or "more alive" than something that does not.
Four or five times? It's actually VERY rare for women to get that many abortions! But so what? It's their body. If they end up suffering damage from repeated abortion procedures, it's their body and their problem.
but some people do use it as such. There is significant risk of infertility in having numerous abortions, but that's their problem. Some women really do have physical, emotional, or psychological reasons for the necessity of having an abortion. We cannot make abortion illegal because of the very small percentage that use abortion as birth control.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
So, you're saying killing something with a heartbeat isn't murder, so can I kill you? You say that we eat meat and that we kill masquitos, can I eat you, you have a hearbeat? Serious, think about this. A human life is far more precious than an animal's or a bug's. There is a huge difference between killing the baby and killing an animal or bug. This baby, yes it's a baby, a child, a human, has no ability to defend itself. Just because the baby hasn't formed it's brain yet, doesn't give a person any right to kill it. Also do you want to feel responsible for having to choose when this baby is actually a baby and not just a thing? You give the time of when specific muscles develop, but that only proves more that this baby is in fact a life.
will, according to your logic,
The occupation of iraq is murder because George Bush genocide innocent iraqi, corporation that dump mercury into the water are murderers because the native who drink from it are dying, and everytime when you buy gas from exxon mobil or chevron you are a murderer because they import their oil from saudi arabia, a country where 15 of the 19 terrorist came from and make up 45% of the terrorism in iraq?
Well, people do die in war, that's correct, but Bush is not committing genocide over there. The troops are helping the people over there and unfortunately people are dying. It's not murder. And yes I agree corporations who dump mercury into water are murderers because mercury does kill people and with the gas companies, buy your gas else where, boycott Chevron and Exxon Mobile, there are other gas companies such as BP, Shell, Gulf, etc. And in the last part of your comment, a reason we're over in Iraq, to stop the terrorist who are the murderers, killing innocent people, whether it be our people or the Iraqi people.
Um, what? You completely missed my point. A heartbeat does not mean that killing that thing is murder. Mosquitos have heartbeats, do you consider it murder to kill them? Chickens have heartbeats - do you ever eat chicken? Of course it's murder to kill me, I don't just have a heartbeat, I also have self-awareness.
It's not a "baby" or a "child". Those are stages of development that it has not yet reached. Would you call an infant a teenager or a child an adult? O.o
How is a thing that cannot feel pain or emotion or think better than a mosquito, that CAN feel pain?
Of course it's a life. Many things are lives. You kill things every single day. O.o That's not murder, necessarily.
However, like I said, a human life is more important than an animal life or a bug's life. Say a person has a disease and they can't feel pain or better yet they're paralyzed, no pain can be felt, do you kill them just because they can't feel pain. Your argument isn't logical. Or how bout this, a person's in a coma, chance of coming out, but still, they aren't aware of what's going on, is it murder to kill them or is it ok?
..no, yours isn't logical. You're talking about someone who is ALREADY a person. Who ALREADY can feel emotion, etc. In your first example, that person can still THINK. If a person is in a coma, they're still a person, they've been born and they're been capable of thinking, just because they are TEMPORARILY incapable doesn't mean they're suddenly not sentient beings (or every time we were unconcious we'd be non-sentient).
I'm not sure if anyone asked this already (I'm rushing through blogs trying to find some that interest me and making sure they're all trouble free :D )...
I'm not saying abortion is murder (and I'm not saying it's not), but if abortion can't be considered murder because of the reasons you stated, why is a person who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts?
Just something that's always troubled me...
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
It is consider murder the same way someone can said that they are pro life than bomb thousand of innocent human being in too little piece, destroy national forrest for their oil buddies, and willing to steal some land to make a profit while allowing mercury pollute the water, air which contribute to the health development of the unborn and denied health care for little children.
Huh?
Your political opinion does nothing to answer my question.
Everything you said is irrelevant.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
When you murder a pregnant women, she did not consent to terminate the pregnancy. But that still doesn't answer the question of why it's 2 counts of murder if the fetus isn't a living being. I think it is, technically, only considered 2 counts of murder if the fetus is viable, but I could be wrong.
I do know the fetus doesn't count as a second person if you want to drive in the carpool lane in Arizona...
this article is pretty interesting.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
Hm. Interesting.
I was thinking the same thing about the woman not consenting to the death of the fetus... but then again, if my mom consents to the murder of me or my little brother, it's still murder, so people may argue that even if the mom consents to the death of the fetus, it's still murder.
Without saying my stances (though most of you probably know them already...) I'm still very curious...
I've seen cases of women very early in the pregnancy getting murdered and the murderer was charged two counts, and I've seen cases where the mom could pop at any minute and the murderer is charged with two counts.
Who decides?
If that's the case, who decides when it comes to abortion?
There can never be settlement here.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
Um... um. How do I say this nicely.
...why, why, WHY do you think the legal system has ANYTHING to do with morality?
The murderer is charged with two counts of murder because the people who wrote the laws considered an unborn to be a sentient being.
I never understood that argument. At all. D:
I'd guess though that past 26 weeks it could be considered a double murder because at that point the fetus is sentient.
... I wasn't arguing... I was questioning.
I don't think the legal system has anything to do with morality. I was taking an argument that confuses me and questioning it... kind of wondering where those that argue that abortion is not murder say about murderers being double charged for killing a pregnant woman.
I'm not arguing anything... merely wondering what the stances are and how they come about.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
Oh! My apologies for the misunderstanding, then.
No problem.
I try not to argue anything when it comes to abortion. Obviously I have my opinions, and I've probably stated them here and there on this site (at least subtly)... but I still don't try to convince anyone why I believe it or try to convince others to believe it. Mostly because (A) I don't feel I know enough about it; (B) I've never been in the situation where it's been a PERSONAL issue (though my best friend had a ... situation); and (C) I feel it's inappropriate when so many people are more than traumatized from whatever experience (positive, negative, pro- or anti-) that they may have had with abortion.
So basically, usually when I'm discussing abortion, I'm trying to learn more. :)
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
I don't think abortion is murder because the fetus need the uterus and the mother to survive, like a tape worm that lives inside their host.
If the fetus is taken out of the uterus and the mother womb, it can no longer survive thus not making it a person. a person is capable of surviving on it's own with the reliance of another foreign body. \
now, i am not saying that mentally handicap people or people with physical disabilities aren't a person it just that these people don't need a host or another person body for them to develop physical growth.
the fetus need a woman uterus for physical growth until it reaches 9 months than it will be able to survive on its own after birth because some babies get stillborn.
The way I see it is, that was me. I had no thoughts, no awareness, and no consciousness, but I do now! You are killing the person that is yet to be, the person who, in my opinion, was formed for a reason.
Also, with that logic, those in a coma should be killed, because they are unconscious and arguably unaware and thoughtless.
-Anne Michelle
the difference between a fetus and a comatose person is that the comatose person has a developed brain, that is now damaged. A fetus doesn't have the abilty to recover from neurological damage in time, as some comatose people do, because the brain is not yet developed.
And, yes, some people in comas are "killed," when there is no chance for recovery. An irreversible coma (or brain death) is one of them. I put "killed" in quotation marks because they are already passed from this life when the various plugs are pulled. The machines are not, at this point, keeping a person alive; they are keeping their organs working and in good condition for donation.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
I think that a whore (because only whore would had premartial sex) who is pregnant don't deserve an abortion.
If she wasn't such a whore to began with and had kept her hyman in tact for her experience husband who had been around with girls, than she wouldn't had gotten pregnant to begin with.
There is no reason why a fetus should be terminiated because the whore couldn't convince the honorable, respectable, man who will married a virginal bride to purpose to her.
I think that if the whore should get lethal injection for terminating her unborn child and than the father, who is going to married a virgin should be given a medal and a pat on the back because he got to sleep with a woman before he was married and for emotional damages that the whore had given him.
If the whore chose to continue her pregnancy, she should be force to paid money to the father for future emotional distress because she blacken his good name by bearing his child. she should be put in a prison cell as she continue her pregnancy as not to embrassed the father. after the child is born, she is not entile to any financial assistance because whore had an obligation to taken care of her bastard child.
I think that is the best solution in stopping pregnancy, if we emphasis more on the women for being whore while virtueously praising the father for scoring a whore vaginal and than marrying a virgin on his wedding night, we would had less abortion in this world.
(because only whore would had premartial sex)
Pretty quick to judge, aren't you? I'm going to let this one rest.
If she wasn't such a whore to began with and had kept her hyman in tact
Most girls lose their "Hyman" long before they have sex for the first time. Having an intact Hyman has nothing to do with virginity. Landing on your feet wrong could break the damn thing.
There is no reason why a fetus should be terminiated because the whore couldn't convince the honorable, respectable, man who will married a virginal bride to purpose to her.
You'd rather some guy propose to a girl just to have sex with her? Your logic is... well...
than the father, who is going to married a virgin should be given a medal and a pat on the back because he got to sleep with a woman before he was married and for emotional damages that the whore had given him.
What the hell are you talking about? The guy is not a virgin. He's just as much responsible as the girl, who is not a "whore."
If the whore chose to continue her pregnancy, she should be force to paid money to the father for future emotional distress because she blacken his good name by bearing his child.
You're right. The father has nothing to do with it. His dick just happened to slip into her and he's totally innocent and should have no responsibility in the life of the child. [/sarcasm]
You are... wow. Holy hell.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
*cracks up*
Your response is admirable, but um, that was satire. :p
Are you sure?
I really never can tell.
Especially since she answered my question about murder convictions with how Bush is committing genocide.
Maybe I'm biased because of that comment but...
Eh.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
Perhaps if we married the girls off before they had a chance to become whores, there would be less whores? Perhaps just before puberty, when they're likely to start whoring around. Age 10 or so.
See? Your comment was obviously satirical. The one it was in response to? Not so much.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
...it uhm. Seemed pretty satirical to me? *shrug* Especially considering that his other comments were very pro-abortion. But everyone perceives satire differently. Speaking of which, I seem to recall having written a bit of delicious satire ages ago. I should dig it up and post it...
please do. I love satire.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
If a person is on life support, the family is the decision maker if a living will was not filled out. So, it is up to other people (parents, spouse, etc) if the person remains on life support or is left to die peacefully. There is no conclusive evidence to say that comatose people are or are not in thought, except for those that are brain dead, obviously.
So, actually, a woman decides if she will carry the baby or abort it. This post is not pro-abortion, it is pro-choice. Nobody is saying that fertilized eggs should be killed, and to distort that with saying that comatose people should be killed has no logic.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
With your logic, every time you have your period, you're killing a person that is "yet to be". Um, big deal?
I never said women SHOULD have abortions. Abortions are nasty, I'd be happy if no one ever needed to have one. Don't use words like "should", I never said anything like that.
If a person in a coma is completely BRAIN-DEAD and has no chance of recovery, then sure, his family can decide to pull the plug, since he's not alive anyway and will never be.
i know where your coming from
A guy that masturbates is killing millions of potential babies... hehehe.
A person can be in a coma, not brain dead, and still be taken off life support, depending on a living will and/or the family's wishes. I know my partner does not want to be put on life support ever. I don't know that I wouldn't have him on life support though, it would depend on the situation. They also have do not resuscitate forms if someone does flatline.
I know I'm continuing to go completely off-topic, but I think this is kind of related. We have a right as family members to decide if we keep a person on life support, brain dead or not. I think based on the physical, emotional, and psychological status of a woman, abortion needs to remain legal and safe. Some women will use it as birth control, and that is her decision and she must live with it. There is often no time to decide if a woman "legitimately" needs an abortion. This has to be a case of all or nothing, and nothing will kill women as well.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
To me abortion is murder, I think it shouldnt be legal. I think that if you are one of them type of people that sleep around all the time and get pregnant or get some one pregnant i think you should take the consiquinces and take care of that child. Even if your not sleepin around just be more aware of wat u are doin and use protection because no one deserves to be killed speacialy baby's
Did you read my post...?
If so, please explain WHY it's murder.
Also, I strongly recommend you read this: http://progressiveu.org/061328-step-step-argument-abortion-teen-sex-preg...
that thing that sits in your belly for nine months is a human if you get an abortion thats just like murder. its kinda like killin your self because that thing that is in you is a part of you you made it it gots your dna and everything so your pretty much killing your self. i under stand what your saying every body has their own point of view
Okay, mind explaining WHY you think it's murder? Because it has your DNA? Then when you have your period (if you're a girl) or you masturbate (if you're a guy), are you "killing yourself"?
Personally, I think that as soon as the egg is fertilized it should be considered "alive", and thus abortion is immoral from the very start.
It is certainly alive. Why does that matter? Aren't mosquitos alive?
I just find it interesting how if a person kills a pregnant woman, it is counted as a double homocide, whether or not it is sentient. If that is considered murder, why not abortion?
Wouldn't that be called a double standard?
Um, because laws don't define morality...? Laws were made by men, please remember that. O.o
i just mean that if that is considered murder, why not this?
i'm not saying anything about morality, just think about it. if killing a fetus, sentient or not, is considered murder in this case, why is it not considered murder in another case?
...you missed my point. It has nothing to do with anything. How on earth should I know why it's not considered murder in another case? It varies by country to country, I'd assume, and I didn't write the laws.
I think the main point is the fact that the mother did not consent to the death of the unborn.
I think charging the double murder is a slippery slope to making abortion illegal, unless there is a separate charge against murdering a fetus without the consent of the woman.
Someone posted Murder in Modesto: A Viable Argument" about laws in California pertaining to this. It is a very good read, and might clear a few things up.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
just because a person doesnt look like you and me at this point doesnt mean it isn't a person.
it's just a person who hasnt developed yet.
killing is wrong.
It's not a matter of "looks like". It's a matter of "having a brain like".
Killing is wrong, sure. But how wrong? I don't feel guilty if I kill a bug, even though I guess it's technically "wrong".
I can't have kids. Well, I might be able to, but I would be risking the health of myself and an unborn child. I wouldn't give birth. I do take precautions. I have an IUD, which is 99.p% effective in preventing pregnancy. I really don't think my body would be able to conceive anyway, but I would like to be sure. If I was to get pregnant with these odds against it, I would have an abortion. Doctors told me that the drugs that I am on would seriously harm not only the development of a fetus but also the life of a baby.
My mom was 21 when she got pregnant for the second time. She didn't find out she was pregnant until she went to the doctor because her firstborn had given her the German Measles- Rubella. In early pregnancy, Rubella is likely to cause miscarriage, but on the rare chance the baby lives full-term, will have severe multiple birth and developmental defects. She decided abortion was her best option. I would agree.
I have a friend that is severely bipolar. She is on birth control. If she, against the odds, does get pregnant, she has decided that she will have an abortion. One part of her decision is the fact that she would not want to put a child through the hell she has gone through, and chances are, genetically, she would. The other factor is that the medication she's been on has unclear effects on pregnancy, and since her meds are working, she would not change them.
I see these three situations to be unselfish, as many people have been claiming abortion to be a selfish. I'm just trying to point out that until you look through another's eyes, you have a very small scope of reality.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Indeed. Adoptiong myopic perspectives really condemn you to snap judgments that aren't helpful. Thanks, Sonja!
Many times, those who push pregnant women to deliver and then put their baby into the adoption market fail to consider the fate of a full-term baby with birth defects. Whose trip into the adoption mill is much more perilous. It's the quality of life after birth that counts, not the length of it. And why would you condemn your baby to a life --- even a few days or minutes of life --- of not being cared about nor being wanted, by either you or by a foster parent who might not appear for months or years, if ever?
I think it's a heart-wrenching decision to end the life of a fetus who might or might not be born with a physical birth defect, as she lies helpless in your womb, for the reason that her life after birth might well become a series of unrelenting emotional tragedies for both the parents and the child. I've never had to make that decision, but one time I was asked to agree with it and support my lover.
Not easy. Never, for anyone.
"To be on the wire is life. Everything else is only waiting." :Joe Gideon