Abortion is murder

Tar.Aldarion

Macmorris wrote:

I know of very few people who could be considered anti-abortion. Although most people don't like the idea of killing unborn babies, when pressed on the issue, nearly everyone will admit that abortion is justified in some circumstances. Even the catholic church's position is that abortion is justified when the life of the mother is in danger. Because of this it's impossible to take an absolute moral position against abortion. It might be tasteless to say that it's a bit like being pregnant but you can't say that something is a bit wrong. Something is either wrong or it isn't wrong. People who believe that abortion is morally wrong therefore must believe that it's wrong in all circumstances or otherwise it's not wrong at all. Therefore abortion is not wrong by most people's (even the catholic church's) standards.

I disagree, What you are pointing out is that people believe that some wrongs must be committed and not that peoples belief falls apart under closer inspection.It is not impossible to take an absolute moral position against abortion, you can be for a young girl getting an abortion so that she does not die but still know what is happening is wrong.It is not 'justified' in some circumstances-it is 'accepted',even by those that think it is wrong.You can not be sure a young mother and her child will die but you can be nearly sure so people take the stance of definately saving one life.Just because you think something is wrong does not mean you do not do it,who would tell that little girl she must die,I wouldn't.I know the abortion is wrong but I'm not goona see a young rape victum and her baby both die.I'll let her decide what to do.

To quote a medice lecturer from last year,any race that is killing thousands of it's own species every year is in a very sad state of affairs indeed.

The Corinthian wrote:

don’t think anyone is really suggesting that crisis or unplanned pregnancies occur. The debate is on whether abortion is murder or not. The pro-choice side of the argument seems to pin its moral position on the foetus not being considered human until some seemingly magical point in its pre-natal development. I say argument because even amongst the pro-choice camp there’s no agreement on how to define this and so frankly this alone should be sending off warning bells with people.

The simile of the holocaust and abortion is perhaps a little melodramatic, but not without merit. I’m reminded of a scene in Schindler’s List, where Amon Goethe tells his Jewish maid that she’s “not strictly speaking human”. After all dehumanisation was central to the justification of the Final Solution - they were not killing people but eradicating a disease. Slavery was justified with similar logic, and indeed specimens of Australian Aboriginals were being collected as late as the first half of the last century.

Ultimately within our Judeo-Christian moral framework, we actually have to dehumanise the foetus to make abortion morally acceptable. The moment that we accept the foetus is human then abortion becomes murder by definition. And so we begin to invent criteria, which allow us to dehumanise the foetus and make the procedure acceptable. Think of it as the ethical equivalent of rezoning.

My own study of it is that abortion can be moral, but only if you accept that it is acceptable to kill a human in certain circumstances. Forget the “foetus isn’t a human being” line, because it just fails to hold water and is simply an attempt to make something acceptable within our Judeo-Christian moral framework that frankly can’t be made acceptable unless we choose to fudge the definitions a bit.

So if you accept that the rights (including the right to life) of the woman / mother supersede those of the foetus / child, then that can be considered a consistent position. There’s nothing arbitrary - no magical X number of weeks or “does it look like a person?” - about your reasoning then. Ultimately, your position may be considered utilitarian, but at least it doesn’t relay upon some fudged definition to make it work.

However, if you do adopt such a moral framework, do bare in mind that it may be applied to your detriment in the future.

Thought that was a good post.

The Corinthian

Macmorris wrote:

People who believe that abortion is morally wrong therefore must believe that it's wrong in all circumstances or otherwise it's not wrong at all. Therefore abortion is not wrong by most people's (even the catholic church's) standards.

Modern morality is not defined solely upon the act, but also upon the intention behind it. Classical morality might agree with you - Oedipus was punished for two sins that he was unaware of, for example. Modern morality would reject this as it the intention to sin was missing. In the same light attempted murder is considered immoral even though no murder was actually carried out, primarily because of the intention.

So to suggest that murder or any act is either right or wrong regardless of the circumstances is flawed. You might as well argue that rape is acceptable, as sex would have to be unacceptable in all circumstances for it to be wrong.

As for whether or not abortion is murder. Dictionary.com defines murder as the unlawful killing of one human by another. As murder is defined relative to the law and as the law in this country is that abortion is permitted in extreme cases, it seems a bit sad that we consider the killing of some babies as murder while other babies can be killed without generating any moral outrage.

Technically correct, if pedantic. However law generally should reflect morality and not the reverse, and this is the debate. Is it murder or is it not? And by extension, is it defined erroneously in this country or abroad?

base2

Whats the point?

I believe that a foeteus isn't a live person whilst others think it is. Who's to say who is right or wrong.

Gazza22

AndyWarhol wrote:

Ok, I'd like to debate the classic thorny topic that is abortion. I'm sure it has been discussed before, but I'd like to restart the topic.

These days abortion is treated in such a trivial manner that it is used as a form of contraception. Innocent lives are being taken all over the world in the name of convenience. It is worse than any Nazi holocaust and I am sickened by society's tolerance for abortion

I must agree with you on how abortion is used in modern times a trivial matter. I have heard of many cases where people are just having unprotected sex with little or no thought for it's consequences. It is seen as a form of contraception for many people particularly in countries that have legalised abortion.

Tbh i wouldn't compare it to the Nazi holocaust. If i were to prioritise life, i would choose to keep the life of a mature human over a few week old foetus. I'm not proud of this mind-set but it is shared all over the world.

I am pro-choice for women and believe they should be able to make their own decision but in limited circumstances. I totally agree that woman who have become pregnant due to abuse should have the right to abortion. I also agree that young teenagers who become pregnant should have the right to abortion. But i totally condone woman who as AndyWarhol said, see abortion as a method of contraception and nothing too serious.

One thing that i don't agree with is the period of time that abortion is an option. England in particular have an up-to 24 week policy in which abrtion is legal and i think this is completely wrong. It should be up to a month max imo.

I know this would clash with some of my earlier opinions, a teenager could find out three months in that she is pregnant, a woman could be raped and be so traumatised that she doesn't know what to do until it's too late ect ect but abortion is such a diverse topic that you could contradict yourself and change your opinions, go on for hours and hours and never be completely satisfied with your views.

It is a traumatic experience to go through and should not be taken lightly, but of course the option should always be there. I'm sure most people aren't proud that we as humans have this practice in place.

AndyWarhol wrote:

We are living in an age where people are having children in their 30s and 40s to suit their own 'lifestyle choice' when in fact the European population is declining and we are failing to repopulate ourselves - an inherent disorder in the way we live. We should not be killing human life because we need human life. We should be encouraging healthy family values and promoting young couples into having large families, not discouraging family values by encouraging women into having abortions.

Women are entitled to have their kids when they want and no woman is thinking of the future population of Europe when deciding to start a family.
We're not going to notice the difference in population, it is growing steadily but because of the Asian population, we seem very slow at reproducing.

It's estimated that Europe has a current world population share of 12% while this will drop to 7% in 2050. The French and Irish are on top with birth rates at the moment with 198 children per 100 women in Ireland with France just a little behind.

I understand what you are getting at, we are decreasing in population but it will never be to the point of despair. We are over populated as it is and any decrease will be healthy.

Unfortuneately promoting young couples to have large families is not going to work. Sure we can now afford to have large families comfortably but we are not living in the 70's anymore and that just doesn't suit young peoples lifestyles anymore.

My 2c...

The Corinthian

base2 wrote:

Whats the point?

I believe that a foeteus isn't a live person whilst others think it is. Who's to say who is right or wrong.

There are two points, the first is that this forum is for discussions on matters that are relevant to the humanities - and a debate on morality would certainly be relevant. If this bores you go to the After Hours forum and knock yourself out there.

The second is that moral questions should be debated. A lot of people may believe that the foetus isn't a live person whilst others think it is, but you’ll find that most haven’t really worked out why. You certainly don’t seem too bothered by why.

Why is this important? If for no other reason because it may come back to bite us in the ass some day. Popular morality is not static and what we consider to be right and wrong today may have implications doe the future.

So if someone someday decides that you’re no longer a human being because of age, infirmity, race or some other arbitrary condition and decides to put you to sleep, don’t come whinging to us about it.

base2

See you're getting all hostile and worked up about this. Do you want me to disagree with you would that make you feel better?

Abortion isnt murder.

What are peoples opinions on this?

http://www.redrag.net/2004/04/12/abortion-again/

base2

base2 wrote:

Whats the point?

I believe that a foeteus isn't a live person whilst others think it is. Who's to say who is right or wrong.

I believe that a jew isn't a live person whilst others think it is. Who's to say who is right or wrong.

base2

None of your anti-semitic remarks here man this is a discussion about abortion.

I'm making the point that you could that rationale to legitimize anything. It is redundant and has no bearing on the truth of any issue.

The Corinthian

base2 wrote:

See you're getting all hostile and worked up about this. Do you want me to disagree with you would that make you feel better?

I don’t mind people disagreeing with me.

I do mind people who don’t know (or want to know) why they disagree or agree with me.

Abortion isnt murder.

I’ve no intention of dissuading you from that opinion, if only for the good of the gene pool.

None of your anti-semitic remarks here man this is a discussion about abortion.

He’s just following your logic. As I said don’t come whinging to us now about it.

base2

Except that you won't find many that agree with your statement. In these cases there is consensus, but with my argument there isnt. Unless that changes there can be no percieved right or wrong.

The Corinthian

base2 wrote:

Except that you won't find many that agree with your statement. In these cases there is consensus, but with my argument there isnt.

So anti-Semitism would be all right if there was a consensus?

Unless that changes there can be no percieved right or wrong.

And how exactly do you think a consensus is formed?

base2

So anti-Semitism would be all right if there was a consensus?

Yep.

Who decides moral issues? One person? Everybody? What if one person disagrees with everyone else. Who is right.

Discussing this stuff is a joke. Now science is worth discussing because at least there can be a winner talking about actual facts.

You're a moral relativist?

The Corinthian

base2 wrote:

Discussing this stuff is a joke.

Not if you actually understand it. I suggest you read up on ethics and philosophy before forming another informed opinion.

Now science is worth discussing because at least there can be a winner talking about actual facts.

You don’t appear to know a lot about science either.

base2

**** just realised this is in the humanities folder. Relativist? Don't know what that is. I've been caught out. If only I'd been given an education in 'grey' thinking I could stay around and talk the talk with you lads.

The Corinthian

It’s not every day that you see ignorance held up as virtue.

Yes it is. Problem #431728 with modern Ireland

base2

You don’t appear to know a lot about science either.

Is this one of your informed opinions that you were telling me about? Funny stuff this. You have no answers to me. I've just destroyed all your arguments.

Gazza22

base2 wrote:

Is this one of your informed opinions that you were telling me about? Funny stuff this. You have no answers to me. I've just destroyed all your arguments.

Well enlighten us then, what does Science mean for you?
On the contrary, he basically rubbished your delightful opinions

base2 wrote:

**** just realised this is in the humanities folder. Relativist? Don't know what that is. I've been caught out. If only I'd been given an education in 'grey' thinking I could stay around and talk the talk with you lads.

You are the weakest link, goodbye!
TBH base2, could you please drop your little bitching session and leave this thread if you have nothing further to add to the topic at hand

base2

You are the weakest link, goodbye!
TBH base2, could you please drop your little bitching session and leave this thread if you have nothing further to add to the topic at hand

Man, I'm trying to leave but its dickheadish comments like that I just can't ignore.

ferdi

lol ~L~

The Corinthian

base2 wrote:

Is this one of your informed opinions that you were telling me about? Funny stuff this. You have no answers to me. I've just destroyed all your arguments.

I cited one of your informed opinions, not mine and - lest you miss the point - my use of the term informed was deliberately ironic.

Contrary to your opinion science is not all that factual. At the very least many of the facts you might point to are actually only theories - albeit with a body of evidence supporting them, but still theories nonetheless. And this is before we consider the statistical uncertainty that revolves around such sciences as psychology or quantum mechanics.

So no; you don’t actually have a breeze of a notion about science. Or philosophy. Or ethics. And your grammar is a bit shaky too. But you have plenty of opinions. All of which is forgivable, but when you try to present your lack of understanding as a virtue I’d have to draw the line. It’s not.

AndyWarhol

base2 wrote:

Whats the point?

I believe that a foeteus isn't a live person whilst others think it is. Who's to say who is right or wrong.

The miracle of life begins at the moment of conception. Are you trying to argue that something spectacular does not begin the moment the sperm breaks in to the egg? That this is not life itself?

And anyway, no doctor can ever be 100% sure that this foetus does not have a soul, is not a living creature, does not constitute life. Life is a miracle and whilst we may have answers for great technological and medical things, there are an infinite number of questions we do not know the answers to, indeed are incapable of such.

So, if we're not 100% sure we should therefore give the unborn child the benifit of the doubt. We should give ourselves the benefit of the uncertainty that we may be killing a human life.

Surely you'd have to judge when life begins and ends with the same criteria?

Karl Hungus

AndyWarhol wrote:

The miracle of life begins at the moment of conception. Are you trying to argue that something spectacular does not begin the moment the sperm breaks in to the egg? That this is not life itself?

And anyway, no doctor can ever be 100% sure that this foetus does not have a soul, is not a living creature, does not constitute life. Life is a miracle and whilst we may have answers for great technological and medical things, there are an infinite number of questions we do not know the answers to, indeed are incapable of such.

So, if we're not 100% sure we should therefore give the unborn child the benifit of the doubt. We should give ourselves the benefit of the uncertainty that we may be killing a human life.

So, by that logic, the morning after pill is also murder, right? Because the moment the sperm breaks into the egg, that is life. I'd actually like to know where you stand on this.

nesf

AndyWarhol wrote:

The miracle of life begins at the moment of conception. Are you trying to argue that something spectacular does not begin the moment the sperm breaks in to the egg? That this is not life itself?

Do you have objections to contraception? i.e. the artificial prevention of the process which you deem to be a miracle.

Tar.Aldarion

Even if he believed contraception was dubious, there would still be no loss of life as none had been created.It's only if you believe in God and fate that you would think this is a crime.
Karl, i am leaning towards thinking that that pill is wrong too in the case that if left alone, a baby would develop.,

Macmorris

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

you can be for a young girl getting an abortion so that she does not die but still know what is happening is wrong.

But wrong relative to what? To her having the baby and dying?

It is not 'justified' in some circumstances-it is 'accepted'

Accepted? Are you saying that people have a problem with women who have an abortion when it saves their lives? Are you saying that if they had their way they'd prevent abortion even in those cases where the welfare of the mother is at stake? That they just 'accept' it because of some loophole in the law? I think there are very few people on the pro-life side who would take that view. In fact, I'd say you'd have a hard time finding someone who would rather see a woman die than have an abortion.

I know the abortion is wrong but I'm not goona see a young rape victum and her baby both die.I'll let her decide what to do.

You would let her decide what to do but you would at the same time tell her that abortion is wrong? Wouldn't you feel compelled by your conscience to advise her to do what is best for her health?

TheCorinthian wrote:

So to suggest that murder or any act is either right or wrong regardless of the circumstances is flawed.

I suppose technically the word 'murder' is used to refer to wrongful killing and so, by definition, murder is wrong anyway.

The point I was making is that people can't claim to be opposed to abortion on principle but at the same time support abortion in some circumstances. People are either opposed to abortion or they're in favour of it. People who acknowledge that it's justified in some circumstances are pro-abortion in my opinion.

I'm sure when people say that they're anti-abortion, they usually mean that they're not against all abortions, just the un-necessary ones. The problem though is that that point never seems to come across in any debates on the subject. The pro-life side nearly always claim to be opposed to abortion on the principle that not only is the taking of any human life wrong but that the unborn foetus is entitled to the same rights as any other life. If the life of the unborn foetus is as valuable as the life of any adult then no exception should be made when it comes to abortions to save the life of the mother.

Is it murder or is it not? And by extension, is it defined erroneously in this country or abroad?

I don't believe it is murder. Leaving aside the legal definition of the word, I would have a very hard time applying the popular definition of the word murder to the killing of a foetus in the womb. It's not that the foetus isn't human, it's just that I can't bring myself to regard it as being as valuable as the life of a mature, self-consious human.