Is Abortion Murder?

That would be just as inaccurate. Terminating life support on a brain-dead patient isn't homicide either.

They are inherent in that no one needs to "create" them - you have them inherently. (If you were placed alone on an island, you would not need anyone to grant you the freedom to walk around wherever you like, for example.) Which of those rights are supported by society determines which are easy or possible to exercise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

actually, no
it is a stage unless you use the term "human" before it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_(biology)
and there is the point of establishing the viability of the organism as well, then there is a limit on what we can consider "life" per the law
until said "human" fetus reaches a certain stage as spelled out per the law, it is no different than any other developing cellular constructs within any living creature

the argument from pro-life is that all life is sacred, however, this somehow does not take into consideration any life outside of human life so the hypocrisy is evident... there are far younger, smaller, less "complex" organisms or cellular constructs that are far more important to the ecosystem that are regularly killed with impunity ... so what the pro-life message means is that there is a religious overtone that suggests that, somehow, the simian mammal, and specifically those in the Homo sapiens sapiens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human ), are more important or vital to the ecosystem than the rest of life on the planet...
problem is: the evidence is not necessarily supporting that (especially if you consider modern AGW, pollution, the Rain Forest, forced extinction, overpopulation, etc)... but that is also all about perspective, thus it is subjective (and thus can be considered not based upon logic or science - therefore it is classified as more philosophical or religious)

- so the argument there (especially the typical anti-abortion arguments above) are simply stating that said arguers are stating moral and other superiority over others based upon a subjective prejudiced set of criteria that cannot justify the argument, mostly because of the subjective nature of said argument

yes and no
nature simply IS...
Now, the rest is offered only IMHO-
a "right" is also a human construct (this we already know)... we believe that there is a fundamental set of rights that should be applied, but there is no basis for said right other than the subjective belief system of the human mind

in nature, the fundamentals (by example) suggest that all creatures that are "alive" : reproduce, live (self-sustain life), act/react to stimuli, die. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
those are the only "fundamental rights" that nature provides, IMHO...

but then again, the world has also agreed (for the most part, that is) that there are fundamental rights that should be available to all people everywhere
so... like i said: the argument can go both ways, right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

is it justifiable homicide when a wolf takes down a deer?

better yet... how about a Bear eating the blackberries that populate a mountainside?

do you dry when you kill a bee buzzing your head? is that justifiable homicide? after all, it's life is far more productive than most thing, with all that pollination going on...

then consider the fly... it is vital in the grand scheme, so is it justifiable homicide to eradicate them?
the roach? rodents?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about when it's viable, what then? All infants need life support.

Ah, so basically you believe that you have the right to exist. Who gave you that right…God, Mother Nature?

 

Sounds like a non-sequitur. Neither abortion nor euthanasia is homicide or murder, when performed legally. Most infants do not need life support other than food and shelter (which you need as well.)

 

no, they require assistance. big difference [EDIT: in order to develop, just like most other newborns except Homo sapiens sapiens has an extended time of development]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_support

 

Do you think late term abortion is okay? When the fetus has the ability to survive outside the uterus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

 

1- why is my opinion relevant when there is a law covering this subject?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Current_legal_situation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability#Legal_definitions
http://family.findlaw.com/reproductive-rights/abortion-laws.html

you are ignoring relevant data that is even distinctly discussed in your own link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability#Scientific_thresholds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability#Legal_definitions

this means that you are intentionally pushing a known inflammatory subject due to religious (or religious like) arguments based upon self-perceived moral superiority and lack of knowledge
you intentionally linked said wiki-link when it also discussed information you refused to address, which i also address previously (specifically: viability)

the argument is not mine to make if said law covers the issue because it is legal and thus bound by restrictions as well as defined clearly

IOW- you are pushing for an emotional flame war

why?

 

As Hard As You Want It

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

No, it is a human fetus.

All rights are a construct.

It depends on how we define homicide, whether homicide is killing something else or killing another person.

You do realize, though, that you're presupposing your own outcome?

It's one thing to wonder if you have anything to offer other than questions, but we've seen the answer to that. You tried presenting Christian argument as compelling―excuse me, let us be precise; you called issues you perceived "tough questions"―when in fact they were calculated rhetorical sleights. And now here you are repeating the stunt insofar as you're asking questions that, in order to be answered in the context you present them, demand irrational presupposition.

I want you to imagine you're a witness in a murder trial. And think for a moment, please, about what goes into the charge of murder. It's not an accident. It's not merely a homicide. So the defense lawyer asks, "You say you saw my client kill the deceased, but what would you do if you were being assaulted by someone trying to kill you?" And you might ask why he's asking. He petitions the bench, and the judge instructs you to answer the question. Now, maybe you're the type of person who brings your attorney with you for any such legal dealing; not everyone does. So your lawyer stands up and objects on your behalf: "Your honor, we object for relevance, since there is no evidence on the record that the defendant was under assault." The defense attorney might then repeat his request that you be compelled to answer the question, or, more likely, the judge would sustain the objection because what you would do if assaulted has nothing to do with the way in which the murder is accused of the defendant.

If you ask me how I regard a crime against a person if that person is a fetus, my answer remains the same: It's not a crime against a person because a fetus is not a person.

The problem with trying to argue by perpetually asking questions is that the method offers very little room for affirmative argument. As you present them, the questions require the presupposition of a massive ontological transformation undertaken and asserted in the twentieth century as an aesthetic appeal toward a predetermined argumentative demand. This is not a rational presuppositon.

Then again, if we look around at, say, American society, then no, by the averages you shouldn't feel badly about taking the bait. Most people do, else anti-abortion rhetoric would have required more fundamental adaptation and evolution over the decades. As we see, though, the big adaptations in the twenty-first century have been to attempt a downward redefinition of rape; distillation of "life at conception" to its intended meaning, "personhood at fertilization"; an aesthetic redefinition of medical terminology that doctors don't agree with, in order to support fertilization-assigned personhood; and an attempt to throw out the whole historical record of human philosophy and law with intent to legislate ontology.

It's kind of like the Nineteenth Amemdment. What the federal government argued successfully was that the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to apply to women; what the federal government never had to answer was how women aren't people. If the government had been obliged to actually justify its outcome―that women do not qualify for the equal protection granted all persons under a state's jurisdiction―we would not have needed a constitutional amendment specifically granting woman suffrage. Ontology matters in law. Presuppositions matter in argument.

Go back and look at Plessy; we need not imagine Justice Harlan had experienced some profound realization about black people, but, rather, need only assume that the one former slave owner on the court knew exactly why "separate but equal" wouldn't work. And, true, fifty-eight years is a long time in the context of a human lifetime, but in terms of history, it took only fifty-eight years for society to demonstrate Harlan's point.

People tend to draw certain abstract lines, and a lot of it is simple ego defense. If blacks were genuinely equal to whites, then the seven justices in the Plessy majority would have sided with Harlan. If, however, black equality was a grudging concession to legalism, then the separate but equal assertion seems a lot more logical for the sake of fulfillng one's aesthetics. History makes a lot more sense if we account for its context.

Here's a fun one: When you hear a presidential candidate―most often a Republican―speak specifically of doing something "for American citizens", pay attention to what that phrase actually means. In many cases, they're essentially pledging dereliction of duty if elected president, as neither Amendment XIV (states) nor Amendment V (federal government) limit their obligations to citizens; they apply to people under the applicable jurisdiction.

And in issues pertaining to women specifically, we often see the comparison. With men representing the baseline for human rights, what society affords women is frequently held up in comparison, and those comparisons are most often meant to describe or justify the disparity. In recent years we've had a ferocious dispute over who gets to give women permission to use oral contraception. Without this presupposed comparison the question doesn't exist. That is to say, if we start with a recognition of the full and undiluted human rights of women, the question of a woman asking permission of her husband, boyfriend, father, or employer before she is allowed to use oral contraception is insultingly farcical. The idea that men's behavior is a woman's duty―the skeletal structure of Infinite Prevention Advocacy against rape―similarly becomes insultingly farcical once we dispense with a nonsensical presupposition that her human rights must be compared to, subordinate to, and accommodating of his.

The aesthetics of anti-abortion rhetoric can be attractive, but they are, in fact, empty for the lack of actual historical roots. And rather than trying to establish the philosophical legitimacy of this assertion of "human rights" so variable as to render the phrase meaningless, the advocates have just presumed that their presuppositions will be blithely and blindly accepted. I can only urge you to not accommodate them. I can only urge you toward rational consideration. After all, the appeals to aesthetics are only hard questions if you want them to be.

 

No, it's human tissue, not a human being.

Socially constructed.

 

When then does a fetus become a person?

Whatever way you think of the fetus, as a human being or as a clump of cells, will influence whether or not you think it’s ethical.

Do you think there should be any restrictions, Tiassa. If so, what?

 

Until when?

 

It transitions gradually into full human status as it grows.

 

Secular Sanity
if this is the argument you want to address, then you should also start reading your own links
a large part of the reasoning for the laws are based upon the research that science has done, so if you would refer back to your link that you gave me above, you will see that there is a part that specifically talks about this

opinion doesn't matter (its subjective and can also change based upon new evidence)
you are trying to force your religious beliefs upon a person who's opinion doesn't agree with yours:
you want to make a point, but you want to denigrate a persons opinion or belief by subjecting them to criticism, or some other embarrassing admission

this is (again) blatantly pushing for a flame war based upon your perceived moral superiority in the subject!
... however, you are also ignoring FAR too much data, including the science and facts, from the ability to survive, viability and more to the simple fact that opinions are subjective and so are morals (which means ethics, too)

So you want to be perceived as morally superior: why not demonstrate, using the scientific method, that all "human" fetus are capable of mathematics, art, or complex tasks at that stage?
or perhaps justify your religious like beliefs with something OTHER than a subjective argument, etc!!!


now... why not answer MY questions to you?

 

It's fully human from the get-go. It just doesn't have all the same rights as an adult has. (True of children as well - they can't vote or drink, but they are surely human, just as fetuses are.)

 

I am a pro-choice, anti-abortion atheist, who wants to protect the Roe v. Wade standard, which allows states to ban elective third-trimester abortions but not therapeutic late-term abortions.

 

Hmm...I'll have to give this some thought. Thanks!

 

Can't be because it's a tiny collection of cells. It's as human as a swab of my cheek cells. Yes, it's human in nature, but it's not a human.

 

What part of this is confusing? I mean, after all the times I've stated it over the years: Barring a compelling argument to objectively establish personhood in utero, I revert to the bright line of dryfoot.

Which is why it is important to remain rational and not concede to irrationality for the sake of aesthetics and emotion.

Best practices in the medical community is an ongoing discussion; within that paradigm I leave it to the pregnant woman and the advice her doctor gives.

And this is something anti-abortion rhetoric seems unable to cope with; we had the weird turducken question, of course, but a few years before an example offered was a woman who demanded a last-second―essentially partial-birth―abortion in order to take revenge on the father, who she believed cheated on her.

And as we watch some of our neighbors try to wrap their heads around the dry-foot concept, well, it's kind of like patriotism and the NRA. For all we're supposed to revere the troops, such that people can be accused of hating the troops if they think a service member accused of a crime should answer under the local jurisdiction, it seems strange how little the marketplace has to say about the perpetual fantasy whereby our so-called best and brightest will allegedly turn their guns against, say, Christians in Texas, just because a Democrat would tell them to. Really? Our cops and military are mudrerous idiots who would do that to Americans? But, hey, when it comes to firearms and responsible conduct, that sort of insane irrationality is par for the course among allegedly "responsible gun owners".

Similarly, just how poorly do you think of your doctor? I mean, sure, I have a great primary care physician, but that doesn't mean the next one is a sack of shit. As I've noted, what kind of doctor would fulfill these twisted fantasies from anti-abortion rhetoric? Well, we already know. But pretending every doctor, or the whole medical community, is on par with Kermit Gosnell is a further stretch than every cop and every soldier being so evil as to march house to house to steal all our guns.

Who is also pushing Christian apologetics without any presumable skepticism, and in such a manner as to promote irrational presuppositions without demonstrating their validity.

So perhaps you might be so generous as to condescend to actually construct an argument communicating why you accept ontological presuppositions of recent vintage specifically conceived as a fallacious appeal to aesthetics and emotions?

See, when you blithely and unquestioningly promote crackpottery, some people might think you're actually promoting crackpottery.

 

and how, exactly, can you be pro-choice but anti-abortion?

and why does this justify your pro-life commentary? especially the fetus argument?
and especially considering the legal and scientific information in your previous links?

Note: i should have typed "religious like beliefs". my apologies for not being clearer.
i distinguish between a faith and a religion.
regardless of your atheist proclamations or affiliations, your posts tend to be more fundamental religious, IMHO
(See also: Tiassa : "Who is also pushing Christian apologetics...See, when you blithely and unquestioningly promote crackpottery...." )