Is Abortion Murder?

But what about all those who would have grown up to affect the world with their contributions? To understand the potential, just remove anyone you know from your life. Even the smallest acquaintance has significance. It would be like eliminating all your posts on SciForums, never being, never existing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're only speculating. I, on the other hand, can predict the future.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sounds like that argument is basically "abortion should be illegal because some might grow up to be outstanding people."

In that case, would you be OK allowing abortions to people who, statistically, have very low chances of raising successful kids? (drug addicted mothers, people with very low IQ's, very young mothers etc.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You believe an 11 year old girl "becomes capable and responsible" simply because she was raped and is now pregnant?

You realize that we (as a species) evolve by some people dying - right? Otherwise, if everyone survived and was able to reproduce, evolution would stop dead and be replaced by random genetic drift (with ugly results.)

Some form of contraception (like IUD's) cause the ejection of a blastocyst from the uterus. Why is that OK but removing that same blastocyst manually wrong?

Nope. No more so than if she went back in time and kept your parents from having intercourse that night.

 

Some of my best friends were losers and came from disadvantaged backgrounds. I loved them like brothers. They shaped my world and offered perspectives that I otherwise would not have known. I don't think you can measure the value of life with a monetary yardstick, one's social status, or IQ. No, I'm not suggesting that we should preserve life only because there might be an Einstein in the mix, quite the opposite. Life in itself is intrinsically important, and those who live almost always offer something of value. Certainly a few will come to a bad end, but they are only a few.

 

Way to go on presenting the most extreme possible scenario. Again, rape accounts for less than 1% of all abortions. But to answer your question, yes, two lives are now part of the equation. I don't believe the unborn is responsible for any crime in said scenario. Why should it pay with its life?

I don't consider abortion part of the natural process. It's human intervention. If you're suggesting eugenics, I would have to disagree. The choice to abort is, in large part, nothing more than convenience.

My idea of responsible contraception is the total absence of fertilization. Once those cells start dividing, you're pregnant.

How is that any different than any other form of murder?

 

The commandment says "shalt do no murder", it doesn't say shalt not kill. Does God tell you what's moral and reasonable, or do you have that freedom?

A woman pregnant in adverse situations should carry to term, no matter what?

How about spina bifida? Make the mother pay for the continuing care of an anencephalic "child"? Tay-Sachs?

Get a friggin' grip, dude.

 

You could. You just can't extend your "murder" criteria into the womb and conclude that abortion is murder. Try it, if you don't believe me. Start with self defense - do you allow people to kill in self defense?

The self-concealing muddle in your head is what lead you to post, for example, that you have no problem with medical incineration of living miscarriages because you have no problem with cremation. You shift contexts without apparent self-awareness, continually. Do you have no problem with having the police throw comatose people into the nearest dumpster and thence to the incinerator with the household garbage?

 

Are we free to kill those with disabilities? Who are we to say their lives have no value? If it's inconvenient or a burden to care for another life, should we just exterminate it? The Nazis took that attitude into the hospitals, eliminating the undesirables who had physical and mental disabilities.

But this is a digression since everybody wants to focus on the worst possible situation. How many of those 700,000 plus abortions were because of congenital defects as opposed to simply being unwanted children?

 

Did you just Godwin abortion?

 

I don't consider abortion self defense. It's an act of violence against the defenseless, which makes it all that much easier for those who support it. Of all the places that should be safe haven, the mother's womb is sacred. Tell me, would you condone an assault on a four-year-old. I would think not, yet somehow it's acceptable when digging through a woman's womb to extract the unborn.

You really are on a tangent. I won't bother responding to the above.

 

I haven't given any mention of spiritual direction in this conversation. I don't believe you need God to have human compassion and empathy for the unborn.

 

Heh, what about IVF mass murder?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...uman-embryos-created-for-IVF-thrown-away.html

 

Interesting... I don't have an opinion on that. It's an example of our science involving itself in procreation. I can't say I'm shocked by the numbers when considering their objectives. It just might become an issue for discussion in the future.

 

Disingenuous bullshit. I'm sure you're a God-troll now, so you just go on and have your fun. And piss off.

 

Never. Exactly my point. You would, at least occasionally, if you had consistency or integrity in your claims of extending your concept of murder into the womb.

Your conception of murder cannot be extended into the womb. That's not what you are doing.

Ha.

This is the situation: You have no problem throwing innocent miscarried and ectopic humans - cells dividing like mad, notice - into a bucket with all manner of foulness and diseased slop, and incinerating them alive with the rest of the garbage. That's your actual conception of the nature of the early human embryo, living or dead - it's medical waste, garbage for the incinerator.

Except under one circumstance. In one particular context, and no other, this embryo is the very essence of the innocent human soul, a defenseless being of near infinite worth that a woman cannot even deny harmful residence within her body at the risk of her life. So what happens, there, that makes this enormous and sudden and inexplicable alteration in your conception of human embryos?

 

I'll vouch for him; I might not like his politics, but he is to the one thoughtful insofar as he puts genuine effort into ... well, see, that's the thing, is I'm sure his arguments make sense to him, even if they don't play in my outlook. Still, though, you're not dealing with one of the thoughtless herd on this one; he's a good bellwether―even if you don't like what he has to say, he strikes close to the heart of the functional reality behind whatever he's pushing.

To wit, I haven't had much to say on this particular thread because I'm watching his framework. There may be a requisite presupposition in play that undermines not only the inquiry itself, but also its general pretense of trying to figure it all out.

Note the overlap in #10↱. There's an issue afoot these days called "personhood", in which anti-abortion advocates declare zygotes to have the full complement of human rights under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of Amendments XIV and V; they are "people" under law. This ontological hanky-panky will create all manner of constitutional problems; those rights evaporate at the dryfoot line―once the baby is born and severed, that Equal Protection disappears; the very proposition squares off in contention two assertions of equal protection taking place inside one of the bodies of one of those people. These questions remain unanswered, and advocates generally don't want to answer them because they're hard questions to answer and nobody on that side of the argument has been able to figure out a functional answer that doesn't make the point that "equal protection" is bullshit considering a woman's human value in that consideration is zero.

Personhood is the political fulfillment of what the anti-abortion argument has always meant by "life at conception". Life exists, not all of it constitutes personhood. Personhood legislation would write ontology as a matter of statute, instead of deriving statute from ontology. The whole point of the argument is to erase a woman's human rights.

So part of what this proposition does is presuppose the desired outcome true. All else follows from there.

And while this in and of itself might seem nothing new, watch the way he does it. You'll learn more about what's actually going on, what the freakish voices out in the larger discourse actually mean when they entirely cease making sense. We might not like what he's saying, but at the very least he's putting some thought into trying to con us; it's worth remembering that difference compared to the general moral-fanatic marketplace.

 

I said Godwin, not God.

Why do you care more about denying choice to women over their physical and psychological health?

What would you do if you found yourself with an unwanted pregnancy?

 

If it were just their lives involved, yeah, it would be simple. I honestly believe most women could not have an abortion in good conscience. My guess is that many who do often regret their choice.

 

Point taken, thank you.