Current Events > Why isnt abortion considered murder/killing an unborn child?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why is this thread still going? It has been over for a while.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Your "value of humans" is an emotional appeal argument which is rooted in religion.

Oh wow, I didn't realize maternal instincts were religious. Thanks for enlightening me.

So are the women who get abortions defective or something? Do they not have those instincts?
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

maternal instincts

Which not all expectant mothers have, and which not all expectant mothers (including those who do have them) bow to in certain situations, like when they don't want a child.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Your "value of humans" is an emotional appeal argument which is rooted in religion.

Oh wow, I didn't realize maternal instincts were religious. Thanks for enlightening me.

Does every woman/girl have maternal instincts?
---

That_Happened posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

maternal instincts

Which not all expectant mothers have, and which not all expectant mothers (including those who do have them) bow to in certain situations, like when they don't want a child.

I don't refresh frequently enough.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Haldol posted...

I just like how people who legitimately hold life sacred and view an unborn child as a human deserving of life are being shotted on as if our beliefs are so awful. How dare we view an unborn child as a human being. That must mean we hate women.

Man this world is doomed. For all those who blame religion for all the ills of the world, your rampant atheism and animalistic view really don't offer a healthy alternative. You are no better than the tyrannical religious leaders of you think it's cool to call people ignorant jist because they view an unborn child as a human being

Did autocorrect get you? I often have it annoyingly try to change if or in to of or on (in fact it tried to change if to of and on to in in that sentence >_<). "Smart" phones, lol.

It always does lol

I hate auto correct. Makes me sound like an idiot

Vindris_SNH posted...

In my idea of a perfect world abortion would be illegal, with the only exception being defense of the mother's life, and that point it'd be up to the mother. The baby lives or she lives. It's self defense in that case.

We don't live in a perfect world and this still makes you sound like a hypocrite. The poor innocent baby isn't doing anything. Its mother chose to have sex and put herself in that situation.

There is no practical reason to force a woman to grow a human inside her against her wishes after she is violently violated by a rapist. If I wanted to make an emotional argument, I would call that evil.
---

Haldol posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Haldol posted...

I just like how people who legitimately hold life sacred and view an unborn child as a human deserving of life are being shotted on as if our beliefs are so awful. How dare we view an unborn child as a human being. That must mean we hate women.

Man this world is doomed. For all those who blame religion for all the ills of the world, your rampant atheism and animalistic view really don't offer a healthy alternative. You are no better than the tyrannical religious leaders of you think it's cool to call people ignorant jist because they view an unborn child as a human being

Did autocorrect get you? I often have it annoyingly try to change if or in to of or on (in fact it tried to change if to of and on to in in that sentence >_<). "Smart" phones, lol.

It always does lol

I hate auto correct. Makes me sound like an idiot

I'm a stubborn fuck. I will backspace and retype the word I want a few dozen times just to get it through my phone's head. This has backfired on me at times though. It has changed shit to shot hundreds of times.Then the one time I type shot (response to a cop shooting story), it changes it to shit >_<. In fact it change both shit to shot AND vice versa in the bolded sentence.

I've turned off autocorrect too but that also pisses me off because I'm used to not having to manually do capitalization and punctuation plus I hit the wrong letters on my phone all the time.

*sigh* it's a lose-lose :P
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

How does the world benefit from forcing women to carry to term when they don't want to? So we can have millions of children that grow up in poverty, to abusive/neglectful parents, or in orphanages? But hey at least they were brought into this world and are aware of their suffering!

ITT: Every child that was ever going to be aborted would have had a shitty life.

@Vindris_SNH
Doesn't have to be every one.

If one child would grow up to have a shitty life that's enough to justify a mercy kill.

Please give me a solid argument why someone who will grow up to have a terrible life should be forced to endure it.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Forcing a pregnant woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is literally evil, yes.

I'd like to bring up the concept of personal responsibility. Taking responsibility for the choices, and sometimes the mistakes that you make in life.

First, let's assume that the woman was not raped (because most abortions are not performed because of a rape situation). Second, let's assume that the woman knew there was a possibility she would become pregnant, even when using birth control (because almost everyone knows this in today's world).

Now, you're telling me, that this woman who had sex and knew the possible consequence, gets to literally kill a human inside of her, that she and the husband are responsible for creating and putting there?

No.

That'd be no different than me leaving a sign in the middle of the woods that says, "Free lodging in my house for 9 months!" and betting that probably no one will find it. But then, some random homeless guy happens upon the sign one day and comes into my house. After a few weeks of him being there, I decide I regret the decision of playing that risky little game, and the consequence it created, so I literally kill and mutilate the homeless man, right there in my house, then throw him out the back door.

Killing humans because they inconvenience you is evil. Protecting human life... is not.

Forcing an innocent child to deal with an existence full of suffereing due to a mistake they had no control over is evil as well. So what do huh?
---

Th3Truth posted...

Haldol posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Haldol posted...

I just like how people who legitimately hold life sacred and view an unborn child as a human deserving of life are being shotted on as if our beliefs are so awful. How dare we view an unborn child as a human being. That must mean we hate women.

Man this world is doomed. For all those who blame religion for all the ills of the world, your rampant atheism and animalistic view really don't offer a healthy alternative. You are no better than the tyrannical religious leaders of you think it's cool to call people ignorant jist because they view an unborn child as a human being

Did autocorrect get you? I often have it annoyingly try to change if or in to of or on (in fact it tried to change if to of and on to in in that sentence >_<). "Smart" phones, lol.

I hate auto correct. Makes me sound like an idiot

Auto correct has nothing to do with that

This too.
---

I'm in the dark ages? Lol guess I need to buy a sword.
---

That_Happened posted...

JohnLennon6 posted...

That_Happened posted...

JohnLennon6 posted...

That_Happened posted...

Haldol posted...

Also..i.dont think it's that damn hard to protect yourself and prevent pregnancy.

It is pretty hard, and requires a bit of luck. Contraception is only 90+% effective under perfect conditions. So when 100 people have sex with contraception, at least a few are still running the risk of pregnancy.

Don't have sex then.

That's pretty illogical. Husbands and wives should completely stop having sex the instant they have the number of children then want?

Think then post, Brietbart boy.

Vasectomies

Also wouldn't make sense: husband and wife have one kid which they can afford. They don't want another one right away because it'd be irresponsible, but in the future they do want more. So vasectomies are out, too.

Birth control then.
---

JohnLennon6 posted...

Birth control then.

That often fails too.

The fact is, you're a virgin so your input on this matter really isn't needed. You don't understand what you're talking about. It's the same reason I don't debate rocket science with darkman.
---

A lot of people have argued that a woman (unless raped) shouldn't be allowed to abort her child because it was her choice to have sex and she has to be responsible for that choice, thus she must carry the child through its full term.

But if you smoke your entire adulthood and get lung cancer, no one will try to say that you shouldn't be allowed to get cancer treatment because it was your choice to smoke.

If you drive drunk, get into an accident and break your leg, no one will tell you that you shouldn't be allowed to have it realigned because it was your choice to drive drunk.

So if the argument is that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy shouldn't be allowed to have treatment (an abortion) because of her choices, why do we give treatment to smokers and drunk drivers who get ill or injured because of their choices?
---

^ because of religion
---

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

And the answer would be no, since it's just a clump of cells at that point. And even if you want to argue that it somehow still counts, then I'll repeat what I said earlier; I don't care. At no point in its development would I deem the unborn's survival as superseding that of the already living mother, she *always* gets first priority.

Great, so let's have the personhood argument then. "It's a clump of cells" isn't an argument though. Full-grown adults are clumps of cells too, but it's not OK to kill them. What does a full-grown adult have that a foetus doesn't, which excludes one from moral considerations but not the other? A foetus is unequivocally a human being. When a man gets a woman pregnant, the resulting zygote inside her isn't a dog or a goat but a human.

Saying "I don't care" about the whole thing tells me you don't actually know how to justify your claims.

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Take it up with pro-lifers, they're the ones who, ironically, view pregnancy as a punishment and constantly aim to undermine single mothers any way they can, I'm just repeating/pointing out their sentiment.

Well, no, you seem to be suggesting there's something inherently punishing about pregnancy. Carrying a baby to term, and supporting its mother throughout, is not a matter of finding someone to inconvenience for some perceived indignation. It's a moral duty, on the mother's behalf to the child inside her, and on society's behalf to the vulnerable.

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

There's already too much surplus human stock in this world that will never amount to anything while being made to suffer a bleak life. Excellent case in point; Myself.

You give some pretty miserable arguments, but I'd never call you a miserable or wretched person.

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

With the life I ended up with, I would have been better off aborted, and there's people out there who have it far *far* worse then I do. Existence for existence's sake is just cruel because it gives no mind or concern to the actual value of said existence. It's quantity over quality basically, and for what? So the advocates of this mentality can feel good about themselves despite doing more harm then good? Screw that.

Is that really what the ideal world would have been? Seems to me like it would have been the one in which you were economically secure, and physically and mentally healthy, with your family, community, and government to fall back on when you needed it. That seems like the ideal world we should seek to realise.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

1. Viability works as a qualifier for personhood. Not the only criteria. This is why we sometimes assign rights to animals. It is a qualifier. In that sense, Peter Singer (one of fav living philosophers) asked, "Are animals persons?" - I think sometimes, yes.

2. Yes sentience and even intelligence does play a role in personhood.

3. See my previous response to about people in comas.

4. I should have been clear that viability is not the only qualifier. Nonetheless, I believe it does play a vital role in abortion rights when debating the "does the woman have the choice?" scenario.

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Forcing a pregnant woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is literally evil, yes.

So is killing an innocent person. So assuming you have some reason for calling it evil, what is it?


Asherlee10 posted...

1. Viability works as a qualifier for personhood. Not the only criteria. This is why we sometimes assign rights to animals. It is a qualifier. In that sense, Peter Singer (one of fav living philosophers) asked, "Are animals persons?" - I think sometimes, yes.

This needs some unpacking to get a real response. What do you mean by qualifier? It's not a necessary condition for personhood, because unviable people are treated as persons (people in comas or on life support); it's not a sufficient condition for personhood, because there are some viable entities which unambiguously don't get moral considerations (basically any living non-animal thing). Are you therefore suggesting that viability might indicate whether something is a person? Then on what grounds does personhood follow from viability, and how does this relate to a foetus?

4. I should have been clear that viability is not the only qualifier. Nonetheless, I believe it does play a vital role in abortion rights when debating the "does the woman have the choice?" scenario.

I'm guess what I'm trying to ask is that, in light of what I've just said to the previous point, what is that role, and how is it being used to show that a foetus is not a person?

MysticMismagius posted...

A lot of people have argued that a woman (unless raped) shouldn't be allowed to abort her child because it was her choice to have sex and she has to be responsible for that choice, thus she must carry the child through its full term.

This isn't anybody's principal argument. The only pro-life argument is that a foetus is a human/person, and therefore has the same rights as a baby or an adult, so we shouldn't kill it. The question of responsibility, who looks after the baby --- that is a matter of pragmatics. Someone could ask "why should I have to look after the baby?" and a valid response might be "personal responsibility; you caused this situation and now have a duty to look after this baby" or "because you live comfortably enough to be able to accommodate this person into your life".
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

^ because of religion

A) It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
B) A foetus is a human being.
C) Therefore, it is wrong to kill a foetus.

Nothing in this argument is religious.
Zeeak4444 posted...

If one child would grow up to have a s***ty life that's enough to justify a mercy kill.

Well I'm glad that the pro-choice arguments get so desperate they sometimes fall back onto good 'ole infanticide.

Please give me a solid argument why someone who will grow up to have a terrible life should be forced to endure it.

Might I suggest another option? Look after the person with the terrible life, as an individual and a society.
---

Sinroth posted...

The only pro-life argument is that a foetus is a human/person, and therefore has the same rights as a baby or an adult, so we shouldn't kill it.

the pro life position wants to instill extra rights to the fetus, not the same rights. No single person outside the womb is given the right to support their life at the expense of another person. I cant force you to give me a kidney. You can voluntarily give me one, but that would be your choice, and at any point prior to giving me that kidney, you have the right to change your mind.

ultimately, the point at which aborting a fetus becomes an issue is when that fetus has developed enough that it could live outside the womb. So if you really are pro life, you should be supporting medical science trying to develop better incubation technology.
---

I'm not going to go any further into ridiculous arguments or reasoning with you people.

Here's the simplicity of the issue:

United States Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

That's all there is to it. Now, I know all of you abortion lovers are going to come at me with arguments as to why you think this doesn't apply to the abortion argument, or that this doesn't invalidate a woman's "right" to kill her own unborn baby.

But listen, it's that simple for me. Human life starts at conception, and I believe that every human being, no matter how young or small or apparently insignificant to you people, deserves the right to at least have a shot at life. I feel that we are denying them the most basic of all rights when we decide we don't want them to live.

If you think I'm an idiot for firmly standing my ground on this issue (one that I will NEVER budge on), then go ahead and keep thinking that.

Have a nice day fellas.
---

Another anti-choicer bodied by science and logic ITT
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

This is exactly why abortion is and should remain legal.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Another anti-choicer bodied by science and logic ITT

Not really

Haldol posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Another anti-choicer bodied by science and logic ITT

Not really

How many are going to resort to emotional arguments, insisting religion isn't a factor, and then throwing up their arms saying "I don't care what anyone says. Baby murder is wrong and arguments are pointless!"
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Haldol posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Another anti-choicer bodied by science and logic ITT

Not really

How many are going to resort to emotional arguments, insisting religion isn't a factor, and then throwing up their arms saying "I don't care what anyone says. Baby murder is wrong and arguments are pointless!"

All of them, naturally, because there is no logical reason to deny a woman her bodily autonomy.
---

Fetuses don't even have a social security number. :U
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

But listen, it's that simple for me.

And some of us have minds that are capable of thought that is far more than "simple." You're much more of a "look, it's God's truth just because it IS. There's no need to look more into it than that!" type of person. And that's fine for some but I'm glad the people in charge were able to think more critically than that.
---

Sinroth posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

^ because of religion

A) It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
B) A foetus is a human being.
C) Therefore, it is wrong to kill a foetus.

Nothing in this argument is religious.
Zeeak4444 posted...

If one child would grow up to have a s***ty life that's enough to justify a mercy kill.

Well I'm glad that the pro-choice arguments get so desperate they sometimes fall back onto good 'ole infanticide.

Please give me a solid argument why someone who will grow up to have a terrible life should be forced to endure it.

Might I suggest another option? Look after the person with the terrible life, as an individual and a society.

Oh, my apologies. I thought we were talking about the subject in a realistic manner.

Easy to ignore all those terrible situations for you I guess. Fuck 'em, at least you have your righteous morals to comfort you when they cross your mind eh?

Edit: I shouldn't have come off so rude, I apologize. It's infuriating to hear the opposition rely on a hypothetical solution that's never gonna be feasible.
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

This is exactly why abortion is and should remain legal.

I find it odd... well, "odd" is putting it lightly... that some people think it's worth terminating the entire life of a human being just because a woman's body is being inconvenienced for 9 months by that human, which she and some dude forced inside of her.

An entire human life
VS
9 months of pregnancy + slightly altered body thereafter

???

We have a trade off here. Which do you think makes more sense to sacrifice? An entire human life, apparently.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

An entire human life
VS
9 months of pregnancy + slightly altered body thereafter

Another simple thought from a self admitted simple man. Are you capable of thinking deeply about anything?
---

Asherlee10 posted...

[another "personhood" rant]

Please clearly define for me what "personhood" is.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Haldol posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Another anti-choicer bodied by science and logic ITT

Not really

How many are going to resort to emotional arguments, insisting religion isn't a factor, and then throwing up their arms saying "I don't care what anyone says. Baby murder is wrong and arguments are pointless!"

All of them, naturally, because there is no logical reason to deny a woman her bodily autonomy.

Besides not killing another human being for the convienance of another one

Vindris_SNH posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

This is exactly why abortion is and should remain legal.

I find it odd... well, "odd" is putting it lightly... that some people think it's worth terminating the entire life of a human being just because a woman's body is being inconvenienced for 9 months by that human, which she and some dude forced inside of her.

An entire human life
VS
9 months of pregnancy + slightly altered body thereafter

???

We have a trade off here. Which do you think makes more sense to sacrifice? An entire human life, apparently.

9 months is a pretty big thing to give up when you have no guarantee of how long you have to live. Not to mention the pregnancy could have complications. You're downplaying the effect a pregnancy has on someone's life.

It makes no sense to force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want. The baby is just an extension of the mother at that point. Your entire argument relies on emotion. :u
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

Please clearly define for me what "personhood" is.

You already had this discussion, and you said such a definition would be pointless and ridiculous, remember?

Vindris_SNH posted...

I don't know why I have to reiterate this, but I've read into and understand the concept of personhood. But a human life is a human life, period. I don't think personhood is an important factor here. A human life has been created at the moment of conception,

---

Asherlee10 posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Haldol posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Another anti-choicer bodied by science and logic ITT

Not really

How many are going to resort to emotional arguments, insisting religion isn't a factor, and then throwing up their arms saying "I don't care what anyone says. Baby murder is wrong and arguments are pointless!"

All of them, naturally, because there is no logical reason to deny a woman her bodily autonomy.

This is what kills me. So many of the pro-life stances shit on the mother and her rights.

Why is it shitting on the mom to not kill the baby?

Haldol posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Haldol posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Another anti-choicer bodied by science and logic ITT

Not really

How many are going to resort to emotional arguments, insisting religion isn't a factor, and then throwing up their arms saying "I don't care what anyone says. Baby murder is wrong and arguments are pointless!"

All of them, naturally, because there is no logical reason to deny a woman her bodily autonomy.

Besides not killing another human being for the convienance of another one

And what about my statements. You never responded to it a few pages back.

If the child is going to suffer and live a terrible life how is it more noble to force him to suffer due to his parents "mistake" as you'd put it.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Haldol posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Another anti-choicer bodied by science and logic ITT

Not really

How many are going to resort to emotional arguments, insisting religion isn't a factor, and then throwing up their arms saying "I don't care what anyone says. Baby murder is wrong and arguments are pointless!"

And then proclaiming, "I'm done with this discussion!" and coming back to repeat the same illogical arguments that appeal to emotion.

Illogical? Appealing to emotion? What?

What is illogical about my argument? How have I appealed to emotion?

All I've stated is that humans, regardless of how young, should be granted the right to life. The defenseless should be defended. I believe that's the moral thing to do. Why do you care about what happens to children in Africa? Should you care? Of course you should. Otherwise one might say there's something not human about you. It is basic human instinct to care about other human lives. Abortion terminates a human life.

This is a perfectly logical argument to be against abortion. I'm not crazy for wanting to preserve human life, am I?

And as far as appealing to emotion, that's not my intention. And even if it was, so what? Is there something wrong with having emotions? With having feelings? Are we never supposed to act on emotions? Don't emotions exist for a reason?

You're calling it emotion, I call it instinct. Which it is. A basic human instinct is to preserve your own life, and to preserve the life of other humans. Am I wrong? Is that not an instinct? Is that not something all normal humans possess? An instinct to preserve human life?
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

This is exactly why abortion is and should remain legal.

I find it odd... well, "odd" is putting it lightly... that some people think it's worth terminating the entire life of a human being just because a woman's body is being inconvenienced for 9 months by that human, which she and some dude forced inside of her.

An entire human life
VS
9 months of pregnancy + slightly altered body thereafter

???

We have a trade off here. Which do you think makes more sense to sacrifice? An entire human life, apparently.

9 months is a pretty big thing to give up when you have no guarantee of how long you have to live. Not to mention the pregnancy could have complications. You're downplaying the effect a pregnancy has on someone's life.

It makes no sense to force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want. The baby is just an extension of the mother at that point. Your entire argument relies on emotion. :u

Your argument sounds pretty damn emotional too

Don't want to give up 9 months? Work to prevent pregnancy in the first place. Seems logical to me