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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Asherlee10 posted...

It's still up for debate

Then whey the fuck are we literally killing humans based on something that is still up for debate? You think abortion should be legal just because of some philosophical belief you have?
---

Haldol posted...

Why is it s***ting on the mom to not kill the baby?

By taking away her own bodily rights? Making her uterus government regulated territory?
---

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.

When you view pregnancy as a punishment you by default decry the mothers rights
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

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?

Lol....
---

Vindris is so transparent it is laughable. :u
---

Also, why is a human required to attain "personhood" in order for abortion lovers to place value on their life? Why does a specific quality of a human determine their value? The fact is they're a human. That fact alone should ensure they are protected.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

Also, why is a human required to attain "personhood" in order for abortion lovers to place value on their life? Why does a specific quality of a human determine their value? The fact is they're a human. That fact alone should ensure they are protected.

Because the secular world operates on personhood, not a nebulous "all life is precious" belief. If we honestly believed that as a society we'd have universal healthcare, no death penalty, and lax immigration policies.

A fetus is a part of the mother's body till it is born. They're like a organ. Completely dependent on the mother's body providing for it. It isn't something to be thrown away lightly of course, but it's existence isn't going to trump the mother's own bodily rights.

We can't have the government regulating uteruses. That is crazy. :u
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

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.

You don't know how terrible the child's life will be.

A child born to a good prepared mother could live a terrible life.

Should they be killed too??

Asherlee10 posted...

First of all, you need to calm down.

No I don't. I don't "calm down" over you supporting the execution of humans because they don't possess a philosophical quality that you believe in. This is something worth getting fired up over.

Asherlee10 posted...

I encourage you to make a case against by using the status of personhood instead of all this emotional appeal you've been doing.

I already have.
---

Do you support the death penalty Vinny? :u I'm genuinely curious.
---

And speaking as someone who has worked to help people who have gotten abortions, here's a better analysis of what the choices are:

Termination of pregnancy-

Benefits to the parent(s): Will not bring an unwanted child into the world. Will not incur at least 9 months of medical bills they may not be able to afford. Will not be forced by law to endure the pregnancy and all of the health challenges it brings with it.

Negative effects on the parent(s): Trauma in many cases, early on. The feeling of being a terrible person. The embarrassment, personal and social. The feeling of "not protecting your own." Over time this may be fixed, but often there are lasting effects.

Negative effects on the fetus: None. It does not have a developed mind, it does not feel pain. It does not even know that it exists.

Negative effects on Bible thumpers: They pretend to give a shit for a little while before going back to their regular hobby: trying to force their religious beliefs on others.


Meanwhile,
Forcing the mother to carry the baby full term-

Benefits to the parent(s): If she changes her mind partway through the pregnancy and decides she wanted the baby, the mother will have a baby that she will love and care for.

Negative effects on the parent(s): Having to go through 9 months of a pregnancy, incurring all medical bills and health challenges that come with it. Possibly causing problems at work if a lot of time needs to be taken off. If she keeps the child, she then has to try to raise a person (for at least 18 years of her life) that she was completely unprepared for, either mentally, emotionally or financially, or all 3. This derails many plans and goals she may have had for herself. If she doesn't keep the child and gives it up for adoption, she has to endure that trauma as it is regularly awful to part with something that grew inside of you for most of a year.

Negative effects on the fetus: Is statistically likely to live a difficult life, either low on financial support or low on emotional support from its parents. Or is sent to an already crowded adoption center, in the hopes that a family will want them.

Negative effects on Bible thumpers: None, as the child has been given a "shot at life" in a similar way that a scratch-off llottery ticket buyer is given a "shot" at winning hundreds of dollars. They proudly thump their Bible for a few moments before voting in politicians that will drastically cut the budget for social programs that would help low-income parents with unwanted children, like Jesus would have wanted.

Each choice is a difficult one. Neither choice gets you out of responsibility, and no one walks away happy either way. But the first choice is clearly right for many people.
---

The death penalty and abortion are not compatible


That way madness lies
---

That_Happened posted...

And speaking as someone who has worked to help people who have gotten abortions, here's a better analysis of what the choices are:

Termination of pregnancy-

Benefits to the parent(s): Will not bring an unwanted child into the world. Will not incur at least 9 months of medical bills they may not be able to afford. Will not be forced by law to endure the pregnancy and all of the health challenges it brings with it.

Negative effects on the parent(s): Trauma in many cases, early on. The feeling of being a terrible person. The embarrassment, personal and social. The feeling of "not protecting your own." Over time this may be fixed, but often there are lasting effects.

Negative effects on the fetus: None. It does not have a developed mind, it does not feel pain. It does not even know that it exists.

Negative effects on Bible thumpers: They pretend to give a shit for a little while before going back to their regular hobby: trying to force their religious beliefs on others.


Meanwhile,
Forcing the mother to carry the baby full term-

Benefits to the parent(s): If she changes her mind partway through the pregnancy and decides she wanted the baby, the mother will have a baby that she will love and care for.

Negative effects on the parent(s): Having to go through 9 months of a pregnancy, incurring all medical bills and health challenges that come with it. Possibly causing problems at work if a lot of time needs to be taken off. If she keeps the child, she then has to try to raise a person (for at least 18 years of her life) that she was completely unprepared for, either mentally, emotionally or financially, or all 3. This derails many plans and goals she may have had for herself. If she doesn't keep the child and gives it up for adoption, she has to endure that trauma as it is regularly awful to part with something that grew inside of you for most of a year.

Negative effects on the fetus: Is statistically likely to live a difficult life, either low on financial support or low on emotional support from its parents. Or is sent to an already crowded adoption center, in the hopes that a family will want them.

Negative effects on Bible thumpers: None, as the child has been given a "shot at life" in a similar way that a scratch-off llottery ticket buyer is given a "shot" at winning hundreds of dollars. They proudly thump their Bible for a few moments before voting in politicians that will drastically cut the budget for social programs that would help low-income parents with unwanted children, like Jesus would have wanted.

So much truth in one post. :u
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

The death penalty and abortion are not compatible


That way madness lies

Either life is precious or it isn't. :v No two ways about it. Even if someone is a criminal, isn't the life given to them just as precious as that of a fetus?
---

For the record, just like personhood, human rights are also in the realm of ideology (be it religion or philosophy).
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

I want to ask you directly, at what point do you consider it a person? Conception? Zygote? Fetus?

Again @Vindris_SNH - please answer this.

Not to interrupt, but he already did on the previous page:

Vindris_SNH posted...

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.

---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

The death penalty and abortion are not compatible


That way madness lies

Either life is precious or it isn't. :v No two ways about it. Even if someone is a criminal, isn't the life given to them just as precious as that of a fetus?

That's just not true.

There is an enormous difference between aborting a fetus and killing a sentient self aware human being who comprehends the world.

Both literally and in how their demise effects planet earth .

Comparing them is like comparing Mike Tyson to a little girls finger because they both spend time inside rings
---

Haldol posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

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.

You don't know how terrible the child's life will be.

A child born to a good prepared mother could live a terrible life.

Should they be killed too??

i wouldn't be opposed to it but that's not the point.

I'm talking about a situation where the mother knows she can't do enough for the kid. You could tell her all the hypothetical bullshit you want like pull herself up by the bootstraps or work harder for the kid but it's unrealistic.

If a parent is more concerned for their young hip lifestyle, has no real family to rely on, has a dead end job, and the father is a deadbeat who doesn't care and can't provide I think they should have a choice in the matter.

Sure you could argue adoption or whatever but that again means is subjective. The problem I see is most people making your arguments just happen to be people from good family's that are naive and believe love can conquer all.. that's nice, but the only people who believe it are other sheltered and naive people.

That's not even getting into personhood like Ash is covering.

So what do? You can keep you're opinion but don't pretend like everyone can magically fix things like abandonment issues, childhood neglect and abuse, genetic predispositions, financial hardship, and a poverty stricken home where nourishment and support is far and few in between.

That's still barely scratching the surface if you wanna talk hypotheticals in-depth.
---

The whole "I think every fetus should be given a shot at life" argument is almost always from a religious position of essentially "If they just rub some Jesus on it, they can make it through anything!" And people who refuse to acknowledge when a given situation is dire, and that failure is rarely the result of "not trying hard enough" or "not trusting in God enough" are frustratingly stupid.
---

That_Happened posted...

The whole "I think every fetus should be given a shot at life" argument is almost always from a religious position of essentially "If they just rub some Jesus on it, they can make it through anything!" And people who refuse to acknowledge when a given situation is dire, and that failure is rarely the result of "not trying hard enough" or "not trusting in God enough" are frustratingly stupid.

---

That_Happened posted...

The whole "I think every fetus should be given a shot at life" argument is almost always from a religious position of essentially "If they just rub some Jesus on it, they can make it through anything!" And people who refuse to acknowledge when a given situation is dire, and that failure is rarely the result of "not trying hard enough" or "not trusting in God enough" are frustratingly stupid.

Agreed. Like mentioned multiple times in this topic it's rare to hear an argument that doesn't heavily rely on pathos.
---

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.

Which part of "security of person" are you having difficulty with? No person has the right to demand access to another person's body, ever, for any reason, regardless of the circumstances or consequences. This is a principle applied consistently within our culture and law. Why do you believe a fetus should hold special rights in contradiction to this principle?
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

No person has the right to demand access to another person's body, ever, for any reason

A human life that has just begun was forced into the mother's womb as a consequence of the actions of that woman and the man that impregnated her. They should be held responsible for the proper care and nurturing of that life until it is able to care for itself. And if they can't provide for that human life that they are responsible for creating, then our society should be willing to do their part to help. Terminating a human life that you are responsible for creating is not responsibility. It is the absolute neglect of your responsibility.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

No person has the right to demand access to another person's body, ever, for any reason

A human life that has just begun was forced into the mother's womb as a consequence of the actions of that woman and the man that impregnated her. They should be held responsible for the proper care and nurturing of that life until it is able to care for itself. And if they can't provide for that human life that they are responsible for creating, then our society should be willing to do their part to help. Terminating a human life that you are responsible for creating is not responsibility. It is the absolute neglect of your responsibility.

Still living in this ideal make believe world of yours I see.
---

That_Happened posted...

The whole "I think every fetus should be given a shot at life" argument is almost always from a religious position of essentially "If they just rub some Jesus on it, they can make it through anything!" And people who refuse to acknowledge when a given situation is dire, and that failure is rarely the result of "not trying hard enough" or "not trusting in God enough" are frustratingly stupid.

Has anyone in this thread yet made a religious argument?
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

No person has the right to demand access to another person's body, ever, for any reason

A human life that has just begun was forced into the mother's womb as a consequence of the actions of that woman and the man that impregnated her. They should be held responsible for the proper care and nurturing of that life until it is able to care for itself. And if they can't provide for that human life that they are responsible for creating, then our society should be willing to do their part to help. Terminating a human life that you are responsible for creating is not responsibility. It is the absolute neglect of your responsibility.

Still living in this ideal make believe world of yours I see.

Living in a world where it's legal to terminate a human life for your convenience is far from an ideal world.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

They should be held responsible for the proper care and nurturing of that life until it is able to care for itself.

They should be punished, is what you mean. Because when they get an abortion they are already being held responsible: just not in a way you prefer nor understand.

And while society should step in and help when they can, the reality is society doesn't. So, those of us who live in the real world came up with a solution that helps real people. Those of you in God-based fantasy land are only going to come up with rules that make things WORSE for real people, not better.

So if you actually care about human life (and I mean actual humans, not fetuses) then you protect the mother and father who are already here, and you give them options so they can safely and responsibly bring a future child into the world when they're ready to do so.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

No person has the right to demand access to another person's body, ever, for any reason

A human life that has just begun was forced into the mother's womb as a consequence of the actions of that woman and the man that impregnated her. They should be held responsible for the proper care and nurturing of that life until it is able to care for itself. And if they can't provide for that human life that they are responsible for creating, then our society should be willing to do their part to help. Terminating a human life that you are responsible for creating is not responsibility. It is the absolute neglect of your responsibility.

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Which part of "security of person" are you having difficulty with? No person has the right to demand access to another person's body, ever, for any reason, regardless of the circumstances or consequences. This is a principle applied consistently within our culture and law. Why do you believe a fetus should hold special rights in contradiction to this principle?

If you had bothered reading past the part you quoted, you would have realized your entire tangent here was unnecessary. All you have to do is answer the question at the end of this paragraph.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Thank you! I missed that.

That being the case, I have further questions:

- If personhood starts at conception, then do twins have half the rights as non-twins?
- Is birth control a murder weapon?
- Is Plan B a murder weapon?
- Should miscarriages have funerals?

I never said personhood starts at conception. My point is that an ambiguous philosophical idea shouldn't determine the value of a human life.

Let's say that we could even scientifically and clearly identify what personhood means and when it occurs. Let's define personhood as, "The ability for a human to feel emotion". And let's say it happens at 3 months of pregnancy. I know this probably isn't accurate at all, but for the sake of the point I'm trying to make, just go with it.

So here we have personhood, which occurs at around 3 months into gestation most humans. Personhood is a quality that a human being attains as they grow in their mother's womb. And let's say you abortion lovers want a legal right to kill that human while it is in the womb, as long as it hasn't attained personhood yet.

So... Why have we decided that a human being doesn't deserve the legal right to life just because he or she hasn't attained this specific quality yet?
---

Asherlee10 posted...

- Is birth control a murder weapon?
- Is Plan B a murder weapon?
- Should miscarriages have funerals?

- No.
- Murder is the unlawful killing of a human. Abortion is not murder, by our laws, so why would Plan B be considered murder?
- You can have a funeral for whoever/whatever you want. Or not.
---

That_Happened posted...

God-based fantasy land

Once you get off of this religious point I'll consider responding seriously to your posts.

I've not argued against abortion with one single religious point in this entire thread.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

Why have we decided that a human being doesn't deserve the legal right to life just because he or she hasn't attained this specific quality yet?

TrevorBlack79 posted...

No person has the right to demand access to another person's body, ever, for any reason, regardless of the circumstances or consequences. This is a principle applied consistently within our culture and law.

---

Vindris_SNH posted...

That_Happened posted...

God-based fantasy land

Once you get off of this religious point I'll consider responding seriously to your posts.

I've not argued against abortion with one single religious point in this entire thread.

Your entire premise of life being precious and fighting for the rights of the defenseless fetus is based in religion and there's no point in pretending otherwise.

I'm not taking this too seriously in the first place, as watching you claim that "personhood" is a fictional non scientific idea that you can't get behind, while proclaiming that God's word and Christianity is "the truth" is equal parts fascinating, contradictory, and hilarious.
---

Remember: Vindris was done with trying to talk to us evil baby killers.

Also remember: He made arguments that aren't emotional and are in no way inspired by his religious nature. If he was never exposed to religion, he knows he would have the same beliefs.
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

Why have we decided that a human being doesn't deserve the legal right to life just because he or she hasn't attained this specific quality yet?

TrevorBlack79 posted...

No person has the right to demand access to another person's body, ever, for any reason, regardless of the circumstances or consequences. This is a principle applied consistently within our culture and law.

We already went over this. But let me reiterate since you didn't read or can't comprehend what I've already posted.

No newly conceived human life has ever demanded access to their mother's body. They were forcibly placed there, in part by the person who is carrying them (assuming rape is not a factor). Therefore, the people who placed them there are responsible for their care.

Demanding that a human being remove themselves from a situation that they were forced into by yourself, one that they are not capable of removing themselves from, and one that they are not capable of surviving away from, and then thinking that it's morally OK to kill them off and remove them yourself, knowing you are responsible for them being there? ... That is morally wrong, period.
---

That_Happened posted...

Your entire premise is based in religion

Please show me how any of my arguments against abortion have had anything to do with religion.
---

Why do you feel a fetus deserves superior rights to all others?
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

TrevorBlack79 posted...

No person has the right to demand access to another person's body, ever, for any reason

A human life that has just begun was forced into the mother's womb as a consequence of the actions of that woman and the man that impregnated her. They should be held responsible for the proper care and nurturing of that life until it is able to care for itself. And if they can't provide for that human life that they are responsible for creating, then our society should be willing to do their part to help. Terminating a human life that you are responsible for creating is not responsibility. It is the absolute neglect of your responsibility.

Still living in this ideal make believe world of yours I see.

Living in a world where it's legal to terminate a human life for your convenience is far from an ideal world.

It's a good thing most people don't terminate human babies for convenience then no matter how much you delude yourself into believing so.
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Why do you feel a fetus deserves superior rights to all others?

Because his moral superiority over us, of course.
---

So should people be forced to save their family members? They didn't likely ask for their problem, especially children.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Remember: Vindris was done with trying to talk to us evil baby killers.

Changed my mind.

hockeybub89 posted...

Also remember: He made arguments that aren't emotional and are in no way inspired by his religious nature. If he was never exposed to religion, he knows he would have the same beliefs.

Yes I did make arguments that aren't emotional. And some of my arguments may be looked at as emotional appeals, and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with seeing something you think is sad, and trying to do something about it. I don't know how anything I've said could've possibly been said for selfish reasons. I have nothing to gain here aside from opening the minds of people who think it's OK to kill humans, as long as they aren't old enough or haven't attained "personhood".

And as far as what I would've believed had I not been "exposed to religion", I can't say. So that is irrelevant. The point is, I haven't included religion in any of my points. I don't understand why people can't get past that.
---

TrevorBlack79 posted...

Why do you feel a fetus deserves superior rights to all others?

Why do you feel a mother is responsible for taking care of her newborn?
---