This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
To a large majority(myself included), the fetus isn't a 'person' yet, because you haven't interacted with it
My heart just drops. How am I the same species as people who feel this way? How could they have the same kind of brain that I have. It's as if they live in a different reality than I do.
This isn't a matter of opinion. It isn't "I think" or "I feel" or "to me". The fetus is a living human person. That is what it is. That is definitive and provable. In the homosexual marriage debate, all of my arguments were worded "I think this" or "I believe this". In the abortion debate, all of my arguments are worded "This is" because I know something to be true and can demonstrate it to others. Abortion is the premeditated murder of a human being. That is a fact, using the definitions of those words. Just because you cannot interact with this person, doesn't make them less of a person, and how dare you think that.
Post by
MyTie
I personally think starvation is a bigger problem than abortion. The potential pleasure deprived from people is similar and I think the pain is greater in the majority of instances (even when a foetus is capable of feeling pain, starvation is a gradual process that may take as long as a month).
I can't find any statistics on how many starve to death each year, but apparently there are 43m abortions worldwide and 15m children starving, so perhaps accounting for adult starvation and complications of malnutrition (scurvy, anaemia) the toll is equivalent.
But people don't starve their kids to death because they don't feel like having them around anymore. The heinousness of abortion is not just in the death, but in the flippant nature of humanity.
Edit: Also, MyTie, what do you think of Dan Savage's argument that the family planning agency have prevented more abortions than they've been complicit in? They have a 10:1 ratio of providing contraception to providing abortions, so may have saved the lives of thousands of unborn children by preventing them from being conceived in the first place.Lol. If I help out 10 people, and then brutally club 1 person to death, what would you think of me?
Post by
OverZealous
I think what OZ is saying, is that if the procedure is going to happen at all, then it should happen as early as possible to cause as little pain and distress as possible. Not whether or not it should happen at all, but just noting that if it is going to happen then it should be done early.I understand, but there is reason for me to hate his argument. To me, abortion is the most heinous act in human history. More heinous than slavery, than wiping out nations, than genocide, than discrimination, than poverty, than the atomic bomb, than anything. We have a society that has made it a legal and protected
right
, to end the life of your child, based on little or no reason. The supporting logic for the action is flimsy at best, or, more likely, non existent. In the United States, during the year 2007, 1.21 million abortions took place. 1.21 million. That is nearly the population of Idaho. This is the modern holocaust, on my front porch. To me, and really, to reality, there is no difference between killing an unborn kid and killing a born kid. Imagine they were lining up children against a wall, and shooting them to death, just because the mom didn't feel like having a kid any longer, and you were arguing that they stop it, and some guy says "but they shoot them in the head so there is no pain". Your heart would sink, that anyone could be that heartless, that oblivious, that inhuman. That argument in itself is not a 100% disapproval of abortion. A 100% disapproval of abortion is the only answer I can accept. It is the only answer that is not heinous. Further, anyone who does not, automatically, 100% disapprove of abortion, scares me. Abortion is such an extremely despicable notion, that a mind who can entertain something that terrible as acceptable, or even not whole-heartedly disapprove, is a mind that I will never,
NEVER
, understand.
I'm sorry, I didn't know you felt quite this strongly about this. For both of our sakes, I'll refer from commenting on this any further. If I've upset you, I apologize - absolutely not my intention.
Post by
gamerunknown
But people don't starve their kids to death because they don't feel like having them around anymore. The heinousness of abortion is not just in the death, but in the flippant nature of humanity.
Well there's also the issue that trying to prevent starvation is a more difficult task than trying to opposing abortion.
Post by
MyTie
I'm sorry, I didn't know you felt quite this strongly about this. For both of our sakes, I'll refer from commenting on this any further. If I've upset you, I apologize - absolutely not my intention.You don't upset me. I don't get upset. I get passionate. Really, there is not a person on wowhead that I don't love.
Post by
Adamsm
@Adam- but we generally make laws about things because we think they're wrong as a society. I'm not asking if it's illegal to kill homeless people now. I'm asking if you, personally, think that the punishment for murder is because the crime is against the person killed, or against the people left behind, or both? If it's against the person killed, then it doesn't matter if no one loved them yet. If it's against the people left behind, then wouldn't it stand to reason that people with no attachments should not be protected by law? I'm just trying to follow the logic of why you say the fetus isn't a person- you said it's because no one knows it and loves it yet, and you said it's because it isn't developed fully yet. I'm just trying to see how you feel those reasons hold up when applied to other instances.
I'd just have to go back to the law again: Abortions aren't illegal after all. A homeless person is killed and the cops investigate and prosecute the killer because that's the way the laws work. And what I meant by the 'no one loves it' comment is that during the first few weeks, someone knows they are pregnant but may not have an attachment to the child yet, so for some of the people, it's easier if they just think of it in the abstract, rather then saying it's a fully formed person. As for the others: You can't really compare them, beyond the fact that life is ending; there's still(to me and others at least) a difference between a person and a fetus dying.
Post by
MyTie
But people don't starve their kids to death because they don't feel like having them around anymore. The heinousness of abortion is not just in the death, but in the flippant nature of humanity.
Well there's also the issue that trying to prevent starvation is a more difficult task than trying to opposing abortion.
They are both noble causes. One is unfortunate, and one is heinous.
Post by
MyTie
I'd just have to go back to the law againLegality is no measure for morality.it's easier if they just think of it in the abstract, rather then saying it's a fully formed personOut of sight out of mind? It isn't a matter of how you think about it. It's a matter of what it is. If you don't think about clubbing a baby seal to death as clubbing a baby seal to death and think of it as kneading dough, and you club a baby seal to death, you are clubbing a baby seal to death, not making bread. there's still(to me and others at least) a difference between a person and a fetus dying.And all of your supporting logic is easily and swiftly debased. Come up with something concrete, some evidence why this living human being that is murdered is not a living human being that is murdered, besides your gut feeling. If you are going to support something like abortion, you should want to know you were right about it. I would.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Adams, I'm asking what you think morally. Do you think that there is something morally wrong with killing a homeless man, if there's no one left behind who suffered for the loss? When debating about whether or not a law should be changed, the argument of "it's wrong because it's against the law" doesn't really work. I'm asking, do you feel that the crime of murder is wrong because of what is done to the victim, or because of the result it has on the people attached to the victim, or a combination of both?
In terms of development- I'm asking why, do you think, are people more upset when a younger child, who was less developed, dies than when a teenager or an adult dies? What is the difference that makes us see it as a greater tragedy?
Post by
Adamsm
Adams, I'm asking what you think morally. Do you think that there is something morally wrong with killing a homeless man, if there's no one left behind who suffered for the loss? When debating about whether or not a law should be changed, the argument of "it's wrong because it's against the law" doesn't really work. I'm asking, do you feel that the crime of murder is wrong because of what is done to the victim, or because of the result it has on the people attached to the victim, or a combination of both?/shrug I've always believed that a lot of murders/rapists should be given to the family of the victims rather then waste money in putting them in jail. I'm probably the wrong person to ask. Do I feel sorrow that someone I don't know has died? In an abstract way, but in all honesty, when I see things on the news about children killed by their mother, the most that goes through my mind is 'Jesu, I hope she get's the needle'.
In terms of development- I'm asking why, do you think, are people more upset when a younger child, who was less developed, dies than when a teenager or an adult dies? What is the difference that makes us see it as a greater tragedy?
I really have no idea.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Adams- I'm not sure how to rephrase the question. You said that you feel that the woman who kills her child should get the needle, and that murderers and rapists should get trounced by the victims family...but that's not really related to what I asked. I asked who they're hurting- the victim or the family of the victim. I'm asking what you feel the nature of the wrongness of the crime of murder is- is it in the taking of a life from that person, or taking that person out of other people's lives. That doesn't really have anything to do with how they're punished. If you don't want to answer the question, I'll let it go I guess. It just feels kind of like you're side stepping without answering it, which isn't what I'm used to in debates with you.
Post by
Skithus
Out of sight out of mind? It isn't a matter of how you think about it. It's a matter of what it is. If you don't think about clubbing a baby seal to death as clubbing a baby seal to death and think of it as kneading dough, and you club a baby seal to death, you are clubbing a baby seal to death, not making bread.
Your definition of what something is remains widely contested however. Until the 10th week of pregnancy a fetus does not even posses the precursors to what could develop into organs. If something lacks a brain, it is incapable of thought, and thus sentience. As any sort of nervous system has yet to develop it is incapable of pain, or any sense of well-being. Your baby seal analogy is less appropriate then say a tapeworm. A fetus in its early stages is essentially a parasite living off the host's body.
Should someone with a tapeworm be forced to live with it because they knowingly engaged in activities (eating meat) that could contribute to them acquiring a tapeworm? Or because they did not properly take adequate measures (cooking aforementioned meat) to protect/guard themselves against the possibility of tapeworm.
Post by
Adamsm
I'm asking what you feel the nature of the wrongness of the crime of murder is- is it in the taking of a life from that person, or taking that person out of other people's lives.Both in all honesty.
But if you are asking, do I think abortion is murder: No, as long as it's done before the 23rd week.
Post by
MyTie
Out of sight out of mind? It isn't a matter of how you think about it. It's a matter of what it is. If you don't think about clubbing a baby seal to death as clubbing a baby seal to death and think of it as kneading dough, and you club a baby seal to death, you are clubbing a baby seal to death, not making bread.
Your definition of what something is remains widely contested however. Until the 10th week of pregnancy a fetus does not even posses the precursors to what could develop into organs. If something lacks a brain, it is incapable of thought, and thus sentience. As any sort of nervous system has yet to develop it is incapable of pain, or any sense of well-being. Your baby seal analogy is less appropriate then say a tapeworm. A fetus in its early stages is essentially a parasite living off the host's body.
Should someone with a tapeworm be forced to live with it because they knowingly engaged in activities (eating meat) that could contribute to them acquiring a tapeworm? Or because they did not properly take adequate measures (cooking aforementioned meat) to protect guard themselves against the possibility of tapeworm.
Which fact would you like to contest:
A fetus is human
A fetus is alive
A fetus is unique
A tapeworm isn't human. A fetus is human, from the moment of conception. From the before the instant of conception, everything there is human, and is alive. At the instant of conception, everything is still human, and is still alive, but now is unique.
My baby seal analogy wasn't an analogy for abortion, but an analogy for pretending something that is something is not something doesn't make it something that it is not.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ Adams- I know you don't- I'm just asking you what you think the definition of murder is, and why it's wrong. I think if someone has a firm idea on when killing is NOT murder, then they should have as firm or firmer of an idea of what IS murder. After all, if there are several defining characteristics that make something murder, which you feel abortion does not have, then those defining characteristics must be what defines murder.
If the characteristics of an abortion, which make it not murder (in the eyes of the law) are that no one loves or cares for the fetus yet, it is not fully developed, and feels no pain, then in order for someone to have been murdered, they would have to have someone love them, would have to have reached a certain developmental level, and would have to have felt pain.
If someone is killed who doesn't meet those criteria, I'm asking if it is also not murder? If it is a murder, then the criteria have to change to make them separate things again in order for the argument to continue. If the law treats abuse, rape and murder of children and the disabled crimes of a more serious caliber than those against adults because they are less developed, then I'm interested why there's a reversal of this trend at a certain point. It seems like the less developed you are, the more heinous it is to victimize you, unless you're really, really undeveloped, and then it's ok.
I'm asking because I want to know how people arrive at their ideas and beliefs, and if the logic that they use carries through all of them, or if it is applied in some circumstances and not others. I try to really think out what I believe, and if someone shows me the flaws in my reasoning, it makes me want to look at my ideas and re-assess them (like when we all debates toplessness for women). I just have trouble seeing the logical steps a person's though process goes through to define an unborn baby as going from not human to human. The only reason I can think of that people came to this conclusion, is that it made it much easier to decide to kill the fetus for reasons that you couldn't justify killing a "real" person for.
@Skithus- I hope you don't expect sex tonight, after that post.
Post by
Skithus
My baby seal analogy wasn't an analogy for abortion, but an analogy for pretending something that is something is not something doesn't make it something that it is not.
I'm just going to pass on that one...
So lets move on to your list of 3 things and break them down by importance to this matter.
A fetus is alive?
- a fetus is alive. I don't debate that, Much like a plant is alive, or a jellyfish or my aforementioned tapeworm.
A fetus is unique?
- The majority of the time, in the case monozygotic offspring (identical twins) however they are genetically indistinguishable. Now obviously you can walk up to any set of identical twins, spend some time with them and realize quickly that they are both unique people. However, a fetus, especially prior to the 10 week mark, has yet to develop any organs, it is physically incapable of having developed into a unique person.
Which brings me to the core of this issue.
Is a fetus human?
Yes, a fetus is human. But a fetus is NOT a person. and just as a family of a braindead individual has the option to remove them from life-support as said individual has ceased to be a person, so should a family have the option of removing a fetus from life-support before it develops into a person.
Being human means nothing, its just a designation to differentiate us from other species on account of differences in our DNA. Being a PERSON is what matters. thoughts, opinions, self-awareness and the ability to reason are what defines us most as a species. Since a fetus is incapable of any of these things, it is not a person.
@Skithus- I hope you don't expect sex tonight, after that post.
Fine, be a relationship terrorist.
Post by
Adamsm
Like I said earlier, I've personally never been in that position; I've had friends who have, and one of them is a stone cold $%^&* who just got rid of her kid because she broke up with her fiancee and didn't want to be stuck with the child; another friend went through a very long thought process before she finally decided that, at that point and time in her life, she couldn't care for the child or even be able to take care of the medical bills that would have come up during those 9 months and to her, the 200 dollars for the procedure was the 'easier' choice; She tells me she still regrets doing it, but she didn't really have a choice.
My own thought process has always been it's about the woman's right to choice in those regards, and what I think or feel shouldn't venture into that. Yes, it's sad that a life is snuffed out before it has a chance to develop, but the same is true any time someone dies.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Skithus- I hope you don't expect sex tonight, after that post.
Fine, be a relationship terrorist.
Sorry...I only sleep with human beings, and I'm not sure you meet all of my definitions of one right now :P
Post by
Skithus
@Skithus- I hope you don't expect sex tonight, after that post.
Fine, be a relationship terrorist.
Sorry...I only sleep with human beings, and I'm not sure you meet all of my definitions of one right now :P
But I was conceived in a womb, I must be one! It says here right on these forums! The internet is never wrong. ;]
Post by
MyTie
Yes, a fetus is human. But a fetus is NOT a person.This sounds familiar. Where have I heard this... somewhere I've heard this as justification for murder before. Can't quite put my finger on it... can anyone help me out?and just as a family of a braindead individual has the option to remove them from life-supportThat's a terrible analogy.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.