A Women's Right to Murder?

[Matt W]

How about you look around next time before starting duplicate threads?

Try here:

Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[kiFF]

Thanks Matt...but I'd like to settle this here. I don't think it's bothering anyone and I think the topic is slightly different.

[Cephus]

Quote by: kiFF That's the point. What circumstance justifies "aborting" (I'll be objective) a "fetus"? The processes I listed are gruesome. The only circumstances I've heard people list are rape or incest, or if the mother's life is in danger. However after doing simple research on Google, I found that abortions due to rape or incest are only 1%! I don't think that 1% should justify the legalization of such procedures.

Who cares if it's gruesome? The process for butchering a cow is just as gruesome but that doesn't stop you from eating a hamburger.

The simple reality is, it's none of your damn business what a woman does with her own body and since society does not grant rights to a fetus, she can do whatever she wishes with said fetus so long as it's using her body as a life support system without her permission. If you can come up with a medical method of transferring a fetus from one body to another and a long, long, long list of volunteers who will take these fetuses, then feel free. Until then, keep your nose out of everyone else's business.

[Maryjane]

I used to be pro choice, but I have recently come to realize that abortion is immoral and is in fact murder. I have realized that whether or not the fetus is living is not a religious question but a biological fact.

Lol, it doesn't make me feel morally superior.

You said you feel abortion is immoral and therefore your reason to change from pro choice to pro life. I'm not putting words in your mouth. Yes, legislating morality is what you want to do. Think capital punishment, euthanasia, stem cell research...

And tell me, since when does our inalienable right to life depend on that life being "wanted" or not?

Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed.

National Abortion Federation: History of Abortion



Then you want to make it a civil rights issue.
Like Matt said, all that is on another thread. You aren't arguing anything new here by tossing in a few medical procedures.

[Porfyra]

I'm totally against abortion but i have a quick question- if christians believe babies go to heaven when they die then why does it matter that they are killed? they're going to a better place, are they not?

would that affect in any way whether or not it should be illegal?


**i promise i am against it- really but i just had to bring it up because i'm writing a paper on it and that is the one thing i have left unanswered.

[Jack]

You bring up a valid consideration. Using theistic terminology, they are yet without sin and didn't take their own "lives", so it would seem they are on a fast track to heaven. What's the downside to that proposition?

[pahl]

The only question that should make any difference imo, is if the fetus is considered alive or not (or perhaps if it is sentient).
If it is alive and aware then it would have to be considered a person like everyone else, and therefore have rights. Then the womans discomforts must be weighed against the life of another person, who has not commited any crime and is only a victim of circumstance.

[Porfyra]

yes. i would have to do some research about when exactly the fetus is "alive", but i am 100% positive that the whole sick story about it being a lump of skin is untrue.

You bring up a valid consideration. Using theistic terminology, they are yet without sin and didn't take their own "lives", so it would seem they are on a fast track to heaven. What's the downside to that proposition?

not quite sure that i know what you are trying to get at, but i think the downside would be that the woman is murdering. and that would be wrong no matter where the baby goes.

Then the womans discomforts must be weighed against the life of another person, who has not commited any crime and is only a victim of circumstance.

the woman's discomfort. my gosh, that drives me more insane than anything else. WHY is the world so focused on what feels good for us and how we can make life better? the fact is that it's wrong to take someone else's life no matter how small they are. if the woman can't be bothered to raise a child then dammit she shouldn't have had sex in the first place!

(not angry at you or anyone pahl, just ranting and raving )



oh i just thought of another question to bring up- why can't they at least find more humane ways to kill the babies?

[Chris the Chees]

Liberals claim that the fetus is part of a woman's body, much like an organ, and that she has the "right" to do whatever she wants with her own body. As a libertarian who advocates personal freedoms, I had accepted this claim. But it is not true. Body part's are defined by the common genetic code they share with the rest of the body. An unborn child's genetic code differs entirely from the mother's. Thus is is not part of the pregnant women's body, it simply resides in her womb.

This is not the argument put forward. The argument is that if the fetus is unwanted it is in effect a parasite and is entirely dependent upon its hosts biological functions and body. As it is the womans body she can choose to sever the fetus's access to her body.

The logic of this poisition has been outlined in Judith Jarvis's "Violinist" argument: -

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

In this case, of course, you were kidnapped, you didn't volunteer for the operation that plugged the violinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they didn't come into existence because of rape; or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those who came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have a rather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right to life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of whether or not you are a product of a rape. And in fact the people who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence do not make an exception in case of rape.

Nor do they make an exception for a case in which the mother has to spend the nine months of her pregnancy in bed. They would agree that would be a great pity, and hard on the mother; but all the same, all persons have a right to life, the fetus is a person, and so on. I suspect, in fact, that they would not make an exception for a case in which, miraculously enough, the pregnancy went on for nine years, or even the rest of the mother's life.

Some won't even make an exception for a case in which continuation of the pregnancy is likely to shorten the mother's life, they regard abortion as impermissible even to save the mother's life. Such cases are nowadays very rare, and many opponents of abortion do not accept this extreme view. All the same, it is a good place to begin: a number of points of interest come out in respect to it."

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Porfyra i would have to do some research about when exactly the fetus is "alive"

Cells are alive. Sperm and egg are made of cells. They are alive whether or not there is fertilization. So at conception, they are still alive, they just have a longer lifespan.

Additionally, any mention of "rights" makes it a moral or ethical issue, not a scientific one. It's all up for interpretation.

[Porfyra]

Cells are alive. Sperm and egg are made of cells. They are alive whether or not there is fertilization. So at conception, they are still alive, they just have a longer lifespan.

yes that's what i thought.

[ZNFYRH]

And that's about as much scientific fact as you can put into it.

[Porfyra]

so it's simple. abortion is wrong no matter which way you put it.

[ZNFYRH]

"Wrong" is a moral / ethical word.

Based on what I wrote, all cells are life.

If you believe abortion is wrong because it terminates life, how do you feel about other activities in which a person can participate that result in the death of cells?

Tattoos? Suntan? Washing with soap? Masturbation?

[Porfyra]

yes but washing with soap is a natural thing that is necessary to keep people clean. tatoos are dumb but that's not murdering a cell because these cells don't have brains like babies. suntan? same thing.

going by your logic, is it wrong to loose skin cells? we loose thousands of skin cells a day just by normal activity. would that be considered immoral?

there's a difference between skin cells and babies.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Porfyra yes but washing with soap is a natural thing that is necessary to keep people clean.

Natural? Do rub a man-made chemical compound against your skin?

Bathing in a hot spring is more natural.

Quote by: Porfyra tatoos are dumb but that's not murdering a cell because these cells don't have brains like babies there's a difference between skin cells and babies

But my explanation didn't say anything about brains. It only said that cells are alive before fertilization and after, except that fertilization triggers a different kind of growth which, with sustained support, increases the lifespan of the cells.

Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.

Your answer is: 40 days.

Is that when you mark cells versus babies?

[Porfyra]

the thing is, it doesn't matter when the baby becomes a baby. it's the fact that the baby would have been a baby had it not been murdered. it would have been a person just like you and me but it was killed before it even had the chance to live.

It only said that cells are alive before fertilization and after, except that fertilization triggers a different kind of growth which, with sustained support, increases the lifespan of the cells.

yes, precisely- a DIFFERENT KIND OF GROWTH. a human growth.

[Jack]

Then you get into the problem of defining the point at which cells differentiate into the actual human being. The constituent parts of a human are alive, true, but when do they aggregate into something that can properly be called a human?
This should also include the argument about the sanctity of human life. If life, while precious, is not sacred, then a conglomeration of cells is just that until a point further along in the process of development.

[Ken Carman]

I used to be pro choice, but I have recently come to realize that abortion is immoral and is in fact murder. I have realized that whether or not the fetus is living is not a religious question but a biological fact. Liberals claim that the fetus is part of a woman's body, much like an organ, and that she has the "right" to do whatever she wants with her own body. As a libertarian who advocates personal freedoms, I had accepted this claim. But it is not true. Body part's are defined by the common genetic code they share with the rest of the body. An unborn child's genetic code differs entirely from the mother's. Thus is is not part of the pregnant women's body, it simply resides in her womb. Carol Everett, a woman from Dallas, Texas, had run five abortion clinics after having an abortion herself. In All About Issues Magazine, she wrote in an article, "Every woman [who walks into the clinic] has two question: Does it hurt? and Is it a baby? No, the counselor assures her. It's a blood clot or ball of cells. Even though these counselors see six-week babies daily, with arms, legs, toes and eyes that are closed like newborn puppies, they lie to the women. How many people would have an abortion, if we told them the truth?"[1] Kathy Sparks, an abortion worker in an Illinois abortion clinic is quoted in The Conversation of Kathy Sparks by Gloria Williamson: "Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'it's not a baby yet. It's just a tissue, like a clot."[1] This is not religious speculation, this is biological fact. So let's discuss this so-called "women's right" to destroy a fetus and how it's done. People claim that women have a right to choose, but nobody has a right to choose murder.

-

I'm basically going to comment on what I put in bold. Yes, the fetus is living... no doubt. Of the same value, maybe even more, than the mother? No. Besides there are other living things we decide we have a right to end their lives for various reason. The issue here is... who decides either way, IMO. And, for me... not the state. Even the most Pro-Life people might want to think about giving the state this kind of power in this case. Given a change of the political climate, like some forms of fascism for example, the state could very well shift to deciding certain types of people shouldn't be born. Admittedly having the mother decide is, in no way, the perfect solution. There is no perfect solution here.


I don't recall this second part of the following sentence ever being stated by any liberal I know or have read...

Liberals claim that the fetus is part of a woman's body, much like an organ,

It's certainly not "much like an organ." The first part, I wouldn't say "part of the body," I would say "inside." In the earliest stages a bit more like a growth than life, if you view sentient abilities as part of the decision. At the earlier stages it is more like a ball of cells. It's not a baby. Baby is "born." Fetus is "unborn."


Hmm... as for "lie to them..." that's only if they accept the premise you have stated, the one I disagree with.



Wow. A baby's genetic code is completely different from the mother's? That just can't be right, I'm sorry. My blond hair comes from my mother. My short legs come from my father. The list is endless.


"Murder" is a LEGAL term. When, and if, it becomes illegal, in that state, province or country, it might be considered "murder." Depends upon how the law is phrased. To call it "murder" is inaccurate and misleading because... once again, murder is a legal term. I wouldn't claim you are lying in this regard, but when you decide for others what their motives really are (as in "they lie") as a rhetorical device to debate with you might want to be careful with your own accusations and attempts to broadly brush others. It gives the appearance of deception on your part. Of course that's up to you.

The rest is only valid if you accept the way you have phrased your points. I don't.

[kubedawg]

The only things about abortion that needs to be discussed are complications with pregnancy(for either the mother or the child), and rape victims.

If it is immoral for a woman to abort a child, saying she had the choice to conceive the child in the first place, then what about rape vicitims? They didn't have the choice to get raped.....

The same situtation applies to complications during pregnancy. Who's choice should it be to make the decision, if you can't save both lives, which one to save?

My view is this:
Rape vicitims did not choose to be raped, and although it may not be fair for the future of that child, a woman should be able to abort it in this circumstance. I also believe that if convicted, and if the woman aborts, the rapist should be charged with rape as well as murder in the first degree.

Also, the people who should have the say in what happens to the life of either the mother or the child during complications should be in this order from first to last:

Mother - should always have the decision, or if unable to make the decision, see spouce.
Spouce - if no spouce, or if spouce is seperated/divorced, see family.
Family - if no family, or family unable to make decision, see doctor.
Doctor - Final say should be the doctor's, not on who's life is more important, but the chances of survival of either the mother or the child.