A Women's Right to Murder?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: 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.

but that's not murdering a cell because these cells don't have brains like babies.

So you attribute human life to 'having a brain', does that mean you base life of the development of brain function; that being the case do you support abortion prior to the development of brain function? Additionaly, is there some point at which brain function reaches a stage which defines humanity, i.e. independent sentient thought?

it's the fact that the baby would have been a baby had it not been murdered.

An egg cell could become a baby, does this make it morally incumbent for women and girls to attempt to get them selves pregant or go on the pill in order to avoid having periods? Secondly murder implies that a life has been taken and secondly that life has been taken illegally. To call an abortion 'murder' ignores the latter (because it is not illegal) and shows a misunderstanding of what 'life' actually is.

[ZNFYRH]

Porfyra

Isherwood basically gave the same answer I would.

If you differentiate at the brain, do you mean the formation of the brain or brain function?

If you say it's a human when it starts to grow like a human, then you are stuck accusing every man who masturbates as murder, because sperm has already initiated the process when it is created, and the process is self-sustaining until the sperm dies.

Killing the sperm by exposing it to an environment other than the one for which is was intended is, technically, murder.

[Nemiroff]

The baby may have a right to live, but if it new what life awaits it, would it really desire it? Having a mother that either doesn't want or love it, some parents may outright hate their children because of it. Maternal love is strong, but noone can honestly say they never heard of an abusive mother. And how about all those newborns found in dumpster, yes that is a nice life. As gruesome as getting chopped up may sound, it is infinetely preferable to starving to death alone surrounded by garbage.

Then you have the mother that does love her baby but just isn't responsible enough yet. A mother who is still a girl, ends up leaving her kid alone while she goes to hang out, a girl still trying to live her life, not ready to sacrifice everything and devote herself to her baby.

[Porfyra]

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."

I'm just going to add to this. the fetus is not part of the mother's body- in fact, the mother's body reacts to the fetus. thus, morning sickness. after awhile the morning sickness wears off, but that's just because the mother's body has adjusted to having the fetus in there.

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.

...if the state shouldn't decide then that leaves the girl and her man and her parents (if they know) to decide. and that's ridiculous. first off, if the girl was stupid enough to get pregnant when not married in the first place then do you really think she would be smart enough to decide whether to keep the baby or not?

Second- why should anyone be given the choice of whether or not someone else lives? how can you decide if someone is good enough to keep if you haven't even met them yet? the whole thing is sick and wrong. helpless fetuses should NOT be killed before they have a chance to live.

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.....

yes, she didn't have the choice to get raped. BUT why would you try to justify one crime with another crime? it doesn't make sense and just because the mom was harmed doesn't mean the baby should be harmed too.

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?

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.

In the case of complications... i have to agree with you. i still think abortion should be avoided at all costs, but if the complications are really bad i believe abortion could be looked into. if done the right way and with the right attitude i think that it might be ok.

[Porfyra]

The baby may have a right to live, but if it new what life awaits it, would it really desire it? Having a mother that either doesn't want or love it, some parents may outright hate their children because of it. Maternal love is strong, but noone can honestly say they never heard of an abusive mother. And how about all those newborns found in dumpster, yes that is a nice life. As gruesome as getting chopped up may sound, it is infinetely preferable to starving to death alone surrounded by garbage. Then you have the mother that does love her baby but just isn't responsible enough yet. A mother who is still a girl, ends up leaving her kid alone while she goes to hang out, a girl still trying to live her life, not ready to sacrifice everything and devote herself to her baby.

good point, but you dont know what life the baby is going to live until it is born and it's happened. besides, if the girl doesn't think she'd be a good mom then why not at least put the baby up for adoption instead of killing it?

what if the baby would have been a child prodigy or changed the world in some dramatic way?

[Nemiroff]

I love the argument "well she shouldn't of had sex in the first place". Sex is a need, a desire. An instinct. Peoples bodies are ready for sex and childbirth by the age of 13. And traditionally that's around the age people settled down. There wasn't as much schooling, and children mostly just played and helped with the house and field.

Today, our bodies and desires haven't changed, but society has. At 13 our bodies start to change and somewhere around that time we start thinking about sex, but because of our new complex society, we're not even in high school yet. We're still learning how to behave and act, we don't even know right from wrong in complex situations (such as abortion). At that age, we're still just repeating what our teachers told us.

Of course most people don't start having sex at 13 but that's when the urge usually first appears, and buy 16 17 when most people start doing it, they are still far from mature enough. Why must they force themselves to deny the body what it wants, or else live with the consequences for the rest of their lives?

Why must we force such decisions on our young when alternatives are present. Either way its cruel, for both the mother and the child.

[Porfyra]

I love the argument "well she shouldn't of had sex in the first place". Sex is a need, a desire. An instinct. Peoples bodies are ready for sex and childbirth by the age of 13. And traditionally that's around the age people settled down. There wasn't as much schooling, and children mostly just played and helped with the house and field.

*cough* and when was this???

Of course most people don't start having sex at 13 but that's when the urge usually first appears, and buy 16 17 when most people start doing it, they are still far from mature enough. Why must they force themselves to deny the body what it wants, or else live with the consequences for the rest of their lives? Why must we force such decisions on our young when alternatives are present. Either way its cruel, for both the mother and the child.

it's not that difficult to wait. AND it's more logical. no sex: none of those weird diseases, no baby to kill, and old people don't shake their heads when they think of you. plus you save all of yourself for your future husband or wife and you don't have to deal with the whole "ghost of relationships past" thing. i think it is very sensible to make young people wait and not kill their babies.

one more thing- sex is an adult thing. adults should be mature. thus wouldn't it be better to just wait until you are mature to do something that mature people do?

[Nemiroff]

it was a long time ago, but it happened, are you gonna deny that?

and why should we force ourselves to wait? and its more difficult for some then it is for others, that is something that you cannot judge.

i dont see why the ghost of relationships past is a problem unless you live in a neighborhood full of ultra conservative and traditional people. most people dont care about such things anymore.

i dont not see how making people wait is sensible. especially since you never defined how long. Til marriage can be a very long time for some people. and even at the age of 53 some people aren't as mature as they should be. certain people never achieve the maturity needed for child raising.

[Jack]

*cough* and when was this???

Less than a century ago in the U.S.

if the complications are really bad i believe abortion could be looked into. if done the right way and with the right attitude i think that it might be ok.

Are you admitting then that it's not the procedure itself you oppose but the morality of the decision when to employ it? In that case we're back to legislating morality.

what if the baby would have been a child prodigy or changed the world in some dramatic way?

What if it were the next Jeffrey Dahmer or the antichrist? Such speculation is pointless.

one more thing- sex is an adult thing.

I'm not sure what criteria you use to define "adult", but frequently, for a woman, it's when a woman menstruates and is ready to have children. Legal age (21=adult) is an arbitrary age not based on biology. Biologically, a 13 year old girl is often an adult.

[Nemiroff]

also the process of removal seems to be cruel, but instead of banning the process why dont we find better ways. You said it yourself, certain old methods were dangerous to the women, they tried to solve that problem and now most abortion methods are mother safe.

If society begins to think of the fetus as a living thing but accepts abortion as a necessary evil, (for the sake of the mother, and the knowledge that the baby may be abused, ignored, not well taken care off, or just gonna end up in a dumpster somewhere). perhaps we can simply develope more humane methods. Simply extracting it wouldn't be humane, since it will not be able to surivive outside the mother, chopping it up, but making sure it doesn't feel any pain seems to be the most humane methode short of transfer to another host.

[Porfyra]

and why should we force ourselves to wait? and its more difficult for some then it is for others, that is something that you cannot judge. i dont see why the ghost of relationships past is a problem unless you live in a neighborhood full of ultra conservative and traditional people. most people dont care about such things anymore.

psh whatever. your life. but the thing is when it begins to involve someone else's life then it becomes an issue.

Are you admitting then that it's not the procedure itself you oppose but the morality of the decision when to employ it? In that case we're back to legislating morality.

the procedure is disgusting and cruel. simple. and it is wrong as well, but i just meant that if it were done humanely and for an extremely good purpose then it might be ok.

I'm not sure what criteria you use to define "adult", but frequently, for a woman, it's when a woman menstruates and is ready to have children. Legal age (21=adult) is an arbitrary age not based on biology. Biologically, a 13 year old girl is often an adult.

i define adult as mature, but that's just me. physically mature is rarely at 13. most girls are still going through puberty then.

[Porfyra]

also the process of removal seems to be cruel, but instead of banning the process why dont we find better ways. You said it yourself, certain old methods were dangerous to the women, they tried to solve that problem and now most abortion methods are mother safe. If society begins to think of the fetus as a living thing but accepts abortion as a necessary evil, (for the sake of the mother, and the knowledge that the baby may be abused, ignored, not well taken care off, or just gonna end up in a dumpster somewhere). perhaps we can simply develope more humane methods. Simply extracting it wouldn't be humane, since it will not be able to surivive outside the mother, chopping it up, but making sure it doesn't feel any pain seems to be the most humane methode short of transfer to another host.

it doesn't matter whether it is done humanely or not. it is still wrong because the mother is robbing her baby of its life!

[Nemiroff]

i define adult as mature, but that's just me. physically mature is rarely at 13. most girls are still going through puberty then.

so girls at 15 are good to go?

and what about mental maturity? is everyone over the age of 20 mature?
how about 53? is every 53 year old fully mentally mature?

i've met 5 year olds more mature then half the adults out there. there is no definitive age of maturity, and there definetely is no garantee that a specific person will ever achieve maturity.

[Porfyra]

so girls at 15 are good to go? and what about mental maturity? is everyone over the age of 20 mature? how about 53? is every 53 year old fully mentally mature? i've met 5 year olds more mature then half the adults out there. there is no definitive age of maturity, and there definetely is no garantee that a specific person will ever achieve maturity.

what i was trying to say was that if a girl is not mature enough to care for a child on her own then she is not old enough to have sex. imo.

[Nemiroff]

and i was saying that many adults never even reach that state of maturity no matter how many years you give them.

so heres the question, where do you draw the line?

and for bonus points, why is sex so taboo that you must only do it for purposes of child birth?

what about married people that have as many kids as they can support, but want to make love to each other some more? should they practice abstinence after marriage as well? more children will mean less food for them and the children they already have, lets not forget that point.

[Porfyra]

we've gotten off topic...........
but you have some good points.

patience is a virtue that women and men should learn especially when it involves sex.

[Nemiroff]

we are perfectly on topic, your solution for abortion is no sex, and i'm just arguing your on topic solution.

patience is debatable. i dont believe that people should have to wait. like the woman's line...if you love me, you'll wait....men should start saying "if you love me, you wont make me wait" :) just a little counter argument to level the playing field.

you also failed to address the problem of the over budgeted married people who with to continue having sex, while not being able to support any more children.

[Porfyra]

you also failed to address the problem of the over budgeted married people who with to continue having sex, while not being able to support any more children.

alright let's see here: personal enjoyment of sex or the life of a child? ooh hard choice.

patience is debatable. i dont believe that people should have to wait. like the woman's line...if you love me, you'll wait....men should start saying "if you love me, you wont make me wait" :) just a little counter argument to level the playing field.

yeah i think that would be a personal opinion thing, but like i said, when it involves the life of a child i think someone should always wait.

we are perfectly on topic, your solution for abortion is no sex, and i'm just arguing your on topic solution.

alright whuteva

[Nemiroff]

alright let's see here: personal enjoyment of sex or the life of a child? ooh hard choice.

so consenting, married, loving, adults cannot have sex unless their planning on having a new child? thats ridiculous, even if you are morally right, noones gonna follow that!!!

[Nemiroff]

besides, how about before its nervous system forms? it would feel no pain, not be able to think for itself, it wouldn't even be sentient.

we're talking about the suffereing of both mother and child here. remember, many children end up in a dumpster even tho abortion is currently legal.