Abortion is murder, I tells yah!

[wolfgang]

I agree with abortion, with fairly stringent time limits. Without conscious thought the embryo is just a bundle of cells. I empathise more with the cow that died so I could eat it than an embryo that has no wish to live and will never care or feel a flicker of emotion at its death.

On a contrasting tangent, using the argument that contraception is just as much murder as abortion because it prevents a potential human life is beyond ignorant, and I suspect that the guys who were arguing for it were simply playing the devils advocate, because its fun to toss around semantics and people were having trouble articulating a response.
Simply put, there is a huge difference between a process already being under way and separate events acting as a catalyst to start the process. The argument is based off an absolutist understanding of 'potential for life', which is unrealistic, you have to actually gauge the likelihood of the potential coming to fruition.

Yungerkid sounds like a pretentious twelve year old trying to come off as disillusioned and intelligent. Can you truly tell me that you think morality is completely irrelevant and that you live life purely to "expand and develop your mind?"

[origami_alligator]

given my three views that 1. morality is irrelevant and unnecessary,

Morality keeps people from doing anything they want, causing anarchy. If you have no morals, you do what ever you want, and cause chaos. Morality keeps the human race in check, and from becoming a free-for-all-looting-and-killing-fest.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Humans as individuals will come up with their own morals, while society pushes morals upon people who may not have thought of the same set of "right" and "wrong." This fear that a lack of morality will lead to anarchy is funny to me. Even in a state of anarchy people would still be kept with their own personal morals.

[yungerkid]

are we even talking about the advancement of society? if we aren't, then what the flip are we talking about morality for? and if we are, then what type of advancement? if it is moral advancement, then what will moral advancement do? satisfy us? seriously, that is an illogical and circular goal. if it isn't moral advancement, then why are we talking about morality? in conclusion, we shouldn't bring morality into this.

[Condog]

are we even talking about the advancement of society? if we aren't, then what the flip are we talking about morality for? and if we are, then what type of advancement? if it is moral advancement, then what will moral advancement do? satisfy us? seriously, that is an illogical and circular goal. if it isn't moral advancement, then why are we talking about morality? in conclusion, we shouldn't bring morality into this.

Uh, morality directly relates to the subject of abortion. Which is the main topic of this thread. How did you reach the conclusion that morality shouldn't be brought up?!

[Atilla]

as the name of the topic says, abortion is morally wrong. It is wrong because it is killing. Killing.

Pulling carrots out of the ground is also killing. Not to mention slaughtering animals for meat. In other words, you might want to be a bit more specific with your wording, given that the position of many pro-abortion types is that while abortion is killing, it's not on the same level as killing a person.

A fetus and a zygote are both human life. Humanity is defined by DNA, scientifically. Babies have DNA the exact instant the sperm and egg meet.

Technically not true, as demonstrated by several twinning events. Look at the unusual twinnings, semi-identical twins, and chimera sections on Wikipedia's article on twins for example. Also, even with identical twins, which inherit the same DNA, there are slight genetic differences due to the deactivation of some genes.

In any event, saying that something has human DNA isn't quite the same as it being a person. For example, human cells can be grown outside the body. They're alive and they have human DNA... but I don't think the resulting conglomeration of cells is a person. Indeed, each of my somatic cells is alive and has human DNA, but I don't count an individual cell as a human. I don't even count a bunch of cells - for example, my liver - as a human. To many people, that's what a zygote or embryo is - a blob of cells which happens to have human DNA in it, but doesn't really meet the criteria for actually being a person.

And, the worst possible trauma for a rape victim to then undergo is abortion.

I strongly disagree with that, but I doubt we'll be able to make much progress discussing it, so I'll settle for making a note of my dissent.

Also, I'd still like a response to this from the anti-abortion people, if you would:

On contraception: What about the "morning-after" pill (and, to a much lesser extent, the normal contraceptive pill)? They primarily work by preventing ovulation and inhibiting the passage of sperm, making conception unlikely, but they can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, thus causing it to die. Should using such pills also be regarded as abhorrent?

---

Humans as individuals will come up with their own morals, while society pushes morals upon people who may not have thought of the same set of "right" and "wrong." This fear that a lack of morality will lead to anarchy is funny to me. Even in a state of anarchy people would still be kept with their own personal morals.

He means a lack of any morality, not a lack of societally-enforced morals. You've said that people as individuals will come up with their own morals. That, then, is not a state of amorality; it is as a state of individually-defined morality.

[blue_tetris]

Cancer is chock full of human DNA and we spend an awful lot of time getting rid of it.

You know, teratomas can form with neurons in them? Yep. Brain cells in a tumor. Electrical currents which mimic those of a conscious person. Pretty freaky huh.



Also, I'd wonder if the act of childbirth would be more traumatizing to a rape victim. Nine months walking around, people staring at you, knowing you're unmarried, knowing you're carrying, feeding, fostering, assisting the child of a man who raped you. Who came upon you in the middle of the night and made you fear men and the prospect of love forever. If the thought of rape weren't going to haunt you forever, maybe the thought of raising that child, or filling out adoption papers and hoping that someone adopts that child, or knowing the uselessness of your body after bearing said child ad considering how a man may never want to touch you after you bear the child of your rapist.

Or, yeah, the indelible mark of getting an abortion. You know, getting raped isn't easy. And parenthood isn't easy. Let's tackle both at the same time, guys.

In the Bible, if a woman is raped in the city, she (and her unborn child) is to be stoned to death for not screaming loud enough, because they will become an abomination unto the Lord. Yeah, God wanted some things dead instead of alive because of how traumatic life can be to a guy.

But, no, let's bring the kid into the world, let him come to find out that he's the result of rape, and let him lose faith in God. It seems to me that whatever kid was going to be aborted which was brought into the world anyhow is going to lead a sad life and end up going to hell.

Ain't that what God wants every kid to experience?

[blackson]

It would benefit more people to legalize abortion in my opinion. Because something is a law doesn't mean people will follow it. With abortion legal, scared pregnant mothers have a safe place to dispose of fetus. Without welcoming hospitals, many will perform back-alley abortions, which could danger the women.

I also think you can't draw a line to what's potential life and what's not. That's opinion, and opinion doesn't fly in the Constitution.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

Because we're talking about how people should act, and more specifically whether or not people should be allowed to get abortions, this is an ethical dispute (by definition).

[yungerkid]

ahh, i see it now. thanks for clarifying that.

[blue_tetris]

The topic title "Abortion is murder" makes it seem like a legal argument as much as an ethical one.

But Demonz calls the shots.

I think, ethically, people should only get abortions in rare and extreme cases.

[Brainwasher]

I think, ethically, people should only get abortions in rare and extreme cases.

True, but the risk of a "retarted" baby is not a good reason. My sister was predicted to be deformed and have a severe mental handicap. My mother refused abortion, and my sister was born normal as any other baby. Now she is a writer and works in special education with the deaf (as she is). Therefore, deformation or retardation or handicaps are not reasons for abortion.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

I think, ethically, people should only get abortions in rare and extreme cases.

True, but the risk of a "retarted" baby is not a good reason. My sister was predicted to be deformed and have a severe mental handicap. My mother refused abortion, and my sister was born normal as any other baby. Now she is a writer and works in special education with the deaf (as she is). Therefore, deformation or retardation or handicaps are not reasons for abortion.

No. Anecdotal evidence cannot be used to further statistical claims.

There are two kinds of statements that you can make: existential and statistical. An existential statement is about the existence or non-existence of an individual. A statistical statement is a description of some aggregate property of a collection of individuals. Anecdotal evidence (a.k.a. telling a story) is useful for existential claims, because the individual in the story and the claim are exactly the same entity. What I mean by this is that your story is useful for proving the claim "Deformation/retardation/handicaps were not good reasons to abort my sister's fetus." If you use anecdote to try to prove a statistical claim, you are wasting everyone's time. This is because the specifics of your sister's situation do not carry over to every single instance where a fetus might become deformed as it develops. If you want to further statistical claims, use statistical evidence (e.g. a scientific study).

[blue_tetris]

I think, ethically, people should only get abortions in rare and extreme cases.

True, but the risk of a "retarted" baby is not a good reason. My sister was predicted to be deformed and have a severe mental handicap. My mother refused abortion, and my sister was born normal as any other baby. Now she is a writer and works in special education with the deaf (as she is). Therefore, deformation or retardation or handicaps are not reasons for abortion.

I don't think many people would say they are good reasons.

There are a lot of stupid reasons to get an abortion. I don't think anyone would try to convince people to get an abortion in these circumstances.

Moreover, Miley Cyrus is an idiot. Anyone who likes Miley Cyrus is an idiot. I would caution people against getting Miley Cyrus albums. If I had a friend I knew who got a Miley Cyrus album, I would lose a lot of respect for them. But I will defend to the end their right to purchase Miley Cyrus albums. I don't think the State can prevent people from getting Miley Cyrus albums anyway. I mean, people will just go into back alleys looking for Miley Cyrus albums cheap. They could be pirated. They could be unsafe.

There's a difference between passing judgment onto someone and passing legislation against someone.



Also, before anyone says otherwise, this is a perfectly good analogy. There is only superficial difference between Miley Cyrus and an abortion.

[iangb]

I go with the fun motto: "If you think abortion is immoral, don't have an abortion"

The only logical argument for pro-lifers is that a fertilised egg is human life (not potential life) from the point of fertilisation onwards. As the definition of when 'human life' starts is largely subjective, that's all fine and dandy - and can be argued either way (which is also a bit of a task, but that's another issue). However, it's not the government's job to put legal constraints on a subjective matter, nor is it an individual's job to force their subjective opinion onto someone else.

As such, I'm pro-choice.

[DemonzLunchBreak]

The topic title "Abortion is murder" makes it seem like a legal argument as much as an ethical one.

But Demonz calls the shots.

Well, yeah, I guess that holds water. What I was trying to address was yungerkid's idea that you can just ignore morality in this issue, which I think is impossible. Legality can't ignore morality. Morality is (or should be?) the basis for all laws.

[rambo5252]

well think about it....i mean im not trying to be racsiist but most the children that get aborted are from fricken hoodlums asnd homeless that cant support a child or people that no the child is going to be mentally retarded....so if obortion is ilegal then where going to have more hoodlums poor and retarded

[TribulatioN]

well think about it....i mean im not trying to be racsiist but most the children that get aborted are from fricken hoodlums asnd homeless that cant support a child or people that no the child is going to be mentally retarded....so if obortion is ilegal then where going to have more hoodlums poor and retarded

That's not even true at all. Just because the word abortion comes up, doesn't mean it is related to the "hoodlums and homeless". Maybe you should think about what you say a bit.

[Twistkill]

well think about it....i mean im not trying to be racsiist but most the children that get aborted are from fricken hoodlums asnd homeless that cant support a child or people that no the child is going to be mentally retarded....so if obortion is ilegal then where going to have more hoodlums poor and retarded

This is the most presumptuous pile of garbage I've read in my near 3-year history on these forums. The text itself is also near incomprehensible. Please, sir, (and I use that term lightly) try again with a different tone and demonstrating at least some understanding of the English language.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

well think about it....i mean im not trying to be racsiist but most the children that get aborted are from fricken hoodlums asnd homeless that cant support a child or people that no the child is going to be mentally retarded....so if obortion is ilegal then where going to have more hoodlums poor and retarded

I have no words.

[origami_alligator]

well think about it....i mean im not trying to be racsiist but most the children that get aborted are from fricken hoodlums asnd homeless that cant support a child or people that no the child is going to be mentally retarded....so if obortion is ilegal then where going to have more hoodlums poor and retarded

statistically speaking, less-wealthy people have more children than more-wealthy people. So if abortion were illegal we'd have just as many hoodlums and retarded kids walkin' (or shufflin' or wheelchairin' or hustlin') around as we do now.

[Skyling]

well think about it....i mean im not trying to be racsiist but most the children that get aborted are from fricken hoodlums asnd homeless that cant support a child or people that no the child is going to be mentally retarded....so if obortion is ilegal then where going to have more hoodlums poor and retarded

Sigged!

[lord_day]

I posted rambo5252's comment on to a youtube and people took me seriously. I guess the guy who wrote XKCD was right. You can't be too stupid for youtube.

[TribulatioN]

I posted rambo5252's comment on to a youtube and people took me seriously. I guess the guy who wrote XKCD was right. You can't be too stupid for youtube.

That's a foolproof test, especially with a comment like that.

[jean-luc]

It's known that about 14 years after abortion is banned, crime rates go up and stay up. They drop again when abortion is made legal. Why, you ask?

Rambo's comment may be poorly worded, but hesitate to declare him a racist - he touches upon an uncomfortable truth. The reality is, individuals who would be aborted were abortion legal are significantly more likely to live in poverty and be involved in crime. This is because the majority of abortions are carried out by mothers that understand that they are not capable of supporting a child. If the child is born anyway, it will typically be raised poorly, often severely impoverished, with a single mother, with an abusive parent, or with a parent that is an alcoholic or severe drug addict.
For the same reason, individuals that would be aborted, were abortion legal, are more likely to be abused as children, have lifelong emotional imbalances, or become life criminals.

Sure, adoption seems like a tidy solution to this, but unfortunately it simply isn't. The current adoption infrastructure in the United States is poorly managed and often leads to the exact same problems.

Additionally, when abortion is banned, a large number of mothers will choose to have a child aborted anyway. This results in illegal abortions carried out by dubious doctors in unsafe conditions with little or no post-operation care. This results in a large number of permanent injuries (including death) to mothers, as a result of complications of improper abortions. When you outlaw something, only outlaws do it. When this 'something' is a dangerous matter of life and death, outlawing it is often much more dangerous than permitting it in a regulated manner.

[Twistkill]

I don't know, guys, maybe my birth mother should have aborted me instead of the parents I have now adopt me because they wanted another child and wished to help my incarcerated, alcoholic, and drug addicted birth mother give me a chance at life. Cause, there's nothing wrong with that at all. It's only one person, right? Won't there be chances for more babies down the line? No one can change someone's world, so get over yourselves.