Page 1 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

ToShinTim
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 100
Location: Muncie, Indiana

09 Apr 2014, 4:21 pm

Yes, this ever-so-tender subject. I posted this on my Facebook profile a while ago, but didn't get much of a response, so I'm putting it here as well.

Why is it that when a pregnant woman is murdered, it's considered a double homicide, but for an abortion, the fetus no longer is classified as a person in a legal standpoint?

Links for "proof"
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fet ... -laws.aspx

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=124535


This is my stance on abortion (in general) - I believe that abortion should not be legal UNLESS it is done within the first week of conciecvement, before there is a heartbeat formed. After there is a heartbeat, that means there is a life. Therefore, aborting something that is alive is (in my mind) murder. In the cases of rape/sexual assault, I believe that, if the child is not desired, an abortion may take place, but paperwork must be completed in order for this to happen. In all other cases, for god's sake just use protection



Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,908
Location: North Wayels

09 Apr 2014, 5:13 pm

I suppose because the intention to keep and gestate and birth the foetus endows it with legal personhood. Leaving aside any shenanigans where lawmakers may try to restrict legal abortion by other means.

Didn't know until looking it up just now, but we have laws against 'child destruction' in the UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_destruction

I am reflexively pro choice. i do't often think about the isse, but when I do I can see some ethical murkiness (where isn't there?) and understand others' pov, but my stance doesn't change.

'Protection' doesn't always work.


_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,252
Location: Reading, England

09 Apr 2014, 5:24 pm

Basically, as Hooper said.

Murder is wrong for two reasons:

1) It deprives a sentient being of their life, against their wishes
2) It deprives other sentient beings of the chance to be with a human being that they place great value on

Either of those is sufficient. However, a zef is not a sentient being, so does not fulfil 1). It can fulfil 2), but it requires its parents to already have an attachment to it.

There is nothing necessarily morally wrong about stopping a heart from beating. Unless you are a Buddhist or have similar views about the sanctity of life, you are probably willing to stop the "heart" of a non-sentient being that causes you inconvenience, such as a slug or a fly. If you are not a vegetarian, you are willing to have the heart of a reasonably sentient being stopped so that you can eat it, or turn it into leather... Chances are, you're willing for sick or dying animals to have their hearts stopped, and you wouldn't insist that a heart removed from a body was continually stimulated so it would keep beating.



ToShinTim
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 100
Location: Muncie, Indiana

09 Apr 2014, 5:39 pm

Quote:
Basically, as Hooper said.

Murder is wrong for two reasons:

1) It deprives a sentient being of their life, against their wishes
2) It deprives other sentient beings of the chance to be with a human being that they place great value on

Either of those is sufficient. However, a zef is not a sentient being, so does not fulfil 1). It can fulfil 2), but it requires its parents to already have an attachment to it.

There is nothing necessarily morally wrong about stopping a heart from beating. Unless you are a Buddhist or have similar views about the sanctity of life, you are probably willing to stop the "heart" of a non-sentient being that causes you inconvenience, such as a slug or a fly. If you are not a vegetarian, you are willing to have the heart of a reasonably sentient being stopped so that you can eat it, or turn it into leather... Chances are, you're willing for sick or dying animals to have their hearts stopped, and you wouldn't insist that a heart removed from a body was continually stimulated so it would keep beating.


Are you for, or against, abortion?



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

09 Apr 2014, 8:54 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Basically, as Hooper said.

Murder is wrong for two reasons:

1) It deprives a sentient being of their life, against their wishes
2) It deprives other sentient beings of the chance to be with a human being that they place great value on

Either of those is sufficient. However, a zef is not a sentient being, so does not fulfil 1). It can fulfil 2), but it requires its parents to already have an attachment to it.

There is nothing necessarily morally wrong about stopping a heart from beating. Unless you are a Buddhist or have similar views about the sanctity of life, you are probably willing to stop the "heart" of a non-sentient being that causes you inconvenience, such as a slug or a fly. If you are not a vegetarian, you are willing to have the heart of a reasonably sentient being stopped so that you can eat it, or turn it into leather... Chances are, you're willing for sick or dying animals to have their hearts stopped, and you wouldn't insist that a heart removed from a body was continually stimulated so it would keep beating.


I think in the case of abortion there needs to be a determination between living and "sentient." I think for the act to be considered illegal it has to be definitively clear at what point there is actual consciousness of sensory stimulation. That the embryo has or has not developed to the point of being actually proof positive "sentient," in the literal sense. At any rate, I am not a female and I don't feel I have any right to decide what decisions any other human being makes.

I don't care how cold and heartless someone may think a woman to be who aborts what is developing in her own body. I believe that every female has to deal with her own conscience and that no physical punishment that society can impose upon her for making this decision is going to have more affect on her existence, especially in her later life, than whatever consequences she has to deal with in her own mind. And I don't think it matters how physically or emotionally tough that woman might appear from the outside, I still think her own conscience will always be the harshest judge of her actions in this particular situation.



Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 943
Location: Texas

09 Apr 2014, 9:16 pm

ToShinTim wrote:
Why is it that when a pregnant woman is murdered, it's considered a double homicide, but for an abortion, the fetus no longer is classified as a person in a legal standpoint?
The reason is simple: those seeking political power manipulate emotion to succeed. If a woman is murdered alone, the jury may let the killer off on a technicality...but if a baby is listed among the victims, there's a greater moral outcry. Even those who favor abortion will often feel a sense of terrible injustice over the death of a child, because there's no "still in the womb" excuse to hide behind. There's something in all of us that recognizes the truth about another life's existence, regardless of its location...but some people suppress that because they want the fun of sex without the responsibility of parenting.

Quote:
This is my stance on abortion (in general) - I believe that abortion should not be legal UNLESS it is done within the first week of conception, before there is a heartbeat formed. After there is a heartbeat, that means there is a life. Therefore, aborting something that is alive is (in my mind) murder.
Let me ask you this: in your own mind, what's so significant about a detectable heartbeat, that suddenly distinguishes a living baby from a "non-human" clump of cells?

Quote:
In the cases of rape/sexual assault, I believe that, if the child is not desired, an abortion may take place, but paperwork must be completed in order for this to happen.
Are you saying you believe its morally right for anyone to murder their own child, so long as the conception was abusive? Hell, why not wait until the kid's first day of school, or when they graduate college? At what point is killing a child no longer murder at all for anyone?


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.


TheGoggles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060

09 Apr 2014, 10:51 pm

Abortion is rad. Peace out.



Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

09 Apr 2014, 11:19 pm

I think this seeming discrepancy is the result of the principle that, although the fetus has rights to life, a person's sovereignty over their own body is a right which trumps those of the right to life of the fetus.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I57QIxxSfu4[/youtube]



Last edited by Stannis on 10 Apr 2014, 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

ToShinTim
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 100
Location: Muncie, Indiana

09 Apr 2014, 11:57 pm

Quote:
Let me ask you this: in your own mind, what's so significant about a detectable heartbeat, that suddenly distinguishes a living baby from a "non-human" clump of cells?

I would say that the difference is that, even though the fetus has no chance at all of living on its own outside the womb, once the heartbeat starts it is a living human, in a sense. In week 5, the brain forms (in link), so does that make the issue any different than the heartbeat?

Quote:
Are you saying you believe its morally right for anyone to murder their own child, so long as the conception was abusive? Hell, why not wait until the kid's first day of school, or when they graduate college? At what point is killing a child no longer murder at all for anyone?
Quote:

No, I'm saying that if a woman is sexually assaulted and conception occurs, I believe it would be her right to terminate the pregnancy, as the fornication was not welcome to begin with. In all other cases, where it is welcome by both the male and female, they are both at fault for the conception, should it occur


Quote:
Abortion is rad. Peace out.

I'm not quite sure what to say to this.....



ToShinTim
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 100
Location: Muncie, Indiana

cannotthinkoff
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 324

10 Apr 2014, 1:46 am

ToShinTim wrote:
After there is a heartbeat, that means there is a life.


You do realize we are now able to create synthetic life with beating hearts.

And cats have intellect that of a two year old.

In my opinion abortion should be legal until 1 year old.

Hmm this is curious that this is a double murder. Is there an age of fetus when it is considered as such. Maybe no one dared/cared to change the law



voltagesparks
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2014
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 93

10 Apr 2014, 2:28 am

Stannis wrote:
I think this seeming discrepancy is the result of the principle that, although the fetus has rights to life, a person's sovereignty over their own body is a right which trumps those of the right to life of the fetus.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I57QIxxSfu4[/youtube]


Always this. Plus, the primitive heart starts beating at week 4-5 after conception, not week one. During the first week the blastocyst isn't even attached to the uterine walls and it doesn't have a heart to speak of.

That said, the double homicide point is very interesting. I don't think it's fair. If abortions are legal, there shouldn't be double homicide charges to whoever murders a pregnant woman. And Pregnant women shouldn't get killed in the first place.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,252
Location: Reading, England

10 Apr 2014, 4:33 am

ToShinTim wrote:
Quote:
Basically, as Hooper said.

Murder is wrong for two reasons:

1) It deprives a sentient being of their life, against their wishes
2) It deprives other sentient beings of the chance to be with a human being that they place great value on

Either of those is sufficient. However, a zef is not a sentient being, so does not fulfil 1). It can fulfil 2), but it requires its parents to already have an attachment to it.

There is nothing necessarily morally wrong about stopping a heart from beating. Unless you are a Buddhist or have similar views about the sanctity of life, you are probably willing to stop the "heart" of a non-sentient being that causes you inconvenience, such as a slug or a fly. If you are not a vegetarian, you are willing to have the heart of a reasonably sentient being stopped so that you can eat it, or turn it into leather... Chances are, you're willing for sick or dying animals to have their hearts stopped, and you wouldn't insist that a heart removed from a body was continually stimulated so it would keep beating.


Are you for, or against, abortion?

Very few people are "for" abortion... That is why the term "pro-choice" is used.

I have no objection to the killing of a zygote or embryo. They are not people.

A foetus probably isn't a person either, but maybe it has some sentience. Maybe you could argue that we should protect them at some stage. However...

An abortion is a really horrible, invasive procedure. It is not something you would do casually. As the foetus develops, the abortion becomes worse and worse, and more dangerous. I think if a woman is prepared to go through with that procedure, she must have a really good reason, and we shouldn't stop her.
ToShinTim wrote:
Quote:
Let me ask you this: in your own mind, what's so significant about a detectable heartbeat, that suddenly distinguishes a living baby from a "non-human" clump of cells?

I would say that the difference is that, even though the fetus has no chance at all of living on its own outside the womb, once the heartbeat starts it is a living human, in a sense. In week 5, the brain forms (in link), so does that make the issue any different than the heartbeat?

No premature birth has ever survived at Week 5.

Only 50% of pre-term births at week 24 survive, and survival before week 23 is very rare.

If viability is your cut off point, it should be much later than Week 1 or 5.



Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 943
Location: Texas

10 Apr 2014, 5:28 am

Stannis wrote:
I think this seeming discrepancy is the result of the principle that, although the fetus has rights to life, a person's sovereignty over their own body is a right which trumps those of the right to life of the fetus.
Just one problem with that: the baby is not an inherent part of the mother's body. As such, she should have no right to kill that child. The only difference between the "pro-choice" crowd and other murderers is the location of a distinctly separate life.


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.


heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

10 Apr 2014, 5:49 am

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Stannis wrote:
I think this seeming discrepancy is the result of the principle that, although the fetus has rights to life, a person's sovereignty over their own body is a right which trumps those of the right to life of the fetus.
Just one problem with that: the baby is not an inherent part of the mother's body. As such, she should have no right to kill that child. The only difference between the "pro-choice" crowd and other murderers is the location of a distinctly separate life.


I find this debate tactic to be rather shady and very callous - equation a struggling mom who makes a painful choice to abort (it's not like it's something they want to do) versus a psychopathic murder. Comparing mothers with psychopathic murders is rather devoid of empathy in my opinion. It's a debate tactic meant to shame.

I think abortion should be allowed but only up to a certain number of weeks. As to how many, that's a difficult question to answer.



Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 943
Location: Texas

10 Apr 2014, 5:59 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:
I find this debate tactic to be rather shady and very callous - equation a struggling mom who makes a painful choice to abort (it's not like it's something they want to do) versus a psychopathic murder. Comparing mothers with psychopathic murders is rather devoid of empathy in my opinion. It's a debate tactic meant to shame.
Most abortions are not chosen due to a lack of options, but outright convenience. The "sexual revolution" convinced many women that the best way to gain respect was devaluing themselves in the present, just as perverted men had in the past. This led to women resenting their own ability to bear children.

Quote:
I think abortion should be allowed but only up to a certain number of weeks. As to how many, that's a difficult question to answer.
That whole idea is arbitrary, especially when science has proven a newly-fertilized zygote's 100% genetically identical to a grown adult. Corrupt people use it as an excuse to say in effect, "its our right to kill any baby we don't want, and if you try to stop us, you're horrible". After that, they cite the few hypocrites who'd abandon the kid after birth as a twisted illustration of the entire "pro-life" crowd.


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.