Is Abortion Murder?

[Akka]

I don't think anyone dispute that an embryo is alive.
What is disputed is that it's a person or not.

 

[Gothmog]

Nice post FL2, I agree with most of the sentiment, but in fact you are arguing about potientiality in the absence of intervention. That is, something that would happen in the absence of any external force acting on the cause.

The first bugaboo here is free will, that is 'choice'. But we don't even need to go there in depth.

The second thing is that there are many obvious sources of external action upon the object (i.e. the pregnant woman).

The final thing (which relates to the first), is that the only thing that is isolated from external forces is the whole of creation. So it is silly to hypothesise a system with an absence of external forces. Humans are part of the system, not external to it. If I decide to procreate or not (assuming free will exists for the moment) I am changing the future in many ways, one of them being the existence of a specific potential human. If I eat eggs in the morning, or change my sexual routine, I am going to affect the particular sperm that wins the procreational race. Again the future is changed. Even without choice there are many random events that can affect the sperm that wins.

Anyway, I have found no good way to break the chain of causality in such a way that allows me to give any credence to potential humans - even without considering survival satistics. Just because an undifferentiated cell may at some point in the future become part of a brain, that does not make it a brain or even part of a brain.

The question then comes down to what the Duke alluded to on the first page: what makes a human a human. Or if you are religious: when does the soul inhabit the body. An ancient debate that is essentially semantic in nature. For my part, an undifferentiated group of cells is not human.

@Narz, I've eaten fertilized eggs many times (at farms and ranches) they are equally tasty and cause me no moral delema; of course I would also kill and eat a chicken. In the one case it was an egg, in the other a chicken - I'm not seeing how that affects the current debate. I would not say that eating an egg is chicken murder, an egg is not a chicken.

Who gets to decide when a fetus is truly alive? The pregnant woman.

 

[Pikachu]

Sorry, but obviousness IS evidence.
If you see someone shooting on someone else with a loaded gun and emptieing it's gun on the body of the person, it's a proof there has been a murder.

The difference is that there is plenty of empirical evidence that supports the theory that emptying a gun on the body of a person could kill the person. If the murderer knew this can of course not be proven, but we have ways to deal with that kind of people too.

Then charge me with murder when I willingly cut my finger. I'm actually killing plenty of cells that are human and healthy. I must be evil.

If you cut of your finger for no good reason you have demonstrated that you are a potential risk at least to yourself. Then I would prefer if you were locked up in a mental hospital. I wouldn’t call it murder, but it is still wrong and should be illegal.

 

[cgannon64]

Who gets to decide when a fetus is truly alive? The pregnant woman.

Her decision doesn't carry any weight to it though. Just because she says its not alive, and thus kills it, wouldn't make it any less alive if it were.

 

[Gothmog]

@cgannon - no ones does. As I've said this is a semantic debate and no one will ever know the truth (a concept I don't even believe in). Everyone needs to make up their own mind, but IMO the only opinion that matters is that of the pregnant woman.

and again I interpreted 'truly alive' to mean 'its a human'.

 

[punkbass2000]

The ethical philosopher known as "my girlfriend" also submits that a fetus becomes a baby when the mother chooses to carry the baby to term.

 

[ComradeDavo]

The ethical philosopher known as "my girlfriend" also submits that a fetus becomes a baby when the mother chooses to carry the baby to term.

She is wise indeed

A baby is the result of a female and a male deciding to create another human being. If they (or more likely the female) decided to terminate then that is not murder, that is them changing their mind about making another human. I think intill the baby is fully formed then that is a prefectly fine descion to make.

 

[Sickman]

If you cut of your finger for no good reason you have demonstrated that you are a potential risk at least to yourself. Then I would prefer if you were locked up in a mental hospital. I wouldn’t call it murder, but it is still wrong and should be illegal.

Cutting yourself is wrong and illegal?
From where do you spawn these thoughts?

Cutting yourself or hanging yourself isn't wrong and certainly shouldn't be illegal either. If you want to go, you don't need anyone's permission for it.

But I guess society tries to protect and nanny you whatever you might think to do.
Pro-life has become the disease of society. It should be killed before it leads to anymore suffering.

 

[cgannon64]

Pro-life has become the disease of society.

Ho !

 

[Sickman]

Ho !

Forget it, as a catholic you probably would never understand what I mean.

But it's just better for you.

 

[samildanach]

My agenda was to explore the use of the term murder as applied to abortion. If it is murder it is (in US terminology) 1st degree murder with special circumstances (murder for hire and usually for financial gain), a death penalty eligible case. My point is that I don’t think even abortion opponents believe this deep down because their actions do not support this view. No on has really answered the question of what they would do if their government sanctioned the killing of 500,000 10-yr olds every year for 32 years (lets say for population control). This is clearly murder thus according to 25% of people here the same as abortion. My answer is of course I;m not sure what I would do but certainly something more substantial than just protesting and voting Republican for 32 years. The current rationale for invading Iraq was that Saddam was killing his people. If abortion is murder then there are many countries killing many more of their people than Saddam ever did (I believe he prohibited abortion and required people to have lots of kids). Should we be invading them? You can oppose abortion but it is obvious to me that everyone on all sides of the debate views a fetus as morally differently than a 10-yr old.

One could argue that killing 10 year olds isn't murder using your logic. One of the requirements for something to be described as alive is the ability to reproduce. Most 10 year aren't capable of reproducing therefore they do not qualify as being a form of life, right? So now you have a rationale for killing them as well.

As it is you and others choose to focus on other requirements such as - is it sentient ( human life ) or can it sustain itself? An early embryo isn't and can't so you have a nice rationale for killing it.

People on both sides of the debate may tell themselves that killing a fetus is morally different from killing a 10 year old. Morally I see no difference. And more importantly, logically I see no difference.

Arbitrary dictats on what is or isn't human life cut no ice with me. A disabled person who is not aware of his surroundings, cannot move, cannot reproduce etc. Is still a human being and killing them is murder. As is killing a 10 year old. As is killing an embryo.

While I'm not totally unsympathetic to nazi idealogy I find this aspect of it totally reprehensible. One form of human life is less worthy than another on account of a chart in a text book? Is that what you are trying to say?

 

[Bigfoot]

Abortion is an issue that reasonable people can (and do) disagree on. The reason I am pro-choice is because I think the issue cannot be reduced to any simple formula or doctrine to cover all the possible circumstances. I prefer to leave tough moral decisons to the individual rather than the state. If the issue were really as clear cut as the case against murder there would not be a debate -- we all agree that murder is wrong. But we don't all agree that terminating a pregnancy during the first trimester is murder. Really this debate it is an extension of some larger issues in bioethics: how much and what types of intervention is allowable in the life of a human (or an incipient human, if you prefer)? How much intervention is compelled? Who decides, and on what basis? No easy answers there...

 

[Gothmog]

Agreed, Bigfoot...

samildanach wrote:

While I'm not totally unsympathetic to nazi idealogy I find this aspect of it totally reprehensible. One form of human life is less worthy than another on account of a chart in a text book? Is that what you are trying to say?

Hmm, you are taking this discussion in an untoward direction. Clearly Mark was saying nothing of the sort.

If you consider an undiferentiated lump of cells human, that's your call. If you think an embryo human, again your call. You could even call a single zygote, a detached limb, or clump of hair, human if you like.

But to think that your definition is any more or less arbitrary than anyone elses is the antithesis of logic. You haven't even spelled out what your definition is, but whatever it is I'm sure it's just as arbitrary as anyone elses.

 

[Mark1031]

Language is the most powerful force on this planet IMO. It is more powerful than all the H-bombs we have constructed for ourselves as it is the proper use or misuse of language the will determine whether their energy is released. Since we communicate in English here I provide some relevant definitions from OED or Webster. The use of the appropriate words should not prevent anyone from arguing the underlying philosophy behind their POV, eg I think the fetus or zygote eventhough not currently defined as a person is morally equivalent to a baby or child because...

Zygote
A body of living protoplasm, as a cell or cell-nucleus, formed by the conjugation or fusion of two such bodies in reproduction; a zygospore, or any germ-cell resulting from the union of two reproductive cells or gametes. Also attrib. or as adj. That is a zygote, formed by conjugation; of or pertaining to a zygote.

Blastocyst
A mass of nucleated cells..within which there is a cavity or blastocoele.

Embryo
the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception

Fetus
The young of viviparous animals in the womb, and of oviparous animals in the egg, when fully developed.

Baby
An infant, a young child of either sex. (Formerly synonymous with child; now usually restricted to an infant ‘in arms.’) -Not a fetus or embryo or balstocyst or zygote.

Child
A young person of either sex below the age of puberty; a boy or girl.-Not a fetus or embryo or balstocyst or zygote.

Human Being
(species Homo sapiens), a bipedal primate mammal that is anatomically related to the great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain, with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, and by a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members.

Person
An individual human being; a man, woman, or child. -Not a fetus or embryo or balstocyst or zygote.

Kill
To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc.

Abortion
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: -Yes it IS killing although I don't think anyone argues it is not.

 

[Mark1031]

That potentiality is real cannot be seriously debated. Its significance is the only point of attack for those seeking to defeat potentiality. So is it significant?.

That was an excellent post. Now I finally understand a basis for the pro-life position. However, I reject potentiality as a strong enough case to limit reproductive liberty. I also really don’t see the difference in this and punkbass’ argument in the potentiality loss with not having sex at the right time every month. I don’t know the stats but I have 3 kids and my wife got pregers the 1st month we tried every time so if everything is working right the potentiality here is also pretty significant. Is this an argument against birth control at least (blocking the highly potential development of a human being) or maybe even a requirement to have intercourse every month at the right time to not block the potential for the gametes getting together.

Now a problem for those who reject potentiality as an argument. Really it is the only argument against infanticide as the cognitive abilities of a newborn have not surpassed those of many apes and this is one of the defining characteristics of a human being. Thus what we are really defending in opposing infanticide (I assume everyone does) is potentiality. Why is this so. I think it is cultural and economic. If we were poor to the point of starvation infanticide would be common and no one would think twice about it. Since we are rich in the West and can minimally at least support every child born we will vigorously defend that potentiality.

OTOH those who oppose a prohibition on early abortion (No one favors abortion!) highly value personal freedom and maximization of the potential of every already born individual. To us forcing someone to play out the potential birth at the expense of realizing the life they had hoped for is not sufficient motivation. That coupled with the difference in how close an embryo and infant are to realizing their potential lead to the distinction.

 

[Maniacal]

Abortion should be legal, but there should be lots more easily accessiable information on abortion to help woman chose, and a doctor or nurse or whoever can have the right ot chose not to perform an abortion, and if the fetus is foe eg, 5 or more months old, it should not be aborted, unless there is a risk of the mother dying.

 

[Godwynn]

I'll admit, murder was the wrong word for me to use. I'll agree with Akka and that if it does not have a brain, it is not a person. But for me, it still has a pretty good chance of becoming a person. I still feel terrible when it happens, I know it was a life that was taken away, or it was the next mass murderer gone. However, just because I do not agree with something does not mean I want it outlawed. I do not agree with drug use, but I'm all for legalizing it. I hope this explains my viewpoint better now.

 

[Akka]

The difference is that there is plenty of empirical evidence that supports the theory that emptying a gun on the body of a person could kill the person. If the murderer knew this can of course not be proven, but we have ways to deal with that kind of people too.

There is plenty of evidence that a person is not a mindless clump of cells too.
The fact that we try to save people only until the brain is damaged beyond repair is a good example. The fact that we put someone on life support if he lost any limb, but we don't if he lost his head, is another.

Anyway, I'd like to see the argument about how can something can be a person if it has no mind. And I say "IS A PERSON", not "can become in the future", nor "has human DNA" or other.
I want a credible argument about how something without brain can be a person.

If you cut of your finger for no good reason you have demonstrated that you are a potential risk at least to yourself. Then I would prefer if you were locked up in a mental hospital. I wouldn’t call it murder, but it is still wrong and should be illegal.

That's absurd.

But even then, I was talking about making a slight cut into your finger, not about cutting it out whole from the rest of the body.

Even when scratching myself, I kill dozens of cells. Does that makes me a murderer for destroying human life ?

 

[Birdjaguar]

FL2 a fine post.

Life begins at conception. If you believe in souls, then human life begins at ensoulment. Regardless of the laws, people will continue to have abortions. Anti abortion laws only seriously impact those who don't have the money to work around the rules. Poor people will have to seek out the back alleys

I agree with bigfoot that there is a larger issue here and it is control. Pro lifers want to control society, to make it fit with their version of how life should be. Pro choicers want to leave the decisions to the people involved. "Murder", "potentiality" etc. are just arguments for control. Just like the NRA argues the second ammendment to deny control over gun ownership. If you stopped abortions tomorrow, and all theose babies were born, I would bet less than 1% would be adopted by the the pro life advocates, but they would complain about giving the moms handouts to feed the new babies. If life were so sacred to them they would be marching at the front of all antiwar postests. It is not life that is sacred to them, it is their desire to impose their vision of the world on all others.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

While I'm glad that it was well-received, I see that there is still some confusion present.

The pro-life movement is not about control. It is about respect for life (IE God's Creation). It is because of respect for and appreciation of the gift of our lives, that we Christians seek to protect the lives of others, especially those who are unable to protect themselves.

Speaking only in the case of the American debate (the only one I have personal knowledge of), I believe that the Roe vs. Wade decision turned what was an unbalanced situation one way (defending potential human life at the cost of real human lives) into a vastly more unbalanced sitation the other way (no value on potential human life at all, no consequences to promiscuity, teen pregnancy increasing, STDs rampant, etc...). It was a correction to one imbalance, but it created a far worse one to take its place. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS was peopled by moral cowards who refused to take on the question of what constitutes human life, with the result that we've gone from killing or sterilising a few hundred or a few thousand whores to slaughtering millions of children who are by definition innocent.

All I am hoping for is to establish a balanced situation, one in which potential human life is respected enough that a woman who terminates a healthy fetus for non-medical reasons who was not sexually mistreated is rightly scorned, but a woman in an unfortunate situation not of her own making can still get an abortion without being an outcast.

There's plenty of room on the middle ground for all of us you know.