Is Abortion Murder?

[Age]

LOOK --- I have started an "Is Abortion Murder" in the Applied Ethics section of the forum. After all, "abortion" is among the example topics for that section.

Just found your resurrection of this old, worn-out road.

What could be said that has not been said, other than ventilators breathing for mamma, and mamma breathing for baby, which is bit of a new slant thanks to a collaboration of dialogue. A trinity of technology and nature, tied together by the mighty breath ... of life.

Getting embroiled in the broiling of rage replacing reason that accompanies attempted discussion? Naw, that's enough to turn a man off his feed. Ventilator-type observations may crop up now and then, although posting has become so cumbersome these days, what with repeated lifetime bans.

Lifetime bans can mean banned for life, or in the case of abortion, banned from life.

Yet it is you who agrees with, and want, 'banned from life', to be put in place in society.

'These people' contradict "their own selves", yet they do not even know when they do it.

"Because you have been down there Neo, you know that road, you know exactly where it ends. And I know that's not where you want to be." - Trinity to New, on a rainy night, in ... The Matrix of repetition. Come to think of it, that quote is a commentary on the life of the Wachowski Sisters.

[accelafine]

See what I mean, Mike Novack?

[Age]

So, if 'we' Truly want to decide if 'abortion is murder, or not, then first 'we' have to decide, agree upon, and accept,

1. A definition for the 'murder' word.

2. A definition for the 'abortion' word.

3. Decide if 'we' are talking lawfully, or morally.

4. If either one of them, then 'we' have to discuss, far more specifically, what definition for 'these words' 'we' actually want to use.

Now, some might be seeing, and understanding, the very reasons why 'these human beings', back in the day when this was being written, took thousands upon thousands of years in what were called 'philosophical discussions' to never ever come to any actual resolution.

LOL Some were so 'blind-sided' by their very own beliefs that they actually imagined that it was wrong for one of the 'opposite sex' to even just think about some things, let alone to ever talk about them.

And, obviously when people like 'this' are questioned, and/or challenged, as above, here, they are not able to respond and answer, openly, and honestly.

[Hudjefa]

Abortion is the medically/surgically induced termination of a pregnancy in such a way that the embryo/fetus dies

[Fairy]

We’re nothing special, nothing important. This planet earth would not mourn our permanent disappearance. Not one jot.

Life is a serial killer, it forms and destroys everything, literally everything.

Murder, is just an artificially made up word in the storybook written by humans. It’s part of the story humans believe and adhere to as their laws and rules dictate, so if you are human, then you must obey and follow your own rules, or face the consequences.
It’s your story you invented after all. It’s no good arguing over split milk, you’ve milked your story for all it’s worth, now suck it up. Live by your self imposed rules, or not, it’s your party, people.

[Hudjefa]

We’re nothing special, nothing important. This planet earth would not mourn our permanent disappearance. Not one jot.

"The life of a human is of no greater importance to the universe than the life of an oyster" ~ D. Hume

The comedian GC said it best: We care about you being born, but after that you're on your own (finger gesture for effect).

[MikeNovack]

Abortion is the medically/surgically induced termination of a pregnancy in such a way that the embryo/fetus dies

Even THIS can be questioned. Alive? => dies

For example, a fetus sufficiently far enough developed to survive, if born (separated from the placenta support system) is alive now and coninues alive. But what about one just as far along but one or more of its organs not functional. Not dead YET as the placental system still flling that function. So if separated cannot remain alive.

For example, no functional lungs. Well as long as inside the sac and hooked up to a placenta, the fetus gets its oxygen not from lungs but direct exchange in the placenta. Dead baby if/when if separated.But since it MUST eventually be separated, is it ACTUALLY "alive"? (or just on biological "life support")

BUT REALLY, I think we need to decide on the stages. For example, Following fertilization the zygote is alive, living on its own stored resources. It begins releasing a chemical"let me attach". IF/f at about 7-10 days it manages to get the uterus wall to let it attach, it becomes a fetus.

a) In light of the fact that successful attachment is not a sure thing (not for us humans) what is its status?
b) Suppose there were a drug that made the wall of the uterus non-receptive (will not allow the zygote to attach. Especially because attachment uncertain in any case, is that "abortion" and if so, is THAT sort of abortion "murder" (only those of you who think abortion wrong need answer that part)

[SpheresOfBalance]

Moved here because "abortion" is one of the topics used as an example of applied ethics.

I suggest we separate into time periods, before attachment, after attachment but before any chance of independent survival, post that until birth. We will consider fair game questions about technologies that might not yet exists and/or morally equivalent scenarios.

As far as I'm concerned, life starts with brainwaves, so about 6 weeks. So after that it's murder. But before that as a zygote, no!

[Immanuel Can]

Well, what is the purpose of abortion? What is it intended to do?

It's generally avoidable. Very powerful contraception is very widely available, even to those who choose to disregard sexual continency, if we need to make allowances for such.

It's not intended to give people "choice." Choice is already fully had at the choice of sexual activity and of conception of a child.

It's not for the sake of the 1% of cases of medical/traumatic pregancy. 99% of abortions in the West are elective.

It's not to prevent zygotes. Zygotes are naturally present in all normal women, just as spermatozoa are in all normal men.

The sole purpose of abortion is to make sure a person does not enter the world outside the womb. The aborter has chosen to create a child, but does not wish to have a child that might have just claims of resources, time, food, love, nurturance, and so on upon the aborter. (Let's leave aside all the unsavoury aspects of "harvesting" of baby parts and the economics of abortion factories, and even the long-standing connection with eugenics. Let's just look at the function of the action.)

In other words, it's to prevent a human being from coming into the state where he/she can make any demands on the external world, including the people who voluntarily created her. It's to prevent a child, who would then become an infant, and then an adolescent, and then a teen, and then an adult. It's to make sure the child we voluntarily created is not allowed to live on.

What is the definition of "choosing to prevent another person from living, without any regard for her interests or will?" It's pretty close to "murder," isn't it?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well, what is the purpose of abortion? What is it intended to do?

It's generally avoidable. Very powerful contraception is very widely available, even to those who choose to disregard sexual continency, if we need to make allowances for such.

It's not intended to give people "choice." Choice is already fully had at the choice of sexual activity and of conception of a child.

It's not for the sake of the 1% of cases of medical/traumatic pregancy. 99% of abortions in the West are elective.

It's not to prevent zygotes. Zygotes are naturally present in all normal women, just as spermatozoa are in all normal men.
You obviously don't know what zygotes are, you're thinking of gametes.

zygote noun zy·​gote ˈzī-ˌgōt
: a cell formed by the union of two gametes

The sole purpose of abortion is to make sure a person does not enter the world outside the womb. The aborter has chosen to create a child, but does not wish to have a child that might have just claims of resources, time, food, love, nurturance, and so on upon the aborter. (Let's leave aside all the unsavoury aspects of "harvesting" of baby parts and the economics of abortion factories, and even the long-standing connection with eugenics. Let's just look at the function of the action.)

In other words, it's to prevent a human being from coming into the state where he/she can make any demands on the external world, including the people who voluntarily created her. It's to prevent a child, who would then become an infant, and then an adolescent, and then a teen, and then an adult. It's to make sure the child we voluntarily created is not allowed to live on.

What is the definition of "choosing to prevent another person from living, without any regard for her interests or will?" It's pretty close to "murder," isn't it?

[Immanuel Can]

You obviously don't know what zygotes are, you're thinking of gametes.

zygote noun zy·​gote ˈzī-ˌgōt
: a cell formed by the union of two gametes

Ah, yes...you're right...I misspoke. It's been a few years since my last refresher in the specifics of biological nomenclature. Gamete, it is.

Nevertheless, the point is essentially the same. Nobody fears the normal cells of the human body, even those marked for reproduction, and even the largest such cell.

[Impenitent]

at what point in human development does a human gain the ability to form and articulate thought?

I'll bet Rene's mother felt him kick her stomach decades before the cogito

-Imp

[accelafine]

We’re nothing special, nothing important. This planet earth would not mourn our permanent disappearance. Not one jot.

"The life of a human is of no greater importance to the universe than the life of an oyster" ~ D. Hume

The comedian GC said it best: We care about you being born, but after that you're on your own (finger gesture for effect).

George Carlin was referring to anti-choice religious hypocrites like IC and Walker when he said that. He was talking about how they obsess over women's reproductive choices, but don't actually give a fuck about anyone AFTER they have been born.

[SpheresOfBalance]

My thoughts on this matter, I've stated before, many times.

No matter what one thinks, it's the woman's baby, not anyone elses. In addition it's the woman's body, not anyone elses.

And I say that once the zygote develops to the point that it has brainwaves, is the point at which abortions should stop being allowed, accept under rare circumstances that may kill the mother, unless the mother opts to die for her child.

[accelafine]

And of course it goes without saying that women's reproductive decisions are a huge sexual turn-on to the like of IC and his ilk. What is it with kristians and their sex obsession? It's ALL they seem to think about. Odd, when they claim to follow a man who comes across as sexless

Those naughty, naughty, women. They need a good, hard spanking from you IC. Time to get out your horse whip and put on your heels and suspenders. You should be thanking Mike Novack for the free cyber sex.