The debate "Abortion is not murder" was started by
July 29, 2014, 2:38 pm.
160 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 241 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
JohnnieWalker posted 1 argument, Vivinary posted 1 argument, strawberryfieldsforever posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 7 arguments, Aakanksha posted 2 arguments, Sosocratese posted 2 arguments, Mikey2k posted 1 argument, daddytone716 posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 3 arguments, eric1943 posted 1 argument, killer posted 2 arguments, saad786 posted 1 argument, Cdawgthree posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
Michelle_M posted 1 argument, echofrommadiun posted 1 argument, ty posted 1 argument, alicemcguire posted 1 argument, Armihakhan posted 1 argument, Superr1fifty posted 21 arguments, yg posted 2 arguments, Cody posted 2 arguments, username_gracie posted 1 argument, frozen_emily posted 1 argument, Getmurked posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 7 arguments, Proking posted 1 argument, Clint1234 posted 2 arguments, Logan_Spalding posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
JohnnieWalker, Ms_MasterCheese, Vivinary, sophistry, Gurkavitch, mdavis1309, SpiritofDeath, JonL, strawberryfieldsforever, Aakanksha, PsychDave, true_debate_life, daisy, Seraph, Sosocratese, theguy, DeWthaDeW, sickboyblonde, Razzakel, parbelsaha, slash606, Mikey2k, rickrollross, Preploukus, I_Voyager, invincible_01, liamjosephcash, phattie83, FaZe_GhostSniper1, Hjkp98, Egert_Clueless, Haelaeif, werdninja, Mr_Anonymous, Mrcolaman, Noel, elisete, daddytone716, kennamarlaina1214, nick_parrott, CX_LD_Ashley, danielle, misfitcarrot, ms_open_mind, Bodaciouslady16, milimehta068, eric1943, l2lll, DarkSkyz06, stantinou93, jhussjosh, Untamed, Marvelgirl2002, sighnomore99, soullesschicken, WordSpeller, TransPanTeen, Yuki_Amayane, killer, Syrkk, JDAWG9693, Walter, saad786, amir_alhakim07, Communistguy, Manuel, eva_pet35, Cdawgthree, cassiopeia, diecinueve, deepanker005, Aphyllous and 88 visitors agree.
Michelle_M, echofrommadiun, cocky_queen, Intellect, DavidStuff777, Mriduljain, Unfathomable, Kirito, ty, Vigilante, doostyne, akshay58165, ayleine, denmob, debater377, DiamondHeartofInsanity, username_gracie, LeaderOfDiscussion, river93x, alicemcguire, Wantonjon, asaru, Armihakhan, Hollister_boy, Superr1fifty, taigaaisaka, BabyT14, ameliajane, olilongboat, sonaybitch, llthslvtr, yg, Carina, Biotic, Pankaj, ssssw, Cody, ncitramanda, ieva_mi, Tassja, frozen_emily, LDebatorChamp, zerefazo, Getmurked, ItsMateo, ThyDarkest, PathwayHomeFan, YoanaPetrova, Naudious, cocobb, kimmy92, Alex11113, Paul_Gandara, Mike861, BRG1102478, ArsonLarson, rionagh99, judge, Chabii, AnkGanu, WhyNot, DanielleR123, Mathew, spellbeechamp, ferida1237, mohanraj, blue, DB8101, blakelovesjesus, sabrina, Thejw, neveralone, freakofnaturespitbucket, lukeluckynuke123, boispendaddy, hollieg, crep, Delta_Force01, everyonehasanopinion, EdgarQer, Proking, safalcon7, emmaelise16, carlo, Clint1234, Flux, Nemiroff, Godisnotdead and 153 visitors disagree.
and all cells involved were alive before conception. life does not start. its a continuous process.
The part of us that makes us people is a brain? Sure, but that's not really about life is it. You seem to be conflating personhood with life.
I'm not representing anti-abortion here, I'm just questioning logic that says we don't start at conception, when our unique DNA is created and starts multiplying.
A brain doesn't give us life, the cells with our DNA do. Whether those cells are a person or not is a different issue.
Any form of ethics and/or moral system only applies to those who can reason. Living organisms like plants and bacteria do not apply to these systems because they do not possess minds of their own. Morality applies only to the function of a being's will. The fetus possesses no such will.
do i see a difference between 2 cells and a ball of cells? not really. just cells. the part that makes us people is the brain. until that turns on, i don't consider it an individual.
Good point, but is there a measurable difference between the lives of the seperated sperm and the egg and the life of their unison?
If so then the life has changed form, so at the very least it's the beginning of that new form.
was any part of the fetus not alive *before* conception?
How does life not start at conception?
The mind definitely doesn't, but even a single celled organism is life.
that is not science. why do you claim it is?
at no points *prior* to conception was anything involved in any way dead. so no, life did not start at conception.
life begins at conception... thats SCIENCE... youre killing a person either way
You seriously agree with this, get your brain fix. Killing a baby is killing a person. No matter what that baby is a person. God made that baby and no one has the right to kill a innocent baby. A criminal like George Floyd gets killed cold blooded and everyone starts protesting, but when a innocent babies get killed everyday and not a single person protest.
Murder is a legal term, not a moral term. However, even if the question was "is killing a fetus immoral?" the answer would still be no. Why? Well, even if we are to grant any moral system as valid, we could still not apply a fetus to any moral system precisely because all systems of morality only apply to beings, aka subjects that have a mind of their own. The fetus does not have a mind of its own until the thalamo-cortical complex is activated. This system does not activate until after the point where abortion is always illegal (unless medically necessary, eg the mothers life is at risk).
Never heard of moral philosophy I take it? Buy yourself a book.
Good thing "future people" only exist in the imagination
Yes it is, killing someone when they are a baby is the same thing as killing them when they are older. Buy yourself a brain or something
ITS MURDERING A FUTURE PERSON
I agree. however, its qualification as human (still debatable as that single copy is clearly still human dna), it is undoubtably life.
all cells, unless dead, are alive. are the sperm we are talking about dead?
Homicide is simply killing, while murder is premeditated. But, that was my point is that neither is homicide.
And, that's what I meant by half of DNA is that it had half the DNA of a normal human cell.
masturbation is optional. menstruation is involuntary.
I dont believe either is homicide, but I understand the bad logic behind calling masturbation murder. I see no connection with menstruation. there is no intent or action carried out by the menstraitor. it just happens with no foreknowledge or action.
sperm doesnt divide when it reaches maturity, but it does divide many many times before reaching maturity.
and what do you mean half a DNA? it has half as much as a normal human cell, but not as much more DNA then many other lifeforms.
half a DNA is scientifically nonsensical. it has half the number of chromosomes, each of which are made of whole DNA molecules.
By that sense, menstruation is also homicide.
No, sperm is not a life. It does not divide. It has half of the DNA.
a sperm is life. for much of its development (before full maturity), it divided, it has DNA, it has metabolism, it is a cell. it is by *every* scientific definition, life.
No, a sperm is not a life. a sperm is literally half of a cell. A zygote (fertilized ova) is literally, scientifically, a life. There is no more potential, it is absolutely, indisputably a life.
It could be murder. but so is masturbation? Because both sperm cell and foetus are potential life forms. But I think the argument is that wether a women should be given right to kill a baby. well no. Cause she should be responsible for her actions before asking to get aborted.
Drinking bleach is a false analogy because committing suicide only directly harms the person doing it; abortion directly harms others (the child). The only reason to have an abortion is if the mother is in mortal danger because of the pregnancy's continuation.
And, unborn children are, scientifically, a life.
but overall, is it a live if it's not born?
I'm not saying abortion is right though. I believe that someone that wants the abortion isn't wrong.
I also believe that people have the freedom of choice. Not saying your opinion of abortion is wrong. You have every right to think that. And the other thing is. Abortion could hurt the person wanting it.
So if a person wants to drink bleach, they can. You can detest that. If they want to drink the bleach they can. That doesn't make it right, but maybe they won't drink the bleach if they learn the hard way why you shouldn't drink it. Do if a woman wants the abortion, she can. The outcome of it it not only hurt the baby, it may have hurt you.
Yeah, I am not with a abortion. And I also feel that it is wrong to not let a living organism live just because someone doesn't want to carry it. They did choose to have sex.
Birth has nothing to do with it. Once conceived, even at the stage of a zygote (day one) the unborn child is, by scientific definition, a new and separate life from the mother. And, the definition of murder is a premeditated ending of another life. So, abortion is, by definition, murder. That doesn't necessarily mean that abortion is wrong, but it is a murder.
Well, by former legal definition, people used to be property. One shouldn't base their morality in the law of man; the law of man should be based in morality.
by legal definition it's not. However, there are states making it illegal to get one after 6 and sometimes 8 weeks.
Well... Technically they aren't born yet. but that doesn't necessarily make it right. But if they want the abortion... let them have it.
By that logic if abortion is murder then masterbation would be too. *fap* *fap* whoops I just committed murder.
theres a difference between pro birth and
pro life. pro life is when you can grow up in a stable house and actually live a life. pro birth is just a birth. i belive every women should either have the child and raise it or put it up for adoption, yet its not my choice. itd not my baby. its the womens choice. ite her dilemna. that may be what i believe but the women with the child has to make the decision. instead of all these people yelling how its murse they should help fund abortion clinics put the money where your mouth is.
I understand the weight of emotion and conviction in the value you are upholding. But for us, we see you misconstruing what a life is and whose choice it is to determine what children are or are not born. This isn't a mere opinion for either of us. Not every possible birth is good or healthy. Not every fetus has human qualia. Not every mother's circumstance can be held under one moral umbrella. Some young mothers choosing to have a child when they aren't mature or stable enough, or for whom the emotional disconnection is to great because of rape or other ill circumstances, or where social services aren't reliable enough to be counted on for safe adoption, or where death of parent and/or baby during pregnancy is probable, where the fact of the birth may tie the parent and child into needlessly painful and scarring lives, and a variety more circumstances still are all cause for moral concern if the mother is not legally able to have an abortion. I've known these people, and I know people who've suffered irreparably damaged lives because of their parent's bad decisions, whose lives have ONLY been madness and despair! It is by moral conviction as well that I side with sanity.
It's not just an opinion that we're trying to enforce if we believe that it's murder. We are trying to save innocent lives.
we should all understand the views of people who are pro life and pro choice because that's how life works we all have opinions we shouldnt brain wash over to think differently on matters as controversial matters
BURGERS HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS! You've obviously never heard of the California Cheeseburger.
imagine situation like that : someone more powerful than you told you that you cant live anymore and kill you. Its kind of same situation.you kiled someone who has heart and who has already exist.And im not talking about religion or smthg. And if you dont want that child I think you should give it maybe for families who cant have one but really want.
Hey! Does my burger song have something to do with this? I said it hasn't, but someone disagrees.
I guess the only reason that people have the ability justify abortion is because they weren't aborted. Kinda hard to argue about it when you weren't allowed to be born.
@Yg given your questions (and your tendency towards philosophical thinking), you should define when a murder is/isn't a murder, what a person is and generally what it means to be alive in this world.
As a non-religious person, I find the tendency of religion to differentiate human and animal life so boldly as offensive. Having lived with numerous animals, I find them very human-like. They may not have certain functions of cognition, but they know what they are, and what I am, and have behaviors and independent personalities, emotional ranges which vary from animal to animal, etc... But generally throughout all the world we treat animal life callously. Killing them is never murder, apparently.
But a fetus lacks so many of those qualities. They are never independent. Their nature, in so far as they have one, is dependent on the stage in their development. Their only stimulus is a feedback signal from their parent. I'm sure at a certain point in their development they DO have human qualia - and there's probably a line then when a woman ought not have an abortion. But for quite a while they have more in common with an organ then a human, it seems to me.
Why can we live in a world where most animals have few rights and no peace, and women can NEVER abort a baby, where in some countries they can die for doing it, and in others just go to jail?
I honestly think if a woman (not raped) is willing to kill a fetus they should. one the child probably won't have a good up rising and if you think it's bad because of religion to me your close minded, one it's not your kid. too it'll probably be put up for adoption or use as a way to get tax money. long story short let the thing be put out of its sad life before it's here.
Yg, have you read the previous posts explaining that difference and, if so, what part do you want me to explain in more detail? I don't want to just repeat the same arguments when they have already been made.
PsychDave, can you differentiate a baby from a non-baby ? the fact that something is common does not always means that that thing is right too
Yg, that is what the topic is debating. Is a fetus a person from the moment of conception, meaning abortion is killing a person, or is a fetus not a person until it reaches a certain threshold. There are several comments explaining this in the arguments of Sosocratese. If you wish to refute them, please feel free, but statements with no explanation or evidence don't really further a position in a debate.
it's not the circumstantial issues that are to be kept in mind with regards to the topic. in the literal sense a murder is a murder anyway so how can the abortion not be a murder. does the foetus have no rights ?
Nananananana Burger Kiing! Nananananana McDonaalds! Burger Kiing! McDonalds! Burgeeers! Thisthisthisthisthusthisthisthis ha-aas! Nononononononono nothiiing! To-oo do-oo with thiiis!
Superr1fifty, you make a lot of sentimental arguments, but even you have said that there are circumstances where abortion is the better option. Murder is, by definition, never a justified action. In the case where a mother or child are unlikely to survive, which you have already admitted makes abortion a justifiable option, it would make it closer to self defense.
The entire area is a grey area which is why it makes people so uncomfortable and so emotional. There can never be a cookie cutter answer because everyone's situation is unique, and if there are situations where abortion is the best available option, to equate it to murder is to attack women who are already going through what I can only imagine is one of the hardest times of their lives.
I don't feel that abortion is a valid form of birth control. It is an extreme action. But if there is any situation where it is the best option, I don't think it can be considered murder murder. Otherwise we are saying that some women have to choose between dying to try to carry a child, or living in prison for the rest of their lives.
You said that " foetus doesn't have developed brains or thinking capacity... it's like plant. If we eat plants what's wrong with abortion?"
Well, I think plants don't develop into humans, intellegent beings. I haven't see any plant doing that. A foetus can become the president of the United States, or maybe even Jesus the second if he happens to be the son of God, plants cannot.
If the baby or the mother are unlikley going to survive the pregnancy, the abortion may be consiterd as an option. But I think it is not the only one. Same goes for if the cihld would have bad quality of life. But if everything is OK, then NO.
If the baby and mother are helthy, I see no reason for abortion. Think, what if you would be aborted.
You couldn't never smell the flowers, hear loudness of an engine, how silent is the library, feel the hardness of a rock, softness of your pillow, you couldn't see your mother, and how beatiful is the painting. You couldn't born, grow up with your parents, go to school, have friends, get a car lisence, fall in love, get married, have kids, get old with your wife, get retired, watch children grow, watch grandchildren grow, and finally, die in peace and happy for that you got an amazing life.
So what is your view on stillbirth and miscarriage? Should they be looked into like suspicious deaths? That is the problem with the view that a baby is a person from the moment of conception. They cannot live on their own, and are entirely dependent on the mother. What is your view when a woman gets pregnant but she is unlikely to survive the pregnancy? What about when the child has severe birth defects and will have a terrible quality of life?
I would also like to add:
Preventing the whole pregnancy is much better THEN abortion.
I say baby is alive when the sperm meets the eggg.
Superr1fifty - so when does it become life? Is it a potential person from the moment of conception, or before that since every sperms could become a person. Is masterbation murder? I just want to know where the line is for you. Is it wrong to have a tapeworm removed because it is alive and we can't ask it if it wants to live? It didn't ask to be born inside you, so what right do we have to get rid of it?
Consciounent or not, it's life enyway.
I don't understand my wrtiting either, but I'm sure that wasn't what I wrote. It's fault of MY ******* KEYBOARD AND ****** AUTOCORRECT!!
I also have some reeaaalllyyy annoying bugs with my kryboard.
I can't say enything else than ****** LG KEY BOAT!!!!!
I repeat: ******** KEYBOARD!!!!!!! ??
It is lofe enyway. Trees aren't persons but they're alive.
(I know, it's not the same thing)
Oh, wait, he's GOING TO BE PERSON!
Yes, my grammar isn't very good, but I speak finnish, so... It's confusing.
But, I don't like abortions because:
A: Abortion is not the only way to not have babies. I say preventing the whole pregnancy is much more better.
B: The baby hasn't done enything, you are killing it just because you want. It's a murder. The baby can't defend itself, and don't try to say "Would it be better to kill him while he's born and lernt to speak?"
C: I LIKE USING CAPS TO BOOST THINGS UP!
The Person With Worst Spilling Ever
so small keyboard...
First of all: wow, you might have the worst spelling and grammar I've ever seen. It's actually difficult to figure out what you're even trying to say.
You keep claiming abortion is wrong yet you make no argument for your case. Simply ranting and using caps doesn't make for a very strong argument.
I'm gonna try and find your arguments, please correct me if I miss-identified them.
Abortion is murder and the justification therefore:
I'm assuming you're trying to say that because a fetus has the potential to become a human it has the right to life..... This is the when does life begin debate. Does life begin at conception or later? Since you failed to provide any argument for your position I would argue simply that life begins at personhood.
While this is a vague definition that can ultimately lead to some unwanted consequences without further parameters, it's a good place to start. I would argue that personhood is based on consciousness. The organ for consciousness, the thalamo-cortical complex begins to be in place around week 24 of gestation. Thus I would argue until then you are not dealing with a person. How can it be a person if it doesn't have the capacities of one?
The baby is also not viable until 21 weeks of gestation (this is the earliest a baby has ever survived, most cases of premature delivery before 24 weeks are fatal).
So, until about 24 weeks you are dealing with a thing which can't survive on its own, can't be conscious and has none of the mental faculties associated with being person.
JhonnieWalker, A, We do have that technologu, but it's **** ecpansive, B, worlds population is not our biggest worry, we wont starve. By the time Eart comes really overhabitated, there propably are alredy holidays to Jupiter and colonies at the orbit around Neptune.
Abortion should be illiegal.
EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIVE!
Enyway, it's ending someones ONLY LIFE. RESPECT LIFE, ******!
It's like saying to someone: We don't let you live because those guys want so. Sorry, but we will kill you now, and you can't say enything.
I repeat: MURDER. You know babys don't come from nowhere. The baby hasn't done enything. If you didn't want that baby, it's your fault. It's wrong! Dead wrong. Like you would go out to the street and shoot someone who hasn't done or spoke enything.
Where was I ? Oouuh, I lost my point.
There are three points I would like to make. The first is that you cannot have a big murder, or a really big murder. Murder is an act. It either happens, or it doesn't. You can have especially tragic murders, or you can say that it is very wrong, but it can't be a big murder.
Second, saying yes has absolutely no value in a debate. If you are opposed to abortion, explain why. Make your case as to why it is wrong. Saying "It's wrong" accomplishes nothing. Others are explaining that we can measure exactly when developmental milestones are hit, and saying that when a fetus becomes a person can be defined by that. This is the view that the legal system takes in North America.
Finally, Superr1fifty, you are right, you can't ask a child if they want to be born. How does that have any bearing on abortion? You can't ask a fetus because until a specific threshold it doesn't have a brain, or lungs, or anything else that is needed to discuss the merits of being born. You seem to be arguing primarily from an emotional viewpoint, so explain to me how you feel you have the right to demand that a woman who was raped put her health at risk, have permanent damage done to her body, because someone decided to attack her? Does the potential child have more rights that the woman who has already been through that?
YOU CAN'T ASK FROM UNBORN DOES HE WANT TO BORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Abortion is a reeeeeaaaallllyyy big murder! Your killing a person who havent even botn yet. You know babys don't come from nowhere. And I think the baby isn't go to be the next Adlof Hitler.
Abortion is a big murder , There is a killing of innocent life
abortion is definetely a murder. you killed an innocent child, thats murdering.
If someone needed a transplant that only I could give, I wouldn't be forced to, so why can you force people to Give birth?
The argument that we can't say when something is alive or not is absurd. We can ascribe any criteria for life we wish and make that distinction. The people who decide on those qualities are the public, the electorate. That's why most states have banned late term abortions. This battle is fought regularly. The notion that life has value at conception only holds true if there is something like a "soul". Some eternal human quality that is imbued upon the fetus at its conception.
If you don't believe in that sort of thing it's easy to define life by either viability outside of the womb, the ability to sense pain, or any other quality you wish to choose. Some argue that you're not actually alive until you are self aware... This is not a theory I would subscribe to, but that would mean even post term abortion would be morally OK until a point.
Our knowledge of embryology is at the point where we can then determine a developmental point where we can say said quality is present and now abortion is murder. However, if you believe life begins at conception, you better have an amazing argument for that position. The only human quality I can see from that point in time is the potential for a human existence, however that alone doesn't constitute a human life in itself.
' RIGHT TO LIFE '
this right to life doesn't only mean to breathe air. It includes right to live with dignity, integrity, to get food at least 2 times a day, to get education, shelter, respect and most importantly acceptance. at the end, it should be mother's decision.. and foetus is not born, its unborn. it jst breathe, but doesn't have a developed brain , or thinking capacity, or anything ...its jst like ' plant' , when v eat plants , then what's wrong to abort an unborn.?
How can you say that a fetus is not human until a certain point. when is that point and how could someone actually determine it. Those who say early stage fetuses don't look like humans so it's ok is completely wrong, they look exactly like what a early human is supposed to look like in the womb.
Also if it's okay to kill an unwanted fetus for any reason, weather it's money issues, rape, fear of responsibility or whatever. than that would mean, by that logic, we could kill anyone that was unwanted.
No matter what you believe no person has the authority to determine whether or not someone should live or not. Who are you to take away someone else's right to life. If there is a real issue and the baby can't or won't be raised by its parents, there is this thing called adoption. God brings every child into the world and no human has the right to take them away, no matter the circumstances.
aborting a child before he's born is better than hating him for whole after he's born . I am from India, n here , still, in the 21st century gender discrimination is very common, if girls r born, they r left in dustbins to be eaten by dogs...can u imagine that? is it better then to abort them? n many times they r nt gvn adequate food, clothing, respect n luv... so abortion is the best option. world doesn't need mass population, its needs healthy, happy n safe population.
Until a fetus reaches certain developmental milestone it is not a person, therefore abortion is not murder. That is why there is a point at which abortion becomes illegal.
its a woman's right to choose.
I don't understand why so many people judge/disagree with abortion when it is not their place to do so. You DON'T know the situation of every single person who decides or is even contemplating abortion. There are bigger problems for you to poke your nose into.
Who says so? I totally disagree. Abortion is a big no-no. It is just the same as murdering human being. Sometimes, I wonder when abortion was carried out for the first time. Perhaps, it used to be carried out for good purposes like for medical reason. I guess people themselves use it in a wrong way.
What does traveling to the moon commercially have anything to do with abortion? Even if we could travel en masse, there's no food on the moon so the argument is moot. Abortion is ending the existence of a human being, plain and simple. The fetus is a human being, people argue the semantics based on age but nevertheless it is killing because the procedure ends the life.
We don't have the technology to travel all the way to the Moon in a commercial scale. We are stuck here and we need to reduce the number of babies being born each day or we are going to starve to death.