Abortion: let's get a real debate going

LuklaAdvocate · Apr 24th 2012, 1:36am

Jarndyce wrote:

Sure, I'll accept that if a foetus is a person then abortion constitutes murder. Could I clarify your post though - do you consider that you or I (as people) have the right to the use of a woman's body against her will for 9ish months?

Your question paints the growth of a fetus in a negative connotation, so I'm hesitant in giving a definitive answer. If the fetus is a person, then we have two parties involved, and not just the rights of the mother. If it's not a person, then the mother has the right to do whatever she wants.

From your post, we are in agreement that abortion constitutes murder (given the premise that the fetus is a person). So as clarification, are you suggesting that premeditated murder is justified based upon the fetuses use of a women's body? Bearing in mind that you already conceded abortion to be murder, which is an unlawful act by definition.

Linda · Apr 24th 2012, 2:11am

WiltingSunshine wrote:

I believe that the woman should be able to choose whether to have an abortion or not, but I also believe that there are too many abortions going on and that woman should be taught the precautions of safe sex

Why should only women be taught this? Are men not involved in sex or making the woman pregnant?

Jarndyce · Apr 24th 2012, 9:31am

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

Your question paints the growth of a fetus in a negative connotation, so I'm hesitant in giving a definitive answer. If the fetus is a person, then we have two parties involved, and not just the rights of the mother. If it's not a person, then the mother has the right to do whatever she wants.

From your post, we are in agreement that abortion constitutes murder (given the premise that the fetus is a person). So as clarification, are you suggesting that premeditated murder is justified based upon the fetuses use of a women's body? Bearing in mind that you already conceded abortion to be murder, which is an unlawful act by definition.

Yes, with that proviso I've agreed to that point. My purpose in doing so is to point out that we have more to consider than merely the rights of the foetus (should it have any). I don't think an answer can be reached without considering the rights of the mother. (The father also, but that is a different argument. The quality of life of the child-to-be and various other factors are also relevant in my opinion.)

I was actually bastardising a famous argument for abortion, known as 'The Violinist'. That, and several other arguments for abortion are summarised on that wiki page, from what is probably the single most influential (philosophical) book concerning abortion written to date. Thompson used several other comparisons in her book, which are also summarised on the wiki, if you're interested.

In answer to your question on pre-meditated murder, that is a question of definition. If we assume the right of the mother to deny other people ('people' used very intentionally) the use of her body, then it comes down to the interpretation of ethics one ascribes to. It is argued that an action which is made, in expectation of a particular result, but not with that result as the intended consequence (ie. if the foetus were to survive, or could be sustained by medical technology, it would not effect the mother's decision to take the action, and would rather be considered good), is not ethically wrong.

An opposing view is of course, that regardless of the intentions behind an action, the result determines whether the action is morally permissible, so the death of the foetus determines that the action is morally impermissible.

Incidentally, while I quite understand why you felt I was painting the growth of the foetus in a negative light, I was not. For the purposes of the debate, that is of little consequence, as it doesn't matter whether it is a good or a bad thing for any of the arguments that we're engaged in over abortion. It might enter the equation if we began to consider the ethical implications of abortion in cases of rape or incest of course, or if someone brings a religious condemnation of abortion into the picture.

On re-reading your post, I should note that I'm separating legality from ethical permissiability, with the idea in mind that once society decides something is ethical and an expression of one's human rights, it would not be unlawful, as to punish someone for exercising their human rights would be to violate those same rights as set down by the UN. (If you want to debate the legitimacy of those human rights I'd be more than happy to, but in another thread please!)

I should also note, you slightly exaggerate when you say that if the foetus is not a person the mother has the right to do whatever she wants, but I suspect you realise that.

All of that aside, considering my point on the ethical interpretation (and the resulting implications for the relevant laws concerning murder), do you agree that the illegality of abortion, based on the murder argument, depends wholly on the ethical theory the action is interpreted under? I consider that the first example I gave of a non-consequentialist theory of ethics to inevitably conclude that abortion is ethically acceptable, removing any legitimate basis for it to be punishable under law.

Linda wrote:

Why should only women be taught this? Are men not involved in sex or making the woman pregnant?

The post didn't actually state that only women should, or that men should not. The lack of that ever so painful political correctness is possibly a result of the unfortunate tendency of parenting rights arguments to get caught up entirely in the woman's side of things, and to not consider the father.
From another perspective, assuming an intentional lack of PC in that post, it is noted that (aside from rape, which isn't relevant for this point) no sexual intercourse can occur without a woman, so if one educated all women on safe sex, then the results would be the same as educating all women and all men, just with about half the effort required to achieve the result.

Scaredycrow · Apr 24th 2012, 6:50pm

Jarndyce wrote:

Sure, but why does the foetus have the right to use the woman's body for nine(ish) months? Surely she has a right to choose whether something uses her body or not?

Somehow this reasoning doesn't sit well with me, although I'm not sure I can explain why. I feel as though it could be extrapolated to justifying the murder of any sort of dependent (assuming the fetus is a person and abortion constitutes murder).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against abortion, but it's not because the foetus is "using the mother's body." The debate generally seems to hinge on the matter of personhood (religious or not), and whether or not you feel any life is better than no life at all.

LuklaAdvocate · Apr 28th 2012, 1:47am

Jarndyce wrote:

Yes, with that proviso I've agreed to that point. My purpose in doing so is to point out that we have more to consider than merely the rights of the foetus (should it have any). I don't think an answer can be reached without considering the rights of the mother. (The father also, but that is a different argument. The quality of life of the child-to-be and various other factors are also relevant in my opinion.)

I agree that the mother's rights should be taken into account. However, unless the fetus is fatally detrimental to the mothers health, then I don't believe the rights of the mother abrogate a persons right to life.

Jarndyce wrote:

I was actually bastardising a famous argument for abortion, known as 'The Violinist'. That, and several other arguments for abortion are summarised on that wiki page, from what is probably the single most influential (philosophical) book concerning abortion written to date. Thompson used several other comparisons in her book, which are also summarised on the wiki, if you're interested.

I've heard variants of it, but regardlessly find it to be a fallacious argument.

For one the situation is completely unrealistic, but being a thought experiment I suppose I'll let it slide. However, if we consent to such theoretical situations, then one could use other impractical arguments, such as the concept of time travel; if you went back in time and found out your mother was going to abort you, would you try and stop her? Would you force her?

The argument also hinges on you being kidnapped, which would be the equivalent of pregnancy resulting from rape, not consensual sex.

Furthermore, there's a difference between actively letting someone die and intentionally causing their death. For instance, neglecting to aid a person while they drown in a pool is different than holding their head under water. Both obviously have serious moral concerns, but there is a distinction.

There are other flaws with Thomson's argument, but the Wiki article covers them all, as I'm sure you've already read.

Jarndyce wrote:

In answer to your question on pre-meditated murder, that is a question of definition.

I think we have two differing definitions on murder. Society as a whole generally accepts murder to be morally wrong. You seem to be advocating abortion in terms of justifiable homicide, not murder.

Jarndyce wrote:

Incidentally, while I quite understand why you felt I was painting the growth of the foetus in a negative light, I was not. For the purposes of the debate, that is of little consequence, as it doesn't matter whether it is a good or a bad thing for any of the arguments that we're engaged in over abortion. It might enter the equation if we began to consider the ethical implications of abortion in cases of rape or incest of course, or if someone brings a religious condemnation of abortion into the picture.

How you paint the growth of the fetus is extremely relevant to this discussion. The effects of the fetus on the mother are at the heart of this debate, considering we're referring to the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus.

Jarndyce wrote:

I should also note, you slightly exaggerate when you say that if the foetus is not a person the mother has the right to do whatever she wants, but I suspect you realise that.

Aside from maliciously causing anguish to the fetus, then no I'm not really exaggerating. I see no reason why the mother can't do whatever she chooses.

Jarndyce wrote:

All of that aside, considering my point on the ethical interpretation (and the resulting implications for the relevant laws concerning murder), do you agree that the illegality of abortion, based on the murder argument, depends wholly on the ethical theory the action is interpreted under? I consider that the first example I gave of a non-consequentialist theory of ethics to inevitably conclude that abortion is ethically acceptable, removing any legitimate basis for it to be punishable under law.

As I mentioned above, I think we're viewing murder in different lights. I see murder in black and white. If abortion is acceptable (ethically or lawfully), then it's not murder.

Jarndyce · Apr 28th 2012, 3:19am

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

I agree that the mother's rights should be taken into account. However, unless the fetus is fatally detrimental to the mothers health, then I don't believe the rights of the mother abrogate a persons right to life. I've heard variants of it, but regardlessly find it to be a fallacious argument.

For one the situation is completely unrealistic, but being a thought experiment I suppose I'll let it slide. However, if we consent to such theoretical situations, then one could use other impractical arguments, such as the concept of time travel; if you went back in time and found out your mother was going to abort you, would you try and stop her? Would you force her?

It is completely unrealistic, but it doesn't pretend to be realistic, it just attempts to mimic the situation as closely as possible, using parts which are in no way connected to the biases present in the original argument.
I don't see how your example can claim to do the same thing, it doesn't mimik the situation, it just creates an impossible situation concerning abortion.

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

The argument also hinges on you being kidnapped, which would be the equivalent of pregnancy resulting from rape, not consensual sex.

What if one assumes that the man and woman have taken every reasonable precaution to avoid pregnancy and it still happens. In that case the comparison stands in my opinion.

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

Furthermore, there's a difference between actively letting someone die and intentionally causing their death. For instance, neglecting to aid a person while they drown in a pool is different than holding their head under water. Both obviously have serious moral concerns, but there is a distinction.

I quite agree, though not many ethicists do not.
This harks back to a point I think I briefly raised in my previous post, regarding the intentions of the woman in having an abortion. If it is done with the intention of killing the foetus, then it would constitute murder. If one uses one of the arguments, such as the rights of the mother to her own body, as I've been making, it would not constitute murder. Would you agree?

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

There are other flaws with Thomson's argument, but the Wiki article covers them all, as I'm sure you've already read. I think we have two differing definitions on murder. Society as a whole generally accepts murder to be morally wrong. You seem to be advocating abortion in terms of justifiable homicide, not murder.

Yes, there are a few flaws, it's not a perfect example, but it is so useful in considering the case that I use it even with its flaws.

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

How you paint the growth of the fetus is extremely relevant to this discussion. The effects of the fetus on the mother are at the heart of this debate, considering we're referring to the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the fetus.

I don't agree with you here. I don't think one needs to consider the growth of the foetus to be negative in order to act on the woman's rights as I have been presenting them. Certainly, if one considers other arguments, one could use the growth of the foetus as a justification if one decided to argue that said growth was negative, however for this argument I do not consider it relevant. Do you still disagree, if so why?

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

Aside from maliciously causing anguish to the fetus, then no I'm not really exaggerating. I see no reason why the mother can't do whatever she chooses.

Are you not making an erroneous presumption that people are the only creatures with rights? Non-persons also have rights, so if the foetus is not deemed to be a person, it is not bereft of natural rights by the common understanding of natural rights theory at present. Just because it does not have rights, does not alter the fact that it would be considered a potential person.

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

As I mentioned above, I think we're viewing murder in different lights. I see murder in black and white. If abortion is acceptable (ethically or lawfully), then it's not murder.

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

I agree and disagree with you. I think that we share a common definition of murder (it is hard not to, it's a commonly known definition). However, just as one can present an argument in court which completely exonerates one from a murder charge (even if all the necessary proofs of the charge are met), I believe that abortion could be considered both an act of murder, and also morally acceptable. A natural product of such a consideration would then be that society would not charge people with murder for abortion cases if it was conducted in the right manner, in the same way that the Dutch legal system did not charge people for engaging in euthanasia if it was conducted in a manner deemed acceptable (despite it being illegal at the time).

Phew, this is getting long. I think I covered all your arguments though..!

LuklaAdvocate · Apr 28th 2012, 5:05am

Jarndyce wrote:

It is completely unrealistic, but it doesn't pretend to be realistic, it just attempts to mimic the situation as closely as possible, using parts which are in no way connected to the biases present in the original argument.
I don't see how your example can claim to do the same thing, it doesn't mimik the situation, it just creates an impossible situation concerning abortion.

So by mimiking the situation, it's allotted the privilege of being unrealistic?

I would never actually use my example to argue against abortion, but like The Violinist argument, it bridges together a concept. The difference is, yours is an analogy and mine relies on more of a rhetorical situation.

Jarndyce wrote:

What if one assumes that the man and woman have taken every reasonable precaution to avoid pregnancy and it still happens. In that case the comparison stands in my opinion.

One involves force, the other doesn't. Ultimately, unless the mother was raped, her pregnancy was not forced upon her, contrary to how the Violinist surrogate was commandeered into their dilemma.

Jarndyce wrote:

I quite agree, though not many ethicists do not.
This harks back to a point I think I briefly raised in my previous post, regarding the intentions of the woman in having an abortion. If it is done with the intention of killing the foetus, then it would constitute murder. If one uses one of the arguments, such as the rights of the mother to her own body, as I've been making, it would not constitute murder. Would you agree?

I don't see any differentiation. Any abortion is performed with the intent of killing the fetus. The mother may claim to be excising her rights, but her intention is still to kill the fetus, child, or whatever you want to call it.

Jarndyce wrote:

Yes, there are a few flaws, it's not a perfect example, but it is so useful in considering the case that I use it even with its flaws.

Except that the flaws themselves undermine the entire point of the argument. Everything from how the person "arrived" there to how the Violinist is being deprived of life. They don't parallel the majority of abortion cases.

Jarndyce wrote:

I don't agree with you here. I don't think one needs to consider the growth of the foetus to be negative in order to act on the woman's rights as I have been presenting them. Certainly, if one considers other arguments, one could use the growth of the foetus as a justification if one decided to argue that said growth was negative, however for this argument I do not consider it relevant. Do you still disagree, if so why?

Because if the growth of the fetus was not in any way, shape, or form unhealthy to the mother, and the fetus is a person, for what possible reason would there be to abort? The mother has the right to kill a person who is not harming her just to claim the right to her own body?

Jarndyce wrote:

Are you not making an erroneous presumption that people are the only creatures with rights? Non-persons also have rights, so if the foetus is not deemed to be a person, it is not bereft of natural rights by the common understanding of natural rights theory at present. Just because it does not have rights, does not alter the fact that it would be considered a potential person.

A sperm and egg are potential persons. But if they had rights, well...a lot of us are in big trouble.

If the fetus is not a person, and the mother has rights to her own body, then it stands to reason that the mother has the right to do whatever she wants to the fetus. And when I say whatever she wants, I didn't literally mean she can do anything to it. So I suppose in that sense I exaggerated, yes.

Jarndyce wrote:

I agree and disagree with you. I think that we share a common definition of murder (it is hard not to, it's a commonly known definition). However, just as one can present an argument in court which completely exonerates one from a murder charge (even if all the necessary proofs of the charge are met), I believe that abortion could be considered both an act of murder, and also morally acceptable. A natural product of such a consideration would then be that society would not charge people with murder for abortion cases if it was conducted in the right manner, in the same way that the Dutch legal system did not charge people for engaging in euthanasia if it was conducted in a manner deemed acceptable (despite it being illegal at the time).

If someone is acquitted on a murder charge, then they're not guilty of murder (well, at least in a juries eyes).

By our own admission, you said a women is guilty of murder if she kills a fetus who is a person. This means she unlawfully killed another person, with malice. Any mitigating circumstances, such as the rights of a mother, would drop such a charge from murder to something such as manslaughter, or even justifiable homicide. But by saying she's guilty of murder, you're conceding that what she's doing is wrong. If you believe she's justified in aborting the fetus, then it's not murder, but some other form of homicide.

I'm also a bit confused.
Earlier in your post, you said, in regard to abortion:
"If it is done with the intention of killing the foetus, then it would constitute murder. If one uses one of the arguments, such as the rights of the mother to her own body, as I've been making, it would not constitute murder."

In that instance, you said in situations that involve the rights of the mother, it's not murder. But just now you said "I believe that abortion could be considered both an act of murder, and also morally acceptable."

Were you referring to two difference circumstances there?

And just out of curiosity, do you believe the fetus is a person; and what rights do you believe should be provided to it?

Operator · Apr 28th 2012, 5:13am

I actually laugh at the people who are "terrorists" against abortion. Its a woman's choice. They are trying to rule everyone because of something they don't like. So say a woman gets raped and ends up pregnant. She supposed to keep the baby? Anyways its a woman's choice since its her body.

Jarndyce · Apr 28th 2012, 9:59am

Oh dear, I was hoping you would take longer to get back to me than that.

I don't have the time right now, I am drowning in work atm. I will respond, probably when my brain gives up on work and degenerates into a pile of semi-cognisant sludge. (I feel guilty even making time to read your reply)

DamnImGood · Apr 28th 2012, 6:03pm

Jarndyce wrote:

Surely she has a right to choose whether something uses her body or not?

She sure does, and if she really didn't want something using her body for nine months she would choose to not have sex. I understand there are the cases of rape, which effectively removes the woman's right to make this choice.

Note I am pro-choice in all situations and while I look down on those who use it as a form of birth control I still think it should remain legal and available for anyone who desires it.

Jarndyce · Apr 29th 2012, 12:08pm

LuklaAdvocate wrote:

So by mimiking the situation, it's allotted the privilege of being unrealistic?

I would never actually use my example to argue against abortion, but like The Violinist argument, it bridges together a concept. The difference is, yours is an analogy and mine relies on more of a rhetorical situation. One involves force, the other doesn't. Ultimately, unless the mother was raped, her pregnancy was not forced upon her, contrary to how the Violinist surrogate was commandeered into their dilemma. I don't see any differentiation. Any abortion is performed with the intent of killing the fetus. The mother may claim to be excising her rights, but her intention is still to kill the fetus, child, or whatever you want to call it. Except that the flaws themselves undermine the entire point of the argument. Everything from how the person "arrived" there to how the Violinist is being deprived of life. They don't parallel the majority of abortion cases. Because if the growth of the fetus was not in any way, shape, or form unhealthy to the mother, and the fetus is a person, for what possible reason would there be to abort? The mother has the right to kill a person who is not harming her just to claim the right to her own body? A sperm and egg are potential persons. But if they had rights, well...a lot of us are in big trouble.

If the fetus is not a person, and the mother has rights to her own body, then it stands to reason that the mother has the right to do whatever she wants to the fetus. And when I say whatever she wants, I didn't literally mean she can do anything to it. So I suppose in that sense I exaggerated, yes. If someone is acquitted on a murder charge, then they're not guilty of murder (well, at least in a juries eyes).

By our own admission, you said a women is guilty of murder if she kills a fetus who is a person. This means she unlawfully killed another person, with malice. Any mitigating circumstances, such as the rights of a mother, would drop such a charge from murder to something such as manslaughter, or even justifiable homicide. But by saying she's guilty of murder, you're conceding that what she's doing is wrong. If you believe she's justified in aborting the fetus, then it's not murder, but some other form of homicide.

I'm also a bit confused.
Earlier in your post, you said, in regard to abortion:
"If it is done with the intention of killing the foetus, then it would constitute murder. If one uses one of the arguments, such as the rights of the mother to her own body, as I've been making, it would not constitute murder."

In that instance, you said in situations that involve the rights of the mother, it's not murder. But just now you said "I believe that abortion could be considered both an act of murder, and also morally acceptable."

Were you referring to two difference circumstances there?

And just out of curiosity, do you believe the fetus is a person; and what rights do you believe should be provided to it?

It isn't because Thompsons example mimiks the situation that it is unrealistic, simply that it is a situation which is extraordinarily unrealistic. That doesn't criticise the level of aptness of the analogy though.

Your example was also, but sort of lost out by being paradoxical. Nonetheless, I admit I should assign more worth to it than I initially did. There are drawbacks to taking up a position in an argument, it taints your view of everything......

I agree personally. Any time a person engages in sexual intercourse, even if all precautions are made, they should assume the possibility of a pregnancy resulting and be accordingly prepared. However, playing ice hockey wearing full protective gear and getting broken ribs is not the same as playing ice hockey wearing only a helmet, and then feeling sorry for yourself when you get broken ribs.

I still disagree with you. The intention of killing the foetus is not always the purpose. Here I believe you are viewing the death of the foetus as always being the end, whereas I'm viewing it as sometimes being the means to another end.

Look at the inverse side of the argument. Rather than the woman claiming the right to her own body, does the foetus have the right to claim the use of it? I do not consider the foetus to have any more right to claim the use of the woman's body than I do.

Haha, I like your sperm and egg point. However, the argument you touch on leads directly to the position that a foetus is not a person, merely a potential person. For the sake of argument we're presuming that point as moot, so in keeping with our agreed terms, I don't consider your argument valid on that point, and continue to support the validity of my previous statements on the matter.

Is it ethically wrong to jaywalk? Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong. Hence while the woman could be guilty of murder, society could well decide not to prosecute her for it, as I've previously covered.

You're rightfully confused, I was being inconsistent (read: establishing my position as I went) I will clarify my arguments to stand by agreeing that abortion can be considered murder, however that such a classification does not trump the woman's right to have an abortion, or make the act of having one ethically wrong, as I've outlined above, and previously.

In answer to your final question: I do not consider the foetus to be a person. For instance, a commonly accepted pre-requisite for personhood is self awareness, which a foetus does not possess.

To be frank, I tend to argue that we either possess the right to do anything we can imagine, or that we have no rights whatsoever. I see no authority which has the power to grant us some rights, if we have none to begin with, and although social contract theory is quite interesting to consider, it's major flaws, such as its implicit nature, and its lack of being legally binding - or even possible to agree to within established contract law - which make it unviable as a means of explaining why we should relinquish some rights.
So to answer your question, it does not matter what rights I assign the the foetus, as, if everyone has the right to act however they wish, the rights of the foetus could be trampled by any more powerful being (anything at all in other words), or if we have no rights, then the foetus also has no rights, which also allows any action to be committed against the foetus.

To return the question, do you consider foetuses to be possessed of personhood, and what rights do you consider them to have?

Papa Bear · Apr 29th 2012, 5:36pm

I think after a certain time, one should not be able to abort. but while it's still an embryo and shit go ahead

Manny · Apr 29th 2012, 5:46pm

The pregnant lady at the nearby store is not having a kid with me. Take that as you will.

/thread

DamnImGood · Apr 29th 2012, 7:50pm

Jarndyce wrote:

The intention of killing the foetus is not always the purpose.

It is always the purpose. No one gets an abortion without intending to kill the fetus. That is an abortion.

LuklaAdvocate · May 1st 2012, 2:30am

Jarndyce wrote:

I agree personally. Any time a person engages in sexual intercourse, even if all precautions are made, they should assume the possibility of a pregnancy resulting and be accordingly prepared. However, playing ice hockey wearing full protective gear and getting broken ribs is not the same as playing ice hockey wearing only a helmet, and then feeling sorry for yourself when you get broken ribs.

And even if you wear the full protective gear, you still must take responsibility and pay the hospital and medical fees for the broken rib. You don't get a free pass because you didn't intend for it to happen.

Jarndyce wrote:

I still disagree with you. The intention of killing the foetus is not always the purpose. Here I believe you are viewing the death of the foetus as always being the end, whereas I'm viewing it as sometimes being the means to another end.

By that logic, I could say that if I were to take out a life insurance policy on my neighbor, and kill him a week later, my purpose wasn't murder but rather the insurance pay out. Or in other words, I really didn't intend to kill him, I just wanted the money.

You could try that line of reasoning with a jury, but I don't recommend it.

Jarndyce wrote:

Look at the inverse side of the argument. Rather than the woman claiming the right to her own body, does the foetus have the right to claim the use of it? I do not consider the foetus to have any more right to claim the use of the woman's body than I do.

The only way you would be using a women's body is by attaching yourself to her. On the other hand, evolution decided that gestation occurs in a women's body, and the women's decision put the fetus there.

The mother forfeited several of her rights when she actively and consensually engaged in intercourse, knowing it could produce a child. To then claim she wants to kill a person because of the consequences is asinine.

Jarndyce wrote:

Haha, I like your sperm and egg point. However, the argument you touch on leads directly to the position that a foetus is not a person, merely a potential person. For the sake of argument we're presuming that point as moot, so in keeping with our agreed terms, I don't consider your argument valid on that point, and continue to support the validity of my previous statements on the matter.

Except for that particular point, we were discussing the rights of the mother under the premise that the fetus was not a person, and you brought up the idea of a "potential person," which could be applied to anything from the fetus to a sperm cell.

Jarndyce wrote:

Is it ethically wrong to jaywalk? Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong. Hence while the woman could be guilty of murder, society could well decide not to prosecute her for it, as I've previously covered.

The difference is, murder by definition is wrong, because it involves malice. Jaywalking doesn't.

Jarndyce wrote:

You're rightfully confused, I was being inconsistent (read: establishing my position as I went) I will clarify my arguments to stand by agreeing that abortion can be considered murder, however that such a classification does not trump the woman's right to have an abortion, or make the act of having one ethically wrong, as I've outlined above, and previously.

If abortion is justified then it's not murder. Period. You're trying to argue against a definition already set in stone; murder involves a morally wrong action, something evil or malevolent (malice). You can't have homicide be considered both murder and justified; the two concepts are mutually exclusive. Murder is, by definition, a malice act; an evil act; something you can't justify.

Jarndyce wrote:

To return the question, do you consider foetuses to be possessed of personhood, and what rights do you consider them to have?

Honestly, I'm on the fence. I sort of go back and forth. Long story short, I'm pro-choice but don't agree whole-heartily with abortion.

Kentan · May 17th 2012, 1:59pm

Linda wrote:

Why should only women be taught this? Are men not involved in sex or making the woman pregnant?

Women get pregnant; Men do not.

It is a complex issue but I do not think women should have the right to “kill” what will eventually become a fully functioning human being.

DamnImGood · May 18th 2012, 1:27am

Kentan wrote:

Women get pregnant; Men do not.

And how do women get pregnant again?

HOW IS BABBY FORMED?

Kentan wrote:

It is a complex issue but I do not think women should have the right to “kill” what will eventually become a fully functioning human being.

How do you know it will eventually become a functioning human being?

Kentan · May 22nd 2012, 3:16am

DamnImGood wrote:

And how do women get pregnant again?
HOW IS BABBY FORMED?

That is a very juvenile approach to the issue…

Men have no control over women’s bodies. As a general precaution women should take the lead and put their “security” first.

I agree that in a loving relationship two people should share the responsibility but this is idealistic at best. Ultimately women are responsible for their bodies and the repercussions thereof.

DamnImGood wrote:

How do you know it will eventually become a functioning human being?

Balance of probabilities. Every child is not born a vegetable…

The law assumes that at the age of consent you are able to make rational decisions on the matter of sex and as a general rule people are responsible for their actions. We understand “protection” is not 100% therefore the risks that go hand-in-hand with sex will always exist. And we know what they are…

Knowing the risks, if you have sex, I think you should accept the long-term responsibility that goes with it. That is my opinion and nothing more. I would not judge any woman for having an abortion because I know how hard and painful a decision it is.

Littlemissteenager · Jun 3rd 2012, 11:39am

I don't think it should be banned or anything because it's the persons choice.
But I don't think the matter is as simple as its right or wrong!
It has many arguments that suit both sides but I don't agree with it! Ino a lot of people say its not a baby yet but in American 2 thirds of abortions occur during the second trimester when at this point it is a baby! Even when it's a fetus it's still a living breathing thing! It's alive and it's a child! It's your child and a living thing from the moment of conception! In my opinion you are killing an innocent baby which in my opinion isn't right!I don't understand how people can live with the guilt after! Obviously it's the persons choice but I think it's horrible! There is always adoption or giving the baby to someone who would love and care for it and is desperate to have a baby but can't.That child could be destined to grow up to do great things , it could be destined to discover a cure for cancer or make a big difference in the world , maybe it was going to be a doctor who would save people's lives or a lawyer who would help people fight for their human rights! Perhaps a teacher who could teach people valuable life skills or maybe they would just make someone happy!But if you kill that baby through abortion you will never know.You will never get to meet that wonderful person! That baby wont get to grow up and experience great things! Just because it's not a fully formed baby yet doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a chance at life! That baby was a thought of god! Everyone one is a thought of god! Just because you can't see it or hold it in your arms yet, just because it's not fully formed into a baby yet doesn't mean it's any less human and any less deserving of a chance at life!
I think abortion should only be used in certain cases such as rape where if a women was raped she might not want a constant reminder of it! Also what if the child looked like the father?
If it puts the mother in danger like if there is a high chance that the mother may not survive the pregnancy or it might cause serious health problems after
Or if the person is very young and wouldn't be able to cope with being pregnant (under 16)
Obviously everyone is intitled to choice but personally I don't agree with it unless it is one of the senarios listed above!

run101 · Jun 13th 2012, 3:57pm

i personally disagree with abortion... in my opinion it's murder

Share

Tags