- Boards
- Current Events
- Should calling Abortion Murder be a moderation?
|
This is a special snowflake topic if I've ever seen one. Millions of people disagree with abortion. Deal with it.
|
|
Webmaster4531 posted...
Gojak_v3 posted...This is a special snowflake topic if I've ever seen one. Millions of people disagree with abortion. Deal with it. So older women who aren't vulnerable at all, have the means to care for a child in every way, but just doesn't want a baby and had an abortion would be justifiably called a murderer then?
woof
|
|
it's not murder
|
|
Jabodie posted...
You can't mod somebody just for being dumb.
http://imgur.com/x9wX8Pz 3DS Friend Code: 4682-8964-8708
Skullgirls: F**ua (lul censor) | Sm4sh: Toon Link/Yoshi |
|
No because that's what the f*** it is. I have no respect for women who kill their babies because they can't practice abstinence
|
|
Howl posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...Gojak_v3 posted...This is a special snowflake topic if I've ever seen one. Millions of people disagree with abortion. Deal with it. No. The vulnerability of the person just makes the act more offensive. The extreme would be calling a rape victim a murder.
Ad Hominem.
|
|
Tadamoto15 posted...
No because that's what the f*** it is. I have no respect for women who kill their babies because they can't practice abstinence You don't have respect for women period. |
|
JohnLennon6 posted...
You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that it is murder. |
|
Howl posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...Gojak_v3 posted...This is a special snowflake topic if I've ever seen one. Millions of people disagree with abortion. Deal with it. The Russian judge gives your mental contortionist routine a 3. |
|
Tmaster148 posted...
You don't have respect for women period. True. |
|
Tadamoto15 posted...
Tmaster148 posted...You don't have respect for women period. i mean they dont have respect for you, so
http://imgur.com/x9wX8Pz 3DS Friend Code: 4682-8964-8708
Skullgirls: F**ua (lul censor) | Sm4sh: Toon Link/Yoshi |
|
Tadamoto15 posted...
Tmaster148 posted...You don't have respect for women period. So your opinion on abortion is a joke then? Thanks for letting us know. |
|
Yes, because it's poor trolling
|
|
You can call it that, but until abortion is illegal, it's not murder. It's only murder when it's against the law.
|
|
Esrac posted...
You can call it that, but until abortion is illegal, it's not murder. It's only murder when it's against the law. It's legally not murder even if abortion is against the law. |
|
sktgamer_13dude posted...
Esrac posted...You can call it that, but until abortion is illegal, it's not murder. It's only murder when it's against the law. I think that's debatable. But do you have something specific in mind that I'm not aware of? It would almost certainly be considered a homicide. Is there a technical term I'm missing? |
Please note that what if scenarios still need to fall in line with site rules. The entire premise of this scenario is completely offensive. I'm probably going to get in trouble. Calling them murders achieves the same implication but for some reason that's okay. I'm probably going to post a lot of things that make no sense.
Ad Hominem.
|
|
Esrac posted...
sktgamer_13dude posted...Esrac posted...You can call it that, but until abortion is illegal, it's not murder. It's only murder when it's against the law. Murder is a person killing another person with premeditation. That's the literal and legal definition. A fetus isn't a person. A fetus can't survive without being attached to the mother in the womb. Calling abortion "murder" or "homicide" is lazy rhetoric. Get a new argument. |
|
Can we mod progressives who defend pedophiles?
FFX is the best game of all time. The only good Nintendo franchises are Pokemon and Fire Emblem. Comics are for kids. https://i.imgur.com/LJ3WSyB.gif
|
|
JohnLennon6 posted...
ColdOne666 posted...Can we mod progressives who defend pedophiles? yes
http://imgur.com/x9wX8Pz 3DS Friend Code: 4682-8964-8708
Skullgirls: F**ua (lul censor) | Sm4sh: Toon Link/Yoshi |
|
No one defends pedophiles rofl
|
|
JohnLennon6 posted...
sktgamer_13dude posted...No one defends pedophiles rofl <citation needed> |
|
|
|
sktgamer_13dude posted...
Esrac posted...sktgamer_13dude posted...Esrac posted...You can call it that, but until abortion is illegal, it's not murder. It's only murder when it's against the law. A 1 month old baby cant care for itself either.
FFX is the best game of all time. The only good Nintendo franchises are Pokemon and Fire Emblem. Comics are for kids. https://i.imgur.com/LJ3WSyB.gif
|
|
ColdOne666 posted...
sktgamer_13dude posted...Esrac posted...sktgamer_13dude posted...Esrac posted...You can call it that, but until abortion is illegal, it's not murder. It's only murder when it's against the law. A 1-month old baby doesn't need a cord attached to its stomach and a protective coating around its body to survive. |
|
Verdekal posted...
Defending abortion should be moddable. lol
http://imgur.com/x9wX8Pz 3DS Friend Code: 4682-8964-8708
Skullgirls: F**ua (lul censor) | Sm4sh: Toon Link/Yoshi |
|
Gojak_v3 posted...
This is a special snowflake topic if I've ever seen one. Millions of people disagree with abortion. Deal with it. Millions of people have been known to be wrong. |
|
sktgamer_13dude posted...
ColdOne666 posted...sktgamer_13dude posted...Esrac posted...sktgamer_13dude posted...Esrac posted...You can call it that, but until abortion is illegal, it's not murder. It's only murder when it's against the law. So i can cut open a mother and kill the baby but its not murder because its still connected by the cord? Lol the lefties have all gone insane.
FFX is the best game of all time. The only good Nintendo franchises are Pokemon and Fire Emblem. Comics are for kids. https://i.imgur.com/LJ3WSyB.gif
|
|
ColdOne666 posted...
So i can cut open a mother and kill the baby but its not murder because its still connected by the cord? Pretty sure you just committed battery in this scenario. Let's not forget that a trained medical doctor is one carrying out an operation to remove the unwanted fetus and not some random person on the street. |
|
JohnLennon6 posted...
You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that it isn't murder. sktgamer_13dude posted... JohnLennon6 posted...You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that it is murder. 1) A zygote/embryo/foetus is a human being. 2) It is wrong to kill human beings. 3) Therefore, you should not kill zygotes/embryos/foetuses. sktgamer_13dude posted...
A foetus is unequivocally a human being, so you must be appealing to some more abstract idea of "person", the defining feature of which is that it can survive on its own. Are you saying that being physically dependent on someone for survival is what makes you a morally relevant human being? Because in varying degrees, we are all dependent on each other for survival. For example, a baby will die pretty quickly if you don't give them food, shelter, etc. A foetus will die even faster if you remove the umbilical cord. What's the difference, morally? Are you saying that being viable in the here and now is what makes you a morally relevant human being? If so, then it's OK to kill people on life support. Such people are, like a foetus, kept alive only by having fluids and nutrients pumped into their bodies, and by strict medical observation. Yet if someone ran into a hospital and started willy-nilly disconnecting people on life support, we'd rightly consider their actions as murder.
I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.
|
- Boards
- Current Events
- Should calling Abortion Murder be a moderation?
- Boards
- Current Events
- Should calling Abortion Murder be a moderation?
Sinroth posted...Are you saying that being viable in the here and now is what makes you a morally relevant human being? If so, then it's OK to kill people on life support. Such people are, like a foetus, kept alive only by having fluids and nutrients pumped into their bodies, and by strict medical observation. Yet if someone ran into a hospital and started willy-nilly disconnecting people on life support, we'd rightly consider their actions as murder.
What? You can't use logic here. It drives the LIBRULS wild!!!woofWebmaster4531 posted...I took my mother off life support. Am I a murderer?
I'm sorry about your mother. In some extraordinary cases, it can be justified to take people off life support. In many cases, life support isn't permanent, and it's only used while the person's body can make a recovery. The point is that, until you've identified whether a person on life support is in that extreme situation (they're terminally ill or unable to make a recovery), it is absolutely murder.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.You've missed the point mate. Many people on life support make recoveries. There's no "decision" to make in these cases. These people will make a full recovery if you keep applying life support. It's not OK to kill such people, even if they depend on life support to stay alive. Take a primitive form of life support, CPR, and a person who needs it. It's not okay to kill that person, simply because they need CPR to stay alive. But that is a morally equivalent situation to the foetus who needs nutrients to stay alive.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Not sure why you're upset. If you're gonna make a topic about them, at least defend your viewpoints. Nobody here is being rude or outrageous.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Sinroth posted...Not sure why you're upset. If you're gonna make a topic about them, at least defend your viewpoints. Nobody here is being rude or outrageous.
I've heard your dumb point so damn often and it always goes on the same circle. Fetuses compared to humans varying from sleeping to reversible comas. It comes down to I don't see them as human and you do.
My hands being tied by these mods means I'm just waiting wasting my time not being able to say what I want to say.Ad Hominem.Then present an argument. I've said why viability isn't the defining characteristic of morally relevant things: if it was, we'd have to accept that those people in comas, on life support, etc. aren't morally relevant, and it would be fine to kill them for no reason. But nobody believes that --- we all agree it's wrong to kill people in foetuses, on life support, etc. So it's logically invalid to say it is OK to kill foetuses because they need their own form of life support.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Sinroth posted...Then present an argument. I've said why viability isn't the defining characteristic of morally relevant things: if it was, we'd have to accept that those people in comas, on life support, etc. aren't morally relevant, and it would be fine to kill them for no reason. But nobody believes that, so it's a logically invalid argument.
It was fine to take my mother off correct?Ad Hominem.Darmik posted...Why stop there? May as well charge someone who has had a miscarriage with manslaughter too.
Why would we? Most miscarriages aren't caused by the mother. You have identified that a pro-life position requires us to acknowledge a miscarriage as a loss of life. And there's nothing wrong with that. People are deeply affected when they miscarry, possibly because they recognise that there is a loss of life.
Webmaster4531 posted...
It was fine to take my mother off correct?
I don't know the circumstances surrounding your mother, but there seems to be a clear difference between euthanising a terminally ill person, and killing someone on life support who would've been able to make a recovery. I'm assuming yours was something like the former, in which case, yes.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Sinroth posted...I don't know the circumstances surrounding your mother, but there seems to be a clear difference between euthanising a terminally ill person, and killing someone on life support who would've been able to make a recovery. I'm assuming yours was something like the former, in which case, yes.
End of life decisions are not that simple. It's disingenuous to ignore sometimes it's not cut and dry.Ad Hominem.Sinroth posted...Why would we? Most miscarriages aren't caused by the other. You have identified that a pro-life position requires us to acknowledge a miscarriage as a loss of life. And there's nothing wrong with that. People are deeply affected when they miscarry, possibly because they recgonise that there is a loss of life.
It identifies that the life in the womb is not treated the same as a baby. It's fragile and not fully formed.
And yes a Mother can purposefully trigger a miscarriage. That's gonna be a hell of a lot more common if abortion was outlawed.Kind Regards,
DarmikDarmik posted...Sinroth posted...
Why would we? Most miscarriages aren't caused by the other. You have identified that a pro-life position requires us to acknowledge a miscarriage as a loss of life. And there's nothing wrong with that. People are deeply affected when they miscarry, possibly because they recgonise that there is a loss of life.
It identifies that the life in the womb is not treated the same as a baby. It's fragile and not fully formed.
And yes a Mother can purposefully trigger a miscarriage. That's gonna be a hell of a lot more common if abortion was outlawed.
Accidentally miscarrying, because of natural reasons, is not a murder or homicide, because the mother didn't cause it. If a mother purposefully triggers a miscarriage, that would be essentially an abortion. It would be a murder; it wouldn't be a homicide. If a mother induces a miscarriage by negligence, that would be a miscarriage (maybe through drug use or something?). The situations are quite different, but all involve a loss of life. I don't see any contradiction in failing to charge a woman for an accidental miscarriage.
Webmaster4531 posted...
End of life decisions are not that simple. It's disingenuous to ignore sometimes it's not cut and dry.
Do you have an example? The only reason we consider euthanasia is because the patient is ill beyond our means to help them. If a person is not ill beyond our means to help them, it is 100% wrong to disconnect them. The condition of a foetus is not beyond our means to help it.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Sinroth posted...If a mother induces a miscarriage by negligence, that would be a miscarriage (maybe through drug use or something?). The situations are quite different, but all involve a loss of life. I don't see any contradiction in failing to charge a woman for an accidental miscarriage.
Why wouldn't this be manslaughter then?
Sinroth posted...Do you have an example? The only reason we consider euthanasia is because the patient is ill beyond our means to help them. If a person is not ill beyond our means to help them, it is 100% wrong to disconnect them. The condition of a foetus is not beyond our means to help it.
Sometimes it's not known if the patient will recover or if they will recover have the same quality of life.Kind Regards,
DarmikFeline_Heart posted...It is murder. I don't have a problem with it though
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Abortion is not murder unless we ban it and declare fetuses to be people.Sinroth posted...You've missed the point mate. Many people on life support make recoveries. There's no "decision" to make in these cases. These people will make a full recovery if you keep applying life support. It's not OK to kill such people, even if they depend on life support to stay alive. Take a primitive form of life support, CPR, and a person who needs it. It's not okay to kill that person, simply because they need CPR to stay alive. But that is a morally equivalent situation to the foetus who needs nutrients to stay alive.
You don't know a f***ing thing on this subject.
First, these decisions are left to their health care directive, which they wrote (hopefully).
If they say "Pull the plug and dance," you pull the plug and dance.
Most older people have such a document in place, same with their will and their power of attorney forms. I know, I've written quite a few of all 3.
Give someone CPR for 2.5 minutes. I dare you.
It's actually pretty tiring.
Plus, you probably broke their ribs, and 9/10 times, you did that to torture a dying person.
Re-quoting:
Sinroth posted...Many people on life support make recoveries. There's no "decision" to make in these cases. These people will make a full recovery if you keep applying life support.
You're fully f***ing wrong, and I doubt you've spent more hours in the ER on the medical side than I have.
Sit down.Darmik posted...Sinroth posted...
If a mother induces a miscarriage by negligence, that would be a miscarriage (maybe through drug use or something?). The situations are quite different, but all involve a loss of life. I don't see any contradiction in failing to charge a woman for an accidental miscarriage.
Why wouldn't this be manslaughter then?
Woops, I meant to say "If a mother induces a miscarriage by negligence, that would be a manslaughter". My bad.Sometimes it's not known if the patient will recover or if they will recover have the same quality of life.
We don't have perfect knowledge, sure. We act on reasonable cause. The point here is not that we can decide with 100% certainty whether someone gets euthanised, or that we always get it right. The point is that euthanasia, in theory, can be acceptable because we are trying to lessen the suffering of someone who is terminally ill, or beyond our means to help them recover. If we had the means of helping that person make a full recovery, euthanasia would never be an option for that person. In the vast majority of abortions, we do have the means to help the foetus develop.
DrizztLink posted...
You don't know a f***ing thing on this subject.
First, these decisions are left to their health care directive, which they wrote (hopefully).
If they say "Pull the plug and dance," you pull the plug and dance.
Most older people have such a document in place, same with their will and their power of attorney forms. I know, I've written quite a few of all 3.
Give someone CPR for 2.5 minutes. I dare you.
It's actually pretty tiring.
Plus, you probably broke their ribs, and 9/10 times, you did that to torture a dying person.
Re-quoting:
I've absolutely no idea what point you're trying to circle in all of this yammering. People get euthanised when their condition is beyond our means to help. The way this is realised and determined in medical and legal practice is a completely different, largely irrelevant matter.
This theoretical euthanasia is quite different from abortion, which is largely done out of economic convenience. We, often as individuals, but almost definitely as a society, have the means to help pregnant women and child-carers and, in extreme circumstances, to provide adoption services to them.
If I could give someone CPR for 2.5 minutes and save their life, I would. Are you saying you wouldn't?
DrizztLink posted...
You're fully f***ing wrong, and I doubt you've spent more hours in the ER on the medical side than I have.
Sit down.
If phony outrage was an argument, you'd be winning.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Webmaster4531 posted...I was offered to sign a DNR(Do not resuscitate) because my mother didn't have a living will.
That sounds like a very hard decision. I won't pretend to know all the details of going through that, but I'm not sure they're entirely relevant. The point is that if you could have saved your mother, I'm sure you would have.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Howl posted...Why would calling an action what it is be moddable?
I think calling a pro-choice person a "murderer" and baiting them by invalidating their opinion as much as possible should be moddable. "Yeah, I should believe what a callous baby-killer has to say. Tell me, would you have liked to have been aborted?", s*** like that. Just stringing people along with a bunch of ignorant, emotional rhetoric.And outside it's ninety-two degrees, and KROQ is playing Siouxsie and the Banshees.
Currently playing: OSRS, Final Fantasy VSinroth posted...We, often as individuals, but almost definitely as a society, have the means to help pregnant women and child-carers and, in extreme circumstances, to provide adoption services to them.
So why don't we? Why do we have 400,000 orphans I America, most of which will never be adopted? Why do we have millions of children living in poverty? Why do we have millions of abused and neglected? Are we just too lazy and evil to help some children?
So either we do not have the means or we are too f***ed up to use them. Abortion seems like a mercy in either case. Fetuses haven't been born yet. They aren't developed. They aren't people. They have no identity or awareness. They are just potential, so why doom ones to grow up to parents who can't afford or don't want them? Why force those lives to happen? All it does is hurt society. But hey at least some people would be able to pay themselves on the back for being "pro-life". Your parents don't want you, can't afford you , or gave you up to the state, but hey at least we assured you were brought into this world and are aware of your suffering. That is if your mother didn't abort you in an alley or die trying.It shouldn't be but we know how awful and inconsistent the mods arehockeybub89 posted...
So why don't we? Why do we have 400,000 orphans I America, most of which will never be adopted? Why do we have millions of children living in poverty? Why do we have millions of abused and neglected? Are we just too lazy and evil to help some children?
Yes.So either we do not have the means or we are too f***ed up to use them. Abortion seems like a mercy in either case. Fetuses haven't been born yet. They aren't developed. They aren't people. They have no identity or awareness.
Neither do newborn babies.They are just potential,
Well, there are two points to be made here. The first is that a foetus/embryo/zygote contains in itself all the information describing what it is like. Same as a human. The second is that the potential to do things is important. You and I are conscious beings, and that doesn't change when we happen to be sleeping and not exercising conscious thought. Our free speech is not lost because we're not speaking at a particular moment. Rather, it is our capacity to exercise certain things, like conscious thought, free speech, etc. in particular circumstances which is important. And a foetus has all of these capacities: they are self-directing, containing all the information which would let them, in theoretical circumstances, do all of those things. A foetus is the kind of thing with human capacities; that is more than just saying "potential", and it is a sufficient condition for moral relevance.so why doom ones to grow up to parents who can't afford or don't want them? Why force those lives to happen?
The same argument can be made about newborn babies. Many of those are unwanted, or "can't be afforded" (a lie told by selfish people and politicians), yet I hope we can agree it's wrong to kill them.All it does is hurt society.
Your economic worth shouldn't determine whether you deserve to exist.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Darmik posted...Sinroth posted...
We, often as individuals, but almost definitely as a society, have the means to help pregnant women and child-carers and, in extreme circumstances, to provide adoption services to them.
Lol do we?
How's that working out for people living in poverty?
I'm not saying we use our means to help people as we should. That's almost the opposite of what I'm saying.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.It looks like we're basing anti-abortion around a notion that there is some intrinsic value to life, that we somehow deserve to exist, around a moral anchor that life has a meaning.
Which we do but we don't. There is no real intrinsic value to our lives, that value is man-made and it differs from person to person, civilization to civilization, society to society, and so forth.
Keep in mind that some people who have abortions don't share the same ideals and values towards life as pro-lifers.BlackDruidLOL posted...It looks like we're basing anti-abortion around a notion that there is some intrinsic value to life, that we somehow deserve to exist, around a moral anchor that life has a meaning.
Which we do but we don't. There is no real intrinsic value to our lives, that value is man-made and it differs from person to person, civilization to civilization, society to society, and so forth.
Keep in mind that some people who have abortions don't share the same ideals and values towards life as pro-lifers.
People say that, but I'm not sure anyone actually believes and follows this kind of moral nihilism to its conclusions. It doesn't really matter what your metaphysical stance is, everybody agrees that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, and that, plus the acknowledgement that a foetus is a human being, is all you need to argue that abortion is wrong as well.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Sinroth posted...hockeybub89 posted...
So why don't we? Why do we have 400,000 orphans I America, most of which will never be adopted? Why do we have millions of children living in poverty? Why do we have millions of abused and neglected? Are we just too lazy and evil to help some children?
Yes.So either we do not have the means or we are too f***ed up to use them. Abortion seems like a mercy in either case. Fetuses haven't been born yet. They aren't developed. They aren't people. They have no identity or awareness.
Neither do newborn babies.They are just potential,
Well, there are two points to be made here. The first is that a foetus/embryo/zygote contains in itself all the information describing what it is like. Same as a human. The second is that the potential to do things is important. You and I are conscious beings, and that doesn't change when we happen to be sleeping and not exercising conscious thought. Our free speech is not lost because we're not speaking at a particular moment. Rather, it is our capacity to exercise certain things, like conscious thought, free speech, etc. in particular circumstances which is important. And a foetus has all of these capacities: they are self-directing, containing all the information which would let them, in theoretical circumstances, do all of those things. A foetus is the kind of thing with human capacities; that is more than just saying "potential", and it is a sufficient condition for moral relevance.so why doom ones to grow up to parents who can't afford or don't want them? Why force those lives to happen?
The same argument can be made about newborn babies. Many of those are unwanted, or "can't be afforded" (a lie told by selfish people and politicians), yet I hope we can agree it's wrong to kill them.All it does is hurt society.
Your economic worth shouldn't determine whether you deserve to exist.
I think it is disingenuous to equate a person with something on the way to becoming a person. I do not agree that we can equate the morality of the two. The same way I don't think a cow and an advanced alien life form would be equal.
The crux of the discussion is that we disagree on fetuses having a right to future existence as people. I do not think fetuses should. And I was talking more than economic worth. We can ban abortion and PP. If we think more abortions, more unwanted pregnancies, more teen pregnancies, more backalley abortions, more dead women, more STDs, more poverty, more abuse and neglect, etc is worth every embryo being legally guaranteed development into a fully formed infant.hockeybub89 posted...
I think it is disingenuous to equate a person with something on the way to becoming a person. I do not agree that we can equate the morality of the two. The same way I don't think a cow and an advanced alien life form would be equal.
The crux of the discussion is that we disagree on fetuses having a right to future existence as people. I do not think fetuses should
I think the crux of the discussion is actually whether a foetus is a human being (or a person, slightly different thing, but whatever). That's what I've argued; not that a foetus is a "potential human". I've already outlined why a foetus is not a "potential person", but a human being, with all the capacities of other human beings, needing only to develop them. Being in a situation where you can't exercise your capacities doesn't mean you don't have them, or that you are a different kind of thing. For example, babies aren't self-aware, but that doesn't mean they aren't human beings.
A cow and an advanced alien life form are different because no cow, in any circumstance, will have the information and ability to develop and exercises like that of the advanced alien life form.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.A secondary point, which is more interesting than anything else, is that "potential humans" are morally relevant. If you have every intention of carrying a foetus to term, yet drink and do drugs, I'm sure most people would frown about that. Most arguments about environmental conservation are based around giving a better life to future generations. And of course, the "economic argument" for an abortion is based around reducing harm to potential people --- by denying that potential people are morally relevant, it seems to be contradictory to assert that abortions are for the purpose of reducing net harm.
This isn't the main reason we shouldn't have abortions, but it's interesting to think about.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Sinroth posted...BlackDruidLOL posted...
It looks like we're basing anti-abortion around a notion that there is some intrinsic value to life, that we somehow deserve to exist, around a moral anchor that life has a meaning.
Which we do but we don't. There is no real intrinsic value to our lives, that value is man-made and it differs from person to person, civilization to civilization, society to society, and so forth.
Keep in mind that some people who have abortions don't share the same ideals and values towards life as pro-lifers.
People say that, but I'm not sure anyone actually believes and follows this kind of moral nihilism to its conclusions. It doesn't really matter what your metaphysical stance is, everybody agrees that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, and that, plus the acknowledgement that a foetus is a human being, is all you need to argue that abortion is wrong as well.
You'd be surprised at how different everyone's moral compass is, and how many people don't associate humanity with fetuses. A lot of people simply don't see the humanity in a fetus but rather as a clump of cells with no more value than a sperm or an egg. People also draw all sorts of lines in fetal development as to what is considered "live," from the first beat of the heart to various stages of brain development, for acceptable points of abortions.
Personally for me, anything in the embryonic stage is free game and enough time to determine whether or not you want to keep the kid, there's hardly any brain development and activity when you're pushing 2 months in, the specimen is not self aware or processing data, but ultimately morality is drastically different between people, and it's not something that can be controlled.
Regardless of morality, I do think the option to abort should be legally kept open. On a side note - the carbon footprint of offspring is too high, we are speeding up our approach to carrying capacity, and the net world population growth is positive. Birth should not something to be encouraged at this point in time.sjw snowflakes fake outrage at abortions but dont give a f*** about abandoned kids being abused at orphanages.
perhaps these sjw should offer to sign up to adopt babies that are facing abortionBlackDruidLOL posted...You'd be surprised at how different everyone's moral compass is, and how many people don't associate humanity with fetuses. A lot of people simply don't see the humanity in a fetus but rather as a clump of cells with no more value than a sperm or an egg. People also draw all sorts of lines in fetal development as to what is considered "live," from the first beat of the heart to various stages of brain development, for acceptable points of abortions.
I don't disagree with you, but the argument I'm putting forward only requires you to accept that it is wrong to kill innocent people. I've already said why various reductive definitions of humanity like "self-awareness" or "viability" are incoherent.Personally for me, anything in the embryonic stage is free game and enough time to determine whether or not you want to keep the kid, there's hardly any brain development and activity when you're pushing 2 months in, the specimen is not self aware or processing data, but ultimately morality is drastically different between people, and it's not something that can be controlled.
Again, babies aren't self-aware either, so unless you think infanticide isn't morally wrong, that can't really be given as a serious reason to accept abortion.Regardless of morality, I do think the option to abort should be legally kept open. On a side note - the carbon footprint of offspring is too high, we are speeding up our approach to carrying capacity, and the net world population growth is positive. Birth should not something to be encouraged at this point in time.
I hear this all the time, but I don't see any real reason or evidence to suggest we are overpopulated and need to start culling people, only that we need to scale back our consumption, which can be done in other ways than mass population control.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.Sinroth posted...
I don't disagree with you, but the argument I'm putting forward only requires you to accept that it is wrong to kill innocent people. I've already said why various reductive definitions of humanity like "self-awareness" or "viability" are incoherent.
Sinroth posted...Again, babies aren't self-aware either, so unless you think infanticide isn't morally wrong, that can't really be given as a serious reason to accept abortion.
I don't personally agree with your criteria or argument for abortion because it arbitrates that an embryo-fetus as inherently human, as being "people," or being "alive," and also because it places a value to life, whereas others do not see them as such. To you, an embryo is human, is alive, is potential, but to others it is a bunch of cells with a blueprint program to become human no different from a sperm and an egg. To you and many other pro-lifers, killing an embryo is to kill an innocent life, to others, extracting the embryo is like, ejaculating or having a period.
It's not a view of yours that is wrong or something that I'm trying to change, it's just a very fundamental difference in perception of what is life and what is not.
I make sure to always use contraceptives to avoid this problem, but if it were to arise, my partner and I agree that we would abort the birth process. The zygote and embryo simply aren't "alive" to us in the human-person sense.
Sinroth posted...I hear this all the time, but I don't see any real reason or evidence to suggest we are overpopulated and need to start culling people, only that we need to scale back our consumption, which can be done in other ways than mass population control.
haha, this is a whole 'nother conversation that I don't want to delve into too much in this thread, but it is a fact that our carbon emissions trajectory is irreversible... unless we all of a sudden collectively stop eating meat and driving cars and burning carbon-based fuels...which are all things or a result of things i like to do. I'm not saying we should cull anyone, I think it's better to try to get the population growth in the negatives in that we lose more people than we put out, at least for a couple decades. have 1 kid, have 2 kids, but not 3-5 and multiply!Howl posted...Why would calling an action what it is be moddable?
I don't personally agree with your criteria or argument for abortion because it arbitrates that an embryo-fetus as inherently human, as being "people," or being "alive," and also because it places a value to life, whereas others do not see them as such. To you, an embryo is human, is alive, is potential, but to others it is a bunch of cells with a blueprint program to become human no different from a sperm and an egg. To you and many other pro-lifers, killing an embryo is to kill an innocent life, to others, extracting the embryo is like, ejaculating or having a period.
First of all, my argument is not that a foetus is potential, but that a foetus is a human being. A foetus, is, physically, an alive and genetically human entity. If you take a more abstract definition of personhood, the onus is on you to supply that definition and open it up to scrutiny. And that is what I've done of every attempt to handwave the humanity of a foetus: "it's not viable", or "it's not self-aware".... these are all incoherent positions.
Secondly, people end up with differing opinions about what a foetus is, but when we appeal to moral systems in deciding what we ought to do, we cannot move forward while accommodating contradictory positions. We should explicate our moral beliefs, and the reasons for holding them, so we might determine what we ought to do.It's not a view of yours that is wrong or something that I'm trying to change, it's just a very fundamental difference in perception of what is life and what is not.
I'm not sure what you're really saying. A foetus is a living, physically human thing. That is unarguable. The arguments being put forward are much more abstract, claiming that a foetus does not satisfy some abstract definition of "personhood". That is an interesting discussion, and one that should take place, especially when the death of people is in the balance.
Falling back on "oh we all have different value systems, no-one knows for sure" seems to be a wishy-washy handwave of the possibility your beliefs might be wrong (speaking generally, not about you specifically, sorry if I seem accusatory).I make sure to always use contraceptives to avoid this problem, but if it were to arise, my partner and I agree that we would abort the birth process. The zygote and embryo simply aren't "alive" to us in the human-person sense.
Define what you mean by that, and I'll tell you why it's an incoherent position, as I've done with the other reductive definitions of "human-person" in this topic.haha, this is a whole 'nother conversation that I don't want to delve into too much in this thread, but it is a fact that our carbon emissions trajectory is irreversible... unless we all of a sudden collectively stop eating meat and driving cars and burning carbon-based fuels...which are all things or a result of things i like to do. I'm not saying we should cull anyone, I think it's better to try to get the population growth in the negatives in that we lose more people than we put out, at least for a couple decades. have 1 kid, have 2 kids, but not 3-5 and multiply!
Taking a hit to our personal luxuries is preferable to killing unborn babies.I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.M3sterybumper posted...Something interesting I've observed is that there's a general trend of the same people saying abortion is murder are the same people who say having sex with a drunk girl isn't rape.
Hitler introduced many laws to improve animal welfare and reduce animal cruelty. Should we abandon those positions because Hitler held them?I live in a big house and it's handy to have a pair of running shoes so that it doesn't take me forever to get from one area of the house to another.sktgamer_13dude posted...Esrac posted...
sktgamer_13dude posted...
Esrac posted...
You can call it that, but until abortion is illegal, it's not murder. It's only murder when it's against the law.
It's legally not murder even if abortion is against the law.
I think that's debatable.
But do you have something specific in mind that I'm not aware of? It would almost certainly be considered a homicide.
Is there a technical term I'm missing?
Murder is a person killing another person with premeditation. That's the literal and legal definition.
A fetus isn't a person. A fetus can't survive without being attached to the mother in the womb.
Calling abortion "murder" or "homicide" is lazy rhetoric. Get a new argument.
Not quite. The definition of murder is:
mur·der/ˈmərdər/
noun
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
And a fetus is just one of the earliest stages of a human being's life cycle. They are undeniably human and whether or not they're legally defined as a person is part of the debate. If abortion were illegal, killing the fetus certainly could be considered murder, if they didn't give it it's own class of homicide.hockeybub89 posted...Feline_Heart posted...
It is murder. I don't have a problem with it though
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Abortion is not murder unless we ban it and declare fetuses to be people.
Murder is killing someone else without their consent. Abortions kill babies without their consent, brehStay woke.People try to ignore that most abortions are performed way before there is anything close to a baby inside the mother. Like, you guys are crying over as much genetic material as you'd find on a used tampon.
And you all call the liberals the bleeding hearts.- Boards
- Current Events
- Should calling Abortion Murder be a moderation?
- Boards
- Current Events
- Should calling Abortion Murder be a moderation?
Esrac posted...sktgamer_13dude posted...
Esrac posted...
sktgamer_13dude posted...
Esrac posted...
You can call it that, but until abortion is illegal, it's not murder. It's only murder when it's against the law.
It's legally not murder even if abortion is against the law.
I think that's debatable.
But do you have something specific in mind that I'm not aware of? It would almost certainly be considered a homicide.
Is there a technical term I'm missing?
Murder is a person killing another person with premeditation. That's the literal and legal definition.
A fetus isn't a person. A fetus can't survive without being attached to the mother in the womb.
Calling abortion "murder" or "homicide" is lazy rhetoric. Get a new argument.
Not quite. The definition of murder is:
mur·der/%u02C8m%u0259rd%u0259r/
noun
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
And a fetus is just one of the earliest stages of a human being's life cycle. They are undeniably human and whether or not they're legally defined as a person is part of the debate. If abortion were illegal, killing the fetus certainly could be considered murder, if they didn't give it it's own class of homicide.
After double checking, it seems whether the definition for murder is "human" or "person" depends on the source you use. But http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1303 defines it thusly:
murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.
Note where it specifically says that the premeditated, malicious and unlawful death of an unborn child can be murder.Anarchy_Juiblex posted...I think murder is as much a moral statement as it is a legal one. The word is emotionally charges and resorting to a semantic argument isn't going to convince anyone.
Uh, the law has always been about semantics though, in essentially every practice of it.Anarchy_Juiblex posted...I think murder is as much a moral statement as it is a legal one. The word is emotionally charges and resorting to a semantic argument isn't going to convince anyone.
Murder is a specific type of killing. That's why we can't just call every death caused by another person "murder" out of moral outrage and grief.JohnLennon6 posted...Webmaster4531 posted...
I'm going to go a little dangerous and hint at my moderation. Would an abortion doctor be a mass murderer in your eyes?
More blame should be put on the parents.
So someone who makes money performing multiple abortions is guilt free? Suddenly fetuses are not human?Ad Hominem.Webmaster4531 posted...JohnLennon6 posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...
I'm going to go a little dangerous and hint at my moderation. Would an abortion doctor be a mass murderer in your eyes?
More blame should be put on the parents.
So someone who makes money performing multiple abortions is guilt free? Suddenly fetuses are not human?
They're all to blame.He has good daygame
- MasterOfMissionsJohnLennon6 posted...Webmaster4531 posted...
JohnLennon6 posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...
I'm going to go a little dangerous and hint at my moderation. Would an abortion doctor be a mass murderer in your eyes?
More blame should be put on the parents.
So someone who makes money performing multiple abortions is guilt free? Suddenly fetuses are not human?
They're all to blame.
So just a murderer?Ad Hominem.Webmaster4531 posted...JohnLennon6 posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...
JohnLennon6 posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...
I'm going to go a little dangerous and hint at my moderation. Would an abortion doctor be a mass murderer in your eyes?
More blame should be put on the parents.
So someone who makes money performing multiple abortions is guilt free? Suddenly fetuses are not human?
They're all to blame.
So just a murderer?
What?He has good daygame
- MasterOfMissionsJohnLennon6 posted...Webmaster4531 posted...
JohnLennon6 posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...
JohnLennon6 posted...
Webmaster4531 posted...
I'm going to go a little dangerous and hint at my moderation. Would an abortion doctor be a mass murderer in your eyes?
More blame should be put on the parents.
So someone who makes money performing multiple abortions is guilt free? Suddenly fetuses are not human?
They're all to blame.
So just a murderer?
What?
Read the topic title or GTFO.Ad Hominem.just because the law claims something is not murder doesn't mean it isn't ethically murder
it is ironic to find people hide behind "abortion is legal therefore NOT murder!!"
and then when a cop in self-defense kills someone they call the cop a murderer
legally the cop did no murder
ethically you can debate it and argue he did indeed murder
that is what makes abortion murder indeedsigless user is me or am I?darkphoenix181 posted...legally the cop did no murder
ethically you can debate it
Actually you probably could debate whether the law was incorrectly interpreted. Making it a legal debate once again.
Many people also believe investigation shouldn't be handled by bias police forces.Ad Hominem.- Boards
- Current Events
- Should calling Abortion Murder be a moderation?
