"Abortion = Deliberate Killing = Murder" ?

[Just Asking]

"Abortion = Deliberate Killing = Murder" is a quote taken from the home page of : http://www.uklifeleague.com/

Do you agree?

If yes, why?

If not, Why not?

Warning: The above web-site contains graphic images (but not on the home page)

[xsilence]

This just makes me sick.

Well, if abortion is murder, then what is miscarriage? First degree manslaughter?

Honestly.

[Thalia]

Oooh, i actually studied this for my philosophy module (it was only 10 credits and it was boring as hell, but meh )

Anyway, basically, there's this philosopher called Judith Thomson who argues basically whether or not the woman's right to choose what happens to her body overrules the foetus's right to life. She makes this analogy:
Imagine you wake up one day to find that you'd been kidnapped and your kidneys were being used to keep this famous violinist alive. If you break free then you kill the guy and you have to stay connected to him for 9 months. Basically she argues that just because a person relies on you to stay alive, that doesn't mean that they have a right to make you keep them alive. Her argument works best for cases of rape and cases where the woman's life is in danger but she adds at the end that just because you have a right to disconnect yourself doesn't mean that you are owed the person's death i.e. just because abortion is likely to kill the foetus doesn't mean that the woman is killing it, just that she's not allowing it to feed from her body - and if it's miraculously capable of surviving without her then she doesn't have any right to go off and kill it afterwards.

I've never understood how people could argue for the complete banning of abortion to be honest - hundreds of thousands of women die every year because they can't have legally sanctioned abortions - and even if people did refuse to concede that your average woman participating in consensual sex *shouldn't* be allowed an abortion under normal circumstances - you still have to consider whether it's morally right to force a woman to have a child even if the pregnancy would kill her or whether it's morally right to force a rape victim to carry the child of her rapist (personally, i could see a lot of people in that instance, who've already gone through psychological hell anyway, either trying to kill themselves or the baby anyway).

Plus there's also the argument as to whether it's possible to consider the foetus a fully-functioning human being in the first place - i mean the only things that makes us different from any animal are things like the ability to reason and understand things - you think that a tiny group of cells can do that? And even if you argued that they still have the potential to become an intelligent human being, the point would still stand that, until they are, their needs/desires shouldn't outweigh those of the mother who already is a fully functioning member of the community.

EDITED to add that if the foetus *isn't* considered to have any of the attributes that we assign to ourselves to put us above the animals of the world, then even if we were to call abortion 'deliberate killing' then we wouldn't necessarily have to call it murder - i'm sure no one would be punished as harshly for killing a cat or a dog, for instance, as they would be for killing someone who was considered a human being.

[Manic23]

[s]xsilence wrote on 22:53, 29th Jan 2005:
This just makes me sick.

Well, if abortion is murder, then what is miscarriage? First degree manslaughter?

Honestly.



Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is miscarriage not an unfortunate natural occurance? I've never heard of anyone going for a miscarriage because they want one.

[Rrrr]

Throwing themselves down stairs/taking an overdose/drinking chemicals - all these could cause a miscarriage albeit one that was brought about.
I seriously doubt that there has never been anyone desperate enough to try this.

[hr]Splat!

[harmless loony]

Isn't that referred to as a self induced abortion?

A miscarriage is something that happens naturally. A forced miscarriage is labelled as an abortion I thought?

[Manic23]

Precisely.

[David Bean]

Personally, I think that the 'right to choose' argument, of which the violinist example is one version, is vastly inferior to the argument that a foetus is most simply not a person, and thus that it should not be afforded the rights of a person. This immediately rules out the link between abortion and murder, but does not go far enough to disprove the wrongness of abortion.

This is a far more complicated discussion philosophically speaking, but it seems to me that the anti-abortionists are the ones who have to rely upon the more abstract reasoning, and their justifications when carefully analysed become circumstantial at best. However, they are the ones who bear the burden of proof in the argument, since they are the ones advocating that an existing practice should be banned. Since they cannot meet this burden of proof and show conclusively why abortion is wrong, as far as the real world is concerned there is therefore no justification for abortion to be legislated against.

[hr]"Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[Greebo]

Side issue:

People who are for the illegalisation of abortion should not, in the press etc, be labeled as 'pro-life', because by default the people who oppose them are implied as being 'anti-life'.

The labels should center around choice - whether one is pro-choice or not.

I would consider myself 'pro-life' in the sense that I would rather abortions didn't need to be an option. But I am definitely pro-choice too.

[hr]http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[quarterstaff]

people speak of the woman's right to choose... what of the father? the foetus IS NOT part of the mother's body to do with as she chooses - it is living tissue half of which originated from her, the other half from the father.

so, surely the father has a say, no? it may not be his body that has been hijacked, but the foetus cuold be transfered to a surrogate if the mother doesnt want it and the father does.

equally, if the father doesnt want the child, and the mother does, and the mother has the child anyway... i would say the father has no duty towards it.

also, it is not as simple as killing something that is not yet sentient... the point is that if left to take its natural course, then it will become a human being.

there is also the problem of independence - if the foetus cannot survive independent of the mother, some say she only has to put up with it by choice... but children are not independent from their parents for about 18 years after birth.

crucially i think what needs to happen is that men need to be given a kick in the ass and told that although the role of the mother biologically is to carry the child, the role of the father is to DO EVERYTHING ELSE. the father should become the 24/7 provider AND carer for the mother.

however i dont think it is the place of govt to legislate on what is right and wrong... each situation has its own pros and cons... sometimes abortion is the correct answer... it should be loft in the hands of those closest to the situation, the mother, the father, and their families.


oh, and murder is unlawful killing, not deliberate killing.

[KateBush]

I have to say--as a Catholic I've always been anti-abortion, but I went to see Vera Drake this week, and it made me rethink my position on abortion.

I always thought of it as a black and white situation- you either let your baby live or you killed it. I realise now how incredibly insensitie that was of me, and how naive. The circumstances surrounding a pregnant woman's life are more important than people realise. Some people would be unable to give a child what it needed- either materially or in terms of quality of life. I don't think abortion is so cut and dried now.

I don't think it's right just as a form of contraception because someone couldn't be arsed takng precautions. But if someone is going to be incapable of giving the child a decent start, then it makes you wonder if the best thing is for the child to be born after all...

If I were to get pregnant now (that would be a bloody miracle, ha!) then I might not be able to give the child what it needed because of my own failing health. I don't think I could abort it though--I tihnk I would probably have the baby and end up keeping it, but it might not be best for me or the child.

Abortion is a sensitive issue and a very personal one.

[David Bean]

[s]KateBush wrote on 13:37, 30th Jan 2005:
I always thought of it as a black and white situation- you either let your baby live or you killed it. I realise now how incredibly insensitie that was of me, and how naive. The circumstances surrounding a pregnant woman's life are more important than people realise. Some people would be unable to give a child what it needed- either materially or in terms of quality of life. I don't think abortion is so cut and dried now.


See, that, combined with Greebo's semantic point, is really the key issue. Nobody in the world is really pro-abortion. Thinking about what that position would entail, it just doesn't make sense: nobody can rationally favour the proposition that foetuses should be killed over the proposition that foetuses should not be killed, as a general principle.

However, those who call ourselves 'pro-choice' declare that we recognise there are circumstances where abortion may be, if not the best option, the least harmful one for all concerned. But we don't even have to go so far as to concede that abortion can ever be acceptable, to oppose the pro-life agenda. For me, like all things the issue is not one of personal preference, but of the law: it is whether we can reasonably draw an equivalence between the propositions 'I dislike x' and 'x should be banned'. As a classical liberal, I cannot and will not draw that distinction.

(Aside: of course, the abortion issue is not that black and white anyway, but again I don't want to get into the minutiae of the argument unless led, because that would take forever.)

So I hate abortion, yes, I detest it, and I should hate to imagine I'd ever be in a position where a partner of mine had to have one. But then, I hate the idea of chemical drugs, of extreme sado-masochistic sexual practices, of, hell, homosexual sex. But the common denominator is that I don't think any of these things should be banned, because I don't see why anyone else should have to give a damn what I think about them.

[hr]
"Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[Rilla]

[s]KateBush wrote on 13:37, 30th Jan 2005:
Abortion is a sensitive issue and a very personal one.


I agree entirely - one reason why I always stay out of debates about abortion. It's impossible to talk about without feelings and personal experiences getting in the way.



[hr]
Blood is a cleansing and sanctifying thing, and the nation that regards it as the final horror has lost its manhood... there are many things more horrible than bloodshed, and slavery is one of them!

[Paul]

[s]Unregisted User Just Asking wrote on 11:42, 29th Jan 2005:
"Abortion = Deliberate Killing = Murder" is a quote taken from the home page of : http://www.uklifeleague.com/

Do you agree? Yes

If yes, why?

The unlawful killing of a child is plainly an abhorrent murder to most people.

Now let’s work backwards.

A pregnancy can be divided into three trimesters. The third trimester begins at the 27th week. "Viability" is the point at which a baby born prematurely can be sustained by good medical assistance. Currently, many babies are "viable" a full three weeks before the "third trimester." Hence, any abortion carried out in the third trimester kills a viable baby – not just a lump of tissue. In some places, this viability causes a problem. The baby MUST be killed in the womb in order that the medical staff are protected by Abortion legislation. If the baby is born live, the medical staff is obliged to carry out procedures to save its life.

Such a case occurred in Glasgow in January 1969 when an unmarried student was aborted of a 26-week old baby. “The little infant was placed in a bag and handed to the incinerator attendant. Half-an-hour later the attendant heard a whimper coming from the bag. Vigorous attempts were then made to try to save the child, but these failed and the child died some eight hours later.” – Open your Mouth for the Dumb – Abortion and the Christian by Peter Barnes, p6, citing Abortion: the Personal Dilemma by R F R Gardner, pp 84-85.

So in the third trimester, and possibly for up to three weeks before, abortion must be deliberate killing.

So when did this life start?

Did it start in the second trimester?

At 20 weeks, the baby is seven inches long on average, and, by this point is very sensitive to painful stimuli. Is this a mark of a living organism?

“On March 21, 1996, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution conducted a public hearing on "The Effects of Anesthesia During a Partial-Birth Abortion." Four leading experts in the field testified that the fetuses/babies who are old enough to be "candidates" for partial-birth abortion possess the neurological equipment to respond to painful stimuli, whether or not the mother has been anesthetized. Opponents of the bill were unable to produce a single medical witness willing to testify in support of the claims that anesthesia kills the fetus or renders the fetus insensible to pain. [See House Judiciary Committee Hearing Record No. 73, March 21, 1996.)

Dr. Jean A. Wright, associate professor of pediatrics and anesthesia at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, testified that recent research shows that by the stage of development that a fetus could be a "candidate" for a partial-birth abortion (20 weeks), the fetus "is more sensitive to pain than a full-term infant would be if subjected to the same procedures," Prof. Wright testified. These fetuses have "the anatomical and functional processes responsible for the perception of pain," and have "a much higher density of Opioid (pain) receptors" than older humans, she said.” - http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact5.html

You see where I am going? When did this life start?

I will cut this short here by a couple more quotes.

“The birth of a human life really occurs at the moment the mother’s egg cell is fertilized by one of the father’s sperm cells.” – Drama of Life Before Birth, Life Magazine, April 1965.

“It is a scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception, and is continuous, whether inside or outside the uterus, until death.” – Journal California State Medical Association, September 1970.

“The body of the unborn baby is more complex than ours. Before he is born, the baby has several extra parts to his body which he needs only so long as he lives inside his mother. He has his own lifeline, the umbilical cord, and he has his own root system, the placenta. These all belong to the baby himself, not to his mother. They are developed from his original cell.” – The Secret World of the Baby, Day and Lilley.

But more important than that, how does God view the unborn child?

God told Jeremiah the prophet, “Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” – Jeremiah 1:4-5

Did God know a lump of tissue – a foetus – or a person? Did he not sanctify Jeremiah – “I sanctified thee”.

King David also wrote of this:

“For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” – Psalm 139:13-16

Whatever man and his laws say, in the end, it is what God says that counts. And he says. “Thou shalt not kill.” – Exodus 20:13

Have you been involved in an abortion? Then “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;” – Acts 3:19

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” – John 3:16-18



[hr]
"Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD." - Jeremiah 9:23-24

[Manic23]

Whilst I myself stand in the 'Pro-Life' camp, I think quoting bible extracts will only serve to infuriate those of a different disposition, especially

Have you been involved in an abortion? Then “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;” – Acts 3:19

I think that most pro-choicers will be a bit miffed at this

[amac]

[s]Paul wrote on 22:55, 30th Jan 2005:Whatever man and his laws say, in the end, it is what God says that counts. And he says. “Thou shalt not kill.” – Exodus 20:13


But there are numerous punishments in both the New Testament and Old Testament that require death.

“Whosoever shall work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death”

“And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day…And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”

“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death”


So really, what god says is down to interpretation, or is it what you believe? Despite this I don’t really want to get into an argument about religion, so I’ll leave it at that.

[s]KateBush wrote on 13:37, 30th Jan 2005:I don't think abortion is so cut and dried now.

I don't think it's right just as a form of contraception because someone couldn't be arsed takng precautions. But if someone is going to be incapable of giving the child a decent start, then it makes you wonder if the best thing is for the child to be born after all...

...

Abortion is a sensitive issue and a very personal one.


That sums it up well for me.

[David Bean]

In response to Paul:

All of this represents a number of splendid reasons to oppose abortion in the sense of not being party to it, either as a mother or a father. However, none of the arguments are entirely self-evident. Those which appeal to religion are not, because they are predicated upon the individual's beliefs, and those which appeal to regression require us to believe that there is no threshold, be it birth, viability or something else, before which the foetus may be regarded a special kind of human life which it is permissible to terminate. Anyone who disagrees with these principles could not be brought to believe that abortion is murder, because they would not think a foetus to be equivalent to a human person (given that murder requires the killing of the latter). And since such disagreement exists, the burden of proof cannot successfully be met by those arguing that abortion should be banned and, as such, abortion should remain legal.

[hr]
"Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[The Truth]

Ahhh, abortion.

What a beutiful subject, and indeed, one in which we shall approach forthright and with utmost care (so pay attention):

To *vastly* simplify the matter, let us assume that the abortion = murder IF and only if the fetus is considered a PERSON (there are arguments, primarily developed by Thomson--as Thralia pointed out, that are independent of this distiction).

So then, the question is when does the fetus cease to be just a devolping cluster of tissue, and gain personhood?

There are 3 main views on this, the first which places this point all along the spectrum from conception to even after birth. The second view is based on "potentiality" or the idea that since it will eventually become a person, it doesn't matter when the change occurs, it is always to be considered as such becuase of what it will become, so you would be murding the person the fetus would become. This argument is fundentally flawed (and proven so) on philosophical grounds--I'm not going to explain, because it would take at least a page to do so.

The third view is the religious, and this is normally seen as placing personhood as occuring when the fetus first gains a soul. The consertative view is that this happens at conception, however it is worth noting that this is a relatively modern view, even for the church.

In fact, St. Thomas Aquinus held that an embryo does not have a sould until the 12th week of pregnacy. The view that personhood happens at conception did not form until the 17th century, when some scientist using primitive microscopes to view a fertalized ova, imagined minature, perfectly formed people. They called this the "homunculus" and soon the opinion that it was wrong to kill it developed, as it would be killing a fully formed (albeit minature) person. Now that our knoweledge of biology has progress, and showed that there is no homunculus, the moral view on fetus did not reverse.

So really there is no reason to assume that the soul is present from conception, unless you like relying on outdated mistakes (ill adress the bible quotes supposedly adressing this in a later post).

Please note that this only clarifies the issue and denies that a fetus is human being from conception, it does not stand to adress whether abortion is right or wrong.

[Greebo]

I remember one of the best arguments I heard for abortion was in my 1st year philosophy - can't remember for the life of me who the lecturer was but it was a different course from what's available now.

Basically the argument ran that a foetus is reliant on the mother for everything, at least up until a certain point. The mother is burdened (in the sense that it is something that they must do to keep the foetus alive) with this reponsibility.

Now imagine a scenario where you could safe the life of someone - anyone - but the only way that this was achievable would be to attach them, literally, at the hip to you for 9 months (to pluck an entirely random time out of the air). Without doing this they will certainly die.
Is saying 'No, this is my body, I do not want this' wrong?

If you say 'no' to that but 'yes' to illegalising abortions (i.e. forcing mothers to have the babies) then you have conflicting standards.


The moral implications of abortion do not start at whether not the abortion is wrong - they start at whether nor not it is wrong to force a mother to basically be a carrier and provider, against their will, for the child for 9 months (we'll ignore upbringing for the time being).

The secondary issue is when an abortion should and shouldn't be allowed i.e. the time frames.
This is far more complex issue and one that I think should be more called on a case by case basis - but basically the sooner the better. I don't agree with letting someone carry a child to 8 months (say) before deciding they don't want it. By then there's a damn good chance that, born prematurely, the baby would survive.


So, the basic argument is:

Premise 1: Forcing someone to do something against their will is wrong

Premise 2: Making abortion illegal forces (some) women to carry babies against their will. (ignoring backstreet abortion possibilities too)

Conclusion: Illegalisation of abortion is wrong.



[hr]http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[Thalia]

I think that's quite similar to the Thomson argument - as you could say that it follows from the fact that if a woman has a right to say no and disconnect herself from the violinist then anyone who tries to force her to stay connected is inherently wrong.