26
   

Abortion. Right or Murder?

 
 
foothillanesthesia
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2019 02:30 am
@lmac2017,
A human life is potential. It's not just a body, it's a a soul. How is it that if someone went into a panda and killed it's young, the entire western world would be outraged.
0 Replies
 
Olhakkk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jun, 2019 07:57 am
@lmac2017,
I think sometimes,there is no other option...
0 Replies
 
HabibUrrehman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Jun, 2019 10:00 am
@lmac2017,
Its a sensitive topic and will need more details to answer the question in depth. Details such as:

Is the pregnancy result of a rape?
How old is the Fetus?
Is abortion being considered because mother's health is in danger?
Is abortion being considered because the doctors have determined that the baby will be born with some disorder (physical or mental)?
Is abortion being considered because of financial responsibilities?
Is abortion being considered because you have other kids and they are too small and need more attention from mother?

There are difference of opinions in Islam on abortion. I will state one which is agreed upon my all Muslim scholars. Islam allows abortion if the life of mother is in danger. It is because:

the mother's life is well-established
the mother has with duties and responsibilities
the mother is part of a family
allowing the mother to die would also kill the fetus in most cases

For answer to various questions I asked at the beginning of my reply have varying opinion but general rule mentioned above applies to all.
0 Replies
 
CherylDulac
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2019 05:25 am
@lmac2017,
It's a murder. No one has the right to kill the baby in the uterus. feticide is a crime like to murder any live person .
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jun, 2019 06:10 am
@CherylDulac,
If that's murder then so is masturbation.

We're not talking about a baby but a collection of cells.

By making abortion illegal you driver it underground resulting in dead mothers, now that really is murder.
0 Replies
 
tony5732
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2019 12:30 am
@edgarblythe,
"Fully formed person".

Ok edgar, if hypothetically I knocked up a girl, and that girl had a baby,

is it really murder I "take care of it" before I end up paying child support on it for 18 years?

It is still forming. It cant walk, It cant talk, it cant feed itself. it cant even get out of the crib. I am just saying is it ok for me to kill it before it turns into a person.

I mean we are talking about my mental health for the next 18 years of my life. At the percentage of my livelihood that would come from child support it would literally be taking food out of my mouth.
tony5732
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 07:11 pm
@tony5732,
Yep......

Still waiting for a reply on this one.

It's hard to answer because even though common sense would do say its a baby and it's not ok to kill it, I came up with my own definition of "fully formed" to clear my own conscience about killing the "living thing that would be human".

This is what pro choice sounds like to me.


The reason we can not leave these things alone and "butt out" is because we are talking about what we are accepting as a society as a morally acceptable. Some people in our history have had the idea that people of color were sub human, so it was ok to whip and hang them.

Should we also "butt out" of those situations as well?

At what point do we have the right, the OBLIGATION to recognize that something is wrong? If we cannot recognize that killing a baby is wrong than where is our starting point?
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 07:59 pm
@tony5732,
Well, according to the bible, a man could take his wife, if he suspected she committed adultery (read got pregnant by an0ther man while he was away. Travel took a lot of time) to the priest. She would be made to drink a potion of "bitter waters". If she had committed adultery (was pregnant), according to various versions of the text, her belly (uterus) shall drop and her thigh shall rot. The thigh may be a euphenism for her genitals, but I believe it is refering to a fetus. Jewish law teaches until 40 days after conception, the zygote is a mere fluid/water in the womans body. After that it is considered an appendage or limb (for instance thigh) of the woman.
tony5732
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2019 11:28 pm
@chai2,
I dont know what religion has to do with this.

Killing the baby is just wrong.

Not killing the baby is wrong "because god said so".

I would think killing the baby would be wrong because common sense and human decency would tell us NOT to poison a baby and flush it down the toilet.

Do we really need any "god" on that one?

Or is the only reason we can expect someone to have a moral compass is if they worship the correct "god"?
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2019 01:33 am
@tony5732,
I don't know what religion has to do with it either.

You said you were still waiting for an answer, and I provided one.

If you want to talk about "common sense", then when a woman chooses to have an abortion she is using her common sense, for her.

If you are talking about decency, it is much more decent to not have a human brought into this world when it is not wanted.

As far as ethics, some say it's unethical to eat meat, to have 2 people of the same sex marry, etc. Is it ethical to bring an unwanted human into the world?

Is it ethical for instance, to force a woman to give birth when it puts her life in high risk, depriving already living children of a mother? What about unwanted children who end up in foster care, where the risk is high of some kind of abuse, and a high risk of the future adult having life long problems related to that?
Where is the moral compass of someone who is condemning another to be born when it is unwanted?

Is it ethical if the woman lives in a country where the people generally believe it's an acceptable choice?

A moral or ethical person/country is one where a child born is wanted, and cared for. How ethical or morale is it to expend such energy "protecting" a clump of cells, but then after it makes a 6 inch journey is denied an environment with adequate, safety, housing, nutrition, medical care, acceptance by society, etc. How ethical is it that now a woman must take on that unwanted burden? Especially a burden imposed by armchair critics that find it unthinkable to (inaccurately) "flush a baby down a toilet", but do little or nothing to assist either the mother or child afterwards. There is more than enough work to do for actual people in this world. How many people ever say to someone considering an abortion "Have the baby and I will take it and raise it"? Have you? If not, why aren't you? How ethical are you if you just want to stop a person from making a hard choice that will impact her entire life, but you don't take the logical step of taking that burden from her.




By the way, in the bible example, you missed the point that it is not the woman choosing to abort, but the man, and the priest, deciding for her.
Woman overwhelmingly do not decide, and go through with abortion carelessly. But they make the choice. Not some man, priest or gods.


Gingervixen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2019 02:03 am
@lmac2017,
Abortion is murder... a egg may seem unalive... but it is bursting with life! And it is human because it has all the human genes and chromosomes! It is a human!
Gingervixen
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2019 02:04 am
@edgarblythe,
Shut up... it is not the law's business at all!
0 Replies
 
Gingervixen
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2019 02:05 am
@roger,
Roger...
It is a child... as much as you were when you were at that stage!
0 Replies
 
Gingervixen
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2019 02:07 am
@lmac2017,
Keep fighting... ABORTION IS MURDER
0 Replies
 
Gingervixen
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2019 02:09 am
@fresco,
Um... I ain't religious and I believe abortion is murder... because I was almost aborted and survived!
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2019 03:44 am
The Long, Cruel History of the Anti-Abortion Crusade

Abortion opponents don’t care what happens to an unwanted child, and they’ve never cared about the mother.

Quote:
Amid the anti-abortion measures being pushed through state legislatures, consider the mazy history of abortion in the United States. Women, capable of determining and managing their reproductive rights, have been undermined by men in power before.

Prior to the 1840s, abortion was widespread and not illegal in our country. In the time of the Puritans, America’s deeply religious founding fathers, abortion was allowed until the fetus was “quick” — when the woman could feel the fetus move. Before modern diagnostic ultrasound, abortion was permissible beyond the first trimester — up to four or five months. Our founding fathers got this right; the choice to have an abortion or a child belonged to the woman.

Beginning in the 1840s, and continuing over decades, abortion was outlawed state by state, becoming illegal everywhere in the United States by 1900 — until 1973, when the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision held that a woman had a constitutional right to an abortion. For more than two centuries, after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, abortion was largely permitted. Why was it prohibited for almost a century?

In the 1830s, women having babies at lying-in hospitals ran a far greater risk of dying from puerperal sepsis than women having babies at home. With the help of midwives, women had been having babies and abortions at home — since colonial times. Had midwives been as busy performing abortions as delivering babies? Beginning in the 1840s, doctors sought to gain control of the reproduction business. Doctors were establishing their new profession; midwives and homeopaths were their competition. But why did doctors lobby for abortion to be illegal? What was their logic? Did doctors underestimate how great the need for abortion was? We know what the doctors wanted, and they achieved it; they became the arbiters of women’s reproductive health care. We don’t know the doctors’ reasons for making abortion illegal. In the 1840s, the fetus wasn’t yet sacred. Fetal life was still defined by “quickening” — when the woman felt the fetus move, not before the fourth or fifth month. From the 1840s to 1900, we know the results of what the doctors did — not their thoughts.

One job of a society with a social conscience is to rescue its citizens who are trapped, who are painted into a corner. I see my job as a fiction writer with a social conscience as the opposite. As a storyteller, I look for worst-case scenarios; my job is to trap my characters. I began “The Cider House Rules,” my sixth novel, in the early 1980s. I purposely wrote a historical novel, beginning in the 1920s, when abortion was illegal, unsafe and (for the most part) unavailable. Maine was one of the first states to make abortion illegal; I put the orphanage I called St. Cloud’s in Maine. I purposely painted my protagonist, Homer Wells, into a corner. Homer is an orphan; his several adoptions don’t work out. Homer keeps coming back to the orphanage — St. Cloud’s is his only home. Dr. Larch, the orphanage physician (and abortionist), teaches Homer to be a doctor. In Dr. Larch’s opinion, Homer has near-perfect obstetrical and gynecological procedure. But Homer doesn’t want to perform abortions. He’s an orphan; his mother let him live.

Homer has no argument with Dr. Larch’s decision to give women what they want, but Homer has a personal reason (and a good one) not to perform abortions. Here’s the corner Homer is painted into: How can Homer not feel obligated to help women, when women can’t get help from anyone else? If women have no choice, how can doctors have a choice? Homer will leave St. Cloud’s; he refuses to perform abortions. What he will encounter, in the world outside the orphanage, is a woman who can’t get help from anyone else. The death of Dr. Larch will bring Homer back to the orphanage — this time, to be the physician (and the abortionist) at St. Cloud’s. In a no-choice world, Homer is trapped.

It took 14 years to make the film of “The Cider House Rules.” I won an Oscar for best adapted screenplay. Over time, it’s more meaningful to me that the movie also won a Maggie Award — named after Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, in recognition of “exceptional achievement in support of reproductive rights.”

I respect your personal reasons not to have an abortion — no one is forcing you to have one. I respect your choice. I’m pro-choice — often called pro-abortion by the anti-abortion crusaders, although no one is pro-abortion. What’s unequal about the argument is the choice; the difference between pro-life and pro-choice is the choice. Pro-life proponents have no qualms about forcing women to go through childbirth — they give women no choice.

Before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, the opposition to abortion wasn’t widely referred to as right to life. Pope Pius XII used the “right to life” term in a 1951 papal encyclical — an “Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession.” “Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority,” the pope told the midwives. Poor midwives — first doctors stop them from helping women, then the pope. I must remind the Roman Catholic Church of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, we are free to practice the religion of our choice, and we are protected from having someone else’s religion practiced on us. Freedom of religion in the United States also means freedom from religion.

The “pro-life” term was adopted by anti-abortion crusaders after the Roe v. Wade decision. The anti-abortion cause didn’t promote itself as “pro-life” until the more punitive-sounding “anti-abortion” label failed. In 1976, with the passing of the Hyde Amendment, prohibiting the use of federal funds for most abortions, opposition to abortion gained support among Republicans. The Christian right was on the rise; their socially conservative policies are inseparable from today’s Republican Party. In 1980, aided by the Baptist minister Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, the pro-life zealots took control of the Republican Party’s platform committee. Four anti-abortion presidents followed — Ronald Reagan, George H. W. and George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. Isn’t it as clear now as it was in the Reagan years? Aren’t the same people who sacralize the fetus generally opposed to any meaningful welfare for unwanted children and unmarried mothers?

The prevailing impetus to oppose abortion is to punish the woman who doesn’t want the child. The sacralizing of the fetus is a ploy. How can “life” be sacred (and begin at six weeks, or at conception), if a child’s life isn’t sacred after it’s born? Clearly, a woman’s life is never sacred; as clearly, a woman has no reproductive rights. The Roman Catholic Church, and many evangelical and fundamentalist churches, willfully subject women to mandatory childbirth and motherhood — procreation is deemed a woman’s primary purpose and function. I’m not overstating. In his 1951 “Address to Midwives,” Pope Pius XII states that “the procreation and upbringing of a new life” is the primary end of marriage.

When “The Cider House Rules” was published, some of my younger friends and fellow feminists thought it was quaint that I’d written a historical novel about abortion. They meant: now that abortion rights were secure, now that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land. At the time, I tried to say this nicely: “If you think Roe v. Wade is safe, you’re one of the reasons it isn’t.” Not surprisingly, my older women friends — women who were old enough to have had sex before 1973 — knew better than to imagine that Roe v. Wade would ever be safe. Men and women have to keep making the case for women’s reproductive rights; women have been making the case for years, but more men need to speak up.

Of an unmarried woman or girl who got pregnant, people of my grandparents’ generation used to say: “She is paying the piper.” Meaning, she deserves what she gets — namely, to give birth to a child. That cruelty is the abiding impetus behind the dishonestly named right-to-life movement. Pro-life always was (and remains) a marketing term. Whatever the anti-abortion crusaders call themselves, they don’t care what happens to an unwanted child — not after the child is born — and they’ve never cared about the mother.

John Irving, June 23, 2019
0 Replies
 
tony5732
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2019 04:20 am
@chai2,
"You said you were still waiting for an answer, and I provided one."

Straw man fallacy much? You ripped apart the bible and Juddiasm pretty good sure.

In no way did you respond to anything I actually said or answer my morbid hypothetical situation which would be a man's pro choice.

So to ask the actual question again, if I was to knock up my girlfriend and she had a bundle of cells, would it be murder if I took care of the unwanted bundle of cells before I have to deal with child support?
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2019 08:54 am
@tony5732,
Note: please ignore the above post. I wasn't finished typing and accidently hit reply.

It isn't the man's ultimate decision. It is the woman who is pregnant what she will do with her body.

Nor is it the decision of a woman's wife, husband, boyfriend, girlfriend parents (a minor can seek judicial bypass if the state you are in requires permission), or anyone else.

If, in your hypothetical situation (that always reminds me of George Carlin's riff about "fadda, what if I was intendin' to go to Mass on Sunday, but I was in the ocean and crossed the international date line, and now it's Monday. Is that a sin?" the imaginary boyfriend who "takes care" of the imaginary situation by harming the woman in any way to cause her to miscarry/spontaneously abort, he would indeed be culpable. He would have to answer to harming, potentially killing the woman.

Now if you want to get into all the minutae of "what if he did this when she was 2 weeks pregant, 37 days, 267 days, exactly at the moment when the fetus became theoretically viable and ad nauseum you're welcome to go play with yourself over these non-existant scenerios. Are there extreme examples, where for some (at this moment) unknown reason some imaginary woman wants an abortion, and for some other unknown reason it would be in her best interest not to have one? Answer....I don't know. That is a valid answer. One does not though, come up with hypothetical obscure situations (not talking about yours per se) where a decision against a person choice is taken, and apply it to all other people.

Also, as far as the bibical text I provided, I'll repeat here....

By the way, in the bible example, you missed the point that it is not the woman choosing to abort, but the man, and the priest, deciding for her.
Woman overwhelmingly do not decide, and go through with abortion carelessly. But they make the choice. Not some man, priest or gods.






tony5732
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2019 09:09 am
@Gingervixen,
Pretty much. Once all the genes and chromosomes are there, the TWO have tangled, and you have a nice bundle of cells growing, feeding, developing, then it's a human.

"Bundle of cells" could be a baby outside the womb, you, me, your mother, father, brother or sister by the way. Literally every living thing is nothing more than a "bundle of cells". I never got why homicidal psycho momma thinks she is so special that she would not be "a bundle of cells
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2019 09:40 am
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:



A moral or ethical person/country is one where a child born is wanted, and cared for. How ethical or morale is it to expend such energy "protecting" a clump of cells, but then after it makes a 6 inch journey is denied an environment with adequate, safety, housing, nutrition, medical care, acceptance by society, etc. How ethical is it that now a woman must take on that unwanted burden? Especially a burden imposed by armchair critics that find it unthinkable to (inaccurately) "flush a baby down a toilet", but do little or nothing to assist either the mother or child afterwards. There is more than enough work to do for actual people in this world. How many people ever say to someone considering an abortion "Have the baby and I will take it and raise it"? Have you? If not, why aren't you? How ethical are you if you just want to stop a person from making a hard choice that will impact her entire life, but you don't take the logical step of taking that burden from her.




BTW, looking back over a few posts, I notice at this moment (might change) someone had thumbed this down.

I find it amusing that my suggesting one take the burden from a woman who is considering abortion, by taking on the future child themselves, is found to be wanting.

What? Oh...no, I don't want the child. She's just got to have it, and want it, or not...but she's got to have it. What happens to the kid then is of much less concern, or any at all...tra la la....I'm off to stop another "murder" Let me just step over all these people I don't want to have to pay for, or personally take care of. Who still may be unwanted for years to come.

If someone doesn't want a woman to have control over their own bodies, then they need to want to take care of the consequences/results.

The following is my opinion personally. One can agree or disagree, but I have no reason to justify it....

It seems there are a lot of people, religious or not, that want to project this entire life scenerio onto a zygote/fetus. Most of them, oddly, seem to have to do with a childs early years, and connecting the mother to it. All these visions of snuggling, birthday parties, first day of school type stuff...with the occassional "what if when s/he grows up they find the cure for cancer?"

Why aren't they envisioning an unwanted child being raised in a myriad of situations where they are aren't loved, abused, condemned to a life of poverty and all that entails? Why aren't they imagining an adult? You know, the adults you see all the time, and consider undesireables. The ones you don't want to look at, or acknowledge their existance, because they are basically, a failed attempt at raising a responsible member of society. It's like some people believe this fetus is in there contemplating it's coming 60 years.

The thing is, if an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy is performed, the aborted fetus has no longing for this life of balloons, ponys and xboxes. No more than it has an adversion to becoming a meth addict, abuser of their own future children, or abused child themselves.

You're not depriving them of, or commiting them to either, or any future. The pregnant woman is the one who has a much better idea of what the future holds in store, not just for her, but the fetus.

These supposedly heart rending imaginings of "oh mommy don't kill me!" are ridiculous. They are simply guilt inducing threats promoting the dumbing down of the mother who is supposed to imagine herself thinking "Oh...I'm so glad I didn't get rid of you. You my everything" When the truth is the vast majority of women who have abortions, while they may feel pensive/sad about that part of their past, are overwhelmingly satisfied with their decision.
Then there's the "you'll regret it" camp. Yeah, what if I do? Whose regret is it? Oh wait, mine, not yours.
I have always found it odd when someone else feels the need to protect me from my own decisions. Where did they apply for that job? When were the interviews held? I wasn't there for any of them, and I think I should have been.

 

Related Topics

Is the fetus in the womb a human being? - Question by kellirosej
Abortion - Discussion by Finn dAbuzz
Higher Learning? - Discussion by coldjoint
Motivation of Abortion Protesters - Question by gollum
People Wonder Why . . . - Question by plainoldme
God Damnit, Texas. - Discussion by DrewDad
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 01:17:37