Is abortion really wrong?

Eorl wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:

material girl wrote:

So are the abortion doctors murderers or the woman having the abortion?

Both and they both should be charged with murder.

I bet you support the death penalty for mass murderers too?

You got that wrong.
I support the death penalty for any one who commits murder.

Scott777ab wrote:

Eorl wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:

material girl wrote:

So are the abortion doctors murderers or the woman having the abortion?

Both and they both should be charged with murder.

I bet you support the death penalty for mass murderers too?

You got that wrong.
I support the death penalty for any one who commits murder.

Yep thought so. You actually think you have the right to murder a girl who has an abortion....and the doctor of course !!

You really do think you should have that power! Where do you imagine that power comes from? Let me guess, a god has given it to you. You are a very dangerous bigot Scott.

"Is abortion really wrong?" Depends on who you ask, and the circumstances.

Abortion is neither inherently right nor wrong. It is a medical procedure for terminating pregnancy that is generally safer for women than pregnancy and childbirth. Thousands of woman per year die as a result of pregnancy (most in undeveloped countries), hundreds of thousands have medical complications, and a quarter of US pregnancies result in painful abdominal surgery (I had two C-sections so I KNOW about the pain involved). NO ONE has the right to force a woman to go through the miseries of pregnancy and the risks of childbirth if she does not wish to do so, regardless of whether it resulted from birth control failure or irresponsible behavior.

A fetus may have a beating heart and neural activity, but until its brain develops to the point that awareness might be possible (somewhere between 24 and 30 weeks), it is not a human being and has no inherent rights. It is living property, just as dogs, cows, and surplus embryos in fertility clinics are, and may be killed if the owner so chooses.

From 30 weeks to birth the fetus could be considered a rudimentary person, but the mother still has the right to abort it if it endangers her health or if it has serious defects. (Even years after birth, parents may refuse life-saving medical treatment for their baby or child if they do not wish to prolong its suffering due to terminal disease or injury, or if their religion forbids it.)

IMO, early abortion is ethically no different than abstinence or contraception. In either case, a unique potential human being is denied the opportunity for life BEFORE it exists as a person. It has no mind, no soul, and no right to life. I have never had an abortion, but I am personally responsible for denying life to over 400 potential babies by using contraception. My culpability pales in comparison to my husband, who knowingly sends uncounted millions of sperm into certain death.

I support the death penalty for any one who commits murder.

blacksmithn wrote:

Oh, please. Couldn't you find a more extreme and unreasonable example?

At 37 weeks, 6 days it would seem to me, albeit I'm no doctor, that the fetus is viable by almost any definition. Conversely, at 6 days the embryo is almost certainly NOT viable. So what?

That being said and given the current parameters of the law, I'm content to leave the choice up to the mother and the doctor. It's not my decision as it's not my body. Nor is it yours.

Oh, Please. Couldn't you just argue around a perfectly good point.

Brandon9000 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Late term abortion strikes me as essentially morally indistinguishable from the murder of a baby soon after its birth.

At what point is it distinguishable?

Irrelevant. Killing a fetus shortly before birth or a baby shortly after birth are strike me as morally similar.

No it's not irrelevant. You said that late term abortions are morally indistinguishable from murdering a baby soon after its birth. If the distinction is based upon the gestational development of the fetus, however, there should be a point (earlier than "late term") where abortion of a fetus and murder of a baby are distinguishable. What point is that? Or are you saying that all abortions are the equivalent of the murder of a baby?

Scott777ab wrote:

material girl wrote:

So are the abortion doctors murderers or the woman having the abortion?

Both and they both should be charged with murder.

If one believes that abortion is murder, then the woman having the abortion should be charged with being an accessory or a co-conspirator. She might even be charged with felony murder (in much the same way that the driver of a getaway car can be charged with felony murder if his accomplices commit murder). Under the laws of most states, however, I'm not sure she could be charged with murder itself. I would add, however, that the only logically consistent position for those who believe that abortions is the equivalent of murder is to hold (as Scott777ab holds) that the abortionist and the woman should be charged for their roles in the crime.

I didn't say that it couldn't be answered. I said that it's irrelevant to my point that I feel as though a late term abortion is similar morally to an abortion soon after the baby emerges into the world.

False. One cannot charge someone under the law with a murder which is legal where it occurs.

real life wrote:

blacksmithn wrote:

The question of viability is really a MEDICAL one, more so than a legal or legislative one, it seems to me.

That's medical, as in between a woman and her doctor. Not as in between you, me, or anybody else. The choice for a woman is agonizing enough without getting politicians or Religious Yahoo Know-Nothings involved.

Not claiming to be a doctor, nor some hyped up pseudo-religious zealot either, I'm content to leave that decision where it can best be determined.

OK, so if the gestational period from conception to birth is 38 weeks, are you comfortable with abortion at 37 weeks and 6 days if a woman can find a 'medical professional' to rid her of the inconvenience, even though you seem to admit that a human life has begun by then?

Oh, please. Couldn't you find a more extreme and unreasonable example?

At 37 weeks, 6 days it would seem to me, albeit I'm no doctor, that the fetus is viable by almost any definition. Conversely, at 6 days the embryo is almost certainly NOT viable. So what?

That being said and given the current parameters of the law, I'm content to leave the choice up to the mother and the doctor. It's not my decision as it's not my body. Nor is it yours.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I didn't say that it couldn't be answered. I said that it's irrelevant to my point that I feel as though a late term abortion is similar morally to an abortion soon after the baby emerges into the world.

Then consider my point to be entirely different. Now will you answer my question?

Brandon9000 wrote:

False. One cannot charge someone under the law with a murder which is legal where it occurs.

Well, that missed the point entirely.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I didn't say that it couldn't be answered. I said that it's irrelevant to my point that I feel as though a late term abortion is similar morally to an abortion soon after the baby emerges into the world.

Then consider my point to be entirely different. Now will you answer my question?