Abortion: Why so serious?

[OldTrees]

killing an human is still immoral no matter how young or small, but at least the baby isn't concious yet.

Why? (I am not saying I disagree but you should have a reason why)

[Kuu]

Why? (I am not saying I disagree but you should have a reason why)

I don't believe I could answer that question without bringing religion into this thread but I will say that if there is no God and we are just animals then it would not be immoral. Animals kill eachother after all, and if there is no God then we do not have moral duty. We may have social obligation (because generally people get along better when they don't kill each other) but not a moral duty.

[BluePriest]

If a Mom kills the fetus then it not murder, however, if a driver hits the mom, and the fetus dies, then its murder. Why?

[OldTrees]

If a Mom kills the fetus then it not murder, however, if a driver hits the mom, and the fetus dies, then its murder. Why?

I do not trust the Law (no matter the government) as a trustworthy source of moral opinions.
I personally would call either those acts both destruction of property or murder depending on which the first is.

[BluePriest]

If a Mom kills the fetus then it not murder, however, if a driver hits the mom, and the fetus dies, then its murder. Why?

I do not trust the Law (no matter the government) as a trustworthy source of moral opinions.
I personally would call either those acts both destruction of property or murder depending on which the first is.

So would YOU consider it murder if a driver hit a pregnant person and killed the baby?

[ZephyrPhantom]

If a Mom kills the fetus then it not murder, however, if a driver hits the mom, and the fetus dies, then its murder. Why?

I do not trust the Law (no matter the government) as a trustworthy source of moral opinions.I personally would call either those acts both destruction of property or murder depending on which the first is.

yellow text = this.

I think this issue is one of those issues that comes down to specifics.  There are reasons for abortion, but if the baby is already born, you could have it adopted, correct?  There is no reason to kill a fetus when the issue can be handled properly.... with the catch of having money, in that case you might want to kill it, although that requires some highly irrational thinking IMHO.

Abortion isn't immoral if it's done right and with the correct intent, with the problem being that no two people will ever see the word "right" the same way.  I personally think abortion should be a last resort - if there is no one willing to care for someone you cannot care for, you might want it's "soul" to attempt to be reborn instead of having it suffer.  Slightly religious, but that's how my  rolled on this matter.

So would YOU consider it murder if a driver hit a pregnant person and killed the baby?

That's not muder, that's manslaughter unless the driver's intent was to kill someone.

[OldTrees]

If a Mom kills the fetus then it not murder, however, if a driver hits the mom, and the fetus dies, then its murder. Why?

I do not trust the Law (no matter the government) as a trustworthy source of moral opinions.
I personally would call either those acts both destruction of property or murder depending on which the first is.

So would YOU consider it murder if a driver hit a pregnant person and killed the baby?

A baby = yes
A fetus = I am not sure
An embryo = Even less sure
A sperm next to an unfertilized egg = Probably not but still unsure

[TimerClock14]

Allow me to voice my first and final opinion here:
(please note that I feel very strongly about my opinion on this subject)

Don't speak for a mother's child, or the mother herself. Call it murder, call it relief of pain, call it something else; it's still your opinion. How the heck are you supposed to know how a mother feels, being forced to give birth to a child that (shocker alert) she might not even want. Imagine the life of that child, growing up knowing that he/she was born an unwanted child. Then think of the parents, watching their child grow, knowing that they never wanted him/her. How can that even be called life anymore?

Now sure, there are mothers who do want to have a child, so guess what? They don't get an abortion!

And lastly, think about the other people involved. Stop thinking about your moral values and start thinking about how it will affect the people who are actually involved. If your lady friend gets pregnant and wants an abortion, by all means, duke it out with her! But keep in mind, it's her decision in the end.

A little off topic, but I'd like to let it be known:
If abortions were outlawed in the USA, then under the United States Constitution, it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment by influence of the law.

[OldTrees]

Allow me to voice my first and final opinion here:
(please note that I feel very strongly about my opinion on this subject)

Don't speak for a mother's child, or the mother herself. Call it murder, call it relief of pain, call it something else; it's still your opinion. How the heck are you supposed to know how a mother feels, being forced to give birth to a child that (shocker alert) she might not even want. Imagine the life of that child, growing up knowing that he/she was born an unwanted child. Then think of the parents, watching their child grow, knowing that they never wanted him/her. How can that even be called life anymore?

Now sure, there are mothers who do want to have a child, so guess what? They don't get an abortion!

And lastly, think about the other people involved. Stop thinking about your moral values and start thinking about how it will affect the people who are actually involved. If your lady friend gets pregnant and wants an abortion, by all means, duke it out with her! But keep in mind, it's her decision in the end.

A little off topic, but I'd like to let it be known:
If abortions were outlawed in the USA, then under the United States Constitution, it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment by influence of the law.

Your words are a good point that legislating morality is not a good idea (especially) in this case.

Off Topic: However I must point out the the Cruel and Unusual clause only refers to punishments doled out by the government not ones inflicted by sources other than the government (self inflicted, or rape).


The Dying Violinist Argument (Aka The Sophisticated Woman's right to their body argument)
I personally disagree with it but it is a good introductory argument.

Scenario 1
There exists a great violinist whose liver is failing due to an unfortunate disease. They can be cured but not in the time remaining with their liver. A group of music enthusiasts knock both you and the violinist out and attach your livers. Now your liver will sustain the violinist but keep you bedridden until the cure is finished which will take the majority of the year. However if the violinist is disconnected they will die. We all agree that waiting and allowing the violinist to survive is a noble deed however do you have a moral obligation to act as life support for the violinist?

Morally relevant facts:
The Violinist is a human.
The operation was involuntary for both you and the violinist.
The treatment will keep you bedridden for most of a year.
Cessation of the treatment will cause the violinist to die.

Scenario 2
Woman pregnant due to being raped.

Morally relevant facts:
The Embryo/Fetus might be a human. (the above argument assumes this is irrelevant and assume it is a Human)
The operation was involuntary for both you and the Embryo/Fetus.
The treatment will keep you bedridden for most of a year.
Cessation of the treatment will cause the Embryo/Fetus to die.

Syllogistic form
The Violinist and Emybro/Fetus are morally analogous. If one has a right from being let die then so does the other. If one does not have such a right then neither does the other.
Common intuition is that the Violinist does not have such a right or if it does that right is not greater then the woman's right to her body.
Therefore Abortion is permissible.

[Kuu]

Don't speak for a mother's child, or the mother herself. Call it murder, call it relief of pain, call it something else; it's still your opinion. How the heck are you supposed to know how a mother feels, being forced to give birth to a child that (shocker alert) she might not even want. Imagine the life of that child, growing up knowing that he/she was born an unwanted child. Then think of the parents, watching their child grow, knowing that they never wanted him/her. How can that even be called life anymore?

Now sure, there are mothers who do want to have a child, so guess what? They don't get an abortion!

And lastly, think about the other people involved. Stop thinking about your moral values and start thinking about how it will affect the people who are actually involved. If your lady friend gets pregnant and wants an abortion, by all means, duke it out with her! But keep in mind, it's her decision in the end.

So how the mother feels emotionally about a baby is more important than a person's (the baby's) life? If I feel it is really disagreeable to have someone around me, can I just kill them?

Also, if the mother didn't want a baby they shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Even if they tried not to get pregnant, the pleasure of one person is not more important than the life of another, so they just shouldn't have had sex.

[BluePriest]

Don't speak for a mother's child, or the mother herself. Call it murder, call it relief of pain, call it something else; it's still your opinion. How the heck are you supposed to know how a mother feels, being forced to give birth to a child that (shocker alert) she might not even want. Imagine the life of that child, growing up knowing that he/she was born an unwanted child. Then think of the parents, watching their child grow, knowing that they never wanted him/her. How can that even be called life anymore?

Now sure, there are mothers who do want to have a child, so guess what? They don't get an abortion!

And lastly, think about the other people involved. Stop thinking about your moral values and start thinking about how it will affect the people who are actually involved. If your lady friend gets pregnant and wants an abortion, by all means, duke it out with her! But keep in mind, it's her decision in the end.

So how the mother feels emotionally about a baby is more important than a person's (the baby's) life? If I feel it is really disagreeable to have someone around me, can I just kill them?

Also, if the mother didn't want a baby they shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Even if they tried not to get pregnant, the pleasure of one person is not more important than the life of another, so they just shouldn't have had sex.

This. Im really tired of the "mothers body" argument. I know there are extreme cases but we are talking about the general rule of thumb. And the general rule of thumb is that a girl wanted to have sex, didnt think anything would happen, got pregnant, and now wants to kill the baby.

[Neopergoss]

I've talked in depth with a religious cousin of mine about this issue, and in our case it clearly came down to a difference of religious beliefs. I think that this is really just another religion vs. science debate.

Specifically, this is a manifestation of the ongoing mind-body debate. For those of you unfamiliar with it, this is the question of whether our mind, our self, our personhood, our consciousness, etc. is linked to things only in the body or if something else (ie: a soul) is involved. Now, from a scientific perspective, this debate is fairly settled. We now have a decent understanding of how consciousness and personality and all that are directly connected to the human brain.

I think you see where this is going. For me and other scientifically-minded people, a zygote is merely a potential human life. Why? Because it has no mind. It has none of the defining characteristics we think of when we think of people. It can't think, it can't feel. At what point that begins is up for debate, but it isn't at conception.

For those who give religious beliefs priority over scientific ones, life begins at conception because that is when the soul is created. How? Why? No explanation; it's just faith. So for them, abortion is murder, plain and simple.

True, it has the potential to become a human life if left alone. But an egg or a sperm cell also has the potential to become a human life. If you're really going to argue that this potentiality is of vital importance, but not when you have to intervene in some minor way to realize it, I'm going to have to disagree. Personally, I find this agrument to be absurd. It is the same argument as this, however, that makes it somehow OK to take someone off of life support in certain situations, but never legal to actively assist someone if they choose to die, no matter how close they are to death. Even if it means they have to live a few more agonizing, miserable hours, or even days. I think the euthanasia debate is related in this way and I find both of these opposing positions quite absurd. Indeed, it is quite unfortunate that they carry so much weight with some people.

edit: grammar. And btw, being pro-choice isn't being pro-abortion. Come on, now. No one is saying we need more abortions. Of course abortion isn't plan A. You use protection -- not just to avoid pregnancy, but to avoid transmission of STDs. An abortion is costly and there is some danger to the woman's reproductive health. It is always regrettable, even for those who don't believe that zygotes are people.