Is abortion essentially murder?

Posted by: guylaquit

Is aborting a fetus killing a human?

  • Yes, abortion is killing a living human being.

  • No, abortion is not killing a living human being.

51% 38 votes
49% 36 votes
  • Infanticide is illegal, why is abortion legal?

  • Cause I said so.

  • Duh.

  • Dont deny someone the right to live

    Posted by: TK57
  • It's alive inside... It moves and it is still living.. Its from a human sperm and egg.. What else could it be? A animal??

  • The unborn are human too. It is wrong to say its the "woman's right" to kill an innocent human. It was the woman's choice to have sex (except in rape) and she should take responsibility for it. In the case of rape, while obviously a horrible act, it is not the woman's fault, but it is also not the child's fault either. The rapist is the one who should be punished, not the child.

  • I just read a comment from discomfiting and one more person which went along the lines of "a foetus isn't alive until it's born". Well I have a question for you "Isn't that contradictory to your own existence? I mean how can something that had no life come to life when skin was cut open. What was kicking in your womb, what had heartbeats in your womb, how does dead skin and flesh have life when skin is cut open?" Future voters please think carefully before consenting to the mindless murder of living human beings in their most crucial and vulnerable state without the backup of evidence. Those who consent to abortion when the women and child's life would definitely be lost, notice that you're voting "No, abortion is not killing of a human being." not "No, abortion is allowed when two lives are in danger." And also even if the child might be unable to live properly, why won't you take the chance to let the child live -properly or not. Abortion that would has 0% chance of mother and/or child survival should be agreed to anything else is pure,unadulterated murder. Note: I believe that the child is alive from the moment of conception (sperm meets egg).

  • If I can have abortion I can take out a rifle and shoot someone for example

    Posted by: Caseo7
  • Murder is illegal by definition. If I received a dollar for everytime I said this, I would retire immediately.

  • Murder is the illegal killing of someone. Abortion is legal, therefore, the word murder is misplaced, charged, rhetoric.

  • I'm pretty sure I explained by it isn't murder already. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Abortion is the termination of a fetus. So even if you believe a fetus is a person (which it's not), it's still legal which contradiction the entire definition of a murder being unlawful which abortion being lawful.

  • not that I really care..

  • A fetus is not alive. You are not alive until you are born

  • If abortion is murder, is it also murder to refuse to provide a pregnant woman who will not or probably not survive childbirth with an abortion? If the woman dies while giving birth, there is a chance her child will die as well, thus ending TWO lives when at least one could have been saved. On another note, if a woman becomes pregnant with a child and there is significant evidence to support the claim that the child will develop severe health issues that would cause it extreme pain or the inability to live life properly, would the better choice be to spare the child the suffering it will face when it is more aware and fully developed (not a fetus anymore)?

  • A fetus is dependent on its mother's body, but that does not change the fact the woman's body still belongs to her an no one else. Why would you want more babies to born to mothers who don't want them? Why would you want more women to have to seek dangerous ways of eliminating their pregnancies? And for the religious people: why would god send a soul into a fetus that he knew would only be aborted?

  • The young fetus has not experience literally anything of the outside world and on top of this it isn't even a sentient being. It is basically a vegetable. You are not taking away its life as it never had one to start with. Even if you think it is killing, sometimes it is really necessary. E.g. if the baby will be severely handicapped/the woman was raped/ it could cause harm to the woman.

  • I mean if you don't want the baby, It's better to get it out before it gets born and becomes alive. Because someone needs to take care of the baby once it's born, And a person that doesn't want a baby is less likely to want to care for it and more likely to want to toss it in the trass. Tossing a baby in the trash and refusing to care for it after it's alive is considered abuse.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
guylaquit says2014-07-18T22:31:03.0787995-05:00
Ok, murder is illegal by definition, but if you read the NO description it actually says right there, "No, abortion is not killing a living human being." Please read before you judge.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-18T22:32:38.1620185-05:00
The problem is that people use the word murder as charged rhetoric. "You're murdering fetus's". This is misplaced and false. A politically correct person would say "killing".
mishapqueen says2014-07-18T22:33:57.2706327-05:00
What if being "politically correct" is not high on the agenda? ;) I understand your point about murder being a highly charged word, though.
MasturDbtor says2014-07-18T22:34:00.7494773-05:00
That's not a good argument. So if the government just decided to make all killing lawful would you stop calling it "murder"? What if it was only illegal to kill ants? Would you then say killing ants was murder but it's not to kill people? I'm not saying abortion should be illegal but you're dodging the issue by saying "murder is the illegal killing of someone." Whether or not it is in the dictionary "murder" has another meaning "the IMMORAL killing of someone."
mishapqueen says2014-07-18T22:34:44.9916445-05:00
I agree with you, Mastur.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-18T22:34:50.3893137-05:00
It is the politically correct term. Whether people use it wrong is irrelevant.
guylaquit says2014-07-18T22:38:51.8615747-05:00
Get off your high horse and answer the real question
ChosenWolff says2014-07-18T22:43:56.6290355-05:00
It isn't murder. It is killing. If the poll said is abortion killing, then I would agree with you. There is no high horse. It is you misplacing terminology and trying to win an argument with charged rhetoric.
mishapqueen says2014-07-18T22:45:19.5602303-05:00
Chosen, I'm just curious, what is the difference between killing and murder other than one is politically correct and the other isn't?
ChosenWolff says2014-07-18T22:49:08.9712736-05:00
That one is politically correct and one isn't
mishapqueen says2014-07-18T22:49:49.9532617-05:00
So there isn't really a difference. Interesting.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-18T22:51:18.1019252-05:00
You're a fool to claim that. Political correctness exists to display that words have different meaning, and aren't interchangeable. You can't switch murder with killing. The difference is huge. One is the illegal killing, and one is killing in general. Use your words right pls.
mishapqueen says2014-07-18T22:52:33.8413817-05:00
Well, the right usage is debatable in this context. ;)
guylaquit says2014-07-18T22:53:24.0743477-05:00
The problem is you're avoiding answering by using this "political correctness" as a front
ChosenWolff says2014-07-18T22:58:55.1283140-05:00
Political correctness is enough not to answer. What separates me from the conservative fools who don't know proper grammar or terminology, is that I have the mindset, to think, and vote, on the correct question. I answered the question. What were you expecting? For me to say yes? I said no, because my "front" was perfectly justified.
mishapqueen says2014-07-18T23:00:09.7133483-05:00
Interesting to be called a "fool." I've been called worse. ;)
ChosenWolff says2014-07-18T23:01:15.9856158-05:00
Did you use the terminology wrong? If not, then you may or may not be a fool. That hasn't been confirmed.
mishapqueen says2014-07-18T23:03:20.1774110-05:00
According to you, I did, according to me, I didn't. I am a conservative fool who doesn't know proper grammar or terminology in your words. :) I'm not mad though. But I am very conservative, and we disagree on terminology.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-18T23:04:37.9293062-05:00
Did you or did you not interchange the words murder and killing? If you did, then yes, in this case you're a fool. If you didn't, then you may or may not be a fool. That will only be confirmed in future interactions. Now shut up foo XD
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-18T23:04:50.9399564-05:00
Infanticide is illegal because the baby can live by itself, without the need of another Human being. However, a fetus needs another Human being (the mother) in order to live, and it does so while putting the mother in great discomfort in long periods of time. That's the difference. By the way, most people get their abortions within the first few weeks, in which you can't even see the fetus with the naked eye. Give it a break, it's getting pathetic crying over abortion.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-18T23:08:30.8885861-05:00
Good catch Stalin. Another politically correct term is embryo, and not baby. The fetus isn't a "baby" or "infant" by definition.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-18T23:09:04.0852170-05:00
Fetus's are slaves by definition. Sometimes its ok to mercy kill slaves 0.0
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-18T23:16:24.2796896-05:00
Also, there have been over 50 millions abortions since 1973. Now multiple that by two (because by now half of them would be parents). 100 million extra people in the United States, which by the way is a lot of people. Our lives right now would be quite bad (not very bad, but compared to now, it would be bad). We would be facing so many problems today if we had such a large population ( over 400 million people), crime would be high, hunger and poverty would be high, everything bad. Living standards would be lower. By the way I'm basing this of as if we still have the same leaders and people in power. Just a thought.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-18T23:18:15.2446235-05:00
Bring young babes into the world, but reject the starving kids already here from our own borders.
NathanDuclos says2014-07-19T07:24:32.5055958-05:00
To make you happy, i'll start a new poll. . . . Murder vs Killing?
guylaquit says2014-07-19T10:57:51.6863840-05:00
I'm sorry ChosenWolff, but when did I ever say abortion in the United States? There are countries in the world where abortion is completely illegal, no exceptions, such as Chile. So it could be considered murder in Chile. And Stalin_Mario's point about the 100 million extra people has absolutely no merit whatsoever. For all we know, one of those aborted fetus' could have had a mind that would change the world. The cure for cancer could have been killed off in an abortion. What if Einstein had been aborted? What if Mandela had been aborted? Who knows where the world would be if those fetus' had been allowed to live.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T12:28:49.0604687-05:00
Okay, if you want to play that game, then what if one of those aborted fetuses was the next Hitler? Or the next mass school shooter? Or the next terrorist to bomb a marathon or bring down a couple towers? Also with your logic, us not constantly producing babies every single second (have all women being pregnant all the time) is having us not produce the next Einstein, how do you know that you not having your wife (Or your girlfriend?, Or your sister?, Or your mother?) pregnant right now not going to bring in the next Einstein? You don't, is the answer. And it is absolutely sick and inhuman to force a women to undergo a pregnancy. We have issues that actually matter in this day and age, that actually affect everyone living at the moment, yet here we are trying to make someone good illegal over our own selfish wants. Pathetic, if you ask me.
Geogeer says2014-07-19T15:39:44.0069386-05:00
@stalin - you take after your namesake. Reducing human beings to an arbitrary economic value. Truly a workers paradise...
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T15:40:35.5126459-05:00
If only they were human beings.
Geogeer says2014-07-19T15:41:42.8020768-05:00
Science clearly shows they are.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T15:42:31.1264692-05:00
Really? Can you show me your non-partisian science?
Geogeer says2014-07-19T15:43:53.3868511-05:00
Really? Anybody who has taken basic high school science knows that (in sexual reproduction) a new organism begins at the joining of the male and female gametes. It is fact.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T15:48:43.4524230-05:00
My question is if this fetus equates to the basic traits of an actual human being, IE, consience, sentience, instinct? The cells aren't fully developed at that point. You do know how cells are created, right? That is what is happening in the Embryonic stage, but a better question to ask, is why did you think the gender phenotype had been decided? I guess you can see at one point what phenotype came out of the reactor, but that's also usually after the line at which you can't get an abortion. This is known as your screening,
Geogeer says2014-07-19T15:52:14.5522224-05:00
I suspect that I know a lot more that you think I do. My claim is that it is a human being. Nothing more. So if you say that you can kill this human then you do not believe in human rights. So the better question is why don't you believe in human rights?
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T15:57:21.5329580-05:00
If you know so much, then answer my questions. Don't boast of your hypothetical knowledge. Your ignored merit. Back up what you state, and refute my own. For if you can not do that, then any knowledge you may behold is meaningless. My question, a incredibly simple one to answer. Do you believe that a being without sentient, instinct, or conscience is on the same level of life as a developed child with sentience, instinct, and conscience? Can you riddle me that?
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T16:00:05.2075396-05:00
If you could only save one or the other, a fetus or a child, which would you risk your life for?
Geogeer says2014-07-19T16:01:07.7647426-05:00
I didn't answer yours because you didn't actually answer what I wrote. When you follow the discussion I will too. I will restate my original contention as to your questioning of my non-partisan science. A new human being comes into existence at the joining of the sperm and egg. You did not rebut that - instead you went somewhere else. Our discussion was on science and that is what you refused to actually respond to.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T16:04:48.6337900-05:00
Are you so blant as to of not read the text I present before you? So clear it was, yet so muddledwas your comprehension. None more, I answered your question. The fetus doesn't get its gender phenotype until the time abortion becomes illegal, therefore, we can conclude that the embryo is not human. Not answer my question, and I can refute your counter rebutal. Is a fetus without conscience, instinct, reason, or sentience, on the same level as a child who possesses all of these traits? If so, then which would you save in a life or death situation?
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T16:06:30.5564126-05:00
You make excuses to avoid answering the tough questions. How can we ever make any progress with this kind of attitude?
Geogeer says2014-07-19T16:12:30.1842658-05:00
LOL. Is a zygote an individual human organism or not. Pretty simple.
Geogeer says2014-07-19T16:13:09.5906236-05:00
Sorry I missed your first answer...
Geogeer says2014-07-19T16:14:55.1277270-05:00
So by your definition when fish lay eggs in the water and are then fertilized by the male - they are not actually members of the species? My God you've just proven abiogenesis!
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T16:15:34.1274031-05:00
A fetus is a individual organism. Not a human. Do you not hear my reasoning? A human is something that contains 4 traits. Sentience, conscience, instinct, and reason. Answer my questions.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T16:24:46.4560246-05:00
Saying a fetus is a Human, is like saying a tree is paper. -_-
Geogeer says2014-07-19T16:24:58.7212876-05:00
If it is not human what is it? It has a human genome, and you admit that it is an organism. The same organism does not change from one type of creature into another. It is always the same creature. Bees do not become wasps and dogs do not become cats. Your scientific discourse lacks any rational basis. What you are identifying are not scientific facts, but traits that sufficiently developed humans typically possess. A newborn does not possess all of those traits, so by definition you are in favour of infanticide right?
Geogeer says2014-07-19T16:26:11.8701565-05:00
@stalin - A zygote naturally develops into an adult (or even you in one instance). A tree does not naturally develop into paper - fail.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T16:27:52.9744046-05:00
Not a fail, because you missed the whole point. So what you're telling me is that you view a fetus the same as a Human?
Geogeer says2014-07-19T16:30:53.7494878-05:00
@ stalin. It is the same organism. It is a human being - just at an early stage of life. Zygote -> embryo -> fetus -> baby -> toddler -> youth -> teenager -> adult -> elderly.... These are all merely age and development identifiers of the exact same organism. This is basic biology.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T16:34:51.3576571-05:00
Okay, let me rephrase my question (sort of my fault). If you had a choice, would you rather save a fetus or a 40 year old? What about a fetus or a 10 year old?
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T16:36:44.7874384-05:00
Yes I know a fetus is technically a Human, but thanks for the pointless review on basic biology. However, I don't view a fetus as a full grown Human, is what I was trying to get at. In better words, I put the needs and wants of a fully grown Human over a fetus.
Geogeer says2014-07-19T16:37:29.6778380-05:00
Hypothetical questions are not worthy of answers because they are all contextual. Morally either choice is acceptable. Saving a human life is saving a human life. Now if I had a duty to one, but not the other then I would have to save the one I had a duty to.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T16:37:59.5051643-05:00
Geogeer, a fetus is a seed. Something that does not possess sentience, conscience, or instinct is considered a seed. Something with these traits is known as a animal. Finally, a human has all three of these traits but one more, called reason. A fetus is valued as less than an ant IMO, based on a lack of defining characters that ants have and embryo's don't.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T16:39:16.6632589-05:00
Geogeer, you expect us to answer your questions, but you avoid answering ours? Are we in a discussion or a debate? Answer the question. It's important to my reasoning. We ask the question, because we know how you'll answer.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T16:39:51.7322837-05:00
Geogeer, so you find it acceptable and okay for the government to force a women to undergo a pregnancy? For the government to force a women to go through long periods of discomfort and mood swings?
Geogeer says2014-07-19T16:39:53.0270920-05:00
I'm assuming your American. Do you believe in inalienable rights? If a right is inalienable then you must always possess it for as long as you exist. So if you deny the unborn their inalienable rights then you are concluding that rights are not inherent, but merely social norms. As such society should have the right to deny rights to anybody that they see fit. As such you have reenabled slavery etc...
Geogeer says2014-07-19T16:42:12.1019835-05:00
No I believe Governments have the right to say you cannot kill an innocent human being on our soil. Besides being pregnant is a natural good to the woman. The natural purpose of every person is to propagate the species. Thus giving birth is in accordance with natural law, but abortion in an act against natural law.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T16:43:28.0551934-05:00
By the way, don't point out on the mistakes I have made in my past comments. I am not on my A game at the moment, I barely had enough sleep last night so I might repeat some things in comments or make dumb grammatical mistakes.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T16:43:57.1497529-05:00
Geogeer, I answered your question, gave you my reasoning, but you continue to stubbornly infer that embryos are human.. You have shown yourself incompetent to have a discussion with. Answer our questions. Refute our points. Don't keep saying a embryo is human when I make a very logical assertion that it is not. Will you continue to drop these points and infer your own? I hope not. I hope you'll come back to reality and have this debate with us.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T16:46:31.4211196-05:00
A fetus lacks sentience, reason, instinct, and conscience. If this "Seed" were somehow considered a human, its value equates to absolutely noting. I'm not a constitutional hack geogeer, and if it were human, which it isn't, then I would still support abortion all the same. You don't address the crux of the problem.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T16:48:40.2639973-05:00
Again, a fetus is not fully a Human. Like Chosenwolf said, a fetus does not posses conscience, instinct, reason, or sentience. Back to my other statement, saying a fetus is a Human, is like saying a tree is paper. Both require another Human being to happen, both cannot happen without another Human being. Case closed.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T16:50:22.4470446-05:00
Discussion over. I would of liked to have reached common ground with geogeer, but he doesn't seem interested in solutions or reason. Just affirming his points.
Geogeer says2014-07-19T16:51:53.8325197-05:00
@ chosen - The embryo has instinct because it connects itself to the mother's uterine wall. A newborn does not possess a conscience or sentience - thus infanticide if legal. You are not discussing science you are finding ways to say some human beings are not really human beings. Just like how it was justified that blacks were not really "persons". I did answer your question. You have set arbitrary development points to say when an organism of this species is really "a member of the species." Instead of acknowledging the truth that all members of the species are fundamentally equal. If you set reason as a metric of being human, does that mean people who can reason better are more human? More deserving of rights? Every discussion with you turns into a debate. The seed of an oak is a member of that species. If you destroy all the acorns you have no more oaks. I'll be back later, I hear nap time is over for my kids...
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T16:52:48.9943840-05:00
You see, I value the already grown and existing Human's life over the fetus's. If there was a way to remove the fetus from the mother (non-painfully or costly, sorta like an abortion, but not killing it) and then putting it in a womb-like tube and have to grown there, then I would be against abortion. But because another Human has to suffer for a very long period of time, I am strictly against making abortion illegal.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-19T16:55:02.0969401-05:00
I already said this, but I'm guessing you didn't read it. Infanticide is illegal because the baby can live by itself, without the need of another Human being. However, a fetus needs another Human being (the mother) in order to live, and it does so while putting the mother in great discomfort in long periods of time. That's the difference. By the way, most people get their abortions within the first few weeks, in which you can't even see the fetus with the naked eye.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T16:58:46.5798762-05:00
A embryo has instinct? Come on geogeer, even you can not affirm this. For something to have instinct it needs to be able to use self affirmation. Babies are sure of nothing, and especially not fetus's. Explain that fallacious correlation you just made, and provide a non-partisian source that says fetus's have instinct. I never heard such a silly claim, only people who agree with me on this point. Now answer my other questions. If you extremely fallacious reasoning that fetus's have instinct is true, then explain my other points. Where is this fetus's conscience? Where is its reason?Where is its sentience. It doesn't have these things, because a fetus is nothing more than a developing seed. You say I'm ignoring the science? That's because you are to ignorant to accept my counter rebuttals as science. A fetus doesn't even determine its gender until late into te abortion, usually at which point it's illegal. The phenotype needs to be decided through the reactor as its cells develop. Which led me to ask you whether or not abortion should be legal up until the point a common gender is decided. You didn't answer. Maybe that's scientifically wrong. I affirm that it is scientifically right, but we're not getting anywhere if you completely ignore it. Now please, answer our questions. Is the value of a life without sentience, reason, conscience, and instinct, on an equal level with a child who contains and possesses all these traits?
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T17:11:23.2778086-05:00
Equalism? By that logic, we would also have to consider sperm cells human. They grow into a human, they develop and produce, they're humans, right? That's how fallacious your contention is. Do we have to criminalize killing sperm cells? This is the problem in your argument. There is not one difference between a sperm cell and a embryo. If you can name one good enough to disprove this, then I'll concede this point. But it's pretty evident that your charged rhetoric is really just a fallacy.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T17:14:04.5198321-05:00
Sperm is dependent, check! Sperm can develop out of the womb, check! Sperm cells lack reason, sentience, instinct, and conscience, check! It seems sperm should be illegal according to geogeer. Who are we to treat members of society indifferent? I'll be leading the civil rights movement for underdeveloped humans, IE, sperm. Who's with me?
ChosenWolff says2014-07-19T17:14:42.7900453-05:00
Sorry, killing sperm should be illegal according to geogeer ;)
guylaquit says2014-07-19T23:04:42.3312165-05:00
It's funny because the mothers of both ChosenWolff and Stalin_Mario chose not to abort them but to give them a chance at life, something they seem to enjoy fighting to deny others of. And ChosenWolff's argument is invalid because a sperm if left alone will not naturally became a newborn baby, while a zygote/embryo/fetus if left alone will become a newborn baby. There's a bit of a difference there.
Geogeer says2014-07-19T23:34:41.9634519-05:00
@ chosen - no you weren't trying to get to common ground, you were trying to get to your ground. The unborn is or isn't a human being. You've yet to scientifically substantiate that it is not. No sperm and eggs are not humans, they are potential humans in that they have the potential to combine with the result being a human. An embryo implants itself in the mother, the mother does not implant the embryo. This is a basic passive instinct not a conscious one. The act is completely carried out by the embryo. That is what I meant by instinct. The child's sex is set at fertilization. What you are doing is setting a second arbitrary criteria as to whether a human is really a human. It has to be human AND something other arbitrary criteria. Slavers used to say human and not black. Germans said humans but not Jewish. You're saying human, at this stage of development. The problem is that you destroy the concept of fundamental rights that you live under. If you have a fundamental right to life that means that you MUST have it for your entire life or it is not a right. Additionally, you did not address that sentience of babies. I'm done with your crazy half arse arguments. If you want more take it to a debate. Anytime anywhere.
Geogeer says2014-07-19T23:36:56.0640407-05:00
@Stalin - ah so if it doesn't look like an adult of the species or caring for it causes hardship to the guardian then it cannot be granted rights. Slavers used to argue that blacks were not really humans because they really looked like monkeys. Same attitude, same disrespect for life.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-20T13:45:12.4225916-05:00
Okay, no, you comparing pro-choicer's to slavers is completely idiotic. If the slaves were free, would they be directly harming the "masters"? No. If a fetus is allowed to live and given birth, is it directly harming the mother? Yes, and for a very long period at that. But nice try, it was cute.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-20T13:47:14.2585916-05:00
Guylaquit, if my mother didn't give birth to me, then I wouldn't care, as I would cease to exist. By the way, I have a question for both of you, what do you think happens to the fetus after it is aborted? And by the fetus, I mean it's soul, does it go to Heaven? Does it go to Hell? Or does it not yet have a soul? Just curious on what you both believe.
Geogeer says2014-07-20T13:49:17.9353916-05:00
When one person owns the rights of another person there is slavery. You have given the child's right to life completely to the mother. Thus the unborn child is a slave of the mother.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-20T13:53:42.2457504-05:00
If you want to play that game, then the unborn child is within the mother's body aka her private property, and that unborn child has no right to be there, so the mother has the right to get rid of him.
Geogeer says2014-07-20T13:55:17.2546909-05:00
Theologically it is unknown, this is where the theory of purgatory came from. It basically stated that the such children would essentially go to hell, but be without punishment and enjoy natural happiness.Personally I don't know what happens to them - and in the end shouldn't matter in terms of law. If rights are inalienable then you must possess that right throughout your existence. This has not been addressed.
Geogeer says2014-07-20T13:57:12.8841145-05:00
Hmmm... Did the child put itself there or was it invited? If I invite you onto my property then kill you it is murder.
Geogeer says2014-07-20T13:59:48.3879049-05:00
Additionally the mother's uterus exists solely for the purpose of nurturing her unborn children. Thus the unborn child is using this portion of the mother"s body precisely as it is meant to be use for the very purpose it exists. Thus by natural law the inborn child has every right to use the mother's body in this manner.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-20T13:59:50.7747508-05:00
The child was not invited, the mother didn't want it there in the first place. It just came out of no where, and refuses to leave.
Geogeer says2014-07-20T14:01:37.1288430-05:00
Did the mother's body release the egg? Did it prepare the lining of her womb for this express purpose? Looks invited to me.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-20T14:01:53.5088430-05:00
Yes, but because the uterus is inside of the women, and the women owns everything inside of her, she has the right to do whatever she wants inside of her own body, and by natural law, she is allowed to remove anything she doesn't want inside her body.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-20T14:03:46.0938416-05:00
But did the mother herself have sex in order to produce the unborn baby? No, she had sex for other reasons, she didn't want the baby, so the baby was not invited.
Geogeer says2014-07-20T14:08:09.8569508-05:00
Thank-you. You've just proven that you condone slavery. The mother owns the child. Thus every person until the time of birth is a slave, and thus your rights are not inalienable, but mere social convention that the state has a legitimate right to overrule. You really do take after your namesake.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-20T14:11:58.4598045-05:00
Thank you for basically telling me that you gave up this argument, and that you view women as second class citizens, who can't make choices for themselves. I'm glad to know that you hate women and feel that you should be allowed to control them as if they are your slaves, so I'm guessing you also accept slavery. I'm not surprised. By the way, I'm clearly mocking Stalin in my name, I'm pretty sure that is quite obvious, but hey, it's you.
Geogeer says2014-07-20T14:13:57.6838372-05:00
The natural purpose that sex exists is procreation. None of the pleasurable feelings associates would exist if not for that. Thus the fact that the woman gets pregnant is to be the expected outcome as this is the primary purpose of the action. You might as well say that you shouldn't have to live with being fat after eating nothing but junk food for a year, you only wanted the tastiness. People would laugh at you.
Geogeer says2014-07-20T14:15:38.9921854-05:00
I'm not calling women second class citizens. I'm calling every human equal - which you don't seem to agree with as you think some are legitimately owned by others.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-20T14:19:57.4267552-05:00
Yes the natural purpose of sex is to procreate, but we are Humans, we are smarter, we can go over the natural limits that every other animal on here is bound to. We can have sex for many different purposes. Almost everything Humans do can be considered unnatural, so why try make sex the only natural thing? It's stupid and pathetic how you try. Also your last sentence is very flawed, like your logic, you can eat junk food all year for the taste and still not be fat, it's called exercising. Same thing with sex, you can have sex all you want and not have a baby, it's called condoms and abortion. People would actually laugh at you, if you tired to use that in an argument.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-20T14:22:07.6735713-05:00
Not wanting to force a women to undergo a painful process for a very long period of time does not make me condone slavery. It's stupid that you can even relate those to things.
Geogeer says2014-07-20T14:33:00.4566996-05:00
You do condone slavery as you have clearly stated that the mother owns her child. Once you divorce yourself from natural law you have no real basis for law and thus you cannot truly have justice because you have stated that we can do anything that we reason to justify. So those gulags become justified, China killing infants that escaped the one child policy limitation is justified, letting the state say that you must act contrary to your conscience is great. You have unanchored yourself from reality and are pretending that we are not creatures of nature. In fact if you believe in evolution, denying natural law denies the very premise that evolution has crafted us to act and be a certain way.
Stalin_Mario says2014-07-20T14:57:21.2426320-05:00
Wanting to keep Humans and forcing them to do labor is 100 percent different than allowing a women to have an abortion. If you can not see that, then I have lost hope in you. Again gulags and China killing infants can be unjustified without natural law, it's not rocket science, you can figure it out. By the way. I said we are above natural law, not out of it, very different. Also I don't believe in evolution, I accept it, as it is fact. No, because before a couple of of thousand of years ago we were still mostly limited by natural law, but now we are above it. Evolution is not affecting us nearly as much as it did thousands of years ago, why? Because now we are above natural law.
captainmint says2014-12-02T21:30:24.2477725-06:00
If abortion is murder, is it also murder to refuse to provide a pregnant woman who will not or probably not survive childbirth with an abortion? If the woman dies while giving birth, there is a chance her child will die as well, thus ending TWO lives when at least one could have been saved. On another note, if a woman becomes pregnant with a child and there is significant evidence to support the claim that the child will develop severe health issues that would cause it extreme pain or the inability to live life properly, would the better choice be to spare the child the suffering it will face when it is more aware and fully developed (not a fetus anymore)? I just want to know people's opinions on this because you are apparently "pro-life" if you are anti-abortion...

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.