Is Abortion Murder?

[lewisnotmiller]

People use words to express their feelings. They have no obligation to use it according to the definition you feel they should be using.

Neither did I suggest they should be obligated. However, I'm offering my opinion on that usage. That is how opinions work, and discussions, and debates. It's not about 'obligation'.

Wish we could always do that but it's not the way democracy works. You want smaller, less intrusive government great. I'm all for it. Unfortunately it's not the individual who decides on the laws and not every law enforced by the government is going to be what we want it to be.

I'm not saying your position is wrong, just when it comes to moral issues there is no clear line between right and wrong.

You're mixing and matching all sorts of concepts in these posts though. So, if we don't criminalize abortion, at least in the first trimester (for the sake of argument) then that is EXACTLY how democracy would be working. Allowance of abortion doesn't obligate anyone to use it, but allows individuals to make their own determination, based on their own beliefs and their own unique situations.
This is something I believe is good for society, and therefore something I am arguing for. End of story.

 

[Koldo]

Sorry, not quite sure what you mean?

1) Defining the fetus as a person is a legal matter that has a moral component. If you define the fetus as a person, the person primarily involved is the fetus and not the mother.

2) Allowing people to do what we find immoral is a moral matter in itself. Meaning we are making a moral choice by doing so and therefore your post was merely expressing your morality, in other words it lacked an argument.

 

[crossfire]

1) Defining the fetus as a person is a legal matter that has a moral component. If you define the fetus as a person, the person primarily involved is the fetus and not the mother.

2) Allowing people to do what we find immoral is a moral matter in itself. Meaning we are making a moral choice by doing so and therefore your post was merely expressing your morality, in other words it lacked an argument.

Is the mother no longer a person, then?

 

[Koldo]

Is the mother no longer a person, then?

Surely she is.

 

[crossfire]

Surely she is.

Then how do you explain #1?

1) Defining the fetus as a person is a legal matter that has a moral component. If you define the fetus as a person, the person primarily involved is the fetus and not the mother.

 

[Nakosis]

Neither did I suggest they should be obligated. However, I'm offering my opinion on that usage. That is how opinions work, and discussions, and debates. It's not about 'obligation'.

So then you are willing to accept the the "actual" meaning of murder is just your opinion? That's all I've been saying. Glad we are finally on the same page.

You're mixing and matching all sorts of concepts in these posts though. So, if we don't criminalize abortion, at least in the first trimester (for the sake of argument) then that is EXACTLY how democracy would be working. Allowance of abortion doesn't obligate anyone to use it, but allows individuals to make their own determination, based on their own beliefs and their own unique situations.
This is something I believe is good for society, and therefore something I am arguing for. End of story.

The only concept I've had from my first post which you responded to was moral issue come down to a matter of feelings. Any additional concepts have been brought by you. I get you believe it is good for society. I have simply tried to point out to you that society may not necessarily agree with you.

 

[Koldo]

Then how do you explain #1?

The fact there is one person primarily involved doesn't mean there aren't other people involved. If anything, it entails quite the opposite.

 

[crossfire]

The fact there is one person primarily involved doesn't mean there aren't other people involved. If anything, it entails quite the opposite.

Define how the word "primarily" is used in the context of equal rights as persons. (I hope it is not like Animal Farm, where all animals are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others!)

 

[Koldo]

Define how the word "primarily" is used in the context of equal rights as persons. (I hope it is not like Animal Farm, where all animals are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others!)

For the fetus it is always a matter of life or death. For the mother it is not. Therefore the fetus is the one primarily interested.

 

[ecco]

Ad hominems are not reasonable responses to arguments. If all you can do is fixate on the word 'stab' rather than the point, then you lose. You don't have a reasonable response.

Fixate? You verbally painted two pictures. You used the word "stab" in both scenarios. Now you want to accuse me of fixating on a word.

You tried to use the same irrational argument as when you called abortion"murder" and a fetus a "child".

You have no problem misusing words. When people call you out for doing it, you are the one who has no reasonable response.

 

[wellwisher]

A popular scientific definition for life is as follows:

One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids.

According to this science based definition, life begins at conception, since at conception all the criteria of life come into play at a coordinated cellular level.

The irony is the religious argument, that life begins at conception, is based on science, while the Political and legal argument of the left, is based on a type of subjective religious definition that differs from the criteria used by science.

The pro-Abortion position was crafted by lawyers instead of scientists. Since when do layman in a complicated field have the final say in terms of foundation theory? Should biologist be forced to approach life, in terms of their research, using the lawyer layman definition of life? Or should biologists be allowed to continue using the expert science definition for life?

 

[dianaiad]

Fixate? You verbally painted two pictures. You used the word "stab" in both scenarios. Now you want to accuse me of fixating on a word.

You tried to use the same irrational argument as when you called abortion"murder" and a fetus a "child".

You have no problem misusing words. When people call you out for doing it, you are the one who has no reasonable response.

You have a reading problem. You also have a tendency to respond with irrelevancies and ad hominems.

I did NOT call abortion 'murder.' Murder is a legal definition. The question under discussion is whether abortion should be included under the definition of 'murder.' I think it should be.

The human culture uses the word 'child' to refer to human beings at all levels of development.

An infant is a child
A toddler is a child.
A pre adolescent is a child.
A teenager is a child.

This culture calls human 'children' even when they reach physical adulthood. and all through their lives, "child of..." is quite an appropriate appelation.

The definition of 'child:"

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
synonyms: youngster, young one, little one, boy, girl; More

• a son or daughter of any age.
• an immature or irresponsible person.
  "she's such a child!"

As you can see, since a fetus IS a human being, though not, according to culture, a 'person," calling one a child is not even a little bit inaccurate. Uncomfortable for those who are determined to kill them, but that's your problem, not mine.

And you ARE fixating on a word. The situation would be the same If I'd used the word 'sliced."

How about addressing the argument instead of worrying about a word?

 

[tytlyf]

People, it's as simple as this to the anti-choice crowd.

Certain religious people think the fetus is a 'soul' and aborting that soul is wrong. The abortion debate is religiously driven. These christians want everyone in America who isn't a christian to live by their biblical rules.

That's unconstitutional.

 

[ecco]

A popular scientific definition for life is as follows:

One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids.

​

According to this science based definition, life begins at conception, since at conception all the criteria of life come into play at a coordinated cellular level.

Wow! You find a definition of life and, just because you want to, you assert that that is the definition of the beginning of life.

Also, you conveniently ignore other parts of the article which you got from here...
Life - Wikipedia

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not,
...
There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. ​

 

[ecco]

An infant is a child
A toddler is a child.
A pre adolescent is a child.
A teenager is a child.

OK. Now, show me some literature from unbiased sources that says...
A fetus is a child.

You have reached the point of disproving your own argument.

This culture calls human 'children' even when they reach physical adulthood. and all through their lives, "child of..." is quite an appropriate appelation.

The definition of 'child:"

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
synonyms: youngster, young one, little one, boy, girl; More

• a son or daughter of any age.
• an immature or irresponsible person.
  "she's such a child!"

Oh good. You have found that the word "child" has several different meanings. Therefore, you should realize that none of those definitions refers to a fetus.

As you can see, since a fetus IS a human being, though not, according to culture, a 'person," calling one a child is not even a little bit inaccurate. Uncomfortable for those who are determined to kill them, but that's your problem, not mine.

Here again, you are making up stuff. A fetus is not a child.

And you ARE fixating on a word. The situation would be the same If I'd used the word 'sliced."

How about addressing the argument instead of worrying about a word?

The words "stabbed" and "sliced" do not describe what the doctor in your poor attempt at an analogy does. When you stop making ridiculous analogies and when you stop making up words, we can have a discussion.

Better yet, I'll, again, stop beating the very dead, stinking corpse of your horse.

 

[dianaiad]

OK. Now, show me some literature from unbiased sources that says...
A fetus is a child.

You have reached the point of disproving your own argument.

Why?

However, you are quite unable to so an unbiased source that says...a fetus is not a child.

Because there is no such thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find this one quite good.
Yes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There. Here’s Why I’m One of Them

I believe that the point to moral improvements to society comes down to expanding the number of human beings considered persons and expanding their access to basic needs.
A healthy gestation period is the most fundamental human need/right. Without one, no other rights matter at all.
Tom

I can only repeat my point.

I have yet to hear a proper and well argued secular argument against abortion

Your link does not offer me that.
Instead, it builds on premises I don't agree with at all, and it ignores a whole bunch of implications.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't most arguments revolve around the right to life ? That doesn't require a religious component.

It does, because it elevates that "right", as well as its source, to something "unquestionably holy" in religious dogmatic form.

It's not argued why this right exists or should exist or why it should be recognised or what-have-you.
It is merely asserted through authority, in unquestionable manner. Dogmatically. And the invoked authority is whatever God the arguer happens to believe in.

It is presented as immutable fact, while it really only just concerns beliefs coming form dogmatic religious doctrine.

 

[Koldo]

It does, because it elevates that "right", as well as its source, to something "unquestionably holy" in religious dogmatic form.

It's not argued why this right exists or should exist or why it should be recognised or what-have-you.
It is merely asserted through authority, in unquestionable manner. Dogmatically. And the invoked authority is whatever God the arguer happens to believe in.

It is presented as immutable fact, while it really only just concerns beliefs coming form dogmatic religious doctrine.

The concept of natural rights doesn't require a god, however it is true that gods are often used to justify it. Check the concept of human rights.

 

[Shad]

So, I will ask again, is it murder? And why or why not?

Murder is illegal killing so by definition abortion is or is not legal depending on the nation-state. The issues are if and for what reasons are abortion justifiable or not. Is a law actually justice or merely legal tyranny.