Does abortion really equal murder?

[Maren]

Her body isn't the one under question... it's the body inside her. By having sex, she agreed to put it there. The child is partially hers, but the child belongs to the father JUST AS MUCH. As a father, if someone plans to hurt my child, I can defend him or her, can I not? So if a girl gets pregnant, she's free to kill it, and I have no say in the matter and am legally obligated to sit back and let someone kill my child?!

You talk about rape victims being powerless... that's nothing compared to KNOWING someone's about to kill your baby, and being forced to sit back and watch. Don't believe me? Any decent parent out there: If you knew your young child was about to be raped... would you not be willing to do ANYTHING to stop that from happening, even if you have to take his or her place? Or would you let your child be raped as long as it meant you didn't have to?

This isn't the same. A better comparison is say that your child is dying but a transplant will save your child. You are not a match but your wife is. You do not have the right to force your wife (or any other woman) to give any body part to save your child. This is a better example for abortion.

It does when she was the one that put it there by having sex with someone.

You can't just put someone somewhere, then kill them because you changed their mind. You can't invite someone into your home, then kill them for trespassing.

No, again, this isn't the same. Rather, you invite a friend to your house. He refuses to leave so finally, you have him removed since you want your life back to normal. Yet, because he was homeless and had no money he ended up dying on the street. In this case, you are not guilty of murder (or any crime) since he had no right to continue to live in your house, but you were responsible for his death.

 

[cantata]

Yes yes, it's his "child" too - that'll be a great argument when men are able to take equal responsibility for pregnancy.

As it is, I don't see why a woman should have to go through all the suffering of pregnancy and childbirth because some man wants her to pop out a sproglet to ease his conscience.

 

[Eleveness]

Her body isn't the one under question... it's the body inside her.

Her body is very much in question--after all, she's playing an active role in the pregnancy. What if she decides she doesn't want to play that role any more?

By having sex, she agreed to put it there.

Not necessarily. It is possible for two people to have sex for reasons other than procreation. It's very possible that she was using birth control while having sex, establishing that she never wanted to become pregnant.

The child is partially hers, but the child belongs to the father JUST AS MUCH. As a father, if someone plans to hurt my child, I can defend him or her, can I not? So if a girl gets pregnant, she's free to kill it, and I have no say in the matter and am legally obligated to sit back and let someone kill my child?!

If it were possible to transfer a pregnancy from a woman's body to a man's body, so that that the man could carry the fetus inside his body and deliver it after nine months--and if such a procedure were readily and cheaply available--then the father could demand that the fetus should be transferred to his body, and the mother would then have an obligation to do that rather than abort it. But the father has no right to enslave the mother, claiming that her body is to be used not as she sees fit but rather as he sees fit, any more than the fetus does, or any of us for that matter. It's a question of human rights, and we (me, you, the fetus, everyone) are bound to respect the pregnant woman's rights over her own body.

You talk about rape victims being powerless... that's nothing compared to KNOWING someone's about to kill your baby, and being forced to sit back and watch. Don't believe me? Any decent parent out there: If you knew your young child was about to be raped... would you not be willing to do ANYTHING to stop that from happening, even if you have to take his or her place? Or would you let your child be raped as long as it meant you didn't have to?

Eh? I've never mentioned rape in any of my posts. I think you have me confused with someone else.

It does when she was the one that put it there by having sex with someone.

You can't just put someone somewhere, then kill them because you changed their mind. You can't invite someone into your home, then kill them for trespassing.

The notion of killing a trespasser is a straw man (a logical fallacy where you misrepresent my argument in an attempt to make it easier to refute). If you invite someone to your home and then decide that person should leave, the first thing to do is politely ask that person to leave. You can't just "ask" a fetus to leave a woman's uterus. If your guest refuses to leave your house, you can call the cops to have the person forcibly removed (I think... I'm sure it depends on the circumstances)--this is akin to having an abortion where the fetus is forcibly removed from the uterus. If the fetus dies as a result... oh well.

 

[The Gregorian]

This isn't the same. A better comparison is say that your child is dying but a transplant will save your child. You are not a match but your wife is. You do not have the right to force your wife (or any other woman) to give any body part to save your child. This is a better example for abortion.

Aye... but she's not giving up any body parts by having the baby. They may be stressed, but she's not going to be in danger because of it, let alone "lose" anything. If the pregnancy was a danger to her life... then yes, it's understandable. But if she puts the baby there (by procreating), she shouldn't have the right to kill it for being there... when she put it there. If she can find a surrogate mother who will carry the baby for her... of course! Nothing wrong with that at all. If you don't want to go through actual child birth, so you have a C-section (which has it's own implications)... again, nothing wrong with that. You can do what you want to YOUR body without harming your child's body.

How about this: You find someone to carry your child for you. She agrees, the fetus is transplanted into her... is she now free to abort it any time she sees fit without asking either of the parents?

 

[The Gregorian]

Her body is very much in question--after all, she's playing an active role in the pregnancy. What if she decides she doesn't want to play that role any more?

She agreed to play that role by agreeing to have sex. Don't want to risk getting pregnant? Don't have sex.

This is why abortion from rape shouldn't be illegal... because you didn't AGREE to have sex. If you had consensual sex, you can't just kill someone because you changed your mind. If you have sex with someone who only later found out they had AIDs... and now you have it... should you have the right to kill them? Do you think that'd cure your aids? Sex has consequences.

Not necessarily. It is possible for two people to have sex for reasons other than procreation. It's very possible that she was using birth control while having sex, establishing that she never wanted to become pregnant.

It's a risk you agree to take if you have sex. Always has been.

If it were possible to transfer a pregnancy from a woman's body to a man's body, so that that the man could carry the fetus inside his body and deliver it after nine months--and if such a procedure were readily and cheaply available--then the father could demand that the fetus should be transferred to his body, and the mother would then have an obligation to do that rather than abort it. But the father has no right to enslave the mother, claiming that her body is to be used not as she sees fit but rather as he sees fit, any more than the fetus does, or any of us for that matter. It's a question of human rights, and we (me, you, the fetus, everyone) are bound to respect the pregnant woman's rights over her own body.

So, a woman can enslave a man for 18+ years if she goes out and intentionally gets pregnant... but a woman can't be enslaved for a few months? We sure live in an equal society.

Again... a pregnant woman can do whatever she wants to her body. She can chop off fingers... she can grow her hair out... she can do whatever she wants to HER body... until it harms someone else's body. Unless that person was a danger to you. And everyone agrees, if the mother's in DANGER due to the pregnancy, that's another story... but you can't KILL the child just because you don't want it being in there.

If the fetus dies as a result... oh well.

Fine... if a fetus is nothing more than "oh well" ... then the father should have the right to abort the child if he's not ready for one just as much as the woman.

Women can abort a child because they want to keep their figure... maybe the husband wants his wife to stay skinny, so the man should be able to be free to crush up "day after" pills in her food until it's not a problem any more.

deal?

 

[Eleveness]

She agreed to play that role by agreeing to have sex. Don't want to risk getting pregnant? Don't have sex.

Sex is an expression of love--the most powerful and profound expression a person is capable of giving. To simply say "don't have sex" would cripple--needlessly, in my mind--her relationship with her partner.

This is why abortion from rape shouldn't be illegal... because you didn't AGREE to have sex. If you had consensual sex, you can't just kill someone because you changed your mind.

Again, it's possible to have sex for reasons other than procreation. Sex alone does not constitute an agreement to carry a fetus for nine months.

If you have sex with someone who only later found out they had AIDs... and now you have it... should you have the right to kill them? Do you think that'd cure your aids?

That is the logical fallacy known as a "red herring"--attempting to distract the person with whom you are debating with an irrelevant but emotionally charged non-sequitur.

It's a risk you agree to take if you have sex. Always has been.

No, it isn't. Again, one can have sex without intending to conceive a child.

So, a woman can enslave a man for 18+ years if she goes out and intentionally gets pregnant... but a woman can't be enslaved for a few months? We sure live in an equal society.

It's true that society as a whole has its problems, but let's at least confine our discussion to abortion.

Again... a pregnant woman can do whatever she wants to her body. She can chop off fingers... she can grow her hair out... she can do whatever she wants to HER body... until it harms someone else's body. Unless that person was a danger to you. And everyone agrees, if the mother's in DANGER due to the pregnancy, that's another story... but you can't KILL the child just because you don't want it being in there.

I am told (I obviously have no first-hand experience, since I'm a guy) that pregnancy is uncomfortable on the best of days, and extremely painful on the worst of days. At a minimum, the fetus is draining her of the energy that would be available to her had a fetus not consumed it. There are also a number of irreversible changes that take place to a woman's body (wider hips, increased body fat, etc.) during pregnancy. And of course, there is a (thankfully very slim) chance that the mother will die during childbirth. So you see, the fetus truly does present a danger to the mother (if not to her life, then to her health).

Furthermore, the fetus has no right to take oxygen and nutrients from the mother's bloodstream without her consent. Even if the fetus has any rights at all, it surely does not possess any rights that we don't. We certainly don't have the right to take the nutrients from her blood if she doesn't want us to. Nor does the fetus.

Then the father should have the right to abort the child if he's not ready for one just as much as the woman.

If the father does not wish to raise the child, then no one has the right to force him to do so. One may then conclude that I am against compulsory monthly child support payments (this was briefly mentioned much earlier in the thread). Of course, if the father does not support the child in any way, then the mother is not required to allow him to help raise the child (e.g. he has no visitation rights).

Women can abort a child because they want to keep their figure... maybe the husband wants his wife to stay skinny, so the man should be able to be free to crush up "day after" pills in her food until it's not a problem any more.

It seems like you're resorting to straw men at this point, but I'll respond anyway: A man doesn't have the right to dictate the shape of a woman's figure, even if they're married. But the woman doesn't have the right to force the man into caring for a child if he doesn't want to.

 

[Maren]

Aye... but she's not giving up any body parts by having the baby.

Sorry, the straw man doesn't work since not all transplants require giving up body parts. One good example is bone marrow transplants. Sure, you lose some bone marrow (that will regrow) and it can be extremely painful -- but that sounds comparable to pregnancy.

They may be stressed, but she's not going to be in danger because of it, let alone "lose" anything.

False, pregnancy has always risked the health and life of the mother. Thankfully, with modern medicine women don't often die but there is still always that chance; not to mention a myriad of other health issues women can suffer because of pregnancy.

If the pregnancy was a danger to her life... then yes, it's understandable.

Again, there is always the risk of death with pregnancy.

But if she puts the baby there (by procreating), she shouldn't have the right to kill it for being there... when she put it there.

As keeps being pointed out, there are many reasons to have sex that have nothing to do with procreation. Not to mention that women sometimes become pregnant despite doing things to prevent becoming pregnant.

But as for her not having the right to kill it, why doesn't she? Because you believe the fetuses right to live outweigh the mother's right to control her body? So why do we not allow forced transplants or even force people to give blood despite the fact that someone is going to die. If a life is worth overruling the rights to one body with pregnancy, why is it not worth overruling those same rights in the case of someone who is alive and has people depending on him/her?

If it is right to force pregnant women then it should be equally right to force transplants and blood donations that do not endanger the donor's life.

If she can find a surrogate mother who will carry the baby for her... of course! Nothing wrong with that at all.

Except that is one of the problems, there is no known safe way to transplant a fetus from one person to another. Though if we can find a way to transplant a fetus from the mother to the father, then I agree that the father will have a right to overrule an abortion if he is willing to carry the baby to term. Or even if the father could find a surrogate to carry the fetus for him. Again, since we do not currently have this technology the man doesn't get this right.

If you don't want to go through actual child birth, so you have a C-section (which has it's own implications)... again, nothing wrong with that. You can do what you want to YOUR body without harming your child's body.

You really have no understanding of childbirth, c-sections, or the medical risks, do you?

How about this: You find someone to carry your child for you. She agrees, the fetus is transplanted into her... is she now free to abort it any time she sees fit without asking either of the parents?

Again, that technology does not exist. Once the embryo adheres to the uterine lining, there is no way of transplanting it.

 

[Eleveness]

But as for her not having the right to kill it, why doesn't she? Because you believe the fetuses right to live outweigh the mother's right to control her body? So why do we not allow forced transplants or even force people to give blood despite the fact that someone is going to die. If a life is worth overruling the rights to one body with pregnancy, why is it not worth overruling those same rights in the case of someone who is alive and has people depending on him/her?

Oooooh, that's an interesting little scenario. What if:
1. Someone was dying, and needed a blood transfusion
2. No pints of blood were available and ready for transfusion
3. There were people nearby who were able--but unwilling--to donate blood

Do we have the right to force someone to donate blood (it can hardly be called a donation at that point) in order to save that person's life? I'm sure people who wish to prohibit abortion would say that it's okay to force a "donation", since they believe that the contents of a person's body can be seized in the name of saving someone else's life.

It should be obvious at this point that I'm firmly pro-choice, and I certainly believe that a person owns their own blood, and has sole discretion regarding how it is to be used. If a person does not wish to donate blood, that person has the right to make such a decision, even if someone else were to die as a result of it. By the same token, if a pregnant woman does not wish to donate her blood to the fetus in side her (that's how it stays alive, after all), she has the right to deny it her blood, even if the fetus were to die as a result.

Excellent point, Maren.

 

[CCGirl]

Oooooh, that's an interesting little scenario. What if:
1. Someone was dying, and needed a blood transfusion
2. No pints of blood were available and ready for transfusion
3. There were people nearby who were able--but unwilling--to donate blood

Do we have the right to force someone to donate blood (it can hardly be called a donation at that point) in order to save that person's life? I'm sure people who wish to prohibit abortion would say that it's okay to force a "donation", since they believe that the contents of a person's body can be seized in the name of saving someone else's life.

It should be obvious at this point that I'm firmly pro-choice, and I certainly believe that a person owns their own blood, and has sole discretion regarding how it is to be used. If a person does not wish to donate blood, that person has the right to make such a decision, even if someone else were to die as a result of it. By the same token, if a pregnant woman does not wish to donate her blood to the fetus in side her (that's how it stays alive, after all), she has the right to deny it her blood, even if the fetus were to die as a result.

Excellent point, Maren.

 

[cantata]

Pregnancy and birth are some of the riskiest experiences a woman will ever go through.

Case in point: my mum's best friend suffered tearing during the birth of her daughter which led to frequent kidney infections and other problems for the rest of her life. Eventually, the various complications caused her death.

Having a baby is a dangerous business.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Originally Posted by The Gregorian

Aye... but she's not giving up any body parts by having the baby.​

Except possibly her kidneys and uteris, in cases of gestational diabetes, and not to mention the significant changes that occur to a woman's body even during and after a HEALTHY pregnancy... and subsequent mental conditions are probably worth a mention here
​

 

[The Gregorian]

Except possibly her kidneys and uteris, in cases of gestational diabetes, and not to mention the significant changes that occur to a woman's body even during and after a HEALTHY pregnancy... and subsequent mental conditions are probably worth a mention here
[/indent]

temporary stress, her kidneys certainly don't shut down because of it. She doesn't lose them. If she were in danger of permanent serious damage to her organs... then yes, she could protect herself... but that's not the case in most pregnancies. The reason MOST people give is that they just simply don't feel like a baby at the moment/timing's inconvenient.

If you fear for your organs, you're welcome to get sterilized so there's no chance for conception. Then you don't have to worry about it. But if you have sex consensually and you make a baby, you're responsible for it.

If it's manslaughter because the baby's a person if someone ELSE kills it... then it's just as much of a person when you do.

Pick some stage of development where you're OK with killing it.... and as long as the mother has the right to abort, it should not be punishable if anyone else decides to abort it for her.

 

[cantata]

If it's manslaughter because the baby's a person if someone ELSE kills it... then it's just as much of a person when you do.

Pick some stage of development where you're OK with killing it.... and as long as the mother has the right to abort, it should not be punishable if anyone else decides to abort it for her.

I hate to quote myself, but:

This is such an easy one. I'm really tired of explaining it to people. Here's how it is: the world would be a frightening place if it were legal to kill other people's wanted foetuses. (Happily) pregnant women would live in fear. Therefore it has to be illegal to kill someone else's foetus without their consent. That's why it counts as more than just assault. The legal terminology is not ideal, but the law against killing wanted foetuses exists as it is for the psychological benefit of mothers, not foetuses. It has nothing to do with whether or not a foetus is a human being. It simply recognises the fact that the loss of a wanted foetus is a traumatic experience for a woman and that therefore people who cause involuntary miscarriage should be dealt with more severely than those who merely assault.

 

[ReverendDG]

She agreed to play that role by agreeing to have sex. Don't want to risk getting pregnant? Don't have sex.

thanks for pointing out that the anti-abortion crowd considers a child punishment for having sex.
good to know that you consider sex only for procreation and nothing more, funny that women who are married are just as likely to have abortions

This is why abortion from rape shouldn't be illegal... because you didn't AGREE to have sex.

so sex is a contract now? "if i have sex with you, i here by state that no matter how horrible you are after it and if i get pregnant and suffer i will have your spawn, even if i hate the child after its born"

If you had consensual sex, you can't just kill someone because you changed your mind.

sure because this is what happens good straw-man though

If you have sex with someone who only later found out they had AIDs... and now you have it... should you have the right to kill them? Do you think that'd cure your aids? Sex has consequences.

if they know they have aids and they don't tell you, its murder anyway.
if you aren't using a condom or something, you are an idiot anyway, so is the guy

It's a risk you agree to take if you have sex. Always has been.

lets punish people instead of teaching them how not to get pregnant that'll work!

So, a woman can enslave a man for 18+ years if she goes out and intentionally gets pregnant... but a woman can't be enslaved for a few months? We sure live in an equal society.

what in the world??! when has this ever happened in the real world, if you mean child support, it needs to be rethought out, but the whole point of it was to make a unwilling unsupportive father take some responsibility
its not "enslavement" when otherwise you wouldn't do anything for this child you know is yours.
otoh, there is no child to support by the mother for 9 months, the fetus is taking from the mother without her consent.
nice try though, no not really

Again... a pregnant woman can do whatever she wants to her body. She can chop off fingers... she can grow her hair out... she can do whatever she wants to HER body... until it harms someone else's body. Unless that person was a danger to you. And everyone agrees, if the mother's in DANGER due to the pregnancy, that's another story... but you can't KILL the child just because you don't want it being in there.

sure she can, its her body! no one but anti-abortionists seem to not get this, no one i mean no one, has the right to take blood from you against your will, no one can take any organs or food or anything without your consent
why does something that is growing inside you get to have the right to do so? why is a fetus an exception if nothing else is?

Fine... if a fetus is nothing more than "oh well" ... then the father should have the right to abort the child if he's not ready for one just as much as the woman.

why? is the baby drawing nutrition from him? if not, then its up to the person with the womb.
clue for you, men don't have em

Women can abort a child because they want to keep their figure... maybe the husband wants his wife to stay skinny, so the man should be able to be free to crush up "day after" pills in her food until it's not a problem any more.

please show that anyone has ever had an abortion for such a stupid reason, you make light of something most of society feels strongly about.

some straw-man there, i've never heard of such a sick person in my life, no one but the women has the right to decide if they want a child or not.
not some superficial moron.

deal?

no, your argument is awful

 

[EnemyPartyII]

temporary stress, her kidneys certainly don't shut down because of it. She doesn't lose them.

Um... well ACTUALLY... pre-eclampsia, and pregnancy induced diabetes CAN result in total or partial permanent failure of the kidneys.

The reason MOST people give is that they just simply don't feel like a baby at the moment/timing's inconvenient.

Which I don't agree with

If you fear for your organs, you're welcome to get sterilized so there's no chance for conception. Then you don't have to worry about it. But if you have sex consensually and you make a baby, you're responsible for it.

The problem being, of course, that usually one doesn't know if she will become preecalamptic or gestationally diabetic until AFTER she is pregnant.

If it's manslaughter because the baby's a person if someone ELSE kills it... then it's just as much of a person when you do.

No. Its about the mother's percieved relationship. If the mother considers the baby a person, THEN it is manslaughter. If she doesn't, then it isn't.

Pick some stage of development where you're OK with killing it.... and as long as the mother has the right to abort, it should not be punishable if anyone else decides to abort it for her.

I think a line can be drawn at 20 weeks. But I disagree that just anyone should be able to decide to abort someone elses child without possibility of punishment.

Like, a parent can smack a child, yet be quite rightly upset about someone else smacking the same child. In some cases it is NOT appropriate to consider anyone capable of making a decision, particularlry when it involves individual consent issues.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

thanks for pointing out that the anti-abortion crowd considers a child punishment for having sex.
good to know that you consider sex only for procreation and nothing more, funny that women who are married are just as likely to have abortions

A pro-lifer does not consider a child punishment for having sex, they consider it as one of the consequences of having sex.

so sex is a contract now? "if i have sex with you, i here by state that no matter how horrible you are after it and if i get pregnant and suffer i will have your spawn, even if i hate the child after its born"

[When you have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant. How someone else treats you, should not have any bearings on the child. If someone treats you bad, leave them. It is up to you to not project the emotions you have on your "mate" to your child.

if they know they have aids and they don't tell you, its murder anyway.
if you aren't using a condom or something, you are an idiot anyway, so is the guy

Think of it this way, if you know that having sex can cause a pregnancy and and that condoms and birth control are not 100% effective and you don't want to get pregnant, then you have a choice to make: to have sex or not to have sex. If you have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant. If you do not have sex, then you won't get pregnant.

lets punish people instead of teaching them how not to get pregnant that'll work!

Not having sex is not a punishment. If you are not ready for the consequences of sex, just don't have it.

otoh, there is no child to support by the mother for 9 months, the fetus is taking from the mother without her consent.
nice try though, no not really

We are not asked permission to breathe by the medulla, it is the product of the design of the human body and so is pregnancy.

sure she can, its her body! no one but anti-abortionists seem to not get this, no one i mean no one, has the right to take blood from you against your will, no one can take any organs or food or anything without your consent
why does something that is growing inside you get to have the right to do so? why is a fetus an exception if nothing else is?

Why not asked this question about viruses and bacteria? No, I am not treating a "fetus" as if it is a virus or bacteria but as an organism that is inside our bodies. The clear difference for a fetus is, it is preventable. Except in a case of rape, a person can prevent themselves from not getting pregnant 100% by not having sex. There is no other method that is 100% effective, so if you decide to have sex, then you are consenting to anything that happens to your body after that.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

A pro-lifer does not consider a child punishment for having sex, they consider it as one of the consequences of having sex.

Hear some pro-lifer rhetoric, this appears not to be the case.

I thought you just said that it is pro-lifers that treat pregnancy as a punishment. Not having sex is not a punishment. If you are not ready for the consequences of sex, just don't have it.

right. Because people always think that clinically about emotional topics. And "Just so NO" ended the war on Drugs too.

We are not asked permission to breathe by the medulla, it is the product of the design of the human body and so it pregnancy.

Whether women are "designed" to be pregnant or not does not alter the fact that an unwanted foetus gestating is using the mother's own body and resources against her will

There is no other method that is 100% effective, so if you decide to have sex, then you are consenting to anything that happens to your body after that.

Male. Bovine. Excrement. The real world simply does not run in such black/white either/or terms. A woman consenting to have sex does NOT imply consent to get pregnant. She is consenting to have sex. Thats it. Consenting to have sex and consenting to be pregnant are NOT the same thing.

Now, while I fully agree that people who don't want to be pregnant should make every effort not to conceive, I do NOT believe, for a moment, that the mere act of having sex implies anything near the same sort of consent as actively deciding to get pregnant and have a child. Chalk and cheese dude.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The only way to guarantee 100% that you don't die in a car accident is to never ride in a car. However, does riding in a car impy that you consent to being in a car accident?

Of course not.

Ditto consenting to sex vs. consenting to being pregnant.

 

[allhart]

Who lives and who dies. 1)We ask this in babies that have down syndrome. 2) we ask this in circumstance like terminally ill, people in-a-coma, or if they are useful or to costly in elderly patience. Why do we think we should have dominion on death. For self worthlessness. What makes you Gods. That you our able to decide on who lives or dies. I hope my life expectancy on self worth isn't left up to ya all. For I'd be a goner. Or maybe I'm in your way of self gratification sexual pleasures. So off with the head.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The only way to guarantee 100% that you don't die in a car accident is to never ride in a car. However, does riding in a car impy that you consent to being in a car accident?

Of course not.

Ditto consenting to sex vs. consenting to being pregnant.

The difference between "riding in a car" and "getting pregnant" is prevention. If you ride in a car and get into a car accident, unless the accident was your fault, you could not prevent another car from hit you. When it comes to sex, you have a choice. If you choose to have sex, then you are consenting to anything that can happen.