PDA

View Full Version : Abortion Inconsistencies



M Tragedy666
07-13-2013, 07:51 PM
I was speaking with someone who had inconsistent opinions regarding abortion. They were FOR abortion, however, when proposed with a hypothetical situation in which a pregnant woman was murdered, they believed the murderer should be charged with TWO murders. Make up your mind!

I realize that emotionally, one might want the murderer to be charged with 100 murders, just to prevent it again. It's an emotional and terrible topic. But logic is logic.

This is a very real situation, actually. I can't speak for other countries, but here in North America, a murderer WILL be charged with TWO murders, even though abortion is OK. There are plenty of cases you could look up, but one needs to look no farther than the infamous Charles Manson case in which Sharon Tate was murdered while pregnant.

What are your thoughts on abortion? Is it murder, or not?

I'm not spiritual, so I don't really feel special about humans. Regardless of whether it is murder or not, I am for abortion as long as it's still in the mothers womb. I feel that as long as it's inside another human, the mother makes that final call. If however she gives birth, it's too late. I think once the baby is out, the mother couldn't kill it if she wanted to, because at that point she is irrelevant and someone else may want to take care of this child if she didn't want it. Besides, she should have aborted it a long time ago. I'm speaking purely on "normal" births. I don't want to take this in the direction of deformed or mentally challenged.

Rather than just speaking about abortion, I'd be interested in hearing how you feel about this hypothetical murder. Should the murderer be charged with ONE, or TWO murders? And if you say 2, are you also for abortion? How would you justify that?

Eleven
07-14-2013, 12:39 AM
I don't believe that opinion is inconsistent at all and is a matter of "want" and "do not want". My opinion mirrors yours. I feel that abortion is not murder and before the fetus exists the womb it is the mother who makes the final call. I believe this authority allows the mother to dictate the fetus's fate which leaves the two obvious options of termination or seeing the pregnancy to term. I view the hypothetical murder from two angles both of which result in a charge of two murders.

I believe that the moment a mother makes the decision to carry the fetus to term that fetus's status is elevated to child. This "status" determines whether or not the intentional termination of a fetus's life is murder. If a mother who wished to carry the pregnancy to term was murder along with her fetus then I feel it is just for the murderer to be charged with two murders.
It is equally just to charge an individual with two murders even if the fetus was being carried by a mother who was unsure or who had no desire to carry her fetus to term (and had yet to have the procedure done). Instead of the fetus's status, it is the mother's authority which differentiates this from abortion. The mother may have planned or could have eventually decided to terminate the pregnancy the termination of a pregnancy resulting from a murder was not done with explicit consent.

Shangri-LIE
07-14-2013, 08:14 AM
It depends on what tri-mester we are talking about. Then again, I am for the death penalty which kills adults who have had lives, have conscious thoughts, fears, and human experience. Killing any living organism is "murder" I suppose. Most people will say that an embryo is not a baby, and they are correct. It is still an organism however that is developing into an infant person. Liberals always like to trip you up with semantics. "Well it hasn't been born yet, so it is not living". Yes it is. It has a heartbeat. I reacts to pain. It can eat while in the womb. It is a living organism. Whether it is a person just comes down to formalities such as does it have a birth certificate? Does it have a name and a social security number? It's not a question of it is a person or not, it's whether it is a human or not. So that argument can be put to bed. I am, however, still pro choice. I am for euthanasia. I do not oppose military operations that involve ending other combatants lives. It's what we do. We breed and we kill.

Celebrity Killing Spree
07-18-2013, 07:47 PM
It's inconsistent. The emphasis that it's the mother's decision whether it lives or dies is incorrect. It is not a living person. The woman's decision is whether or not it remains in the womb or not.

A person cannot decide whether or not something is a living human or not based on how they feel about it. Wanted or not wanted is irrelevant. It either is or isn't a human being. In which case, if you want to legally protect a fetus from being murdered, then abortion has to be murder.

But since it isn't, neither is the intentional miscarriage by a third party.

Tabris
07-28-2013, 07:35 AM
Well yeah the arguments are fairly inconsistent when you only look at the unborn child. However I would argue that there is a bit more at play that the life and death of the child.
If a pregnant woman is murdered, the father didn't just lose his partner.. he also lost his child, the parents didn't just lose their daughter they lost a granddaughter, the damage goes further and the pain is worse for the people left behind. For them they have clearly lost two lives and the person who murdered those two lives should be required to face the consequences of causing that pain to other people.
With abortion the child is unwanted, for whatever reason, of coarse there will still be a lot of loss and emotional damage to parties involved in abortion, but it is not really the same kind of situation.
As long as the important people involved in the choice are in agreement, there is, perhaps, not the same level of grief about the loss of life as there is when the child is wanted.

Maybe this kind of inconsistency opens up the question "Is it wrong to kill someone if nobody will be sad?"

M Tragedy666
07-29-2013, 08:36 PM
Well yeah the arguments are fairly inconsistent when you only look at the unborn child. However I would argue that there is a bit more at play that the life and death of the child.
If a pregnant woman is murdered, the father didn't just lose his partner.. he also lost his child, the parents didn't just lose their daughter they lost a granddaughter, the damage goes further and the pain is worse for the people left behind. For them they have clearly lost two lives and the person who murdered those two lives should be required to face the consequences of causing that pain to other people.
With abortion the child is unwanted, for whatever reason, of coarse there will still be a lot of loss and emotional damage to parties involved in abortion, but it is not really the same kind of situation.
As long as the important people involved in the choice are in agreement, there is, perhaps, not the same level of grief about the loss of life as there is when the child is wanted.

Maybe this kind of inconsistency opens up the question "Is it wrong to kill someone if nobody will be sad?"


You can't possibly know with any degree of certainty if the mother of the would-be child was planning on aborting it. Suppose she didn't tell anyone, but she would going to go down to the abortion clinic tomorrow, but instead she was murdered. Your argument seems to suggest that if they wanted the kid, it's murder. If they didn't want it, it's not murder. I think this is a weak argument.

Tabris
07-30-2013, 07:18 AM
You can't possibly know with any degree of certainty if the mother of the would-be child was planning on aborting it. Suppose she didn't tell anyone, but she would going to go down to the abortion clinic tomorrow, but instead she was murdered. Your argument seems to suggest that if they wanted the kid, it's murder. If they didn't want it, it's not murder. I think this is a weak argument.
Let me try to rephrase that.
I agree with you that there is an inconsistency with the idea that abortion is not murder, but that if you murder a pregnant woman the child is also murdered. I only try to give a reason why this type of somewhat hypocritical view exists.
In your example, of coarse the person should be charged with the 2 murders, the only time it is not a punishable crime of murder is when it is done as an abortion.
I guess you gotta ask a few questions, how much of a punishment is there to attempt to rehabilitate the person who committed the crime? how much of the punishment is there to give some justice and peace of mind to the victims? Are the family and loved ones of a murdered person victims of the crime?
Society hasn't really come to terms with a view on abortion that we are all comfortable with and agree with, in a lot of ways you can say there is something wrong with it, it is murder etc etc... but the fact remains that the rate of abortion is the same whether it is legal or not, it seems that it is a something society needs to allow because having it illegal causes more harm than good, and so you get inconsistencies in how the law works surrounding the unborn because our ideas on the subject as a society are all in the grey areas.