Touchy touchy subject (abortion)

[AnticorRifling]

Ok so while driving to King's Island today the wife and I got in a big debate about abortion. I felt like furthering that discussion here. Before we begin I need everyone to remember one big thing, ready?

There is no right answer. There is what you feel is right for you but that might not apply for everyone so when someone says something that you don't like take it with a grain of salt and remember it's their opinion. They aren't saying you are wrong they are saying they don't agree.

That being said....


My wife says that she thinks abortion is murder ( I don't agree) so I said well if abortion is murder than would you consider a miscarriage to be man slaughter? Clearly if abortion is murder ( the planned killing of a person) , than a miscarriage is man slaughter ( the accidental killing of a person). Since man slaughter isn't something you can control and neither is a miscarriage then it only further solidifies that they are the same if you are in the camp of thinking abortion is murder.

Well that didn't sit well. One for telling her a miscarriage is man slaughter, and for saying I didn't think abortion was murder. I explained I didn't think that abortion was something I would do but I didn't think it was murder. If someone else decides to have an abortion that's their choice not mine, I'm not in their shoes, I don't walk their walk, and I don't have to live with the decision.

This produced a nice 1 hour of silence :cool:

So my question to you is this.... If abortion is murder than is a miscarriage man slaughter? I'm not asking if you think abortion is right or wrong (again I don't care because it's not my choice I'm not you[as in the person getting the abortion]).

Discuss.

Edit to fix some really dumb spelling errors (I'm tired STFU)

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by AnticorRifling]

[Back]

Doesn't manslaughter have some voluntary clause? Miscarriages are mostly involuntary.

[AnticorRifling]

Not always Backlash. The example I used for her was this:

Miscarriage the baby dies due to something in (your) body that was uncontrollable

If someone has a diabetic seziure while driving and kills someone then someone died due to something in (your) body that was uncontrollable

Only reason I used this as an example is because we had someone struck and killed on base in this very manner. Retired Marine was on base, had a diabetic seziure while behind the wheel, came onto the sidewalk and tagged a passerby.

I think they are pretty much the same thing. And if you say well driving was the voluntary act that resulted in someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the uncontrollable action happened then I'll respond with sex was the voluntary act that put the fetus at the wrong place at the wrong time when the miscarriage happened.

Edit to fix spelling I'm on a roll!

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by AnticorRifling]

[Delirium]

manslaughter, homicide committed without justification or excuse but distinguished from murder by the absence of the element of malice aforethought. Modern criminal statutes usually divide it into degrees, the most common distinction being between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is a killing done in the heat of passion provoked by acts of the victim such as to cause a reasonable man to act rashly and without reflection. Such provocation may include violent assault and an unlawful attempt to arrest him, but not mere insulting words or gestures. Involuntary manslaughter is a killing in which there is no intention to kill at all. It occurs when the killing is the result of the commission of a crime that is neither a felony nor an act likely to cause great bodily harm or when it is the result of a lawful act done in a criminal manner, e.g., a case of negligence. The advent of the automobile caused many manslaughter cases that arise from reckless and careless driving; in the statutes of some states of the United States such killing is a separate crime.

I dont think ive ever heard of someone being charged with manslaughter when there wasnt something done wrong somewhere. Saying it is manslaughter seems a bit silly. What could the woman have done negligently to cause the miscarriage? I suppose it would have to be on a case by case basis but just generally? I dont think so.

[HarmNone]

I guess if a pregnant woman decided to move the piano upstairs by herself, thereby miscarrying the child, such miscarriage could be construed as manslaughter. Otherwise, I just can't see it.

[AnticorRifling]

I don't know let's say you are in serious need of vitamins or other type of substance and don't take them causing your body to be in a weakened state resulting in the miscarriage. Pregnancy is a fragile thing so I'm thinking it wouldn't take a ton of negligence in the way of diet or proper environment in order to facilitate a miscarriage.

Keep in mind I could be way, way off on this considering I'm neither a father or a woman. Just me throwing my thoughts down here.

[AnticorRifling]

Ohh it wouldn't have to be all miscarriages of course. I was just generalizing because I didn't want to write out or think of every possible scenario and variable. I know blanket statements are dangerous but I was keeping it general as I wanted a general discussion with some hair splitting not a hair splitting discussion peppered with some generalities.

Ok I'm going to bed. Let's see where this thread goes.

[HarmNone]

Actually, those things are unlikely to cause a miscarriage. The fetus will take what it needs from the body. The one who will suffer will be the mother.

However, for the purpose of your argument, if the mother-to-be is negligent with her health care, or negligent with her behaviors while pregnant, and a miscarriage results, I can see where the miscarriage could be seen as manslaughter. Most miscarriages, though, are not caused by negligence but by hormonal, or other, changes in the body that are not under any kind of conscious control.

[Sylph]

I don't think Abortion is murder unless it is a half-birth abortion...

[Kenn]

Originally posted by Sylph
I don't think Abortion is murder unless it is a half-birth abortion...

Agreed, I'm fairly certain half-birth is outlawed in California.

[Miss X]

To me, there is a huge difference between murder, manslaughter and accidental death. People rarely get charged with manslaughter if the cause of said slaughter was involuntary.

Most miscarriages happen for reasons that are beyond our voluntary control, there is absolutely no way anyone could class that as manslaughter. Just like, if I had a black out for a reason beyond my control, while I was behind the wheel and killed someone, I would most certainly not be charged with manslaughter.

However, if a woman is smoking crack during her pregnancy and her baby dies, I can certainly see how that could be called manslaughter. That kind of thing is far worse than abortion in my eyes. I would rather women who are going to do things that put their babies at risk, just go and have an abortion right off the bat. I don't see abortion as murder though, Pro Choice or No Choice!!! (hehe, had to get that in there!) ;)

[Itachi]

I don't have much to add to this except to agree with your post. My stance is pretty similar to Anticor and I have even used that same manslaughter argument before.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Itachi
My stance is pretty similar to Anticor and I have even used that same manslaughter argument before. ^ Cosign.

[CrystalTears]

I agree with his wife. :shrug:

You saying:

I explained I didn't think that abortion was something I would do but I didn't think it was murder. If someone else decides to have an abortion that's their choice not mine, I'm not in their shoes, I don't walk their walk, and I don't have to live with the decision.

It just strengthens the notion that you know it's a wrong thing to do, so let someone else do it and have the guilty conscious.

Perhaps murder is a bit harsh, but it's the unfortunate truth that people don't want to admit to. You're destroying an innocent life. Saying that one part of the pregnancy is safer than another is just lying to yourself to justify doing it. No one wants to put a ruling that life begins at conception. The minute that it's growing and living off the mother, it's a life.

Think of it this way. If a man stabbed a pregnant woman and the baby died, would he get convicted of murder?

As for the manslaughter, unless the mother was purposely destroying her health and the baby dies because of it, I just don't see it.

Looking back I'm amazed how much my views have changed on this. About 5 years ago I was pretty much pro-choice. Once I got engaged and started to feel the wants of having a child, and hearing the views of my fiance, I have totally turned pro-life.

Killing a life is just that.. killing a life. A woman decided to have sex, decided to create that life, live with it. It's a life now. It may be your body but you're carrying a life, it's your responsibility. If you want to kill it, fine, that's your choice, but admit that you're killing it and don't try justifying it by saying it's not living yet cause it's not living on it's own.

OMG I'm so going to get reamed now by pro-choice people. :blush:

[Edited on 7/2/2005 by CrystalTears]

[DeV]

So should a woman who's been violently gang raped and gets pregnant, and has no idea who the father is have the right to choose whether she wants the baby or not?

An innocent life is being created from one that was just destroyed; innocense lost. Does it only work one way or both?

[CrystalTears]

It's still an innocent life. It had no choice in how it was created. That's not the fault of the child, that's the conscious of the mother.

[Kuyuk]

I can see where miscarriages can be viewed as manslaughter under some [rare] circumstances.

I've paid to get an abortion done. I'm obviously pro-choice... [Even if she took my money and had the kid anyway.........]


But anyway, to each their own!


K.

[DeV]

I just think having a child is a huge personal and lifetime responsibility and it's not up to me, personally to tell any woman she is required to have or not have a baby because of my personal or "religious" beliefs.

Mentally, physically, and growing up religiously I am anti-abortion for myself. I would never have one, it would never even be a fleeting thought. However, I am completly pro-choice as I feel I can't speak for the experiences of millions of other women around the world when it comes to pregnancy and child-birth, and their reasons for even suggesting the thought. Partial-birth abortions go without saying.

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
A woman decided to have sex, decided to create that life, live with it. It's a life now. It may be your body but you're carrying a life, it's your responsibility. You are lumping every woman into the same basket with this one. It's not right. It is not always a choice.

[CrystalTears]

Of course I'm lumping every woman into the same basket. I would like for every woman to acknowledge and accept that the baby they are carrying is a life and their responsibility.

Granted, the woman who got raped and ended up pregnant was not her choice, but it's still her responsibility to decide what is to become of that child. One will NEVER know what aborting or having that child will result in, however the hard truth is that decision can never be taken back.

Not every killing is needless. There are times when it is necessary, such as the death of a murderer, rapist, mentally vegetable, and such. No killing is good, it's all tragic, but they're not all unnecessary. People decide on the lives of others everyday. However I am against those who have abortions due to convenience.

There are always solutions, just harder ones like carrying it to term and giving it up to adoption. Decisions are never easy. What needs to happen is for people to take a stand and accept/realize that life starts at conception. Saying otherwise is misleading. Unless there is a starting point to go on, society will never agree on when abortion is right or wrong.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Delirium

I dont think ive ever heard of someone being charged with manslaughter when there wasnt something done wrong somewhere. Saying it is manslaughter seems a bit silly. What could the woman have done negligently to cause the miscarriage? I suppose it would have to be on a case by case basis but just generally? I dont think so.

I think people saying abortion is murder is equally as silly as reckoning miscarriage is manslaughter. People have the right to choose. It happens in nature and the world is already way overpopulated already. Me and my gf have an understanding that if she gets pregnant she'll get rid of it simply because neither of us are in the shape or financial condition to bring a child into this world and raise it how we'd want. To do so now would be selfish not in the childs best interests.

[Edited on 2-7-05 by StrayRogue]

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Of course I'm lumping every woman into the same basket. I would like for every woman to acknowledge and accept that the baby they are carrying is a life and their responsibility.I agree that it is their responsibility before, during, and after, and not yours, mine, or anyone else's. Their responsibility should include their choice, whatever that may be, with limitations.


Granted, the woman who got raped and ended up pregnant was not her choice, but it's still her responsibility to decide what is to become of that child. And with responsibility comes choice.


However I am against those who have abortions due to convenience.I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand I currently know of a girl who has two children, ages 3 and 4, she just got pregnant recently and will be having twins. The father is 19, unemployed and hasn't graudated from high school. The mother is on welfare, lives in subsidized housing, collects social security for the first child due to birth defects, and is unemployed. She doesn't take care of the ones she has now.

They'd rather have the baby and subject it to a life of poverty than give it up for adoption. Some mothers are selfish and vile in that respect. On the other hand if she decided to have an abortion I would have to realize that that is her choice, her responsibility, and she will have to deal with whatever consequences, if any. Who am I to say, she better carry that baby to term or else dammit? It's a private matter to me, at least it should be.


What needs to happen is for people to take a stand and accept/realize that life starts at conception. That is a subject is huge debate and controversary. What I think you mean is when does personhood begin? And this debate will continue to evolve through the ages because the arguments for both sides appear to be quite firm.

What do you think happens when some Nuns get pregnant...

[Brattt8525]

You can rationalze the killing of a baby while in the womb anyway you wish, but it is still murder. On the other hand it is the choice of the woman, but it is still murder regardless.

The miscarriage thing, well that is a whole can of worms right there. Take the case of the couple who caused the premature birth/death of their baby <he stepped on her stomach to cause death> he is up for manslaughter.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Brattt8525
You can rationalze the killing of a baby while in the womb anyway you wish, but it is still murder. On the other hand it is the choice of the woman, but it is still murder regardless.

The miscarriage thing, well that is a whole can of worms right there. Take the case of the couple who caused the premature birth/death of their baby <he stepped on her stomach to cause death> he is up for manslaughter.

Its murder stepping on ants in the backgarden by this rationale.

[CrystalTears]

It's of debate and controversy because no one wants to just state that life starts at conception, which is why we have the problems we have with abortion rights.

And no, not personhood, I mean life. When a sperm and egg join and it starts to grow, it's a life. Whether that life can live on it's own or not is not in question, only that it's a life that has been created.

Once you set that, then you can state that abortions done in the first trimester is legal because of ... whatever clause you'd like to choose. Trying to separate life and person is only complicating the issue. It's either a life or it isn't, then take the steps from there.

As for the nuns, well... what the hell are they having sex for?! Heh. I'm sure nuns already think it's a sin they had the sex to begin with, I'm not too sure they would praise the abortion that came with it.

As for the ants? Heh. C'mon, ants don't have human rights so why even bring them up. :P

[Edited on 7/2/2005 by CrystalTears]

[DeV]

Originally posted by StrayRogue

Originally posted by Brattt8525
You can rationalze the killing of a baby while in the womb anyway you wish, but it is still murder. On the other hand it is the choice of the woman, but it is still murder regardless.

The miscarriage thing, well that is a whole can of worms right there. Take the case of the couple who caused the premature birth/death of their baby <he stepped on her stomach to cause death> he is up for manslaughter.

Its murder stepping on ants in the backgarden by this rationale. Then why wear a condom? You're actively preventing the fertilization of the egg and by doing possibly preventing innocent "life" from being conceived. Birth-control pills, creams, and spermacides too.
Hell, lets just say that every time a woman has heterosexual sex she stop trying to prevent pregnancy, and start welcoming it because, she is supposed to be a procreater after all. She needs to stop preventing innocent life from even being a possibility.

Yes, I know I'm exaggerating but so is calling all abortions murder.

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
It's of debate and controversy because no one wants to just state that life starts at conception, which is why we have the problems we have with abortion rights.
Possibly because people have valid reasons for believing life doesn't start at conception?

[CrystalTears]

Which are?

By the way, preventing sperm from meeting egg is not the same thing. Once introduced and they start forming and growing, it's a life. Before then, it's just a sperm and egg. Separately they are never going to amount to anything else. Together, and left untouched, they can grow into a 99 year old person.

I'm really not trying to be difficult, but what proof is there that life doesn't start at conception?

[Skirmisher]

We have had this debate before and my opinion remains unchanged.

Untill such time as legislation and social conditions exist as to guarantee that every child born will be cared for if the mother is unable to provide properly for it I am for legal abortions.

If you want to impose your views on this subject on me, be damned ready to back it up with time and alot of funding and oversight to ensure those children are cared for in a decent manner.

If you insist on them being brought into the world be ready to deal with the minimum of 18 years of responsibility or keep your nose out of my business.

[CrystalTears]

Hell we can't guarantee that the children that are purposely brought into this world are cared for properly.

And I'm not really for making abortion illegal. I have no problem with there being clauses that allow abortions at certain times of pregnancy for certain issues. What I have a problem with is people saying that life doesn't start at conception and would really like to see the information proving otherwise, that's all.

[Edited on 7/2/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Miss X]

I think Skirmisher basically put my views into better words than I ever could.

The single biggest issue for me though, is that no one is EVER going to tell me what I can and can't do with my body. I would never dream of trying to tell another woman what she should do with HER body, or try to make her feel bad because of the choices she makes. I can't stand in her shoes, so I keep the hell out of her buisness.

At the end of the day, if I have an abortion, I'm the one who has to live with it. People can think what they like, call me a murderer or whatever.... I'm simply not interested. Luckily for me, I've never been stupid/unlucky enough to get pregnant.

[CrystalTears]

I suppose that's where people have issues and disagree because it's not JUST your body anymore. It's two lives in question.

[Ilvane]

Exactly Skirm,

What bugs me about many of the polititicans that talk about abortion is that they want no abortions, but they don't want to fund the women that have the children in a less than ideal situation.

Personally I don't think I would have an abortion, but it's not anyones business to say what someone else would do, including the government.

-A

[Skirmisher]

And my problem is that too damned many people are all interested in that second life until it leaves the mothers body and then suddenly don't give a rats ass.

Be willing to back up the rhetoric!

If they care so much for this child why do they suddenly lose interest after birth? Perhaps the actual outlay of time and money is more than they are willing to give.

They leave the burden on the young mother who was not ready to have a child as she is still a child herself.

Great way to show concern for every life.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
And my problem is that too damned many people are all interested in that second life until it leaves the mothers body and then suddenly don't give a rats ass.Right there. That's what I'm saying. I can understand if they are willing to put their money where their mouth is but they arent. You want to make it illegal and then you are out of that child's life that you cared so much about, forever. It is so common an occurance its not even funny.

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
but what proof is there that life doesn't start at conception? I don't really know how to answer that question without asking my own. Is it the potential to be life or is it the potential to grow into an actual person that makes this debate so controversial?

I guess you can call me weird CT. I'm not hung up on when life actually begins because believe it or not, I think it does begin at conception. I am still pro-choice.

[Artha]

Killing the child is obviously the answer.

[Mistomeer]

I'm against abortion, but I'm not willing to protest abortions until social conditions are such that every child is better off being born. The sad truth is that in many circumstances, an abortion is the best option. If the anti-abortion groups cared so much they'd try and fix the things that lead to the decision of abortion rather than protesting the act. Improved healthcare, government-run childcare rather than subsidized childcare and improved education would do alot to prevent abortions - much more than holding up signs and blowing up clinics.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Artha
Killing the child is obviously the answer.

Not much of a contribution to the conversation, but perhaps you will have more later.

[Warriorbird]

Abortion reduces violent crime.

With that said, to actually answer Anticor's question, from a legal standpoint it would be. Involuntary manslaughter is still a crime.



[Edited on 7-2-2005 by Warriorbird]

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Mistomeer
I'm against abortion, but I'm not willing to protest abortions until social conditions are such that every child is better off being born. The sad truth is that in many circumstances, an abortion is the best option.

Here here. I wish more anti-abortion folk tought the same way and weren't so narrow minded Mistomeer. Excellent post.

[Sylvan Dreams]

I have an odd view that I'll throw out there. I believe that life begins at conception. Once that egg is fertilized, it's an existence. Alright, at that stage it's more like a parasite than a person, but it's still an existence.

That being said, I'm for abortion with the exclusion of voluntary partial-birth abortion. I believe that a woman has the right to do whatever it takes to save her life - and if it means killing a fetus/baby then so be it. However, once the baby can survive outside of the mother's womb, then that's not a fetus anymore, that's a person and that would be murder.

I don't believe the government has the right to determine if abortion is legal or not, just like I don't believe government has any business in sanctioning marriage. It's a personal decision and no government is going to be the one there everyday living with it. The only thing that the government should be ensuring is that the women have safe alternatives (adoption), safe preventive measures (contraceptives) and knowledgeable, experienced doctors that can do the procedure with maximum safety for the woman (regulate the abortion process so that quacks aren't doing it with rusty coat hangers).

To touch on Anticor's original post...I don't believe that abortion with the exception I noted above is murder. Yes, it's a life, but up to a certain point, like someone else said, it's like killing ants in a garden. A woman should always have a choice with what goes on in her body - and that includes if another body can take up residence somewhere in there or not.

[Edaarin]

As a rule, I generally don't discuss abortion (it's worse than talking about religion, yikes), so I'll just slowly back away with the following comment:

Anticor, it's your fault for disagreeing with your wife. The penalty will be buying her something shiny or several tons worth of heavy lifting.

[TheEschaton]

I agree with CT, for the most part. But like everyone notes, the crisis is in the disconnect between what we believe as morally right and being able to support that within society.

Someone mentioned earlier that unless society is willing to change to support unaborted babies, it should be a person's choice. I agree with that - but the moral question is - do you wait until the services are in place, a hypothetical which could happen next year or 100 years from now, and let (what you consider) innocent life to be killed, or do you enforce the rule before the conditions are met and then work to get to those conditions. I happen to believe in the second option, mainly because it then forces the change to happen - the impetus is put in motion.

Being Christian, one of the things I recognize as sacred is life. However, and many Christians forget this, free will (choice), is considered as sacred as well, maybe even to the extent of life - so it's all a giant mess, really.

I wrote a long, extensive livejournal entry once on this issue. You can read it here, I just made it public. I've changed a bit on my stance on whether I believe it should be part of the public forum, but for the most part, I still agree with this:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/theeschaton/

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
To do so now would be selfish not in the childs best interests.

[Edited on 2-7-05 by StrayRogue]

That's funny because my view on abortion is completely the opposite. To kill someone because of an inconvience of your lifestyle it would cause seems to me to be any extremely hanious (sp?) and selfish thing to do.

I don't know what your living conditions are, but chances are if you and your girlfriend are able to provide a comfortable lifestyle for yourself, you would be able to make sacrifices and provide a good life for a kid too.

EDIT: To touch back on the orginal post for Anticor, miscarriages can be called manslaughter sure. But the thing to remember is that a miscarriage is sometimes a horrible tragedy where nature is the criminal or sometimes a henius crime from an individual. Murder (in this analogy) will always be a henius crime against humanity.

The language is strong, but the analogy is simple and very general.

[Edited on 7.2.2005 by Nakiro]

[Sean]

I think we're slipping a little bit away from the original thread intent and back towards is abortion right or wrong. The original question as I beleve it to be is given your stance on abortion what is your stance on miscarriages (IE: should it be considered manslaughter).

[TheEschaton]

Manslaughter is proactive. You must be doing something, have an accident, voluntary or involuntary, and someone has to die as a result.

Miscarriage, by the very fact that it is not proactive (in the majority of cases, that is), but passive, means it cannot be manslaughter - no action was taken, and an action must be present that a person can be conceivably be held accountable for.

Many times, women don't even realize they had a miscarriage - maybe their period is really heavy one month, and they don't realize they've miscarried - you can't call it manslaughter if you A) didn't do anything, let alone anything to cause it, and B) you didn't even know anything happened.

-TheE-

[Kyra]

What if the woman purposely takes concoctions & carries out actions that actively promote a miscarriage?

I have a friend who does such things because she does not use birth control & does not want to become pregnant. <shrug>

Personally I don't think either abortion OR miscarriage(purposely) are a murder.

If it were to happen that my 12 year old daughter were to get raped & become pregnant I'll be damned if I would make her be a mother & any sick f*cker who says an underage rape victim is making a "choice" by having an abortion needs a sledgehammer to the head.(yes I've heard pro-life people who say little kids who are molested SHOULD have the baby no matter what).

I won't touch the fact that an adult should have the right to decide what happens with their body. People who take precautions & they fail shouldn't punish a child by having it in seriously horribly conditions.

K.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Nakiro

Originally posted by StrayRogue
To do so now would be selfish not in the childs best interests.

[Edited on 2-7-05 by StrayRogue]

That's funny because my view on abortion is completely the opposite. To kill someone because of an inconvience of your lifestyle it would cause seems to me to be any extremely hanious (sp?) and selfish thing to do.


Well when I want to have kids I want them to have all the tools and things available to them to have the best possible start in life. I'm talking house, savings, toys, and two parents who are in the correct frame of mind and who WANT to have kids. Anything less is bad for the children, in my opinion.

Theres a growing trend among teenagers today that getting pregnant is cool and such. Which is total bollocks. When I have kids I'll want to have them because A) I think I'll be able to provide enough for them and B) mature enough to have them. Nothing less.

[Killer Kitten]

To stay off topic for just one more post:

Luckily we live in a world that is a marvel of science and technology. Fetal transplantation has become a viable option. With that in mind, women who are anti abortion can now save those lives that are in danger from abortion.

So females can put their money where their mouths are. Volunteer your womb, carry and deliver a baby that would otherwise be aborted. Figure that you can start doing this at 18 years of age, and deliver a child every 10 months. If you do this from age 18 to age 40, that's 25, 26 lives that you personally will save. Of course, having taken responsibility for these lives, you will now be responsible for them. This means sheltering, feeding, clothing and educating them, plus giving them your time, attention and ethical and moral guidance. Tough to do when you've got over 20 of 'em and are never not pregnant, but a small price to pay for saving all those lives.

Until women are willing to do this, perhaps they shouldn't condemn other women who choose not to bear the spawn of their rapist or the lover who fled screaming as soon as he heard Junior was on the way.

As far as men go, until you can bear and deliver children, suffering the physical and economic side effects of reproducing, perhaps you shouldn't weigh in so rabidly on the subject.

Women used to be at the mercy of their reproductive cycles and their sexual partners. Science has changed that and a great many people resent that new freedom. It's uncool to inhibit the freedom of another person, but if you dress it up as 'protecting life' then you can cloud the issue.

Whenever I see somebody calling a woman who chooses to terminate an unwanted pregnancy a 'murderer' all I can ask is how many abandoned and unwanted children they are currently playing parent to. It's really easy to sit back, wrap yourself in the fluffy down robe of righteousness, and take potshots at other people. Much harder to live what you preach, and actually become part of the solution.

To be on topic, most miscarriages occur because the fetus is unviable and incapable of survival. They're nature's way of erasing its errors. When you consider the hundreds of millions of factors that go into making up a healthy living baby the wonder is how often everything comes out right

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
Until women are willing to do this, perhaps they shouldn't condemn other women who choose not to bear the spawn of their rapist or the lover who fled screaming as soon as he heard Junior was on the way. A hypothetical for anyone who espouses the "well you take care of it then!" logic:

You're walking home after a cool movie. Let's say Batman. You're also poor as hell, pulling down $200 a week after taxes. You happen across a man strangling a four year old girl.

Do you try and stop him?

.

For the topic:

Miscarriage is by definition not purposeful. If someone is trying to get a miscarriage or willingly engaging in activities that would cause a miscarriage, then that would be (attempted) abortion.

Manslaughter requires the person to be trying to kill someone else (a third person), trying to injure a person (resulting in death), or being reckless. Indifferently throwing a live grenade out the window and killing some is manslaughter (at least), indifferently throwing a piece of paper into a trashcan that results in a death is not manslaughter.

[Skirmisher]

Your analogy is dependent on everyone agreeing that a zygote is the same as a four year old child.

[Kyra]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
]A hypothetical for anyone who espouses the "well you take care of it then!" logic:

You're walking home after a cool movie. Let's say Batman. You're also poor as hell, pulling down $200 a week after taxes. You happen across a man strangling a four year old girl.

Do you try and stop him?

:wtf:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Your analogy is dependent on everyone agreeing that a zygote is the same as a four year old child. Not exactly the same, no. However, the characteristics shared are enough, in my opinion:

Both a zygote and a 4 year old child are alive.
Neither a zygote nor a 4 year old child are going to survive on their own.
Both a zygote and a 4 year old child require lots of time, effort, and money to care for.
Both an abortion and a strangulation are ways of ending a life.
Neither a mother who is having an abortion nor a man who is strangling a child are interested in raising the child.

I don't see any characteristic that causes the analogy to fail. Perhaps someone can provide one?

[Edaarin]

Umm...

...free will...intelligence...capacity to feel pain...ability to think...you can hear one scream...one isn't visible...

The following is just plain silly.

"Neither a mother who is having an abortion nor a man who is strangling a child are interested in raising the child."

No fucking shit the guy isn't interested, he's killing the fucking thing. The mother may WANT the child, but can't afford it, is being coerced by a boyfriend, or a whole slew of other possibilities. Again, it's also likely she ISN'T interested, but you can't rule out other equally LIKELY scenarios.

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by Edaarin]

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Your analogy is dependent on everyone agreeing that a zygote is the same as a four year old child. Not exactly the same, no. However, the characteristics shared are enough, in my opinion:

Both a zygote and a 4 year old child are alive.
Neither a zygote nor a 4 year old child are going to survive on their own.
Both a zygote and a 4 year old child require lots of time, effort, and money to care for.
Both an abortion and a strangulation are ways of ending a life.
Neither a mother who is having an abortion nor a man who is strangling a child are interested in raising the child.

I don't see any characteristic that causes the analogy to fail. Perhaps someone can provide one?

Obviously using that scale a puppy is a the same as a zygote and a 4 year old child as well.

A puppy is alive
A puppy probably will not survive on it's own
A puppy has a cost in caring for
A puppy can be strangled
and if your strangling a puppy you obviously have no interest in raising it

Yet for some reason .. and I'm going out on a limb here .. I'm going to say a puppy is neither a zygote or a 4 year old child. In other words they aren't the same and the whole purpose of your example is to compare things that are similiar in your mind yet carry enough weight to make the opposition to your point appear like assholes. And if thats the case okay..

Okay your a college student, I'm going to assume you don't have a ton of money. But you make ends meet for yourself. So one day a bum moves in your dorm room while your at work. Obviously such a move is against your will. Do you evict said bum or do you nuture and allow that bum to mature and stay until he's ready to leave on his own at your own cost? Answer however you want but in the end it's irrelevant because a bum and a fetus aren't the same thing neither are zygotes and 4 year old children.

[HarmNone]

>>Manslaughter requires the person to be trying to kill someone else (a third person), trying to injure a person (resulting in death), or being reckless. Indifferently throwing a live grenade out the window and killing some is manslaughter (at least), indifferently throwing a piece of paper into a trashcan that results in a death is not manslaughter.<<

I'm still struggling with that one! :lol:

[CrystalTears]

Ah okay. For a minute there I wasn't understanding the analogy either. Now that you've explained it a bit, it makes more sense, and you have valid points.

I'm not completely anti-abortion. I am pro-life, yes, but I do realize that there are times and reasons where abortion may be necessary. I would never even call a person who's had an abortion a murderer either because that's just evil. However I do wish that people would recognize that an abortion IS the ending of a human life, no matter how sentient it is or isn't.

People want to place an importance on the stages of a person's life to decide when it is okay to free them from living. People don't want to say that life begins at conception because then they have to face the fact that they are killing an extremely young human being, so it's harder to face. But that's all that I want people to accept and realize so that we can move on and find legalities and times for when abortion would be acceptable as a society.

[Edited on 7/2/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Hulkein]

You should've at least said a newborn infant instead of a four-year-old. I think it'd be a little easier to justify that analogy.

[Jazuela]

First, there is voluntary manslaughter, and INvoluntary manslaughter. There is also vehicular homicide, in some states referred to as vehicular manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter is an action that results in the death of someone else, even though you had NO desire to cause harm. Such as - pushing a child out of the way of a man with a gun aimed at the kid - but by pushing, the kid bumps into a desk and is knocked dead by a heavy lamp falling on the kid's skull.

The kid died, he died because you pushed him against the desk, but you had absolutely no intention of harming that kid. In fact, you were trying to save him. But because he died, you get charged with involuntary manslaughter, and would generally be free of all charges.

Vehicular homicide is ANY car accident which results in someone's death. Even if it's the dead guy's fault. If he dies, the other guy gets charged. It's a technicality of the law - paperwork. The charges get dropped pretty much right after they're brought up. It's just something that has to be put into the database. When I had my car accident in 1982 my best friend was driving the moped. He drove it down the wrong way on a 1-way street into a major intersection without stopping. A car, driving within the legal speed limit, was hit by the moped. My best friend died a few days later. I was in the hospital for 2 weeks. The car driver got charged with vehicular homicide, even though it was CLEARLY my best friend's fault that the accident happened. The driver of the car was devestated to learn that my best friend died. I felt horrible for them too, that they'd have to live with knowing that they were directly involved in someone's death - even though they had no control over it and didn't cause it.
The charges were dropped 1 month later, because it was just a formality to charge them with it in the first place.

How this ties in with abortion - it's a devil's advocate arguement, but one that I happen to agree with. I'd even go further:

If you're female, have sex and don't get pregnant, it means your body prevented the egg from being fertilized. It means you murdered all that sperm, for nothing but your own selfish pleasure. And therefore - you should be just as guilty of murder as a woman who has an abortion. If you're a man who wears a condom - it means you are -intentionally- attempting to murder all those living sperm. MURDERER! You should go to jail too, damnit. The sperm is living, it's got a nucleus, and reflexes! Imagine the agony each of those microscopic little squiggle-worms go through whenever they are destroyed, laying in their little drying puddle, screaming for life!

Animals, all o'yas.

But really - it's just a devil's advocate approach. It's also why I am pro-choice. I don't feel it's my place to judge any female who feels it necessary to terminate a pregnancy, no matter what their reason. I especially don't feel it's my place to judge a minor child who gets pregnant as a result of rape, whose parents choose not to force their daughter to endure pregnancy and birth, and the psychological damage that comes with it, and after it.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Jazuela
If you're female, have sex and don't get pregnant, it means your body prevented the egg from being fertilized. It means you murdered all that sperm, for nothing but your own selfish pleasure. And therefore - you should be just as guilty of murder as a woman who has an abortion. If you're a man who wears a condom - it means you are -intentionally- attempting to murder all those living sperm. MURDERER! You should go to jail too, damnit. The sperm is living, it's got a nucleus, and reflexes! Imagine the agony each of those microscopic little squiggle-worms go through whenever they are destroyed, laying in their little drying puddle, screaming for life!

Uh, no.

Not anyone that I've ever heard of has anything against the death of unfertilized sex cells.

You basically just made up a strange argument, acting as if those who are pro-life feel that way, and dismissed it.

Look up the word conception, then you'll be on the same speed everyone else is.

[CrystalTears]

Sorry but introducing the concept of destrying UNfertilized eggs and sperm as a bad is just reaching as far as I'm concerned. I don't care what you do with your sperm and eggs. Once they join and life begins, that's when I take issue.

[Jazuela]

Hulkein, CT, it was a joke. Not even my joke. Blame it on Monty Python. Specifically, the song "Every sperm is sacred." They came up with the idea, not me. I just exploited it for the sake of bringing in the devil's advocate arguement, which is the initial topic of this thread.

Personally I don't care what happens to unfertilized eggs, or to "disconnected" sperm. But there have been court cases in which unfertilized, but fertile, eggs, have been "held hostage" by parties who want to fertilize them and have to sue people to succeed. So it isn't quite as much a devil's advocate arguement as one might think.

The same goes for the sperm collected and stored by a man who dies, and the widow decides she wants the sperm to have a baby anyway - but the Estate is looked after by the man's blood relatives and they want the sperm destroyed.

There's a big arguement on both sides - destroying sperm, thus intentionally preventing a woman from having a baby by her (now-dead) husband - or the right of the blood relatives to allow the man to rest in peace, sperm and all.

And vice versa for the egg in the egg bank. Who has the "right" to a dead person's DNA and genes? The whole abortion arguement goes WAY beyond merely terminating pregnancy, now that we have the technology to allow people to get pregnant - or prevent pregnancy - using modern genetic technology.

[CrystalTears]

I would have taken it as a joke had it not already been brought up once before, and is used as a counterargument so often, so I kinda take offense to it sometimes. No problem. :)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Edaarin
...free will...intelligence...capacity to feel pain...ability to think...you can hear one scream...one isn't visible...Free will is equally unprovable for everyone, so I can't give you that. Many people are dumb, many people are mute, and many people are unable to feel pain. I don't believe either of these is grounds to dismiss people from humanity, and I'm curious as to why you do. Thinking definitely falls in the same category as free will. I can give you visibility, but I don't see how that makes someone inhuman.

I didn't say that there were no characteristics that were different (in fact, I said the exact opposite by saying they weren't the same). That being said, I don't find any important characteristic that we can reasonably talk about that seperates the two. I don't know if zygotes have free will. I don't know if you or I have free will either.
No fucking shit the guy isn't interested, he's killing the fucking thing. The mother may WANT the child, but can't afford it, is being coerced by a boyfriend, or a whole slew of other possibilities. Again, it's also likely she ISN'T interested, but you can't rule out other equally LIKELY scenarios.What makes you think the guy isn't the girl's father, and isn't affected by any of the possibilities you listed? As an aside: when I say she's not interested, I don't mean to say she's totally indifferent to her child. I mean to say that when her attitude is taken in sum, she is more interested in getting an abortion than having the child, for whatever reason. Otherwise, she wouldn't be getting one.
Originally posted by Tijay
Obviously using that scale a puppy is a the same as a zygote and a 4 year old child as well.As I thought I had clearly said, "Not exactly the same, no." Puppies are not human, while zygotes are, and humanity is a very big factor in what is ok to kill.
In other words they aren't the same and the whole purpose of your example is to compare things that are similiar in your mind yet carry enough weight to make the opposition to your point appear like assholes.Why do people think I'm out to get them? :( All I'm doing is applying the logic used by people to other examples to show the flaws in the logic. I don't have some kind of scoreboard in Excel I update after every post.
Answer however you want but in the end it's irrelevant because a bum and a fetus aren't the same thing neither are zygotes and 4 year old children.Again, I didn't say they were the same. :shrug:
Originally posted by HarmNone
I'm still struggling with that one!Maybe this link will help: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap952.htm#Sec53a-55.htm

You can pretty much skip all the red stuff. The laws are in black. Sec 56b is the last manslaughter one. :)

I could have said infant, yes. Either makes sense to me.

[Sean]

My issue isn't that you are out to get me it's that you happen to be comparing apples in oranges. Yes they both can be considered fruit but when you get down to it apples are not oranges and all things that apply to apples to not apply to oranges. For the sake of discussing abortion or miscarriages 4 year old children are not zygotes. They both might fall under your concept of what it it means to be human but all things that apply to zygotes do no apply to 4 year old children and vice versa.

[SayGoodbye]

Originally posted by DeV
I just think having a child is a huge personal and lifetime responsibility and it's not up to me, personally to tell any woman she is required to have or not have a baby because of my personal or "religious" beliefs.

Mentally, physically, and growing up religiously I am anti-abortion for myself. I would never have one, it would never even be a fleeting thought. However, I am completly pro-choice as I feel I can't speak for the experiences of millions of other women around the world when it comes to pregnancy and child-birth, and their reasons for even suggesting the thought. Partial-birth abortions go without saying.

I think that this was extremely well written and that Dev summed up my opinion thoroughly.

Given that, In my opinion, yes it is just as ridiculous saying abortion is murder as miscarriage is manslaughter.

[Warriorbird]

"Puppies are not human, while zygotes are, and humanity is a very big factor in what is ok to kill."

That's the core of it...many people do not consider a zygote human... and off topic.

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Hulkein]

I don't see how people can consider something in the womb anything but human when it will eventually become a screaming and breathing baby, so long as it is left undisturbed.

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by Hulkein]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
That's the core of it...many people do not consider a zygote human... and off topic.


Thus why there is a problem.

What is there to consider? A human egg getting fertilized by a human sperm.. the life cycle begins. Children textbooks state this.

Why is it that when it comes to "choice" now it's no longer a life?

[Warriorbird]

All irrelevant to the question asked.

[Hulkein]

The thread progressed, that happens.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
All irrelevant to the question asked.

It's not, actually. The thread started arguing murder being abortion and manslaughter for miscarriages.

Unless you discuss when life begins, you can't evaluate whether it's a murder or manslaughter in the first place. A human being needs to be present for a murder or manslaughter to even be considered.

I believe that figuring out when life starts to begin with is very relevant to the topic presented.

[Edited on 7/2/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Edaarin]

We can sit here all day and dream up scenarios that are possible, but not likely.

The simple fact of the matter is that the my examples apply to the VAST majority of (fully grown) people, but not to a bundle of less than 4 cells.

[HarmNone]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Originally posted by HarmNone
I'm still struggling with that one!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe this link will help: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap952.htm#Sec53a-55.htm

You can pretty much skip all the red stuff. The laws are in black. Sec 56b is the last manslaughter one. <<

Heh. I understand the law fairly well, Latrinsorm. That wasn't what I was struggling with.

>>Indifferently throwing a live grenade out the window and killing some is manslaughter (at least), indifferently throwing a piece of paper into a trashcan that results in a death is not manslaughter.<<

THAT is what I was struggling with. First of all, how is throwing a piece of paper into a trashcan going to cause a death? A reach of that magnitude throws the entire analogy out the window.

Or, is it the trashcan that's going to cause a death? That participle done dangled itself to death. :lol:

In short, you would have done better to simply quote the law and leave it at that.

[Jazuela]

Just to toss another devil in this advocate <grin> :

Okay so we have some woman who gets pregnant. She doesn't want the kid, but at the time, abortion is illegal. Or maybe she's only 15 and her parents force her to have the baby against her will.

Then the kid grows up and it turns out it's Charles Manson.

Does the biological mother have the right, then, to say, "I TOLD YOU I DIDN"T WANT THIS KID DAMNIT!"

What about Hitler? Or Stalin? Or <insert name of your favorite psychopathic serial killer here>?

Remember, all these people murdered countless other people..and these murders would've been prevented if only their mothers a) didn't get pregnant, or b) having gotten pregnant, terminated the pregnancy.

The life of one psychopathic serial killer is more valueable than the lives of all the people he murdered?

My point, is that you have no way of knowing what you'll end up with just because you choose not to have an abortion. But it's currently your CHOICE...

if that choice was taken from you, and the life you are forced to bring into the world turns out to be an abomination, who will take responsibility for it then? Who will have to live, knowing that they gave birth to this abomination, against their will?

Saying "it's a life, and therefore it is valueable" is pure horsepucky. Not all babies grow up to be valueable adults. To assume otherwise, just for the sake of arguement, is a logical fallacy.

[ElanthianSiren]

Heck no, it's not manslaughter, and abortion isn't homocide.

Whether or not you personally would choose to have an abortion is currently your choice, and I don't think any other person has the business of choosing that for a woman, especially not a man (or collection of men). I personally would not if by my own carelessness; I'd sooner die, but I can't speak for every other woman, and I don't try to.

Also, I don't think life begins at conception, but others have already fought this argument 800000000 times in the past. We're just rehashing it over and over again with the same incompatable analogies.

Finally, if abortion was determined to be criminal again, I hope lawmakers themselves would be set to drop that abstinence education, which has been proven not to work, and pass out lots and lots of condoms; they should further implant those kids in themselves and raise them themselves if it's that important to them. It isn't to me if some chick wants to chuck it down the pan.

-M

[Jolena]

Well, having had to make the decision of whether to abort or not with my last child, I have a few opinions on this topic.

I do feel that abortion is taking a human life. I also feel that life starts AT CONCEPTION. That does not however, change my feelings on abortion. I am pro-choice 100%. I don't like that many women and even teenagers use abortion as a form of birth control simply because they are not willing to either A) stop having sex or B) get on birth control.

I kind of like to follow the theory of "burn me once shame on you, burn me twice, shame on me" when it comes to this subject. If you screw up and get an abortion then okay, everyone messes up. If you do it again out of sheer laziness or just a lack of desire to not have sex so you don't get pregnant, then you are a louse. IMO.

That being said, since I do consider abortion taking a human life, I still wouldn't call them a murderer. I just think the word is too harsh to use in this subject. And no, I do not consider miscariage manslaughter, UNLESS it is something similar to the hispanic couple that stomped on her stomach purposely to abort the child.

The problem is that there are all kinds of reasons that people get abortions. You can't lump everyone in the same basket no matter how you look at it. In my personal case, my youngest child failed a very important blood test given to all mothers when they are carrying. The blood test checked for things such as spina bifida. The results in my case were very very high, so high in fact that it was off the charts of measurement. I had to make a decision if I was going to abort the child during my 4th month of pregnancy or let it develop and possibly (most likely) have a child with any # of physical and mental deformities who would be dependant upon me for the rest of his natural life.

Someone earlier said that women don't seem to think or understand that they are in fact killing a life when they abort their child. I say BULLSHIT to that statement. We know it's a life. Trust me, we know that the thing we are about to do is killing something that has derived from our very bodies and that we personally are making the decision to end that little human being before it even has a chance to develop. If someone, man or woman, can stand there and say that we don't.. well then it's very obvious to THIS mom that the person saying it has never had a child, either given birth or fathered one. Because if they had, they would know, it's impossible to be pregnant and not experience the realization that there is a living human being forming inside of your body.

Just my 2 cents.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
First of all, how is throwing a piece of paper into a trashcan going to cause a death?That's my point, doing something that a reasonable person couldn't possibly conceive of causing a death is not manslaughter. A woman eating an apple that causes her to have a miscarriage is not guilty of manslaughter, whereas a woman purposefully eating toxic waste or something would be.
Originally posted by Jazuela
Does the biological mother have the right, then, to say, "I TOLD YOU I DIDN"T WANT THIS KID DAMNIT!" I reckon that would fall under that first amendment thing.

Now, nobody just "turns out" to be a genocidal madman(person?). The responsibility lies with those who raised him or her, those who allowed him or her to come to power, and (most importantly) the responsibility lies with him or her.

More to the issue, the consequences of an act are not how the morality of an act is determined. If it was that way, this discussion would not occur because there would be no differentiation between murder and manslaughter.

Finally, there is no reliable method of determining where a person will lie on the line between Gandhi and Stalin. This is why police are generally reactive. We cannot reasonably expect a person to know how their child will end up, so we cannot put the blame solely on a parent who has raised their child to the best of their ability.

[GSLeloo]

Didn't a man not too long ago get charged with either murder or manslaughter for helping his pregnant girlfriend abort the baby? (I think he punched her in the stomach or something but she was wanting him to do it)

[Jolena]

Yes, he did. The mother did not as there are laws preventing that from happening.

[4a6c1]

*stands ten feet away from this thread and pokes it with a pointy stick*

IS IT DED YET?!

o-0
O

[Kyra]

Originally posted by JihnasSpirit
*stands ten feet away from this thread and pokes it with a pointy stick*

IS IT DED YET?!

o-0
O

:yeahthat: :deadhorse:

[Delirium]

My point, is that you have no way of knowing what you'll end up with just because you choose not to have an abortion. But it's currently your CHOICE...

You can reverse the equation as well. Lets say said kid cures cancer and aids in his lifetime. All the ones who wanted to kill that particular fetus then, should they and their families not be allowed to be cured? Should the ones advocating his death forever feel like Satan as millions will die because of their decision?

I think that whole argument is ridiculous. The kid *might* turn into a psychopath. Heck with that, why let any kid be born as anyone could give birth to a human atrocity.

To the main question of the thread is i dont think anyone actually believes abortion is truly murder(cept maybe those few who bomb the places and they are whacked). They might claim they do but they really dont. If they believed it 100% true then morally most humans would do something about it. If i saw a man strangling a 4 year old boy, you bet your ass id attempt to physically stop him. Same with the death penalty, i dont think people really believe it is murder either. It is state sponsered killing, yep it is but it is not murder deep down. There is a difference between killing and murder.