Do You Believe That Abortion is Morally The Same As Murder?
Do you believe that an abortion is morally the same as killing someone? If you do believe abortion is murder would you make an exception in any case?
Yes
Side Score: 11
|
 |
No
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
|
Of course abortion is murder .... anyone who purposely ceases the life of a fertilized egg has taken the life of a Human Being ...... When does science say Human Life begins ? http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/ Side: Yes
1
point
Yes, though only in the sense that any moral judgement assigned to either is to me rather meaningless. Some would find it morally equitable and others would not, and all of them are projecting a subjective value judgement onto the matter which is at best unnecessary and at worst utterly detached from actual reality. Side: Yes
1
point
Morally, many people on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate do not view a fetus as a living human being. As such, a majority of people who are having abortions are not consciously making the choice, in their minds, to 'murder' another a human, which differs from the general definition of murder. Side: No
|
3
points
When someone is killed, it is true that you are ending their life and any potential they may have had. However, everyone is bound to die eventually. With a fetus who has not even developed conscious thought, you are taking the potential away from something that generally lacks the capacity to understand that it has potential. The actual perception of loss, as far as the fetus is concerned, is nil. Contrast that to killing a developed individual- you are ending the life of someone who most likely had goals and dreams that they wanted to accomplish. The perception of loss, as far as the developed victim is concerned, is far greater because of this- the two can't even really be compared. But even then, that perception of loss would generally be short-lived, if the victim even had the chance to experience it at all. The real victims, when somebody is killed, are those that are left behind, who now have a hole in their lives shaped like the person who was lost. Those who have relationships (whether romantic, familial, friendship, or even business) with the victim are all affected by the loss of the individual. An unborn fetus has not had any kind of relationship with anybody. The only possible exceptions to that is the mother, really. Everyone else, even the father of the fetus, does not have any real connection with it- only the idea of what its potential represents. And in the case of abortion, the mother has already made the decision to end the developing life; it's not even comparable to having someone close to you ripped away. While I'm pro-choice, I don't like the idea of abortion. I understand that may seem like a hypocritical position of sorts, but I don't believe it to be. One can, I believe, support an individuals right to do something, even if one does not support the actual action in question. But that said, even if abortion is held to be morally wrong, it simply cannot be on the same level as murder. The scope of those affected by an abortion is in no way comparable to the scope of those affected by a murder. Side: No
The perception of loss, as far as the developed victim is concerned... The truth is that babies don't develop and sense of self until about 9 months, maybe a little before. On this basis alone, it is very difficult to argue that abortion is okay but infanticide isn't. The real victims, when somebody is killed, are those that are left behind I agree, but sometimes other family members are affected. My mother aborted when I was 8 years old. I knew she was pregnant and I saw the abortion as my fault (she told me she was going to abort and at the time, and until fairly recently, I believed that she had given be the choice). It caused significant psychological issues. My case is unusual but I imagine that a father could have similar feelings that I did. Side: No
1
point
The truth is that babies don't develop and sense of self until about 9 months, maybe a little before. On this basis alone, it is very difficult to argue that abortion is okay but infanticide isn't. It can be as long as 18 months after birth in some cases; I agree with you here. That is why I don't use this basis alone, and also why I prefer to draw the line at the end of the first trimester- objectively, during the second trimester the nervous system develops to the point where pain and the most primal form of fear can be experienced. For both objective and subjective reasons, I consider the concept of 'self' to be a poor metric for legislation in this arena. I agree, but sometimes other family members are affected. My mother aborted when I was 8 years old. I knew she was pregnant and I saw the abortion as my fault (she told me she was going to abort and at the time, and until fairly recently, I believed that she had given be the choice). It caused significant psychological issues. My case is unusual but I imagine that a father could have similar feelings that I did. I don't doubt that in the slightest- but that is still significantly less of a trauma than having a loved one murdered. My point was not to state that there is no effect on others from an abortion, but rather that the effect is in no way comparable to the affect of murder. I maintain my original stance; even if abortion is assumed to be immoral in and of itself, it is in no way comparable to murder in its effects, even if both involve the termination of a life. Side: Yes
1
point
No. A fetus, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't have any connections to anybody other than the parents. Not to mention how it also doesn't even develop emotions and stuff until at least a couple weeks into the pregnancy. Sources: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/ http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy- Side: No
1
point
First: Murder isn't just killing, it is a legal term. By definition, abortion is not murder anywhere that it is legal. So to make your question navigable, we ask "Is abortion morally the same as killing?" Now we can have this discussion. (the following is based on my personal understandings of morality, and my beliefs on the subject do not appear to be common at all...) When measuring the morality of an action, I feel it isn't always useful to assign an absolute value to the category of action. I think it is far more effective to look at the probable outcome of the situation if that action is applied. Ethical philosophy is full of questions like "Is it ethical for this man to steal if it is the only way to save his child/wife's life?" or "Is it moral to kill one man to save ten?" If you treat "morality" as "contributing to the stability of society regardless of personal gain", then we have the option of "solving for morality" because we actually have definable equations to work. Or, if math isn't your thing, you can still figure it out logically if your aim is maximizing societal stability. Killing is considered wrong in the selection of cases that legitimately qualify as "murder", because if left unchecked, many people would die needlessly and everyone would have to be constantly watching their backs which could reduce their contribution to society. But if you kill for a specific reason that preserves or adds stability, this isn't usually considered murder. This is why killing enemy troops in war time, killing an armed suspect to stop a hostage crisis, or killing to preserve your life or those of another are typically deemed "unfortunate but acceptable" by the majority, at least in the US. I argue that abortions are such complicated issues that properly assessing the outcome can be very difficult. But if someone strongly feels that carrying her baby to term would significantly lower her contribution to society, and by proxy, limit the development of her child, then I could argue that it would be moral, at least as far as she can know, to have the abortion. Conversely, if she is just using it as after the fact birth control and has no intention of taking responsibility for herself, that might seem immoral. Until you realize that this person is not somebody who should be reproducing at this moment anyway. So, perhaps in the most abstract sense, you could say they are similar because in both cases it depends on the situation, but I would argue that abortion is usually easier to justify than killing a fully independent organism. Side: No
2
points
The word choice is not synonymous to the word abortion. To be pro-choice means that you think that the option of abortion should be available to potential mothers so that they may, if they wish, choose to abort the baby. Many members of the pro-choice side are anti-abortion but accept that even if abortions are illegal, they will continue, only in situations that are illegal and unsafe. By legalizing abortion, even if they are personally against it, they can make it safer for mothers who would be at greater risk if abortions were illegal. Side: No
1
point
If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose.
If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America. Side: No
|
