Abortion
 

Hello everyone,
Ok so I have been debating hurr hurr to create this thread for a while now, I had a whole concept to create teams, have a host and a panel but it was too convoluted and I doubted peoples interest. I have noticed we haven't had a proper debate for a while and sometimes the OW debates can get a little heated albeit interesting. Also, I need to start practising debating and until I find a club or something (all for my future line of work) I thought might as well create a thread here. I think that rather than having a single debate and then closing the thread, we can let the thread evolve as it progresses, reaching a conclusion and then continuing along the new debate than naturally forms from the tail of it's predecessor. So I suppose we need to establish sound ground rules (that is if anyone is interested in holding a debate) to keep this place from erupting into civil war.

+ Try to back up your argument with evidence
+ While I hate to admit, generally science takes precedence over religion
+ No abuse throwing about religion and peoples beliefs, try to keep talk about religion to a minimum
+ Be intelligent, no one liners.

Ok, it's now or never: Let's start with something of a political nature rather than philosophical, just to get the ball rolling.

Abortion: Is it murder of the unborn?

I would like to propose that in fact, the above statement is partially true and that pro-abortion laws are to relaxed. Certainly in the UK where you can be up to 24 weeks pregnant before you are no longer allowed to abort. We know that in 15 weeks alone, a foetus has almost 100% sensitivity to touch and is aware of its surroundings by 6 weeks. Is this not at least the level of an animal? Should women be allowed to kill their babies? I think only in extreme circumstances such as rape.

Abortion is murder. Justification is on a personal level and should start with acceptance, not self delusion.

So, I'm pro-choice and anti-selfishness.

We should start by making sure that our terminology is straight and that we know what it is that each person is talking about. Let's not have any more "if a tree falls in the forest" crap.

First of all, murder is a legal term. Whether or not abortion should be deemed murder by law is one question. The morality of abortion and in which circumstances is another. Whether and when a foetus becomes human/gains "personhood" etc is yet another.

If we aren't clear about what we are discussing, then this will merely be a dispute over categorisation masquerading as one about abortion.

Well yes, abortion is by definition the murder of the unborn. However I think you were going for the 'Is abortion murder' discussion, in which case we'd have to have a debate on the definition of murder first.

Abortions are illegal in Northern Ireland and I wonder why? I mean, I know it isn't right to take the life of a child; unborn or not, but sometimes is it not the better option considering the life the child might be brought into?

I'm torn in the subject, whilst I dislike the idea of someone 'killing' their fetus child I wouldn't harbor negative feelings to them. What would that make me?

I feel disgusted by the thought of abortion generally and I would persuade someone not to undergo it for religious and ethical reasons. (But as stated, I'm going to try not to discuss the religious ones,) there was a slut in a school near mine who had three abortions and is finally keeping the child. I believe she is 16 now. And while the child will be brought up probably in a poor life, I still think abortion should not be granted. She should know better than to keep having unprotected sex. Perhaps that's another point, are you still killing the baby if you have a condom/ take the pill. Despite what I'm supposed to believe (again, a religious reason there's no need to discuss) condoms stop cells from becoming humans. A cell is barely intelligent.

Is anybody going to take me up on my request? Surely we can see it's wise. If one person insists that murder is a legal term and someone else insists that it is when a human kills another human, then we're going to go around in circles all day long and eventually turn to the fucking dictionary, as if dictionary editors can legislate on language and thus morality.

Murder is the unlawful killing of someone/thing else. That's the way I'm looking at this anyways, abortions aren't really murder.

The idea is to reach an agreement on definitions so that we can find out what the differences of opinion actually are.

No, I think murder is just another term for killing someone. So long as it is intentional BM. So long as they know they are aborting a child, they are murdering it.

All right. No one is disputing that murder requires killing someone, or indeed that a living organism is necessarily killed during an abortion. You may need to adjust that definition slightly, or all soldiers are murderers too.

The next step is to establish what counts as human, a human being, a child, or a person. These are seperate questions, but rather necessary if we're going to get to the core of it.

Actually, I've always understood it as the unlawful killing of someone else. Whatever that means. That part made more sense before you speedy shits came along and posted while I was typing.

I don't think it's too bad. If the person doesn't want or can't have the baby (for money or travel reasons), then either the child will be disadvantaged or put up for adoption, thereby disadvantaging it.

STM, the "wearing a condom is murder" argument is to do with killing a potential child, not killing cells. Fucking thousands of sperm die while attempting fertilisation.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Is the child a punishment for having unprotected sex?

No, no of course not, that isn't fair on the child. I just think that now she must face the consequences of her stupid actions.

@BM - I would say sentience or at least, partial sentience if that makes sense. I alreadt stated the a foetus can 'feel' from 6 weeks.

So you mean that she should be punished.

¬_¬ If you can't find and argument that isn't petty you're not trying hard enough. What my view on this instance is doesn't effect the 'abortion is murder' debate at hand.

I can find arguments that aren't petty, it's just that I chose not to when you're being stupid.

I can't really be bothered to argue my point, but here's some food for thought: Overpopulation is becoming a major problem. We're facing a food and energy crises. Surely it's better for unwanted children not to be born? Shouldn't we drastically reduce how much we're breeding anyway?

Also there's the issue of unwanted children not being looked after properly because of being unwanted. Quality of life should be more important than simply being alive - It's not fair on a child to be born when it definitely isn't going to have a good quality of life.

I'm mostly stupid. Now can we get back on topic.

EDIT: @DH - The population is manageable, the Chinese tactic of 1 child per family works but obviously is socially and politically unacceptable, in thirty years, China's population will begin to decrease. Abortion is not the answer because it would take many millions of dead babies. I suggest you wear a condom to stop a baby from even being started if you want to save the World over population problem.

I can only speculate as to how much more acute the philosophical question of whether others genuinely "feel" (p-zombies) becomes when discussing unborn and unfinished organisms. Though you may find that there is no argument from sentience against abortion that is not equally effective as an argument for vegetarianism.

I also point out that embryonic and foetal development is very gradual. One cannot distinguish a foetus of five weeks six days from a foetus of six weeks. Nor indeed a foetus that has almost finished growing a nervous system from one that just has. I wonder if one could even identify that point.

I am interested in how you decided that sentience should be the deciding point, regardless of whether that point can be identified (you may also wish to clarify what you mean by sentience here), as opposed to, say, the first heartbeat, the completion of the notochord, the first brainwave, or the absorption of the tail.

Ok, this is where my knowledge of biology reaches it's limit. I assumed that the heart began beating later than sentience was achieved, for sentience to occur, a brainwave must be sent and the absorption of the tail is a 'cosmetic' development so I assume it hasn't much to do with terminating a foetus.

A newborn child meets the criteria for being a human being, despite the fact that it can't walk, talk or does it have proper control of it's bowels. But a fetus, which would be the discussion at hand, is going to be a bit more difficult to decide.

Depends on what way you look at human to begin with. Using human as a noun is saying that:
Adjective:
A fetus isn't a member of Homo Sapiens because it isn't self-aware, it cannot make decisions for itself. That is what I believe anyways, a fetus is not human until it has the basic functions of the brain down.

EDIT: Bastards.

But Ridg not even a baby is self aware for a while.

Does a baby have the basic functions of the brain down?

Regardless of definitions of murder and human being, I think that, especially on a planet as overpopulated as ours, someone should be able to decide for themselves if they want to keep the baby they are carrying. Not in any scenario I can come up with would the abortion hurt anyone, including the fetus since that isn't even self-aware yet. And in my book something is fine as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Is it morally okay? Well this is where we hit a snag, because that would depend on your morals. Religious people are, almost by definition, all raised with the same morals that human life is sacred and should be protected at all cost. Those of us who realize that we're approaching 7 billion people on 1 planet and could actually do with a few million less of us would weigh the long term options. If human life is sacred and we're slowly killing the planet, and thus ourselves, by constantly reproducing, would it not be morally right to have an abortion as it protects the greater human populace on the planet in the long run?

And besides all that, should it not be a case by case decision? In the case of the idiot 16 year old slut in the example I'd say the first abortion is acceptable, but after that you give the bitch some sex ed, a box of condoms and an anti conception pill. She gets pregnant a second time? Sure, fine, abort it again. You wouldn't want a 16 year old raising a child anyway, that's asking for trouble. But this time we don't only take the child, but also the bitch's uterus. Problem solved.

But what if someone is raped and is now pregnant from the rapist? Should that person be keeping the product of the most horrible even of her life? Even from a morality standpoint you would find it morally okay to let someone go trough 9 months of hell, delivery and raising a child they didn't even want, thus completely mentally draining that person to the last drop. All that is worth one human life? Not in my book, it isn't.

It does, but so has a chimp, and a dog. None can be defined by the capabilities of their most basic brain functions.

I had hoped that we'd be rushing to the dictionary a little later than we are now. The dictionary cannot help us, and you are going to find defining a human being harder than this.


@Havoc
Get into the spirit of this particular discussion, this is now Debate 2.0

We'll get to justifications a little later on.

Blah blah blah fetus is not a human being YET

It will become a human in the future. It's murder. Murder defined as killing a human being. You are killing a human being.

Murder is defined as unlawful killing of a human being.

Are you suggesting that all soldiers are murderers? What about people killing in self defence?

Okay so lets not call this murder. Lets call this killing.

I'm not saying abortion isn't justifiable, because I think in some cases it is otherwise I wouldn't be pro-choice. I think people need to accept that they are killing something that could become like them, and not hide behind scientific rhetoric.

Actually, it's either linguistic or legal rhetoric, really. The scientific side is secondary in this instance.

I think that it should be an option for the woman to take if she feels it necessary. There are very few women that would have an abortion willy-nilly.

The legal rhetoric uses science to back itself up. It's all the same.