Is Abortion Torture?

[nate895]

See she did have a choice. Abortion is not a governmetn issue. It would seem such but there will always be a conflict of interest. It's a waste of time and resources. And will not accomplish anything other than new criminals for us to pay for.

However, by the same token I have the choice to go across the street and kill my neighbor. Will I? No, that is immoral. That doesn't mean he should thank me every block party for the favor of not killing him. This isn't about government interfering in people's lives; it is about who qualifies for natural rights to life, liberty, and property. I think you are conceived with them, now if you want to argue otherwise, go right ahead.

 

[Bman]

However, by the same token I have the choice to go across the street and kill my neighbor. Will I? No, that is immoral. That doesn't mean he should thank me every block party for the favor of not killing him. Furthermore, I'll probably end up on death row. This isn't about government interfering in people's lives; it is about who qualifies for natural rights to life, liberty, and property. I think you are conceived with them, now if you want to argue otherwise, go right ahead.

Well it is were we differ. To me until you can live outside of the womb you have no rights. As such I do oppose late term abortions. But for the first few months I side with the womans decision.

 

[Meatwasp]

We all draw lines. Should masturbation be a criminal offense? Isn't sperm a potential human life form?

What about killing. It is necassary to eat meat. Should it be aright for us to kill for food? And if it is should abortions be allowed if we eat dead fetus's?

Hey I wonder how you would taste being boiled in a pot with onions, potatoes and garlic? It's just a body who cares?

 

[Bman]

Hey I wonder how you would taste being boiled in a pot with onions, potatoes and garlic? It's just a body who cares?

Sounds yummy.

I'm just saying we have to decide where it makes sense to fight against the lines that exist in society. I see many more constructive areas to pursue for dwindling the amount of abortions than an all or nothing approach of trying to make it illegal.

 

[dr. hfn]

heres what i tink:

if i was woman, i'd never get abortion
i don't like or agree with abortion....murder
however, regulating something so personal has never and i don't tink will ever work
if made illegal, then it goes underground like drugs and prohibition


...thoughts?

 

[nate895]

Well it is were we differ. To me until you can live outside of the womb you have no rights. As such I do oppose late term abortions. But for the first few months I side with the womans decision.

No child can live outside the womb when they are born, they are still entirely dependent on others for their care. Furthermore, with modern medicine, premature babies are surviving earlier and earlier.

The reason why I think life should be protected from conception is because the fetus has become separate being with its own DNA and traits. It is human in every detail but the fact it is dependent on its mother for everything.

 

[nate895]

heres what i tink:

if i was woman, i'd never get abortion
i don't like or agree with abortion....murder
however, regulating something so personal has never and i don't tink will ever work
if made illegal, then it goes underground like drugs and prohibition


...thoughts?

Whether laws work or not is not a good reason to prohibit or allow certain activity. The laws against murder are violated several thousand times a year, that doesn't mean we should legalize murder.

 

[ChaosControl]

I guess it depends how you define torture.
If it is, then many other cases of murder are torture too.

I don't really think it is torture though, but I wouldn't complain if it were defined as such one day.

 

[Gary]

Attention: biology lesson here folks:

Sperms and eggs contain half the DNA of a person. Neither a sperm nor an egg are a "potential person", but rather specialized cells. While both are living cells, neither of them are living organisms. Neither is capable of self-reproduction at a cellular level nor reproducing new organisms.

Once a sperm and egg come together, the new entity (known medically as a zygote) has a full complement of DNA, is capable of cellular division and more importantly can grown and will eventually become a fetus and then a baby, a teenager and an adult. At the point of conception, the fertilized egg becomes a unique member of the human species.

All of the above is undisputed scientific fact.

So now the question becomes one of rights. Does the the principle of self-ownership apply to unborn humans? If there is any doubt about whether this human has a "spirit" should we error on the side of protecting life or killing it?

Just because a fetus is not visible to me does not change the objective reality that he or she is member of the human species. While the death of a fetus may not feel as important to you as the death of an adult you know or might read about on the news, the objective reality in either case is that a human dies. Why should the humans we see be more protected than the ones we don't see?

The measure of a culture is how it protects it's most vulnerable members.

If a culture can promote the killing of completely innocent unborn children, then there is really nothing left that won't eventually be done.

It is no coincidence that the legalization of abortion has preceded many of the other social ills we face today.

 

[Bman]

No child can live outside the womb when they are born, they are still entirely dependent on others for their care. Furthermore, with modern medicine, premature babies are surviving earlier and earlier.

The reason why I think life should be protected from conception is because the fetus has become separate being with its own DNA and traits. It is human in every detail but the fact it is dependent on its mother for everything.

Let me rephrase.

When the child can live without an umbilical cord. No science. Pure nature.

I have no problem with anyone being against abortions. I have a problem with how people want to deal with people who get abortions.

While it is quite acceptable to call an abortion murder, the person who has the abortion, or typically gives it is not an endangerment to their neighbor. I just have a hard time thinking criminal punishment is the best option for reducing abortions. I say reducing because such an act will never be eliminated.

 

[Meatwasp]

Attention: biology lesson here folks:

Sperms and eggs contain half the DNA of a person. Neither a sperm nor an egg are a "potential person", but rather specialized cells. While both are living cells, neither of them are living organisms. Neither is capable of self-reproduction at a cellular level nor reproducing new organisms.

Once a sperm and egg come together, the new entity (known medically as a zygote) has a full complement of DNA, is capable of cellular division and more importantly can grown and will eventually become a fetus and then a baby, a teenager and an adult. At the point of conception, the fertilized egg becomes a unique member of the human species.

All of the above is undisputed scientific fact.

So now the question becomes one of rights. Does the the principle of self-ownership apply to unborn humans? If there is any doubt about whether this human has a "spirit" should we error on the side of protecting life or killing it?

Just because a fetus is not visible to me does not change the objective reality that he or she is member of the human species. While the death of a fetus may not feel as important to you as the death of an adult you know or might read about on the news, the objective reality in either case is that a human dies. Why should the humans we see be more protected than the ones we don't see?

The measure of a culture is how it protects it's most vulnerable members.

If a culture can promote the killing of completely innocent unborn children, then there is really nothing left that won't eventually be done.

It is no coincidence that the legalization of abortion has preceded many of the other social ills we face today.

very good points

 

[Bman]

The measure of a culture is how it protects it's most vulnerable members.

So it doesn't matter how you treat the vulnerable so long as they cannot be considered the most vulnerable? I'd imagine a grown adult surrounded by lava is just as vulnerable as a fetus.

If a culture can promote the killing of completely innocent unborn children, then there is really nothing left that won't eventually be done.

All of it will eventually be done. The idea is not to rule over your neighbor, but protect yourself from them.

It is no coincidence that the legalization of abortion has preceded many of the other social ills we face today.

I'd certainly like to know what you are getting at here. Legalization, illegalization it will always cause social ills if you make it a government isssue.

 

[nate895]

Let me rephrase.

When the child can live without an umbilical cord. No science. Pure nature.

I have no problem with anyone being against abortions. I have a problem with how people want to deal with people who get abortions.

While it is quite acceptable to call an abortion murder, the person who has the abortion, or typically gives it is not an endangerment to their neighbor. I just have a hard time thinking criminal punishment is the best option for reducing abortions. I say reducing because such an act will never be eliminated.

Most murders are crimes of passion, and the people who commit will likely never kill again. Both passion killers and abortionists have one thing in common: a lack of respect for human life. Someone who goes through with an abortion, and especially someone who performs them for a living, while they are fully conscious of its character as a member of the human race, has demonstrated that they lack respect for other people's rights. It doesn't matter if the people they kill are 80, 25, or a three month fetus. Also, abortion would be reduced even if every person who would have an abortion would still do it (which is doubtful) because it would prevent repeat offenders from taking more innocent preborn lives.

 

[Gary]

While it is quite acceptable to call an abortion murder, the person who has the abortion, or typically gives it is not an endangerment to their neighbor. I just have a hard time thinking criminal punishment is the best option for reducing abortions.

What if the neighbor is the unborn child? I think abortionists certainly fit into the repeat offender category here.

I say reducing because such an act will never be eliminated.

True. Just like outlawing murder doesn't eliminate it.

 

[Gary]

I'd imagine a grown adult surrounded by lava is just as vulnerable as a fetus.

Excellent point! Although in your case, attempting to rescue someone surrounded by lava might endanger more lives, whereas this is not the case in abortion, at least for >99% of the time.
But if there was no risk in saving the adult surrounded by lava and we simply let them die, then we would be guilty of having no compassion or love of life don't you think?

 

[Gary]

The idea is not to rule over your neighbor, but protect yourself from them.

How do you propose an unborn child should protect herself from the abortionist and his vacuum aspirator?

 

[Join The Paul Side]

It is murder. Torture usually doesn't involve death.

When they cut off Daniel Pearl's head with a steak knife they tortured him to death. Sometimes torture and death are synonymous.

 

[Gary]

I'd certainly like to know what you are getting at here. Legalization, illegalization it will always cause social ills if you make it a government isssue.

Well first off, it is a government issue. The point of government is to promote justice. Since the taking of innocent human life is unjust, the government must make it a "government issue" as you call it.

I don't know if you have had the opportunity to talk to a woman who has had an abortion or read their stories. Abortion profoundly casts a deep despair on many men and women. The willing act of killing one's own child does not come without immense guilt and grief that simply does not go away over the years. It sows depression, anger, mistrust, sorrow, and many other problems. The American Psychological Association denies that abortion causes any emotional problems. People carrying these burdens are told "It's no big deal", or "just forget about it". But they can't forget. These problems manifest themselves in suicide, divorce, workaholism, alcoholism, drug abuse, sex abuse, and pretty much every other possible coping and escape mechanism. Many women say they just "want the pain to stop" and don't care how. Go look up abortion recovery if you don't believe me; there are many resources out there.

People who can justify abortion as okay can then say "well if killing children is okay" then why not lying, cheating, stealing, etc. Men who shirk their roles as protectors of women and their own children then turn to view them as objects to be used and abused.

Now imagine this times 50 million. That is the problem we face in our country today. The social and economic costs are extraordinarily high. I should note that minorities, especially blacks are targets for the abortion industry. I can't say abortion has been a benefit to them.

 

[Join The Paul Side]

Many excellent points of view from both sides of the issue on this thread. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Bman]

Most murders are crimes of passion, and the people who commit will likely never kill again. Both passion killers and abortionists have one thing in common: a lack of respect for human life. Someone who goes through with an abortion, and especially someone who performs them for a living, while they are fully conscious of its character as a member of the human race, has demonstrated that they lack respect for other people's rights. It doesn't matter if the people they kill are 80, 25, or a three month fetus. Also, abortion would be reduced even if every person who would have an abortion would still do it (which is doubtful) because it would prevent repeat offenders from taking more innocent preborn lives.

While the crimes of passion and abortion may have simular characteristics they are not the same. A fetus has a complete dependency of a host. To me this really alters the playing field, and I get that it doesn't for you.

So at this point all I can ask is; Do you have any other ideas for reducing abortions, because I certainly will not support an illegalization front, but have no problem supporting ideas that reduce aborions in a non-criminal manner.