Is Abortion Morally Equivalent to Murdering Someone?

[sandinista! 1,816]

but like slim said, there doesn't seem to be a standard, across the board. in some states if you kill a woman along with her unborn fetus it's considered an extenuating circumstance in the murder charges brought forward, and in others, as far as the judicial system is concerned, they could not care less if she was pregnant or not, no charges will ever be filed re. the fetus. it's weird and arbitrary that geography should be a factor, but it is.

as well, are miscarriage support groups, women who grieve over miscarriages and stillbirths, etc, completely crazy and delusional then? the value of an embryo or fetus seems to be exclusively based on whether its presence is wanted or not

[_Simpson_ 250]

Why would someone bother to explain something that by your own admission you are either too lazy or simply incapable of comprehending?

I have firm understanding of this topic. You stated that I didnt. That kind of puts the ball in your court. Focus Rob focus.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Saying that it is immoral to stop someone from having an abortion is not logical. I think you meant to say unethical.

[rika60607 215]

If you think that women should not be legally allowed to abort unwanted fetuses, and state that fetuses have rights... can a fetus pay for it's own delivery ($10,000 if everything goes well)? No? Who should pay this bill then? Who should pay the bill for the infant care (in absence of mother)? Taxpayer? Charity? Anyone?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

If you think that women should not be legally allowed to abort unwanted fetuses, and state that fetuses have rights... can a fetus pay for it's own delivery ($10,000 if everything goes well)? No? Who should pay this bill then? Who should pay the bill for the infant care (in absence of mother)? Taxpayer? Charity? Anyone?

I could be wrong, but that applies to minors too no?

[The_Dude 1,142]

but like slim said, there doesn't seem to be a standard, across the board. in some states if you kill a woman along with her unborn fetus it's considered an extenuating circumstance in the murder charges brought forward, and in others, as far as the judicial system is concerned, they could not care less if she was pregnant or not, no charges will ever be filed re. the fetus. it's weird and arbitrary that geography should be a factor, but it is.

as well, are miscarriage support groups, women who grieve over miscarriages and stillbirths, etc, completely crazy and delusional then? the value of an embryo or fetus seems to be exclusively based on whether its presence is wanted or not

It all comes down to intent. That concept seems to be pervasive across state lines. If the intent was to cause a miscarriage, or to kill the woman to avoid responsibility for the child, then you are going to have one of three options

1) Sodomized for the rest of your life

2) Needle in your arm

3) Or your lungs filled with gas that rips your insides out

It is treated as either additional circumstances, a modifier to a crime that allows harsher punishment, or it is treated as a double homicide. Either way, you will face the same three inevitabilities.

[rika60607 215]

Yes, it does.

Of course, for the minors it could be argued that many of them will be adopted by that time...

But the delivery/initial care come at the time when no adoption is possible.

I could be wrong, but that applies to minors too no?

Edited February 3, 2011 by rika60607

[faust-yusov 103]

Please they are not slaves to there reproductive system. They own and control their reproductive system and could it have it removed. Hardly a slave.

Or her partner could castrate himself.

Or (better) the couple could use contraception. Most do. Unfortunately, prophylactics are as yet unperfected. And it is women alone that bear the burden of that imperfection. Abortion is a safety net.

Now if she uses her reproductive system and brings another life into the equation it isnt all about her anymore. How selfish of the woman to think its all about her in this sort of situation.

This is just misogynistic bile.

[_Simpson_ 250]

If you think that women should not be legally allowed to abort unwanted fetuses, and state that fetuses have rights... can a fetus pay for it's own delivery ($10,000 if everything goes well)? No? Who should pay this bill then? Who should pay the bill for the infant care (in absence of mother)? Taxpayer? Charity? Anyone?

Yes if the woman decides to keep the baby she should be responsible(seems like common sense to me) but if she puts it up for adoption then the people adopting pay the fees.

[sandinista! 1,816]

"Morality" in this context is a nice and nebulous and rambling issue, and one that I'm not personally all that close to resolving. Perhaps I never will.

But in reality, the reason abortion is (and should) be legal is because you cannot, in egalitarian society, let women be slaves to their own reproductive systems.

men are forced to be slaves to their own reproductive systems in our society though. if they get someone pregnant, regardless of whether or not they want a child, they're going to pay for one. there are all kinds of problems with the system in enforcing this, but the principle remains the same-get someone pregnant, and you will support that child until they turn 18, and sometimes after, for college tuition etc. is that egalitarian? is the horror of making a man financially responsible for his progeny for almost 20 years somehow less horrible than making a woman endure a pregnancy for nine months, and then give birth to a baby that usually is the financial responsibility of that baby's father in our society?

[rika60607 215]

And in fact, studies show that adopted babies have lower than average IQ and more health issues than average.

In part it comes from irresponsible mothers who, knowing they do not want to keep the child, resent it and do not take proper care during pregnancy, in part it comes form the fact that most unwanted babies are born to people who lack financial means and education.

If these unwanted babies do not get adopted, things get worse - they face hostile environment while growing up (resentful or even abusive mother/parents), and usually (not always), these kids do not end well.

I could be wrong, but that applies to minors too no?

[faust-yusov 103]

men are forced to be slaves to their own reproductive systems in our society though. if they get someone pregnant, regardless of whether or not they want a child, they're going to pay for one. there are all kinds of problems with the system in enforcing this, but the principle remains the same-get someone pregnant, and you will support that child until they turn 18, and sometimes after, for college tuition etc. is that egalitarian? is the horror of making a man financially responsible for his progeny for almost 20 years somehow less horrible than making a woman endure a pregnancy for nine months, and then give birth to a baby that usually is the financial responsibility of that baby's father in our society?

I'm a little confused. Are you playing devil's advocate or do you really believe this to be true?

[rika60607 215]

And if nobody wants to adopt that baby that comes with a $20,000-$30,000 medical /early care bill? Who pays then?

Yes if the woman decides to keep the baby she should be responsible(seems like common sense to me) but if she puts it up for adoption then the people adopting pay the fees.

Edited February 3, 2011 by rika60607

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

And in fact, studies show that adopted babies have lower than average IQ and more health issues than average.

In part it comes from irresponsible mothers who, knowing they do not want to keep the child, resent it and do not take proper care during pregnancy, in part it comes form the fact that most unwanted babies are born to people who lack financial means and education.

If these unwanted babies do not get adopted, things get worse - they face hostile environment while growing up (resentful or even abusive mother/parents), and usually (not always), these kids do not end well.

Sorry I actually was refering to the issue of debt. IE Debt incurred by a minor is the responsibility of their guardian, therefore the rights of a fetus can not be excluded on the principle of debt.

men are forced to be slaves to their own reproductive systems in our society though. if they get someone pregnant, regardless of whether or not they want a child, they're going to pay for one. there are all kinds of problems with the system in enforcing this, but the principle remains the same-get someone pregnant, and you will support that child until they turn 18, and sometimes after, for college tuition etc. is that egalitarian? is the horror of making a man financially responsible for his progeny for almost 20 years somehow less horrible than making a woman endure a pregnancy for nine months, and then give birth to a baby that usually is the financial responsibility of that baby's father in our society?

I completely agree, there is no equality. Woman have an out, but apparently men have responsibility no matter what.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Or her partner could castrate himself.

Or (better) the couple could use contraception. Most do. Unfortunately, prophylactics are as yet unperfected. And it is women alone that bear the burden of that imperfection. Abortion is a safety net.

Well there should be some responsibility associated with having sex especially considering that another life could be brought into the situation and abortion should never be looked at as a safety net. If your not ready to take on the responsibility of a baby you shouldnt be having sex. Also there is a better option, adoption.

Contraception work most of the time it is the people who fail.