<p>what right does the government have interfering in murder? The purpose of government is to protect individuals from the physical harm of other individuals. I support a woman's right to do with her body what she wants. She can kill herself if she wishes. But she can't physically harm another individual.</p>
<p>"what right does the government have interfering in murder?"
Government already permits and authorizes "murder" in certain circumstance, e.g., war and the death penalty, both of which authorize an individual "to physically harm another individual".</p>
<p>Lots of other similar governmental sanctioning of "murder"..eg. self defense.</p>
<p>"I support a woman's right to do with her body what she wants. She can kill herself if she wishes. But she can't physically harm another individual"</p>
<p>The baby is not "another individual" until it is born. A few months prior to birth, it just like another organ in a woman's body. </p>
<p>If abortion were illegal, I'm sure many women would hurt themselves trying to get rid of a baby. I know a girl that couldn't afford a first trimester abortion (they run about $600 usually) so she decided to take matters into her own hands. She starved herself for days and downed vodka shots and then miscarried. Good for her that it worked, but it could have had terrible results. I'm sure many girls would go to even crazier measures to get rid of a fetus.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The baby is not "another individual" until it is born. A few months prior to birth, it just like another organ in a woman's body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The problem with that is, why does the baby all of a sudden become a person once it passes through the uterus?</p>
<p>phew...this discussion is intense. It is as same as asking which came first: egg or chicken. :)</p>
<p>I have always believed that there is more than one truth in the world. We define our truth based on our moral and perception. So, we are neither entirely correct nor entirely wrong.</p>
<p>What I disagree about abortion is the death of the fetus. Now, another discussion arises – whether fetus is a person or not? But, does this really matter. A woman has the right to decide what happens to her body, and that includes her will to reproduce. In this regard, abortion is justifiable. </p>
<p>Again, another issue: if a woman is ready for sex, she must be ready for probability of pregnancy – conception of new life. But again, is it ethical to give birth to unwanted child or a child you are not ready to take care of? No, it isn’t. </p>
<p>Perhaps, we will never reach a complete agreement. But, discussions like this help us (it has definitely helped me) to know about different perspectives and in coming to accept the decisions made by each individual. Thus, I consider, it is always better to open yourself to different perspectives, no matter what you decide. </p>
<p>PS: The questions I raised in my posts were intended so that I would receive different outlooks on pregnancy and abortion. If we all thought and did alike, the world would not be interesting to live in. Thank you all for the insightful discussion. :)</p>
<p>Did she have an immaculate conception? No, she probably had sex. What the heck did she have sex for if she was not at all open to the possibility of having a baby? Pregnancy is what happens when you have sex at the right time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If abortion were illegal, I'm sure many women would hurt themselves trying to get rid of a baby. I know a girl that couldn't afford a first trimester abortion (they run about $600 usually) so she decided to take matters into her own hands. She starved herself for days and downed vodka shots and then miscarried. Good for her that it worked, but it could have had terrible results. I'm sure many girls would go to even crazier measures to get rid of a fetus.
[/quote]
This is a very good point.
The only difference if abortions were illegal would be that many women would seek out illegal - and potentially dangerous - ways of doing it.</p>
<p>"The problem with that is, why does the baby all of a sudden become a person once it passes through the uterus?"</p>
<p>Maybe because it is not living inside of another person?</p>
<p>It would seem odd to define human life that way, as that definition appears to be made out of convenience rather than science; it doesn't delineate between a cluster of cells and a human being.</p>
<p>The following article is a good one. It focuses on whether fetus is person or not? </p>
<p>Debating the Status of the Fetus: </p>
<p>Abortion is the focus of some of the most intense social, cultural, political, religious, and ethical debates in modern American society. Some regard abortion as something people should be able to choose while others say abortion is a great evil which is destroying the moral fabric of society. Many of the debates turn on the status of the fetus: Is a fetus a person? Does a fetus have moral or legal rights? How we define a person and the fetus may decide the abortion debates.
Homo Sapiens: </p>
<p>The simplest definition of a person may be “a member of the species homo sapiens, the human species.” The fetus obviously has the same DNA as everyone else and can’t possibly be classified as any species other than homo sapiens, so isn’t it obviously a person? Assigning rights on the basis of species, however, merely begs the question of the nature of rights and what rights mean to us. The equation of rights with the human species is simple, but perhaps too simple.
DNA vs. Environment in Shaping a Person: </p>
<p>One premise in the argument that homo sapiens are the same as persons with rights is the idea who we are today was all present in a fertilized ovum because all our DNA was there. This is wrong. Much of what we are, even physical traits like fingerprints, is not determined by DNA. An embryo may or may not split into twins or more. Twins, identical or fraternal, may join during development, leading to a single person with more than one set of DNA. Environment counts for much of what we are.
Brain Activity & Interests: </p>
<p>Maybe we should focus on the ability to have interests: if someone is going to have a claim to a right to life, shouldn’t we first require that they have an interest in living and continuing to live? An ant has no conception of self and no interest in living, so has no right to life, but an adult human does. Where on this continuum does a fetus fall? Not until the necessary brain connections and activity exist, and that’s not until several months into a pregnancy.
Independent Life: </p>
<p>If someone has a claim to a right to live, shouldn’t they have some sort of independent life of their own? A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a “right” to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman. The same isn’t true of anyone else — at most, a person’s claim might entail support and help from the community at large. It would not, however, entail being hooked up to the circulatory system of another human.
Soul: </p>
<p>For many religious believers, a person has rights because they are endowed by God with a soul. It is thus the soul that makes them a person and requires that they be protected. There are different opinions, though, on when a soul appears. Some say conception, some say at “quickening,” when the fetus begins to move. The state has no authority to even declare that a soul exists, however, much less pick one religious conception of the soul and decide when it enters a human body.
Legal Persons & Legal Protections for Non-Persons: </p>
<p>Even if the fetus isn’t a person from a scientific or religious perspective, it could still be declared a person in a legal sense. If corporations can be treated as persons under the law, why not a fetus? Even if we decided that a fetus isn’t a person, that doesn’t necessarily answer the question of whether abortion should be illegal. Many non-persons, like animals, are protected. The state could theoretically assert an interest in protecting potential human life, even if it isn’t a person.
Does it Matter if the Fetus is a Person?: </p>
<p>Whether the fetus is declared a person from a scientific, religious, or legal perspective, this would not necessarily mean that abortion is wrong. A woman could assert a right to control her body such that even if the fetus is a person, it has no legal claim to use it. Could an adult claim a right to being hooked up to someone’s body? No — it might not be ethical to refuse the use of one’s body to save the life of another, but it couldn’t be forced by the law.
Abortion is Not Murder: </p>
<p>It is assumed that if the fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. This position is incompatible with what most people believe, even most anti-choice activists. If the fetus is a person and abortion is murder, then those involved should be treated like murderers. Almost no one says that either abortion providers or the women should go to jail for murder. Making exceptions for rape, incest, and even the mother’s life are also incompatible with the idea that abortion is murder.
Religion, Science, and the Definition of Humanity: </p>
<p>Many may assume that a proper definition of “person” would end debates over abortion, but reality is more complex than this simplistic assumption allows. Abortion debates involve debates about the status and rights of the fetus, but they are also about far more. It is arguable that the right to an abortion is primarily a right of a woman to control what happens to her body and that the death of the fetus, person or not, is an unavoidable consequence of choosing not to remain pregnant.
It is little wonder that many people are anti-abortion in the sense of not approving of the death of a fetus, but pro-choice because they regard the right of a woman to choose what happens to her body as fundamental and necessary. For this reason, then, anti-abortion activists in America are best described as anti-choice because the ability of women to choose is the political issue. </p>
<p>This doesn’t mean that the status of the fetus is completely irrelevant or that debates about whether the fetus is a “person” are uninteresting. Whether we think of the fetus as a person or not will have a significant influence on whether we think of abortion is ethical (even if we think it should remain legal) and what sorts of restrictions we think should be placed on those choosing to have an abortion. If the fetus is a person, then abortion may still be justified and outlawing abortion may be unjustified, but the fetus could still deserve protections and respect of some sort. </p>
<p>Respect, perhaps, is the issue which deserves much more attention than it currently receives. Many of those opposed to choice have been drawn in that direction because they believe that legalized abortion cheapens human life. Much of the rhetoric of the “culture of life” has force because there is something disturbing about the idea of treating the fetus as unworthy of respect and consideration. If the two sides could come closer together on this matter, perhaps the disagreements remaining would be less rancorous.</p>
<p>self defense, war, and death penalty are not murder</p>
<p>Isn't murder an unlawful killing? Aren't these, together with abortion, lawful killing? In the criminal statutes, isn't murder defined as a death resulting from an intentional or reckless act not done within one of the legal exceptions? Calling it "murder" doesn't get you much beyond a knee jerk emotional response, does it?</p>
<p>Murder is what it is regardless of the "law". Man improperly defining murder is as usefull as defining 1 + 1 = 3.</p>
<p>In other words: Truth is not for man to make up but for him to discover.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Murder is what it is regardless of the "law". Man improperly defining murder is as usefull as defining 1 + 1 = 3.
[/quote]
[quote]
In other words: Truth is not for man to make up but for him to discover.
[/quote]
No, that's your opinion. Nobody on this earth can possibly claim to have all the answers in absolutes, they can only believe that what they think or follow is right.
With moral relativism, your absolutes go out the window. Just because you say something is wrong, it does not mean everybody else must also think it's wrong.</p>
<p>Obviously, in forming a society, we come to a consensus about some things in order to live with law and order. A man who goes into a bank and shoots the teller has most definitely committed murder (according to the beliefs of most rational people).
With abortion, the line between "murder" and "not murder" is not so clear. If it were, most people would be in agreement (either that it is murder, or that it isn't). Obviously, people don't agree on the issue, which means that it's in a moral gray area.</p>
<p>Laws are (or perhaps should be) a compromise between the moralities of different parties.</p>
<p>Nobody does have all the absolutes. But absolutes exist. To the best of our abilities we must discover them.</p>
<p>You could counter me by bringing up the difference between metaphysical truths and "manmade" truths such as our creations: buildings, books, machinery, etc(things which did not HAVE to exist).</p>
<p>Hey I have an easy solution to this debate. Use a condom.</p>