NationStates Jolt Archive

What's the difference between killing an unborn fetus and sneaking up on someone and killing them in their sleep? In reality, all you do is take away their future and their right to life. Murder is murder, no matter how old the person you kill is.

Looks for the *ahh jeez not this shit again* picture....

The difference is fetuses arent alive and people, you know, are.

The difference is fetuses arent alive and people, you know, are.

If you replaced the word alive, with concious, then you may have had a small point.

I'm guessing you're pro life. I'm pro choice because you have to ask yourself who matters more in the situation? A woman with a concious who you know and love or a fetus that has no concious so desn't even know you exist and you have no feelings toward?

The difference is fetuses arent alive and people, you know, are.

Are you saying that fetuses are dead? I'm talking about the physical act of killing someone -- all that the action accomplishes is that it takes away their potential future. If you destroy a fetus, you are taking away its potential future. Therefore, it seems to meet the definition of killing.

Begoner21;11621093']What's the difference between killing an unborn fetus and sneaking up on someone and killing them in their sleep?
If you accidently trip and make a lot of noise, even if the fetus wakes up, it still probably wont see you coming...

Begoner21;11621093']What's the difference between killing an unborn fetus and sneaking up on someone and killing them in their sleep? In reality, all you do is take away their future and their right to life. Murder is murder, no matter how old the person you kill is.

An unborn fetus isn't likely to have the mental capacity of a housecat. Killing a cat isn't murder. Something that's not yet a living human being, just a developing mass of tissue that may one day become a human being, but is currently just a parasite in a woman's uterus has no rights.

Begoner21;11621111']Are you saying that fetuses are dead? I'm talking about the physical act of killing someone -- all that the action accomplishes is that it takes away their potential future. If you destroy a fetus, you are taking away its potential future. Therefore, it seems to meet the definition of killing.

Fetus arent alive and in order to kill something it would have to 1st be alive, it has nothing to do with "potential future"

Looks for the *ahh jeez not this shit again* picture....

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

Begoner21;11621111']Are you saying that fetuses are dead? I'm talking about the physical act of killing someone -- all that the action accomplishes is that it takes away their potential future. If you destroy a fetus, you are taking away its potential future. Therefore, it seems to meet the definition of killing.

Every time I jerk off, pull out or use a condom I take away someone's potential future. So what? Am I a serial killer?

Wait, let's try some "american logic" (Yes, I know it's an oxymoron, but bear with me), and let's end this debate once and for all:

Give stem-cells the right to bear arms... That way they can defend themselves from those evil clone-farming baby-harvesters when they come to put them in the blender.

Wait, let's try some "american logic" (Yes, I know it's an oxymoron, but bear with me), and let's end this debate once and for all:

Give stem-cells the right to bear arms... That way they can defend themselves from those evil clone-farming baby-harvesters when they come to put them in the blender.

Yeah, that's fine in theory, but how many women want a gun inserted into their uterus?

Begoner21;11621111']Are you saying that fetuses are dead? I'm talking about the physical act of killing someone -- all that the action accomplishes is that it takes away their potential future. If you destroy a fetus, you are taking away its potential future. Therefore, it seems to meet the definition of killing.

By which logic, I should be getting paid a lot more than I am, right?

After all, I will get paid more... indeed, I could become the head of a multinational orporation if no one 'intervenes' (like, by giving the job to someone else).

Logically, I should be getting paid as much as, say.... Bill Gates... yes?

The answer is no, though, isn't it. And... why? Because 'potential' ain't worth shit.

Yeah, that's fine in theory, but how many women want a gun inserted into their uterus?

Well, quite a few women seem fine with grafting huge chunks of plastic onto their chest. Why not make this small sacrifice to give their unborn a fighting chance?

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1717/platypi512dh0.jpg

Begoner21;11621093']What's the difference between killing an unborn fetus and sneaking up on someone and killing them in their sleep? In reality, all you do is take away their future and their right to life. Murder is murder, no matter how old the person you kill is.

You might be right, but you can't possibly run a large society on morality alone. No lying, no adultery, no theft, no rape, no murder? Never heard of any society that managed it.

What you can do is limit disruption, let it operate smoothly. It's a trade off between perfect morality and perfect practicality and efficiency. Letting some immoralities into your society is inevitable.

And that's not even beginning to look at whether you can truly call a fetus a person, whether that's an accurate label, or which morality you're using as your guideline.

Begoner21;11621111']Are you saying that fetuses are dead? I'm talking about the physical act of killing someone -- all that the action accomplishes is that it takes away their potential future. If you destroy a fetus, you are taking away its potential future. Therefore, it seems to meet the definition of killing.if Killing is the"taking away [it's] potential Future, does that mean then that dropping out of school is attempted suicide since you are taking away your own potential future (or at least seriously wounding it.)

The Definition of Killing is "the termination of life"

then, the problem is what defines Life?

Every time I jerk off, pull out or use a condom I take away someone's potential future. So what? Am I a serial killer?

No, you don't. If you jerk off and then leave your sperm unattended, without setting fire to it or something, they'll die on their own. It is not so with a fertilized egg and not so with a fetus.

What about rape and incest?

Begoner21;11621194']No, you don't. If you jerk off and then leave your sperm unattended, without setting fire to it or something, they'll die on their own. It is not so with a fertilized egg and not so with a fetus.

Really? If I take an ovum or a foetus and wad it in some tissue and throw it in the wastepaper basket, it won't 'die' on it's own?

Or, do you mean a version of 'on it's own' that REALLY means 'entirely NOT on it's own'?

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1717/platypi512dh0.jpg

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Dude-Wtf-Poster-C11768884.jpeg

Begoner21;11621194']No, you don't. If you jerk off and then leave your sperm unattended, without setting fire to it or something, they'll die on their own. It is not so with a fertilized egg and not so with a fetus.

If I leave a fetus unattended on a table or something it will die on it's own too.

I'm pro choice because you have to ask yourself who matters more in the situation? A woman with a concious who you know and love or a fetus that has no concious so desn't even know you exist and you have no feelings toward?

Let's say that a young baby was crying in the house next door and was annoying your wife, a woman who you know and love. The baby, on the other hand, has no clue that you exist, and you don't have any feelings towards it. Are you justified in killing it? No, of course not. A human life matters more than petty annoyance. I don't kill a person because it would be uncomfortable if that person were alive -- if we all did that, society would collapse and only the Teletubbies and Barney would be left standing.

Trilby63;11621210']What about rape and incest?

No thanks. I'm not that kinky.

Begoner21;11621194']No, you don't. If you jerk off and then leave your sperm unattended, without setting fire to it or something, they'll die on their own. It is not so with a fertilized egg and not so with a fetus.

So it's more like not rescuing a billion drowning people?

If I leave a fetus unattended on a table or something it will die on it's own too.

But a fetus has the potential of becoming a conscious human being while a sperm cell does not. If you leave a fetus on a table, then you are killing something that would have otherwise become a human being.

Really? If I take an ovum or a foetus and wad it in some tissue and throw it in the wastepaper basket, it won't 'die' on it's own?

Or, do you mean a version of 'on it's own' that REALLY means 'entirely NOT on it's own'?

Actually, you kill the foetus before you take it out of the womb. Or sometimes it gets sucked into a machine that kills it, but it's only by accident if the foetus survives afterwards.

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Dude-Wtf-Poster-C11768884.jpeg

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h278/NazcaVisitor/742954NEWBU.jpg

No thanks. I'm not that kinky.

No? What if we just pretend? I'll where a stocking over my face and you yell "NO DAD!"

Really? If I take an ovum or a foetus and wad it in some tissue and throw it in the wastepaper basket, it won't 'die' on it's own?

You would be actively killing it the same way you would be killing somebody if you wrapped them in a carpet and threw them off a tall building. Either way, a sperm cell =/= a fertilized egg in terms of a potential human life.

Begoner21;11621218']Let's say that a young baby was crying in the house next door and was annoying your wife, a woman who you know and love. The baby, on the other hand, has no clue that you exist, and you don't have any feelings towards it. Are you justified in killing it? No, of course not. A human life matters more than petty annoyance. I don't kill a person because it would be uncomfortable if that person were alive -- if we all did that, society would collapse and only the Teletubbies and Barney would be left standing.

Paraisitizing a woman's body and crying loudly aren't in the same ballpark. Pregnancy is always a risk to the mother's life. Also you're comparing a fetus, which in the early stages of developlment has a brain smaller than a walnut to a baby. Don't you see a difference there?

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h278/NazcaVisitor/742954NEWBU.jpg

Apparently. :D

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b11/ben6913/rofl.jpg

Begoner21;11621227']But a fetus has the potential of becoming a conscious human being while a sperm cell does not. If you leave a fetus on a table, then you are killing something that would have otherwise become a human being.

And, every human body has the 'potential' to become a corpse. Potential is not a valid argument.

Actually, you kill the foetus before you take it out of the womb. Or sometimes it gets sucked into a machine that kills it, but it's only by accident if the foetus survives afterwards.

Irrelevent.

The other poster makes special exception for eggs and fetuses.

Begoner21;11621241']You would be actively killing it the same way you would be killing somebody if you wrapped them in a carpet and threw them off a tall building. Either way, a sperm cell =/= a fertilized egg in terms of a potential human life.

And a fertilised egg =/= a person in terms of ACTUAL human life.

You cannot 'kill' a 'human being', if there IS no 'human being'.

Paraisitizing a woman's body and crying loudly aren't in the same ballpark. Pregnancy is always a risk to the mother's life. Also you're comparing a fetus, which in the early stages of developlment has a brain smaller than a walnut to a baby. Don't you see a difference there?

I'm not talking about what the fetus is at the present. I am talking about what it will be in the future. Killing an unborn baby is exactly the same as killing a baby insofar as their futures will have both been destroyed. The fetus, if left well enough alone, will develop a brain that is quite a bit bigger than a walnut. Yet you are not giving it that chance by killing it. If it can be medically proven that the pregnancy, if carried out, will cause an undue risk to the mother's health, then the baby can be aborted without any moral qualms.

Begoner21;11621093']What's the difference between killing an unborn fetus and sneaking up on someone and killing them in their sleep?

In one case, you are killing an unborn fetus. In the other, you are killing a sleeping person.

Honestly, do you really need that clarified for you?

"What is the difference between smashing a fertilized chicken egg and shooting a human infant in the face?"

"What is the difference between eating an adult pig and eating an adult human being?"

You appear to have set out to disprove that old saying about there not being any such thing as a stupid question.

Begoner21;11621093']
In reality, all you do is take away their future and their right to life.

Are you currently able to become pregnant or to impregnate somebody? If you are, then guess what: by typing on the internet instead of generating a pregnancy, you are depriving "somebody" of their future and their "right to life." You are denying the existence of a potential human being.

Murderer.

Begoner21;11621093']
Murder is murder, no matter how old the person you kill is.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person. Fetuses are not legally recognized as persons, and killing them is not against the law where I live. Therefore, it is not murder to kill a fetus, by definition of the word.

Begoner21;11621227']But a fetus has the potential of becoming a conscious human being while a sperm cell does not. If you leave a fetus on a table, then you are killing something that would have otherwise become a human being.

Not necessarily. It could be miscarried, it could be aborted, the doctor could botch the delivery. Also the fetus can't become a human on it's own. It must parasitize a woman for that, just like the sperm can't become human on it's own.

And, every human body has the 'potential' to become a corpse. Potential is not a valid argument.

All right, then tell me why you think that killing is wrong (not a fetus -- a living, breathing human being). How does that definition not also apply to a fetus?

Begoner21;11621194']No, you don't. If you jerk off and then leave your sperm unattended, without setting fire to it or something, they'll die on their own. It is not so with a fertilized egg and not so with a fetus.

Actually Sperm which had the potential of meeting an ovum which had the potential of forming life.

How does adding an extra potential make it okay??
By your logic it should still be murder.

And while we're at it lets arrest all women for having their period!
Because that egg had the potential of meeting a sperm that had the potential of forming life that had the potential of becoming a person.

Isn't that the potential point?

Begoner21;11621267']I'm not talking about what the fetus is at the present. I am talking about what it will be in the future. Killing an unborn baby is exactly the same as killing a baby insofar as their futures will have both been destroyed. The fetus, if left well enough alone, will develop a brain that is quite a bit bigger than a walnut. Yet you are not giving it that chance by killing it. If it can be medically proven that the pregnancy, if carried out, will cause an undue risk to the mother's health, then the baby can be aborted without any moral qualms.

I have bolded a part that is obviously not true.

What happens if you really DO 'leave a foetus' alone?

Actually Sperm which had the potential of meeting an ovum which had the potential of forming life.

How does adding an extra potential make it okay??
By your logic it should still be murder.

And while we're at it lets arrest all women for having their period!
Because that egg had the potential of meeting a sperm that had the potential of forming life that had the potential of becoming a person.

Isn't that the potential point?

Lets all hack off our genitals and end this terrible genocide right now!

Begoner21;11621241'] Either way, a sperm cell =/= a fertilized egg in terms of a potential human life.
Potential human life is irrelevant. Potentiality does not equal actuality.

A fertilized egg is not a child, any more than a child is a senior citizen. We do not recognize the individual rights of what an entity may become at some point in the future; we recognize the rights of what it is at the current time.

Try buying beer if you're underage, and you'll see how this works. It doesn't matter how much "potential" you have of becoming an adult, they're still not gonna sell you a six-pack when you're 13 years old.

Suppose you were in a fertility clinic when a fire broke out.

There is a table in front of you; on the table is a month old baby and a petri dish containing five fertilised ovums. You can carry the baby or the petri dish, not both.

Which would you rescue?

What happens if you really DO 'leave a foetus' alone?
It dies, of course.

Not necessarily. It could be miscarried, it could be aborted, the doctor could botch the delivery. Also the fetus can't become a human on it's own. It must parasitize a woman for that, just like the sperm can't become human on it's own.
But...but the POTENTIAL to becoming fertilized!!

Begoner21;11621280']All right, then tell me why you think that killing is wrong (not a fetus -- a living, breathing human being). How does that definition not also apply to a fetus?

The crime of 'murder' is 'wrong' because of pragmatism. I don't want to be horribly butchered, and neither, one assumes, do you. So - collectively, we call it 'illegal'... in the hopes it won't happen.

All of which is irrelevent to the abortion debate, because a foetus is not 'a human life'.

"What is the difference between eating an adult pig and eating an adult human being?"

A human and a pig are of different species. A human and a human fetus are not.

If you are, then guess what: by typing on the internet instead of generating a pregnancy, you are depriving "somebody" of their future and their "right to life." You are denying the existence of a potential human being.

Really? Who is this hypothetical "somebody"? I can't see him/her. Oh, that's right -- because he/she doesn't exist. On the other hand, a fetus does exist. Do you need the difference between something that exists and something that doesn't clarified?

Therefore, it is not murder to kill a fetus, by definition of the word.

I never said it was murder, although it should be.

You cannot 'kill' a 'human being', if there IS no 'human being'.

I don't buy this Foetus is not a human being argument. I am pro choice because it is usually the lesser of two evils and that i respect the right for people to abort as the government is in no place to decide weather that is morally wrong or right.

However, what if someone had a baby that was mentally disabled and was as stupid as a foetus. Would it be ok to kill that baby?

Not necessarily. It could be miscarried, it could be aborted, the doctor could botch the delivery. Also the fetus can't become a human on it's own. It must parasitize a woman for that, just like the sperm can't become human on it's own.

In a great many cases, a lone sperm actually has MORE potential to become a born human child than does a fertilized egg.

See, a lot of fertilized eggs are totally non-viable, due to a variety of potential problems in the fusion of the gametes and the initial stirring of the DNA that creates the fertilized ovum. One such "flawed" fertilized egg has absolutely zero chance of ever becoming a human person. A lone sperm, on the other hand, still has the potential to successfully fuse with an egg and potentially give rise to a healthy fertilization.

In a great many cases, a lone sperm actually has MORE potential to become a born human child than does a fertilized egg.

See, a lot of fertilized eggs are totally non-viable, due to a variety of potential problems in the fusion of the gametes and the initial stirring of the DNA that creates the fertilized ovum. One such "flawed" fertilized egg has absolutely zero chance of ever becoming a human person. A lone sperm, on the other hand, still has the potential to successfully fuse with an egg and potentially give rise to a healthy fertilization.

Yet only 1 in several million sperm have a potential, no way near as much as a fertalized egg.

It dies, of course.

*sigh* Bottle rocks. I want Bottle to have my abortion.

Yet only 1 in several million sperm have a potential, no way near as much as a fertalized egg.

Untrue, they ALL have the potential... but only one in billions will be 'allowed' to act on it. Kind of holes your argument below the waterline.

Begoner21;11621305']A human and a pig are of different species. A human and a human fetus are not.

You and your stomach cells are of the same species. What's your point?

Begoner21;11621305']
Really? Who is this hypothetical "somebody"? I can't see him/her. Oh, that's right -- because he/she doesn't exist. On the other hand, a fetus does exist. Do you need the difference between something that exists and something that doesn't clarified?

A sperm cell exists. If you are male, your sperm cells are dying as you write this, killing off the potential for thousands of human beings. Egg cells also exist, and if you are female you are killing off the potential for a human being every time you allow your eggs to pass out of your body unfertilized (i.e. get your period).

You seem to be a believer in what is known as "Sperm magic." You believe that when a sperm connects with an egg, the quality of personhood is magically conferred upon the resulting cell. This is a charming fable, but it totally and completely misses the boat when it comes to the realities of human reproduction.

A fertilized egg is not a person. A fertilized egg does not contain the overwhelming majority of the material that is needed to make a person. A fertilized egg is only one of the many ingredients that are necessary to make a human person.

Claiming that a fertilized egg is a person is like claiming that having a cup of flour and a recipe book is exactly the same as having a batch of cookies.

Untrue, they ALL have the potential... but only one in billions will be 'allowed' to act on it. Kind of holes your argument below the waterline.

Thats the same thing, each sperm has only a 1 in a billion chance of becoming a fertalized egg.

Yet only 1 in several million sperm have a potential, no way near as much as a fertalized egg.
A 1-in-a-million chance is still better than the zero chance that a "flawed" fertilized egg possesses. And, when you consider that the overwhelming majority of fertilized eggs are thusly "flawed," you can run into real trouble with this whole "potential person" thing.

But all of it is totally irrelevant, in the end. Potentiality doesn't equal actuality, no matter how much of it you have.

The crime of 'murder' is 'wrong' because of pragmatism. I don't want to be horribly butchered, and neither, one assumes, do you. So - collectively, we call it 'illegal'... in the hopes it won't happen.

I didn't ask why is was illegal, I asked why it was wrong. Obviously, killing somebody affects the person who is getting killed in a negative way. But it doesn't cause that person pain, so what's wrong with it? It takes away that person's future happiness -- that's why it's wrong. And that's why killing a fetus is also wrong.

I don't buy this Foetus is not a human being argument. I am pro choice because it is usually the lesser of two evils and that i respect the right for people to abort as the government is in no place to decide weather that is morally wrong or right.


A foetus doesn't get to vote. It doesn't pay taxes. It has no citizenship.

We exempt them from those, and many other, 'requirements' of being 'a human life'.

Am I saying 'not human'? No - the tissue IS 'human'... but, genetically, so is excrement... is it a person?

Am I saying 'not alive'? No - the tissue IS alive... but so is my liver... is it a person?


However, what if someone had a baby that was mentally disabled and was as stupid as a foetus. Would it be ok to kill that baby?

There is medical condition where the spinal cord and all it's attributes never finish forming. In effect - the 'baby' is 'born' without a brain, the top of it's head open to the elements. How do you think we should deal with that 'baby'?

A 1-in-a-million chance is still better than the zero chance that a "flawed" fertilized egg possesses. And, when you consider that the overwhelming majority of fertilized eggs are thusly "flawed," you can run into real trouble with this whole "potential person" thing.


Whatever, the point is, a foetus has a 99% potential to become a human being (that is if you believe that it somehow is not a human being only because it isn't as developed, like many people alive today)


But all of it is totally irrelevant, in the end. Potentiality doesn't equal actuality, no matter how much of it you have.

Agreed.

Thats the same thing, each sperm has only a 1 in a billion chance of becoming a fertalized egg.

No - each sperm has a one-in-billions chance of becoming a conceptus. It will never 'become' an egg.

Begoner21;11621351']I didn't ask why is was illegal, I asked why it was wrong. Obviously, killing somebody affects the person who is getting killed in a negative way. But it doesn't cause that person pain, so what's wrong with it? It takes away that person's future happiness -- that's why it's wrong. And that's why killing a fetus is also wrong.
If you are arguing that something is wrong because it takes away somebody else's "future happiness," then I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that.

There are plenty of totally "right" activities you can intentionally engage in which would take away another person's future happiness. There are plenty of virtuous acts that do precisely that. There are plenty of morally-neutral acts which do it.

There is medical condition where the spinal cord and all it's attributes never finish forming. In effect - the 'baby' is 'born' without a brain, the top of it's head open to the elements. How do you think we should deal with that 'baby'?

Nice way to avoid the question, answer mine before I answer how we deal with an already dead baby.

Begoner21;11621351']I didn't ask why is was illegal, I asked why it was wrong. Obviously, killing somebody affects the person who is getting killed in a negative way. But it doesn't cause that person pain, so what's wrong with it? It takes away that person's future happiness -- that's why it's wrong. And that's why killing a fetus is also wrong.

You cannot kill that which does not live.

I disagree with your assumption. I think the 'potential' argument is always flawed. I'd say that the reason it is 'wrong' to take a life, is because it is theft... we are removing something someone else 'owns'.

A foetus 'owns' nothing... thus, you can take nothing from it.

Whatever, the point is, a foetus has a 99% potential to become a human being (that is if you believe that it somehow is not a human being only because it isn't as developed, like many people alive today)

Okay, we need to start being more careful with our terms.

A fertilized egg is NOT a fetus. A fertilized egg has less than a 20% chance of ever becoming a fetus.

If you want to talk about fertilized eggs, fine. If you want to talk about fetuses, fine. But let's be sure we all know what we're talking about. Mixing up these terms is as silly as using the words "teenager" and "senior citizen" as if they were interchangeable.

Okay, we need to start being more careful with our terms.

A fertilized egg is NOT a fetus. A fertilized egg has less than a 20% chance of ever becoming a fetus.

If you want to talk about fertilized eggs, fine. If you want to talk about fetuses, fine. But let's be sure we all know what we're talking about. Mixing up these terms is as silly as using the words "teenager" and "senior citizen" as if they were interchangeable.

Yeah, i stopped talking about fertalized eggs and started talking about foetus's.

Nice way to avoid the question, answer mine before I answer how we deal with an already dead baby.

It's the same question... why is THAT 'baby' dead? It's body may be functional... you seem to be basing your choice here on whether the 'baby' is capable of meeting certain minimum 'requirements'.

See where I'm going?

It's the same question... why is THAT 'baby' dead? It's body may be functional... you seem to be basing your choice here on whether the 'baby' is capable of meeting certain minimum 'requirements'.

See where I'm going?

A baby without a brain is either dead or going to die. How is that the same as a foetus?

However, what if someone had a baby that was mentally disabled and was as stupid as a foetus. Would it be ok to kill that baby?

I think this question inadvertently gets to the real point of the topic.

See, here's the key difference. People don't just kill fetuses for the sake of killing fetuses. Fetuses get killed for a reason: because the HUMAN BEING who happens to be pregnant with said fetus needs to no longer be pregnant with said fetus. Whether by her own choice or by medical necessity, the HUMAN BEING housing the fetus is going to terminate her body's involvement in the pregnancy.

The fact that a fetus dies during this process is often very sad. There are lots of women who must have abortions for medical reasons, and who would urgently love to be able to keep their fetus alive and healthy. There are also lots of women who don't particularly want the fetus to die, they simply want/need their body to stop being pregnant.

In the case of killing a born infant, no such issue exists. The infant is not living inside the body of another human being. Its life (or death) can be evaluated independently (physically speaking) of all other human beings.

No born human being gets to live inside your body without your consent. No born human being gets to take your blood or organs without your permission. Even if they will DIE without them, they cannot take your body or any part of it against your wishes. So why, pray tell, should a fetus have a claim that no human being possess? Why should it's "right to life" trump the rights of a woman, when NO BORN HUMAN is allowed the same "right to life"?

A baby without a brain is either dead or going to die. How is that the same as a foetus?

You could keep the 'body' alive with external factors, though. Which is exactly the same situation as the foetus... at least up until a long way through the gestation. Neither can 'survive' without help.

And - is that 'brainless baby' body 'dead'? Can you answer that question? If you can't answer that question, or you consider it 'equivalent' in some way to being dead, why are you arguing about a foetus, which similarly has no brain, until sometime after the 20th week?

I think this question inadvertently gets to the real point of the topic.

See, here's the key difference. People don't just kill fetuses for the sake of killing fetuses. Fetuses get killed for a reason: because the HUMAN BEING who happens to be pregnant with said fetus needs to no longer be pregnant with said fetus. Whether by her own choice or by medical necessity, the HUMAN BEING housing the fetus is going to terminate her body's involvement in the pregnancy.

The fact that a fetus dies during this process is often very sad. There are lots of women who must have abortions for medical reasons, and who would urgently love to be able to keep their fetus alive and healthy. There are also lots of women who don't particularly want the fetus to die, they simply want/need their body to stop being pregnant.

In the case of killing a born infant, no such issue exists. The infant is not living inside the body of another human being. Its life (or death) can be evaluated independently (physically speaking) of all other human beings.

No born human being gets to live inside your body without your consent. No born human being gets to take your blood or organs without your permission. Even if they will DIE without them, they cannot take your body or any part of it against your wishes. So why, pray tell, should a fetus have a claim that no human being possess? Why should it's "right to life" trump the rights of a woman, when NO BORN HUMAN is allowed the same "right to life"?

Thats more like it, this is the sort of argument I agree with. I still think it's an underdeveloped baby in there, yet i support the right for them to kill it if it is the lesser of two evils. (Like for medical reasons, or where the mother is not capable of raising a child).

However, I think it is wrong for someone to kill the foetus for no legitimate reason.

Begoner21;11621267']I'm not talking about what the fetus is at the present. I am talking about what it will be in the future. Killing an unborn baby is exactly the same as killing a baby insofar as their futures will have both been destroyed. The fetus, if left well enough alone, will develop a brain that is quite a bit bigger than a walnut. Yet you are not giving it that chance by killing it. If it can be medically proven that the pregnancy, if carried out, will cause an undue risk to the mother's health, then the baby can be aborted without any moral qualms.

I don't see why there are any moral qualms about killing something that isn't yet human. I could invest a hundred dollars and it has the potential to become a hundred thousand, but my hundred bucks right now doesn't buy me a maserati, does it? The fetus right now isn't a person, so it has no rights.

Lets all hack off our genitals and end this terrible genocide right now!

NOOOOOOO! That's potential genocide. Plus it would likely hurt and I don't want to get rid of my junk.

Begoner21;11621305']A human and a pig are of different species. A human and a human fetus are not.



Really? Who is this hypothetical "somebody"? I can't see him/her. Oh, that's right -- because he/she doesn't exist. On the other hand, a fetus does exist. Do you need the difference between something that exists and something that doesn't clarified?



I never said it was murder, although it should be.
A human and his cancerous ball-tumor are the same species. Does that obligate him to keep nurturing the tumor within his scrotum?

Begoner21;11621351']I didn't ask why is was illegal, I asked why it was wrong. Obviously, killing somebody affects the person who is getting killed in a negative way. But it doesn't cause that person pain, so what's wrong with it? It takes away that person's future happiness -- that's why it's wrong. And that's why killing a fetus is also wrong.

Well, let's see. The sleeping person likely has friends and family that would suffer from his death. He's probably got a job with an employer who relies on him. He probably pays taxes. A person's death has a negative impact on society. The death of a fetus has only positive impacts on society. Unwanted kids often grow up to be burdens on society. Not always, but often. Also they're a burden on the mother who must bring them to term and give birth and whoever ends up caring for the kid.

the worlds overpopulated enough already.

Besides would you really want to be born to a family that doesn't want you or can't handle the responcibility.

Looks for the *ahh jeez not this shit again* picture....
This one?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AwJeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

Begoner21;11621093']What's the difference between killing an unborn fetus and sneaking up on someone and killing them in their sleep? In reality, all you do is take away their future and their right to life. Murder is murder, no matter how old the person you kill is.
Indeed. While it may be that the foetus doesn't qualify as a living being, in most cases it will certainly become one. Thus, aborting a foetus is the same as killing a baby.

Indeed. While it may be that the foetus doesn't qualify as a living being, in most cases it will certainly become one. Thus, aborting a foetus is the same as killing a baby.

Bullshit. A one hundred dollar bill placed in the bank will accumulate interest. Over time it will double in value. So if I go into a store should I be outraged that they won't take my one hundred dollar bill as payment in full for a two hundred dollar item? Of course not because it's not worth that much yet. Similarly killing a fetus is not the same as killing a baby because the fetus isn't worth that much yet.

Wait, let's try some "american logic" (Yes, I know it's an oxymoron, but bear with me), and let's end this debate once and for all:

Give stem-cells the right to bear arms... That way they can defend themselves from those evil clone-farming baby-harvesters when they come to put them in the blender.

Oh good a blindly idiotic and blatantly ignorant change of subject to "Merikuns are teh Ebil". How refreshing and original.

Some things need clarification for a real debate here...

A fetus is alive. It is living tissue. To claim otherwise is just plain wrong, scientifically as well as morally - whichever is your thing.

A fetus is human. Obviously, it is not fully developed. But it is living, human tissue. It contains a full and unique human genetic code - it is an individual, though not fully developed, human life.

Bottle is correct, murder is a legal term. As abortion is currently legal in most circumstances, it is not technically murder. To say that it is makes the same fallacy as the two cited above.

The above three things are not in dispute if you look at the issue objectively.

Here's where the real issue comes in: What issue determines the difference between what should be a fully-recognized human with all legal rights and protections?

Is it a matter of age? For sake of argument, lets start the timeline at conception, where we have living human tissue with all required genetic material together for an independent and unique human life. I acknowledge that others could choose to start earlier or later in the sequence, but I'm starting here. Well, obviously a fetus does not have all rights and protections, neither does a 17 year old (in the U.S.). So with this as a criterion, we're forced to set a subjective line.

Is it a matter of cognitive faculties? Well, it is undeniable that a fetus does not have a fully-developed brain. Actually, neither does a 3-month old infant, or 4 year old child. In fact, a domesticated dog probably has more cognitive capacity and a longer memory than a 1-month old infant. So by this logic, it should still be fine to kill an infant. What about those with severe brain damage or mental handicap? Again, a subjective line if this is the criterion.

Is it a matter of independence? A fetus is not independent. Even if it could survive outside of the mother's womb before full-term, it would still need massive assistance. Even infants born when carried to full term are incapable of surviving on their own. In a state of nature, most adults couldn't survive long, at this point in history. Even with the comforts of civilization, humans can't survive on their own for the first few years. What about those with severy injury, debilitating conditions, or extreme old age? Again, this criterion requires a subjective boundary to be drawn.

With each of the above, there is a continuum. Few would take the extreme that a 17 year old is not a human life because the 17 year old does not have all rights. Few would say that a mentally handicapped individual should be killed without consequence at the desire of the care-giver because that person doesn't comprehend what's going on. Also, many people would argue that there should be some basic criteria met. There's the rub - where are they set?

Is it a matter of ownership of the fetus? Well, an argument can be made that women are not the sole owners of the fetus, though too often the co-owners abdandon their ownership responsibility. Still, it is dependent on the woman's body. On the otherhand, most pregnancies arise from consentual sex, so is responsibility meaningless? Does it trump control over one's body? Tough issues here.

And even if one would agree that aborting a fetus is wrong based on all the above cirtieria, does it matter if the pregnancy is a result of forcible rape? Does the woman's rights (as she has no direct responsibility for getting pregnant in this situation) trump the fetus' life? Or is it the other way around?

I'm not going to answer these questions (I don't think I can answer all of them), but I wanted to throw them out there for the forum. I can't take any debate on this topic seriously unless the participants are willing to address them in forming their individual opinions. The trouble is, even if everyone agrees with me (that'll be a first) that these are some germane issues, intelligent and ethical people can disagree on whether these criteria should count in the end or where lines should be drawn with each of these criteria. That will probably never reach consensus. Still, it would elevate the maturity level of the discussion, I think.

Well, let's see. The sleeping person likely has friends and family that would suffer from his death. He's probably got a job with an employer who relies on him. He probably pays taxes. A person's death has a negative impact on society. The death of a fetus has only positive impacts on society. Unwanted kids often grow up to be burdens on society. Not always, but often. Also they're a burden on the mother who must bring them to term and give birth and whoever ends up caring for the kid.

Not saying I agree or disagree with abortion being legal, but your agrument here is a prime example of a slippery slope. Is having a 'positive' impact on society now the requirement for the right to life? Who decides what 'positive' is? Should we kill all burdensome people/beings/things? I don't like where that line of logic leads...

Indeed. While it may be that the foetus doesn't qualify as a living being, in most cases it will certainly become one. Thus, aborting a foetus is the same as killing a baby.

Utter wank.


First - 'it will certainly become one'... not only is this not true (obviously, look-up the word 'miscarriage'), but it states an unsupported probability as a logical reason. ('Certainly' implies a 100% probability... which is most certainly NOT the case).

How about if I point out that almost EVERY individual will commit a crime during their life, of one kind or another...? Can we lock everyone up because the probability says they will offend?


Second - 'it will...' we are talking about 'potential' here, rather than reality. You 'will' die. You have the potential to be dead. Is it, then, okay to cremate everone because potential says they 'will' die?

'Probability' and 'potential' are both inadequate arguments.

A person's death has a negative impact on society. The death of a fetus has only positive impacts on society.

Ah. So you're saying it's wrong to kill somebody because it would negatively impact society. So it would be OK to kill a serial killer, because he/she is only sucking up our tax dollars and is obviously detrimental to society as a whole? Yes, it is true that sometimes society suffers when somebody dies. However, I don't think killing somebody is illegal because society's suffering is taken into account. After all, if you kill someone, who are you hurting more -- him/her or society? The act of killing a person is only wrong for two reasons: because it takes away the future happiness of the person whom you killed and because society may suffer. However, I think the first reason is paramount, while the second reason is much weaker. The first reason also applies to fetuses.

Not saying I agree or disagree with abortion being legal, but your agrument here is a prime example of a slippery slope. Is having a 'positive' impact on society now the requirement for the right to life? Who decides what 'positive' is? Should we kill all burdensome people/beings/things? I don't like where that line of logic leads...

It's just one reason why killing a sleeping adult is different from killing a fetus. Not really meant to be the ultimate answer to the question of "Is abortion ethically acceptable?".

Begoner21;11622080']Ah. So you're saying it's wrong to kill somebody because it would negatively impact society. So it would be OK to kill a serial killer, because he/she is only sucking up our tax dollars and is obviously detrimental to society as a whole? Yes, it is true that sometimes society suffers when somebody dies. However, I don't think killing somebody is illegal because society's suffering is taken into account. After all, if you kill someone, who are you hurting more -- him/her or society? The act of killing a person is only wrong for two reasons: because it takes away the future happiness of the person whom you killed and because society may suffer. However, I think the first reason is paramount, while the second reason is much weaker. The first reason also applies to fetuses.

So - you make up what you think sounds like a good reason, refuse to hear any arguments that suggest it isn't so, and then base your conclusion on the fact that YOU don't hear any arguments?

The argument for 'potential' is not indulged anywhere else. You can't drive at 6 just because most people learn in their teens. They can't bury or cremate you alive, just because you will be dead one day. Humans are 'in progress', and our legal system and morality reflects that - as it should.

So - a foetus has to be protected, if it is going to be, on it's own terms... not on the terms of some far-off imagined possible future-self.

Begoner21;11621093']What's the difference between killing an unborn fetus and sneaking up on someone and killing them in their sleep? In reality, all you do is take away their future and their right to life. Murder is murder, no matter how old the person you kill is.People lying in bed usually have hair.

Begoner21;11621093']What's the difference between killing an unborn fetus and sneaking up on someone and killing them in their sleep? In reality, all you do is take away their future and their right to life. Murder is murder, no matter how old the person you kill is.

The unborn fetus is unborn. So its not a person. If it can't survive outside the womb anyway then how is it murder. You are a fruit cake. I'm worse for even answer your overdone question!