Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

I'm still failing to see why aborting an 8-month fetus "just because" is "murder" but aborting an 8-month fetus for medical reasons isn't.

 

It's either murder or it isn't.

Because for some people, aborting for a health and serious issue is fine, but aborting for any other reason is irresponsible and murder.

Share this post


Link to post
I think that may have been a typo, but I said 'pro-choice' not 'pro-life'. And I get that in a lot of ways, the adoption system sucks, but that's not the point. The difficulties of a child's life after birth doesn't affect whether or not the abortion of that child should be classified as murder.

 

 

 

Okay...but then what does financial/medical/mental status have to do with it at all? Is it an issue of when the abortion was done or is it an issue of the woman's situation? I'm really confused as to your position now.

Ignoring I don't believe a fetus is ensouled because Scripture says its not --

 

Why doesn't it matter? Intent matters. There is a difference between first, second, third, and fourth degree murder, between felony murder and manslaughter, between manslaughter and wrongful death...I could go on.

Share this post


Link to post

Abortion is the intentional ending of a life (for those who believe the unborn child is a life) - and the intentional ending of a life is murder, no matter which way you cut it. So regardless of whether you believe there are degrees of murder, appropriate reasons for abortion etc, it will still be murder from the perspective of 'it is a life, you are ending that life.' So while intent is a factor, an abortion is still the same - you have pre-planned it, you have taken the conscious decision to abort, thus it is a pre-meditated murder from that perspective. (Added: I believe that is the definition of first-degree murder in America? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) )

 

Working from that perspective, I too don't see how social/economic status has any factor in it whatsoever. Regardless of if you are as rich as Tom Cruise or as poor as me, if you murder someone it is murder. You can't pay your way out of it, nor should it be seen as 'aww, you have no money so we'll let you off.' It is the same level of murder regardless of your position in life.

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post
Ignoring I don't believe a fetus is ensouled because Scripture says its not --

 

Why doesn't it matter? Intent matters. There is a difference between first, second, third, and fourth degree murder, between felony murder and manslaughter, between manslaughter and wrongful death...I could go on.

I never said anything about souls, but whatever.

 

Sure, there are different degrees of criminal responsibility, depending upon the situation in which a killing occurred. Apparently the big distinguishing factors for judging the degrees of murder/manslaughter are premeditation and malice.

 

Abortions are generally not done out of malice, but they are premeditated. I guess it would be up to a judge to decide how to rule it. But, if we consider an abortion a legal murder, then we'd also have to consider that some miscarriages would be manslaughter/wrongful death. If a woman doesn't properly take care of her pregnancy and she has a miscarriage, she could be charged for manslaughter due to negligence. That would be ridiculous.

 

These are all legal issues, which isn't what we were dealing with to start. If we're going to talk about the issue technically, then abortion definitely isn't murder. Murder is defined as killing "unlawfully", "unjustifiably", and/or "without legal excuse". Abortion (in the U.S. at least) is legal. Therefore it is technically not murder.

 

But that's not the point. What I was trying to figure out is how Sorrowgrave distinguishes murder from non-murder. I want to know what his/her criteria are for judging whether a woman is rich enough, stable enough, healthy enough, and early enough in pregnancy to have an abortion without it being murder. Because I don't understand how most of those are even factors in the issue of murder/non-murder.

Share this post


Link to post

Families are able to pull the plug on family members that are comatose and dependent on life support, so it seems like there are acceptable forms of murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Families are able to pull the plug on family members that are comatose and dependent on life support, so it seems like there are acceptable forms of murder.

Some wouldn't exactly consider them alive at this point. The machines may be keeping their body alive, but they're no longer there. Like abortion, there are different views on who is considered alive and therefore whether it's murder or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Families are able to pull the plug on family members that are comatose and dependent on life support, so it seems like there are acceptable forms of murder.

There are acceptable forms of killing. There are not acceptable forms of murder.

Share this post


Link to post

I think there's a lot of misunderstandings going on in this conversation (or at least were going on), so I'm just going to backtrack a little, just in case it helps anyone. ^^

 

This was the original comment which sparked the debate:

 

if you're financially, medically mentally, and "ready" in maturity levels and your place in society to have a child, you go up to eight months then say "oh I don't want this baby anymore" and find some doctor willing to abort then that IS murder.

 

Which brought us to this discussion:

 

But what do a mother's financial, medical, mental, and social status have to do with whether or not abortion is murder? If abortion is murder for a rich person, then it is also murder for a poor person. Why would money make any difference?

 

Or, put another way:

 

So then it is still murder if a poor women waits eight months and then decides to abort. Your original post made it seem like socioeconomic status was a factor in late-term abortions.

 

And:

 

Is it an issue of when the abortion was done or is it an issue of the woman's situation?

 

So the debate isn't really whether or not abortion is murder, but whether it matters when an abortion is done or if it matters whether or not the woman getting an abortion is rich of poor.

 

However, I will say, I don't think the post was trying to make a distinction about abortions being different for the rich and for the poor. I think the original comment was just trying to describe a woman who was ready for a child in every way she could be ready (wanted it, ability to support it, able to have it, etc.).

 

I will also say that if a woman gets to eight months and then wanted an abortion, she's obviously still not ready to have a baby in some way. ^^

Share this post


Link to post

I just can't support having such late term abortions. There are even laws in some areas where if you murder a pregnant woman with such a later fetus, it counts as two murders. At eight months it could feasibly survive outside the womb.

Share this post


Link to post
I just can't support having such late term abortions. There are even laws in some areas where if you murder a pregnant woman with such a later fetus, it counts as two murders. At eight months it could feasibly survive outside the womb.

Even if the mother will die otherwise? Late term abortions are usually done to save the mother's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Even if the mother will die otherwise? Late term abortions are usually done to save the mother's life.

No that's totally different. We were discussing non-medical abortions.

Share this post


Link to post
No that's totally different. We were discussing non-medical abortions.

How is it different? Either way, the fetus is killed. Why is one acceptable and the other isn't?

Share this post


Link to post

I never said anything about souls, but whatever.

 

That was me playing devil's advocate and making it clear I was putting aside my own views, as murder is impossible without a soul, to the Jewish perspective, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
How is it different? Either way, the fetus is killed. Why is one acceptable and the other isn't?

For the same reason that killing someone in self-defense is okay, but murder is not okay. A person dies either way, but self-defense is justifiable.

 

That was me playing devil's advocate and making it clear I was putting aside my own views, as murder is impossible without a soul, to the Jewish perspective, that's all.

 

Oh, okay. I misunderstood what you were trying to say. My bad.

 

Just out of curiosity, where does that belief come from? Why is a soul necessary for murder... I just can't think of any situation where that issue would come up besides abortion. Maybe the killing of animals?

Share this post


Link to post

Just out of curiosity, where does that belief come from?

 

The Tanakh -- The Old Testament. It clearly says that something must have a soul like Adam for something to be murder. It says that murder concerns an ensouled human being (nefesh adam, Lev. 24:17), whereas a fetus is not yet a person, not a person, being lav nefesh hu instead of nefesh adam.

 

In Exodus it goes further, explaining that while the loss of a fetus is damage (yatsa), it is not murder (ason), and unlike murder -- only a fine was necessary. If murder of the mother occured, for example, the guilty party would be put to death, a life for a life.

 

Then there's the Talmud, which Christians don't have, which goes into detail, by saying that the fetus is not yet a person (bar kayyama), but rather a being of "doubtful viability" (Niddah 44b)

 

And all of that is why I changed my stance from pro-life to pro-choice.

 

Why is a soul necessary for murder... I just can't think of any situation where that issue would come up besides abortion. Maybe the killing of animals?

 

It comes up a lot more than you'd think, actually. The killing of animals, yes -- but also in things like whether to take someone off of life support, miscarriage and stillbirth, desecration of corpses, the like.

 

Which is not to say that Jews don't believe animals have souls -- they do, just different souls -- which is why you're not allowed to kill a lamb in front of a it's mother, or vice versa

Share this post


Link to post

Just a quick note - NobleOwl, thank you once again for your brilliant posting. I really do enjoy reading about your faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Just a quick note - NobleOwl, thank you once again for your brilliant posting. I really do enjoy reading about your faith.

Someone's gotta fight the idea out there that Christianity - Jesus = Judaism. The two religions are so different, from beliefs of human nature to what prophecies pertain to the messiah, to the nature of the soul.

 

biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Someone's gotta fight the idea out there that Christianity - Jesus = Judaism. The two religions are so different, from beliefs of human nature to what prophecies pertain to the messiah, to the nature of the soul.

 

biggrin.gif

NobleOwl, you don't ever answer a question halfway do ya? Interesting stuff.

 

I'm going to have to admit that even though I'm pretty interested in religion, I don't think about Judaism that much. I like to learn about Christianity and Islam, but I usually end up ignoring Judaism out of the same misconception that you mentioned. Christianity - Jesus = Judaism. I guess I just don't know the differences...

 

Judaism always seems to involve a lot of history...and I'm awful in history. I just get bored with it. I'm not trying to slam the religion itself, just trying to explain why I ten to skip over it when I think about religion.

Share this post


Link to post

alittle off topic, but there are two ways to shut me up on this thread (either someone who fits the portrayl in my examples posting, or a Jew giving their insight)

 

both of whom I respect more than I do most other people, one for being so brave as to put that amount of personal information where people can judge you without the fear of repercussions. and the other

 

well let's face it,

Jews are just bad****

Share this post


Link to post

NobleOwl, you don't ever answer a question halfway do ya? Interesting stuff.

 

Nope! A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

 

I don't think about Judaism that much. I like to learn about Christianity and Islam, but I usually end up ignoring Judaism out of the same misconception that you mentioned. Christianity - Jesus = Judaism. I guess I just don't know the differences...

 

If you have any questions, I do haunt the religion thread when I'm active. tongue.gif And you'd be amazed at the differences, they have very little in common.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Abortion is the intentional ending of a life (for those who believe the unborn child is a life) - and the intentional ending of a life is murder, no matter which way you cut it. So regardless of whether you believe there are degrees of murder, appropriate reasons for abortion etc, it will still be murder from the perspective of 'it is a life, you are ending that life.' So while intent is a factor, an abortion is still the same - you have pre-planned it, you have taken the conscious decision to abort, thus it is a pre-meditated murder from that perspective. (Added: I believe that is the definition of first-degree murder in America? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) )

 

Working from that perspective, I too don't see how social/economic status has any factor in it whatsoever. Regardless of if you are as rich as Tom Cruise or as poor as me, if you murder someone it is murder. You can't pay your way out of it, nor should it be seen as 'aww, you have no money so we'll let you off.' It is the same level of murder regardless of your position in life.

I didn't see this get addressed, but in the US, first degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought ). Murder can also be accomplished via gross negligence and a few other things. Otherwise, illegal killings are manslaughter. The intentional, pre-planned ending of a life is not legally considered murder if the killing is legal.

 

In this way, euthanasia may not be murder, even though it is clearly a premeditated ending of a life. Abortion may not be murder, even though it is clearly the premeditated ending of a life. And this only speaks to the law, not to morality. Hence, the debate at hand.

 

Killing isn't always murder, and some killing is intentional.

Share this post


Link to post
I didn't see this get addressed, but in the US, first degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought ). Murder can also be accomplished via gross negligence and a few other things. Otherwise, illegal killings are manslaughter. The intentional, pre-planned ending of a life is not legally considered murder if the killing is legal.

 

In this way, euthanasia may not be murder, even though it is clearly a premeditated ending of a life. Abortion may not be murder, even though it is clearly the premeditated ending of a life. And this only speaks to the law, not to morality. Hence, the debate at hand.

 

Killing isn't always murder, and some killing is intentional.

However, from the perspective of one who believes life is sacrosanct and that no person may hold the power of life and death over another, they would not see any form of killing be legal - hence it would be murder, as there is nothing 'accidental' about a planned abortion. It would, under that ideal, be a premeditated killing - i.e. murder - and thus I would imagine euthanasia would also be considered as such from that perspective.

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone is entitiled to their opinion on abortion on what is right and what is wrong. Well, here is my view on it. I am christian, so naturally I am opposed to the whole concept of ending ones life. It's considered murder in my eyes. (I contradict my whole I'm opposed to it. I can see it being acceptable too if you read on..)

 

I agree with Thomas Judis Jarvis and Potts stand point on it. (Google their opinions on abortion if you don't know who they are, good reads). I like their concept of FLO (Future like ours) To determine whether or not abortion is ethical and moral. Under their theories abortion is justifiable when these circumstances are met.

 

 

1) The baby will have severe mutations and deformed body parts. The deformities can be livable and sometimes abortion should be avoided. However, when certain contraceptions are used long term during a pregnancy statistically speaking the chance for life threatening mutations with hormornel imbalances are great. Also, if the baby even had a shot at life and was born the amount of suffering the child could endure due to those mutations could be overwhelming. This includes other prescription drugs, alcohol, and illegal substances.

 

2) The baby could have lack of consciousness. We would consider this a vegetated state. The child would just be there and have no idea why and be able to develop mentally. This is different from a retarded stand point. Consider it like coma or lack of brain development while in the womb. The condition called "Anencephaly" would be a prime example of that situation. The brain doesn't form or if it does it has no fuction. In my opinion If I was like that I would want my life to be terminated too. IF they found out during the pregnancy, I would want to be aborted or if I was born euthanised.

 

3) The baby could have tremendous retardation. Mental impairment to the point where they would end up in a loony house or be on drugs for the rest of their life to simmer them and or keep them from doing anything. I'm all for keeping a baby alive even with these impairments; though, I can also see how it could be better to end one's life due to the stress of keeping the child alive and how much toll it takes on the parents and doctors. It's a sad thing to say but some people are better off dead than alive. Nobody wants to live like that child and nobody wants to have the guilt of having a child and keeping him or her alive in that state.

 

4) This example I'm about to give I don't agree with to an extent however, Thomson did. In the event the mother or husband is abusive and the child would end up sustaining such great physical or mental damage due to neglect or regular beatings it would be justifiable for the parents to terminate the baby. The environment for the child would effect it so much. She says that the from data these people never recover and end up developing mental disorders or have physical impairments for the rest of their life.

 

5) The pregnancy could cause life threatening situations for the mother. Thomson gives the example of a tiny house. The zygote gets stuck in the tube before it reaches the womb and she says the tiny house is the tube and the person in the house keeps growing. This would lead to internal bleeding and organ damage. In all cases it's fatal.

 

6) I am back and forth with this situation. I can agree to an extent but it also is messed up. Alright, the baby would be born into a house where the two consential adults had used as much protection as possible. Condom, birth control, and morning after pill or even a vasectomy and the mother STILL gets pregnant. They would take great measures to prevent the pregnancy due to financial position or they already have kids and the budget or time would not allow for the baby to get the life he or she deserved. You can argue to set the child up for adoption but majority of kids do not receive a home and stay in foster homes until they reach age to be booted. Tough to say if it's alright given those circumstances.

 

7) Thomson also says under the FLO (Future like ours) that while it isn't right to take the future away from a child if they aren't going to live in a situation with consciousness or ability to get past their disabilities it is acceptable to terminate life.

 

I'm not for abortion unless the situation permits it. I agree with most of Thomson's and Potts ideas regarding whether or not the baby should be terminated. I can see how the disabilities or future of the child could indeed make abortion permissable. I don't judge anybody for making the choices they make. The mother has a right to her body. The only problem is when the mother is ignorant about getting pregnant and brushes it off and says meh, I'll get an abortion no problem. That's when I see abortion as a true evil. People who have legit reasons or a partner who would make raising the child a living hell are entitled to do as they wish. You can say "oh, just leave this guy".

 

Reality is when it comes to financial aspect and keeping away from your other it's not as easy as it sounds. Especially when your partner provides most of the income, so you don't end up in the streets. Some people are really stuck and it sucks for them and the child that has to be terminated for that reason. At that point you can't blame the mother but quite possibly the father. That's my 2 cents. ONLY if the situation permits it is it excusable otherwise it's just irresponsible to give the child an opportunity to life.

Edited by renton

Share this post


Link to post
However, from the perspective of one who believes life is sacrosanct and that no person may hold the power of life and death over another, they would not see any form of killing be legal - hence it would be murder, as there is nothing 'accidental' about a planned abortion. It would, under that ideal, be a premeditated killing - i.e. murder - and thus I would imagine euthanasia would also be considered as such from that perspective.

The contradictary thing is when you find out that many of the people that are anti-abortion are also pro the death penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
However, from the perspective of one who believes life is sacrosanct and that no person may hold the power of life and death over another, they would not see any form of killing be legal - hence it would be murder, as there is nothing 'accidental' about a planned abortion. It would, under that ideal, be a premeditated killing - i.e. murder - and thus I would imagine euthanasia would also be considered as such from that perspective.

Of course. I was speaking only from a legal standpoint, however, not a moral one. As I stated.

 

@renton, as a Christian who is also disabled, your opinion (not you, let me be clear), strikes me as despicable. Justifying the murder (you do say abortion is murder) of those who need our protection the most is simply foul.

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.