By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Is abortion a crime against humanity?

Tyrannical on 11 April 2009
Rath said:
Tyrannical said:
If abortion is fine, why not infanticide? Whats a few more months?

Because an infant clearly has a working, albiet not fully developed, brain. In other words, all the difference in the world.

 

 

So? 

Is the reason for not keeping the fetus any different then not wanting a baby? I doubt it.

People have abortions because they can't handle having a kid. Why not infanticide for the same reason?



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Around the Network
Onyxmeth on 11 April 2009
donathos said:

I have no conclusive answers on abortion; I think it's as sticky a subject as they come, and while I consider myself pro-choice, I have no idea where to draw the line.

I've been thinking about the idea that abortion is murder, however, and it got me thinkng about a couple of scenarios:

Suppose a pregnant woman trips and falls down a flight of stairs, which results in an abortion.  Is that involuntary manslaughter?  Is she criminally responsible?

And, for those who think that abortion is not murder, how about this:

Suppose a pregnant woman is attacked by a someone who savagely beats her stomach, resulting in an abortion.  Is this crime merely assault against the woman?  Or is there any additional penalty for ending the life of her would-be child?

Question 1: No she's not responsible. It was an accident. Manslaughter on a fetus would be more like drinking or snorting coke while pregnant. Ask that question instead. It's a better one.

Question 2: Of course there's an additional penalty because it wasn't the attackers fetus to abort. He is penalized with aborting someone elses' child, which if a doctor did this to a woman would also be a crime. You just made me think of another question regarding this though. If I can get the wording down, I'll post it later.

 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Rath on 11 April 2009
Tyrannical said:
Rath said:
Tyrannical said:
If abortion is fine, why not infanticide? Whats a few more months?

Because an infant clearly has a working, albiet not fully developed, brain. In other words, all the difference in the world.

 

 

So? 

Is the reason for not keeping the fetus any different then not wanting a baby? I doubt it.

People have abortions because they can't handle having a kid. Why not infanticide for the same reason?

...?

You just entirely ignored my point and restated yours. The reason why infanticide is wrong is because it is murdering a human child, a person. The reason a undeveloped fetus can be aborted is because it is (in my view and that of most of the pro-choice movement) not a person just a collection of cells with no ability for indepedent thought.

Its nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons for the abortion or the infanticide.

@Onyx. I'm not too concerned about the fact that it relies on the mother, as I stated earlier I only consider someone a person if they have the ability of thought, that also applies to braindead people. I consider a fetus prior to having the ability to think indepently to have the same sort of life as one of your organs, it is part of the mothers bodily system.

 



Tyrannical on 11 April 2009
Rath said:

...?

You just entirely ignored my point and restated yours. The reason why infanticide is wrong is because it is murdering a human child, a person. The reason a undeveloped fetus can be aborted is because it is (in my view and that of most of the pro-choice movement) not a person just a collection of cells with no ability for indepedent thought.

 

 

So, what miracle takes place in the birthing canal that grants a collection of cells suddenly independent thought and human life?



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Rath on 11 April 2009
Tyrannical said:
Rath said:

...?

You just entirely ignored my point and restated yours. The reason why infanticide is wrong is because it is murdering a human child, a person. The reason a undeveloped fetus can be aborted is because it is (in my view and that of most of the pro-choice movement) not a person just a collection of cells with no ability for indepedent thought.

 

 

So, what miracle takes place in the birthing canal that grants a collection of cells suddenly independent thought and human life?

 

In the birthing canal?

As I stated earlier I'm opposed to abortion after around 22-26 weeks because its around then that several important parts of the brain start to develop, including the thalamus.



Around the Network
Tyrannical on 11 April 2009
Rath said:

 

In the birthing canal?

 

 

I'm not explaing the birds and bees to you.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Rath on 11 April 2009

Hey congratulations on ignoring my actual post Tyrannical. The baby is only in the birth canal at the time of birth, at that time I already believe it to have been a person for quite some time. Thus no miracle happens in the birth canal.



Tyrannical on 11 April 2009
Rath said:

Hey congratulations on ignoring my actual post Tyrannical. The baby is only in the birth canal at the time of birth, at that time I already believe it to have been a person for quite some time. Thus no miracle happens in the birth canal.

 

So, if the brain is not developed to a certain point, it should not be considered "human life"?



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Onyxmeth on 11 April 2009
Rath said:

 

In the birthing canal?

As I stated earlier I'm opposed to abortion after around 22-26 weeks because its around then that several important parts of the brain start to develop, including the thalamus.

@bolded: A child was born at 21 weeks and it breathed on it's own after leaving the birth canal. It's the earliest recorded birth. Do you feel abortion laws should reflect that, or not going that far, is it morally wrong to abort at 21 weeks because potentially the child could survive at that point?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11222-worlds-most-premature-baby-set-to-leave-hospital.html

 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Rath on 11 April 2009
Onyxmeth said:
Rath said:

 

In the birthing canal?

As I stated earlier I'm opposed to abortion after around 22-26 weeks because its around then that several important parts of the brain start to develop, including the thalamus.

@bolded: A child was born at 21 weeks and it breathed on it's own after leaving the birth canal. It's the earliest recorded birth. Do you feel abortion laws should reflect that, or not going that far, is it morally wrong to abort at 21 weeks because potentially the child could survive at that point?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11222-worlds-most-premature-baby-set-to-leave-hospital.html

 

I wasn't actually aware of that case, I'll honestly have to think for a bit on this one - you could be right that its wrong to abort something which has the potential to survive independently. Maybe even 22 weeks is slightly too late.

@Tyrannical. Exactly what I believe.