Abortion: is it murder?

During the communist regime of Ceausescu, abortion was illegal in Romania. I will try to translate into English what was that law about (Decretul 770/1966):

"Due to the fact that abortion is an act that has severe consequences on a women's health and leads to large prejudices regardin the natality and the notural growth of the population, the State Council the Socialist Republic of Romania states:

art. 1 Abortion is forbidenn

art. 2 Absolutely exceptional, abortion is allowed, acording to art. 5, in the following situations:

a) the pregnancy endangers the women's life and there are no other ways to prevent that threat

b) one of the parents suffers from a severe disease, that is either genetically inherited or leads to severe congenital malformations

c) the pregnant women has severe invalidities, physical, psychal or sensorial

d) the pregnant women is over 45 years old

e) the pregnant women gave birth and is caring of at least four children

f) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest

art.3 abortion in the situations stated in art. 2 can be done in the first three months of pregnancy. In exceptional situations, when a severe pathological status endangers the women's life, it can be done au to six months.

art. 4 Abortions, as stated in art. 2 and 3, are to be done by specialists in acreditated healthcare institutions

art. 5 Authorisation for abortion is to be given by a regional medical comitee, or a municipal one. The comittee will be created according to a decision of the region executive comittee or of the towns Bucharest or Constanta

art. 6 In cases extreme medical emergency, when abortion is neccessary, the doctor has the obligation that before the operation, or at least 24 hours after, to announce, through a written document, an attorney. The attorney is to declare, by the expertise of a legist doctor (I know this isn't the right term but bear with me!) or any other necessarry means, that the abortion was imperative.

art. 7 Abortion acts in any other situations than those stated in this document are to be considered illegal, and prosecuted according to the Penal Code."

For more than 20 years, my people lived acording to this law. It was awful! Furthermore, AC's where not at hand, as the party policy was to encourage natality.

I would say that abortion is not murder. Murder is either what we think of an act  or what a law states that it is. Would you think of hunters as being ferrocious criminals as they keep on killing living beings! What about the soldiers? They kill people, that's what they are supposed to do! Are they murderers? If one states that abortion is murder then he should also state that soldiers are murderers.

 

 

 

Originally posted by jfmff I will say this only once and I think I speak for all anti-abortionists. The argument about the cancer/the cyst/the sperm gonocide/the ovum/etc killing is falacious. A sophism. Why? Because, when left alone by themselves, proceding their natural development, all these examples will never lead to a human being. Only a fertilised ovum will. So only the fertilised ovum can possibly have the status of an human being. This said lets proceed with the discution about when does a "bunch of cells" (<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; text-decoration: underline;">derived from a union of a male and female gamete</span> can be considered a human being. <span ="bold"span style="font-weight: normal;"> This said lets begin. Two things: 1- When does a bunch of cells become a human being. In what day? In that case at what time? at what minute? at what second? Are you trying to say that before that second the bunch of cells is not a human being, but after that second it is a human being? Stablishing a limit after fecundation is ilogical so the limit can only be setled at fecundation. 2- Since it is just a bunch of cells or as said by </span/spanspan ="bold">ArmenianSurvival </spanspan ="bold"span style="font-weight: normal;">a parasite, why is it such a dificult decision? its just a bunch of cells anyway...</span/spanspan ="bold"span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span/spanspan ="bold"span style="font-weight: normal;"/span/span>

I am glad that you are only going to say this one time. This way we will not have to hear your counter arguments Just kidding.

Now let me explain why your arguments are incorrect.

Your criteria for granting cells humanity is that if left   alone by themselves, they will not grow into a human being. Well, a conceptus left by itself will not do it either. Otherwise the concepti in fertility clinics would grow to become babies.

Counter-argument to point 1:
Just because it is difficult to set a limit, it doesn't mean that it is impossible or that we shouldn't create one based on pragmatic reasons. After all, the age of consent and the age limit to vote are also set at an arbitrary age. When is a child old enough to assume adult responsibilities? How knows. But for our society to function, we need to set a cutoff point. The same has been the case with babies.

And I use babies because in the past, babies were not granted humanity until they had survived a number of days. As medicine improved, the line has been pulled back. People in favor of letting women to chose for themselves seem to agree that birth is the absolute line.

Within that same group, many believe that third trimester fetuses have humanity too, abortion having to stay legal so that women could be saved if the fetus is a life risk for them. The reason for this is that most babies born at this point can survive after they are born.

The gray area is the second trimester. Some late second trimester babies can survive with the proper medical treatment.

And again, at the first trimester we all tend to agree saying that these cells are not a human.

Personally, I would put down the line at the third trimester, but that is just my opinion. After all, I will never be pregnant.

Oh, and your closing remark is as informall fallacy itself. All what you did before was to show how finding a cutting point is difficult. This doesn't necessarely imply that your position is correct.

You still need to make a convincing argument for why it begins at fecundation.

2. The way that you phrased it, that the conceptus is a parasite, is indeed a poor argument. Now, if it is stated "is like a parasite" then it becomes more valid, especially in the early weeks.

The conceptus is taking all of its needs out of the mother. There are cases where the mother's antibodies attack the conceptus as a germ. The conceptus changes women's bodies as if they were sick from some foreign agent.

And the conceptus doesn't look to different from some parasite cell. I am sure that if someone put 100 petri dishes with unicellular parasites but one petri dish with a conceptus, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Originally posted by hugoestr You just can't stop doing it, can you

Oh well, it seems you're still eager to engage in such rhetoric.

Originally posted by Infidel Originally posted by Constantine XI If you say it is murder because those cells are human or whatever, then why allow brest cancer removals? Cancer is a class of diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell division and the ability of these cells to invade other tissues, either by direct growth into adjacent tissue (invasion) or by migration of cells to distant sites (metastasis). This unregulated growth is caused by damage to DNA, resulting in mutations to vital genes that control cell division, among other functions. One or more of these mutations, which can be inherited or acquired, can lead to uncontrolled cell division and tumor formation. Tumor ("swelling" in Latin) refers to any abnormal mass of tissue, but may be either malignant (cancerous) or benign (noncancerous). Only malignant tumors are capable of invading other tissues or metastasizing.                                                                                                        in, Wikipedia There is a huge difference. Breath cancer kills the woman if it's not removed. Not aborting, except in some very few cases (where abortion is allowed), doesn't end up in the woman's death.

So say I have a giant cyst above my eyeline that is totally harmless but leaves my face utterly disfigured, don't I have the right to remove it even though it isn't medically dangerous?

Also having a child at the wrong time can have the same effects as a disease, perhaps being worse. Economically crippled, often forced to turn to men of dubious character simply because they can offer a thin measure of security, a more likely future of unstable parenting for the child and any following children, restricted access to education, restricted employment opportunities, restricted travel opportunity, social stigma and difficulty finding time for friends. These are all possible ramifications of having a serious illness, and are all likely consequences of having a child when the parent(s) is not ready.

 The analogy, therefore, is quite sound. In both cases a comglomeration of cells which does not form a properly developed human being is not being removed simply because they carry human DNA. The result in both cases, most likely, are the range of serious and detrimental conditions which I listed.

Originally posted by Constantine XI If you say it is murder because those cells are human or whatever, then why allow brest cancer removals?

Cancer is a class of diseases characterized by uncontrolled cell division and the ability of these cells to invade other tissues, either by direct growth into adjacent tissue (invasion) or by migration of cells to distant sites (metastasis). This unregulated growth is caused by damage to DNA, resulting in mutations to vital genes that control cell division, among other functions. One or more of these mutations, which can be inherited or acquired, can lead to uncontrolled cell division and tumor formation. Tumor ("swelling" in Latin) refers to any abnormal mass of tissue, but may be either malignant (cancerous) or benign (noncancerous). Only malignant tumors are capable of invading other tissues or metastasizing.

                                                                                                       in, Wikipedia

There is a huge difference. Breath cancer kills the woman if it's not removed. Not aborting, except in some very few cases (where abortion is allowed), doesn't end up in the woman's death.

Originally posted by Constantine XI If you say it is murder because those cells are human or whatever, then why allow brest cancer removals? Hell, that lethal lump in a middle aged woman's brest amounts to a successful growth of human life. Sure it can't sing, paint pictures, drive a car, have a conversation, walk, surf the internet or get married and have kids. But then neither can a bunch of uteral cells which are undergoing a long process of growing into something which MAY eventually become a life-form. As has been said, those cells are not a properly formed human being and their termination cannot be considered murder.

Exactly my point, good post Constantine.


Edited by ArmenianSurvival

Originally posted by Infidel Since you appear slow in understanding what I write, I have to tell you once more that I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone. I was just explaining them. I further added on many of my posts that society should be more effective in helping the needy, something you have conveniently ignored.

I will ignore all of the attacks that you made against me in the last post. I find it amusing how you kept attacking me even when I brought this to your attention. It must be compulsive in you.

The important thing is that you made it very clear that you are not looking to impose your values on other people. If that is so, then we are in agreement, because you are, in fact, pro-choice.

You are personally against abortion, but you respect the values of other people to not impose your own. This means that you will let women decide to go ahead and have an abortion or not, although you would encourage them to have the child.

I also agree with you when you say that society should help the needy. I didn't ignore that. Go back to my posts and see that I acknowledge them

Since we are both in the same side, pro-choice, there is nothing left to discuss. It was nice debating with you...except for your unfounded personal attacks, of course.

At� logo

Helo ArmenianSurvival.

Not all religions say that killing animals is ok except if they are humans. Buddhism is against killing any form of animal life.

The reason why people disagree on abortion, as O_condestavel understood, is because they disagree on a premise: "A "bunch of cells" is not a human being" vs "A "bunch of cells" is a human being". So debating "You don't understand the rights of the baby!" vs "You don't understand the rights of the mother" is pointless and a waste of time because people are comparing consequences of the premises and not the premises themselves. So the discussion should be shifted towards "A "bunch of cells" is not a human being" vs "A "bunch of cells" is a human being". The reason why people disagree on this subject is, statisticaly speaking, because religious vs non religious reasons (statisticaly meaning that not all pro life have religious motivations and vice-versa).

This said lets begin. Two things:

1- When does a bunch of cells become a human being. In what day? In that case at what time? at what minute? at what second? Are you trying to say that before that second the bunch of cells is not a human being, but after that second it is a human being? Stablishing a limit after fecundation is ilogical so the limit can only be setled at fecundation.

2- Since it is just a bunch of cells or as said by ArmenianSurvival a parasite, why is it such a dificult decision? its just a bunch of cells anyway...

Let me assure you that I am not a christian nor an evangelist. Also, I'm not a right-wing person, I don't have any political party and I sought not to bring any religious or political arguments to the issue. I made a mention about your leftish agenda because you continuously insisted on a spech of exploitation of the poor when that was not the point in discussion.

Since you appear slow in understanding what I write, I have to tell you once more that I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone. I was just explaining them. I further added on many of my posts that society should be more effective in helping the needy, something you have conveniently ignored.

I'm not a means-justify-the-end person. I said that the issue of abortion must be democraticly voted in a referendum. 

As for the �ad hominem� attacks, you're the only one who seems to constantly bring it up. You forget that you also called me an hypocrite and a poor hater. I just tried to approach these commentaries with some healthy irony. Perhaps it doesn't fit you. I always tried to answer your posts with the maximum correction and objectivity as possible. If you still cannot understand my views on abortion and adoption after all these posts, I think you need some serious counseling.

Regards

Originally posted by Infidel Mr. Chavez I don't have time for your continuous nonsense. I've explained my views over and over again. Yet, I feel you have the need to continue this argument without any real point to it. You keep talking about how I hate the poor. That's just rubbish. If you fail to understand it, I'm sorry for you. Furthermore, I have sympathy towards human beings. I value the lives both of the mother and of the phoetus. I don't care if they are poor or rich. This has been something that only you have brought about in this topic for some seamingly left-wing agenda. You think adoption is anti-family and it is cruel. I think otherwise. I've said before that we as a society should have more effective social security systems, develop a fairer economy with more active charity and solidarity towards the needy. That means to give up my money for this as a tax-contributor! Adoption homes, at least where I live, have very good conditions provided by the state. Unfortunately, poverty always exists. But that doesn't mean that they (or whomever it may be - poor, rich, tall or short!) should start aborting their children because they can't afford them or simply don't want them. It may seem all logical and pragmatic at first glance, but it is tremendously unfair for the baby. Finally, my values rightfully oppose those of who are in favour of abortion. It is normal. Because in my view, the baby's right to live stands over the right of the parent to abort. But I'm not imposing them. I'm not saying you have to believe in them. You obviously don't. I'm just explaining them, hopefully in a simple and clear manner. Furthermore, the issue of abortion must be voted in a referendum (at least here). I hope this settles it. Please, if you continue to pretend not to have understood my views, or you're just showing plain dishonesty or you're just too blind about your arguments and ideas.

Mr. Pat Robertson,

I see that you went back to your ad homimen attacks. I guess that you can't find a valid way of debating your point against my counter-arguments. That is what happens when people try to debate using extremist right-wing talking points.

You keep dodging responsibility for the consequences of your beliefs. Either you don't have the capacity to understand them yourself, or lack compassion towards the poor.

Maybe it is the former, since your last post does display concern for the poor, and I am glad to see that.

And let me inform you that I am not advocating for poor women to abort their children. This is what they actually do. This is what they will do whether abortion is legal or not.

And I need further clarification about the statement below, because their semantic content seem to clash:

Finally, my values rightfully oppose those of who are in favour of abortion. It is normal. Because in my view, the baby's right to live stands over the right of the parent to abort. But I'm not imposing them. I'm not saying you have to believe in them.

When you said this, do you really mean the last two sentences? Do you actually not seek to impose these values on people by any means?

The answer to this question may settle this issue.

I am looking forward to it

Edited by hugoestr