Abortion??

Question

Had this debate in my Ethics class at school, kind of wondering what others think about this thought.

There is a question over abortion being murder. Murder would have to imply that the fetus is alive/human. I wondered when is a human alive. I know that you are legally dead when you cease to have brain function so are you legally alive when you begin to have brain function? And if you are legally alive at the beginning of your brian function then would an abortion be considered murder after this time period?

I am leaving open the idea off an abortion at anytime if a women is raped, incest, or the life of the mother is at great risk.

Please no bible scriptures I know what the bible says about life and I also know that at different times god has killed babies or ordered them to be killed so no religious scriptures just curious about people's real feelings on the aforementioned idea in hopes of seeing our way through to a compromise on the issue.
Thank You all for helping.

I respect all rights and privacy of people. But, in respecting rights of humans and human life I have to say that it is a duty of people to protect those that can not defend themselves. I understand it is a womens body but a lot of abortions are done as a form of birth control and this is unacceptable. But, if the glob of cells is not a human then to expel this mass of cells is in no way a concern to to others. If we say that no abortions past 6 weeks ( since they have recorded brain function that early) then we can allow for the use of the morning after pill and shut down the clinics that abort humans. Or we can continue to abort humans that will contribute to society some in positive ways and others in not so positive ways. But in either case I think it is a question for a civilised society to think about. One other thing I would add I would like to see this revert back to the states and let the voters have a say. If they are for it or against it let the people decide and not judges.

Answer 1

Abortion is not murder, people. Sometimes i question what is the matter with this country. Saying abortion is murder is one of the most backwards, archaic things one can say. Get with the times! And i especially will never understand how an abortion is murder in the first trimester. That's just plain irrational for anyone to say it's wrong that early on. I remember reading somewhere that miscarriages occur 1/3 of the time for women in their 30s. The other thing is it's not a form of birth control, but accidents happen. There's nothing worse than unwanted children in this world. How would you like to be that child that the parents can't or don't want to care for? You right wingers just like to be told and brainwashed what to think, all the while denying science. STOP being fed all this religious crap and THINK FOR YOURSELVES!

Answer 2

The legal definition is when the fetus is capable of living outside the mother's body.

As science has improved this point ha moved earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. Currently is is about the 20 - 24 week mark. There might have been some miscarriages that were earlier and survived, but the survival rate is extremely low.

Much earlier than 20 weeks and you would need an artificial womb. The internal organs would not have developed sufficiently to sustain independent life.

Personally I would have a hard time aborting a fetus much past the 10 week mark. After that they are showing distinct signs of nerve formation, touch sensitivity and reaction. Ther is too much chance for me that they are aware at some level and feel pain.

However, even giving 4 weeks to realize that you are pregnant, if you can't make up your mind what to do in over a month, then have the baby and keep it or put it up for adoption.

If it was a question of health risk to the mother then that would be a much easier decision. That would include psychological trauma from having a child of rape or incest.


Just to drag the bible into it (against your wishes) Most of the anti-abortionists are Christian. However the OT clearly states that a fetus is not a person until it is born, possibly not until it is a year old - depending on which verses you use. So abortion is not problem for their God. (Or the Jewish or Muslim God come to that.)

Answer 3

Technically speaking the fetus is alive before it's concieved i.e. both the egg and the sperm are living - but they are not viable until they join. The fetus is alive and viable from that point on. While your ethics class may have been right in the definition of death, the opposite is not an exact definition of life i.e. many organisms have no brains therefore no brain activity but are still alive. So using the "what is death" rule does not constitute a good measure for when does life start.

There is another that need good definition and understanding as well: Murder - is this just any person killing another for any reason or are there acceptable situations where a person may kill another? I'd suggest that while not the most desirable course of action killing another human is not always wrong. For example self defence or defence of another or your country, religion or freedom. Also removing a repeat murder, child molester, rapist from the gene pool may be acceptable as well.

So is abortion murder? You could build a case either way, but in the end the burden of the morality of it rests on the parents.

An easier question is should abortion be legal? Yes, there are those who need it for various reasons and it should be a safe, legal option for them. Should it be used as a form of birth control, not really, it's one of the more expensive and risky options. Why not allow a couple that can't have children to finance the pregenacy and then adopt the child?

Answer 4

well, the brain doesn't start technically functioning until about 20 weeks. pain and sleep/awake patterns begin at 26 weeks, which is why it's not legal to electively abortion past 24 weeks. IMO, abortion is seen as wrong when done beyond 14 weeks. however, it's still not murder because murder involves a person and malice. fetus isn't a person, there is no malice.

Answer 5

Abortion isn't murder. Here in Western Australia, legaly life is defined once a child has been born. That is the sensible way to look at it. The child isn't conscious, it isn't cognitively aware, it has no life. You are not taking anything from it, it has nothing. Better it be aborted than born to a family that doesn't want it. That's just my opinion, but most importantly everyone should be free to choose whether they have an abortion or not. The suggestion it should be made illegal is ridiculous. Particularly because abortions will still happen, just the "backyard" variety which will result in the deaths of many women.

Answer 6

well, abortion after the baby's eighth week of development in the womb (when they change from being a blastocyst to being an embryo) is murder, because it is when (scientifically) the baby is alive. So you do kill a human being.

However, i do agree with you about situations where abortion is a valid alternative: rape, incest, the mother's health, and when the mother/parents cannot raise their child (poverty and mental health mainly). I also agree with abortion when the woman involved is actually a child (girls younger than 15).

Other than that, it should remained forbidden. If you're a fully grown woman, and mentally mature, and you end up with an undesired pregnancy, you should keep your baby healthy and happy inside your belly until he or she is born and then give him/her into ADOPTION. Killing just for the hell of it is not just murder, it's cruelty (Fetuses DO feel pain).

But in the end, it should be the woman's choice.

Answer 7

This is a really interesting question.

I would say that there is a difference between a fetus (or embryo or blastocyst) and someone who is brain dead. The fetus will at some point down the line naturally become brain alive. The purpose and natural direction of a human fetus is to become a fully living, brain-alive person. However, the dead brain has no such purpose or natural direction. Once the brain is dead, it doesn't tend towards becoming alive again.

It would seem to me immoral to prevent brain-life from occurring in an organism which, left to its own devices, will naturally flip its brain switch into the on position at some point down the line.

Answer 8

During my "Public School" Sex Education class I was TAUGHT that the miracle of a sperm leaving the male genitals, climbing up the vagina wall, finding the egg, and being the first to penetrate the egg was astronomically a low probability.

Then the government (who paid for this teaching) contradictes this by saying that life begins when after the first trimester. So what, mathematically, the astronomical odds don't matter?

Further, in "Developed" Western cultures, we're seeing how much of an astronomical odd it is to make life. Families are spending Multi Billions on fertilization treatments, timing, and estrogen injections. These doctors are making a fortune and then turning to the Supreme Court and saying, "Oh, yeah, life doesn't begin until after the first trimester"…

Bull Poop! Someone’s after the profit and not afraid to murder to get it.

Answer 9

A baby is ALIVE and should be considered so legally. The problem is they have no legal rights because they live within the woman. They are not part of the woman though. It is murder and people that believes otherwise just try to sugarcoat it so they can still believe in it. I seriously doubt they really know what they are talking about or have seen pics of it . If they have then they have no heart.

Answer 10

A fetus in it's mother's womb is living and growing and changing, cells dividing and multiplying every moment's moment. It needs its mother to continue this process. It needs an external source for nourishment and care to continue this developmental process.

Likewise a baby which is born is still living and growing and changing with cells dividing and multiplying every moment's moment. It still requires its mother's care to continue this process or else it will die. It is helpless otherwise. It continues to need an external source to provide nourishment and care in order to carry on.

****A newborn is just as helpless outside of the womb as it was within the womb. Death may simply take a little longer owing to the increase in development.****

How are these two scenarios really so different from each other? If one can justify the killing of the living, changing, growing cells and organs inside the womb, then they should also be able to justify the killing of the living, changing, growing cells and organs outside the womb. Alas we do not justify such an act. We rightly call this, "murder."

Therefore the reverse is also true. If the killing of life outside the womb cannot be justified, nor can the killing of life inside the womb.

---At least give me a thumbs up for not having used Scripture, because that is rare for me. :)