Is "killing" a fetus and murdering someone the same?

Is "killing" a fetus and murdering someone the same?

Does human life begin at conception?

My View:

It is the same. A human being starts to be made the moment it is conceived. Think about this, a bird egg. When you stomp on it and crush everything inside killing the chick forming inside, (not an egg that does not have a chick inside)you would feel bad that you just murdered an innocent animal that all it has done so far in life is develop? Isn't it worse to do this to a human. Someone with potential to do good and make a difference in the world. What if historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Junior had been aborted/killed? Would African Americans still be considered inferior to Caucasian people? Would people be still enslaved today? I highly doubt that anyone wants to go in the direction abortion is pointing to. Which would lead to a "fact" that killing people is okay. They both kill people so they go hand in hand.

Note: thnx to Odamust

This topic has the potential for it becoming an SD topic. However, two sentences aren't enough to start a discussion. Read this https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=20488, before making a thread in SD. You can edit your post to add in more stuff so that this thread won't be locked.

Ok, to contribute to this thread,
It is cruel from some people's perspective to kill a life, even if it hasn't been brought into this world yet. But even so, abortion, a legalised(?) way to kill unborn fetus, is still carried out in some places. Why do some people continue to do abortion even though they knew it would be a cruel thing to do beforehand? That I have very little idea, unless someone else could tell me the reasons.

Since we are talking about a fetus, yes, I believe it is the same. However, I do not believe life begins at conception. A zygote is nothing more than a block of cells with the intention of becoming a human being. Once the embryo becomes a fetus, I believe that it shouldn't be touched. While it is in the zygote and embryo stages though, I have no problem with it going through the tube.

If the woman is getting an abortion just because it was an accident, then I believe she should keep it and raise the child, but if she has no means of support or it is a very inconvenient time, she's free to have an abortion.

In response to your picture, it would be wrong to kill a fetus at that age.

So there's only a difference in age? To me, there's no difference. You state that a zygote is a bunch of cells. But guess what? So are we.

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blbodyelements.htm

We act as though as Adults that we have some genetic superiority to our offspring that gives us the right to cull and butcher them if we so choose. Well, I use the word "we" here loosely because I don't believe that premise(obviously, or I wouldn't oppose it)

There is no genetic superiority, the only "superiority" is that our parents happened not to be murderers and granted us our lives. The only superiority that the mother has, is that unlike her offspring she is conscious.

That is it, that is it...That is the only difference. It's funny that someone else posted about what if great men such as Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln were never born.

Well, 20-30 years after their respective revolutions, slavery and segregation were frowned on and rejected by society.

20-30 years from now, we'll recognize that abortion is just as abhorrent and barbaric as countless other Human Sins.

Wow, I had no idea. Oh wait, I've aced every science class I have taken, so I do know.

It's a terrible idea. Can't a person just set their child up for adoption rather than kill him?

Though circumstances may arise that I can shift my stand. E.g. when the mothers life is in danger. If that's the case then she has the freedom to conserve her own life that her unborn child.

But other than that my stand is firm.

Like my professor once said, "Every child, whether rich or poor, has the potential to aspire and be something great."

I would say that abortion is ok to a certain point.

Like if it's just something like a week or so after, then it's no big deal. Nobody mourns the loss of sperm because they were potential babies. They're still living things too you know.

People say that the aborted kid could have had the potential to be great. But what about the opposite? He/she also had the potential to be a murderer. Or a thief. Or just another mentally derranged kid, suffering because he was dealt a shit hand in life, being born to parents who didn't want him.

You have to put yourself in their shoes before thinking about how to deal with such an issue. Being a hypocrite is never good, especially if you're trying to prove a point. I mean if your sister was raped and became pregnant but you're totally ok with her having a child she never planned for then fine you can argue all you want against abortions.

"you would feel bad that you just murdered an innocent animal that all it has done so far in life is develop?"

No , i might be cruel and heartless but that's not my point of view . I see nothing important in someone who didn't accomplish something yet . Seeing a kid die doesn't affect me a bit and even less a fucking phoetus who didn't even "live" yet . Death isn't something sad in itself , it is a cycle that has to happen . What is sad is when death takes the happyness and the beauty in life and end it . For that , you have to live first , experience life with a concious mind .

I don't believe it is, to an extent.

If it's within the first trimester, than it's fine, it's just a "parasite" basically, that is living and feeding off of you technically. Not saying babies are bad.

I personally think after the first trimester though it's wrong, that's when it really starts to grow into more of a baby, and develop itself.

Killing a fetus and murdering someone is completely different, but if it's almost a fully developed baby inside the mother, and you kill it, then it's basically killing a person.

What is the difference between a parasite that doesn't look like a baby and a parasite that look like a baby ?

- sigh - I realized it was going to sound wrong when I typed it out haha.
What I meant was that when the fetus is first there, it has no heart, no brain, nothing, it is not human.. so I don't see it as killing, you're removing something that has yet to grow into a living thing.. I see no wrong in aborting a fetus. (Under certain circumstances, I do not condone it as a way of birth control.. no one should just go out and continuously get abortions, that's just wrong).

I realize that the brain and heart and such start to grow and develop once you're around 6 weeks, but I don't agree with abortions once you've hit almost two months.

I'm really iffy when it comes to abortions for this reason. I'm pro choice, abortions are not evil, and it's not killing, especially under the right circumstances, I mean yeah there is adoption but then you're just leaving another child in the world to find its way to a family when they're are plenty of children who need homes already, plus the chance of them not being able to find a good loving home. I'd rather abort a child because I know that I cannot take care of it, then birth a child into the world where there is a 50/50 chance of it possibly getting into a home where it could be taken care of.

It's one of those things that to me, it REALLY depends on the situation. I mean if you're taking birth control/using condoms, trying to stay protected and you happen to get pregnant and know you cannot take care of it, I do not see an abortion as a bad option.. now if you're NOT staying protected and you get pregnant, that's your responsibility to figure out how you want to take care of it, if you realize you cannot take care of it, and decide to abort the child, you should also take that as a lesson to be more careful.

Though it's kind of funny that, all the little girls I know out there who have had kids when not ready, are people who are anti-abortion, but still do not use protection, and it's these same people who get their kids taken away, or don't want them because they feel they "have no life" anymore after parenthood.
^
People like this, are the reason I have no issue with abortions.. I mean I would prefer it if no one HAD to get an abortion, but if you cannot take care of the child, see it as a hassle, or have NO intentions of caring for it, what's the better choice between letting it grow up thinking its hated/unloved or was brought into this world out of ignorance and immaturity (which sometimes fucks with people, and they turn to things like alcoholism, or drug abuse.) or just having an abortion, and not letting someone lead a life of suffering and hurt? As much as their is a chance for said baby to have a good life, there is also a chance said baby will have a horrible life.

Only an insane person would think they are the same thing.

When Does Human Life Begin?

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

Linking an acticle abouth the definition of life , from a pro-life web site , don't you think there is something wrong there ? They will obviously make the definition of life , that has actualy no real definition by the way , to fit their aguements ... And i read like half the article and that's exacly what they do ...


---


And SkelliDrops i'm sorry if i made you lose your time by trolling you . I have absolutly no intent in argueing in this topic for real . All you did is say why you have this opinion , not why your opinion is the right one , and every other pro life does the exact same thing , they doesn't make any sense and contredict themself , because they are not thinking with their head , they are thinking with their heart . And i'm not gonna argue with any one that doesn't use his head ...

I'm not gonna argue anymore after this post. If the debate about life begins, the church and everybody else has their own opinion, and this is not going to be settled in the next 3 hours, 3 days, 3 years, or even 3 decades.



A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

- Living things are highly organized.

- All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

- All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

- All living things have an ability to reproduce.

- All living things have an ability to adapt.

A fetus can do all of these things. According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his/her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species; I see reproducing as an accomplishment so saying that the fetus hasn't accomplished anything yet, in my opininon, is wrong).



My mistake. That was stupid of me. I do respect your opinion on this topic.

For me it's simple, when you can't give the child a future you should not give it life. SO if you can't take care of it (feed it, give it education, ...) or it had an illness you should be able to abort it. Yes I know there is also adoption wich is still a valid option if the child is to old to be aborted. Wich leads to another discussion about at what age the child cant be aborted anymore.

The believe that all life is sacred is simply untrue. However in a society the life of a conscious person is sacred. So as long as it is not a conscious person it should be allowed. This is a logical rule because to make a society work you need the conscious parts of that society to agree with the rules and because no one want to die no one will agree to killing conscious people. Outside the rules that are needed to keep society from falling into chaos there are no absolute morals

The idea that life begins at conception seems preposterous to me. The way I see it, "killing" the fertilized egg isn't ending life. It is dennying the possibility of it the same way people do it countless times every day whether on their own or in a couple with the help of condoms and birth control pills.

The fundamentalist, almost retarded, idea that all life is a sacred gift from God is even more absurd. Wasn't Sarah Palin who basically said something like "All life is perfect so, you have to keep your rape child."?

I also love the contradictions of people who are against abortion. It's always like "I'm against it, exept when..." Of course it's an exeption. Do you fear that, if abortion is legalized, people will have them every other week? Having an abortion due to pregnancy complications or rape is different from recklessness but it seems as though both reasons are valid.

It is technically the same thing, you are killing a collection of living cells. The dependency on another living body is irrelevent. The morality of doing such an act is the question, and it's a pretty poor question at that. Everyone here stating that it is a bad thing to kill a fetus, is probably sitting at home eating eggs for breakfast, hamburgers and pizza for dinner. You eat fish, cow, pigs, chicken, and all sorts of other manner of animals without even giving a second thought to it, yet killing a "human" in any stage is wrong? There is a huge flaw in the moral compass when you believe that only human life is sacred and animals are not. When you value any life over another. Humans aren't any more special than any other creature on the planet, we are all just a collection of organic cells trying to survive in any way we possibly can.

So unless you are some hard core type of vegan that doesn't even eat cheese or any biproduct of an animal, you really have no weight to your argument. And even at that, anyone who knows how pollenation works knows that in every single one of those pollen are thousands of sperms from plants. Which means that just like living animals, plants breed almost the same way, using the "egg and sperm" method. So even a vegan is eating something that reproduces just like an animal. So the whole thing has absolutely no meaning.

Everything is sacred or nothing is sacred, and if everything is sacred than really nothing is sacred cause you wouldn't be able to point to anything as being better. It's all made up and has no meaning. yay.

You look at morality in a wrong way, morality is not about things being wrong in essence. Morality is about things being wrong cause it would harm society. So stealing is wrong not because its not moral, stealing is wrong because if it wasnt the concept of property we have in this society would be meaningless. So killing a man is wrong because if it wasnt everyone could just be killed and that would lead to the downfall of society.

I am not saying that im against abortion, I'm just stating why your argument is invalid.
Basicaly it comes down to the fact that morals arent absolute, they are a human product.

Oh man... These discussions are what our teacher dreams of getting us to argue about in our class. In lieu of that, I've pre-prepared my thoughts on this subject and can say this.

It's asinine to think that all people will be responsible when it comes to sexual intercourse. One of the consequences of intercourse is of course, pregnancy. What is the woman to do in this situation though? She has taken on the act of preparing another life, and her body is no longer her own. So by this right, does this mean that the zygote that is forming now have the right to live?

My answer to this is hypocritical, and to this I take no sides. Yes, the being should be allowed to live. No human life should thoughtlessly be wasted... However, I also believe no human life should be thoughtlessly be created either. To be frank, I'd rather have the already available productive member of society when it comes to this sort of thing. I have, and always will, care more about the life of the mother than the child.

However, that sentiment changes from age to age.

A young woman who is just of birthing age who gets pregnant is obviously not ready for the responsibilities of being a parent. Why then, should we force them to accept those responsibilities? Indeed, it's a hard lesson in life to go through. One must learn from their mistakes. It's stupid though, that people would force a child to have a child.

The daughter needs to remain a daughter until she becomes an adult. She does not need to become a mother any earlier than at least post-highschool, IMO.

But rather than talking to ourselves about whether or not abortion is right or wrong, let's look at the one of the issues that leads to this in the first place:

Sexual Intercourse among Teens.

If we're going to talk about abortion, then we need to encompass every factor that leads up to it. Rather than proposing "Let's let the child live or die." Let's instead think of ways to prevent pregnancy in the first place.

It's imperative for people to realize that sexual intercourse is now a new norm in teens lifestyle. It's a way they show affection and sate their sexual curiosity at that age. Morality... well, it's on a decline to be sure. Rules are becoming more lax (and where I come from, in Arkansas. The principal actually encourages young girls to get pregnant and keep their children and to have as many as possible.)as well as society's changing in how they view sexual intercourse in general.

I honestly would propose that schools offer free birth-control pills to women, and offer various treatments for males that would render their sperm innefective for a duration of time, or make it mandatory until highschool has been completed.

EDIT: Now in the case of elder women, I believe that abortion should not be an option unless it was an unwilling act... At that point you're an adult, and can fully be responsible for your own actions.

TL;DR

Let's cut the crap about morality and actually do something to prevent it from happening versus debating whether or not it's right or wrong for a woman to choose what to do with her body; and whomever may share it with her.