There's a big difference between aborting a foetus and killing a person.

I am torn by this really. I would like to say I am opposed to the death penalty but if anyone harmed my nearest and dearest I think I would want to take them apart limb by limb, slowly but thankfully I've never faced that dilemma and so say I am against the death penalty.

I am also pro-choice. It is not a choice I could make but I do believe in the right to choose - but only to a certain extent. I think the time limit for abortion is too high and should be brought below the 20 weeks. There are too many older children in the care system who would welcome a new home but many potential adopters want babies, if abortion was abolished the older children will get lost in the care system and failed further.

Ok what is the big difference, and bear in mind the person is a repeat offending murderous paedophile?

It appears not, if you ask in the places with the death penalty if they're immoral they'll say no.

And a newborn child is most definitely different to a walking, talking 3 year old. Is there an ethical difference between killing a three year old and drowning a newborn? Historically there are many people who would have argued that there is, as newborn drownings were common not all that long ago (within the last hundred years in the western world, and ongoing in some parts of the world). I actually think there's a strong argument that murdering a 3 year old (who has formed relationships and connections and is aware of complex emotions) IS morally "worse" than killing a newborn. That doesn't make drowning a newborn ethically acceptable.

It's not birth control in the sense that you understand birth control to be, as clearly you are considering "birth control" and "contraception" to be synonymous when they are not. An abortion is not contraception, as contraception is "the prevention of conception". It clearly IS birth control, as birth control is plainly "the prevention of birth". Birth control encompasses contraception but they are not interchangeable terms.


I would like to see an end to the abortion of healthy offspring. I would like people to wake up and see it for what it is; the deliberate termination of a human life. That might be arguably acceptable where the consequences are dire, e.g. a likelihood of death or disability for the mother or severe psychological trauma as may be the case with rape. It might be ethically arguable when the child is going to be born with severe disabilities. It SHOULD be morally abhorrent when it's the healthy product of consensual sexual activity. As for abstinence - I'm not saying "don't have sex if you don't want a baby". Contraception used correctly is almost, but not entirely, 100% effective (the small percentage where it's ineffective is almost always down to incorrect use, the risk with correct use is a tiny fraction of a percent). I *am* saying, if you're not ready to accept that tiny fraction of a possibility of dealing with the consequences of sexual activity, then just don't. Don't have vaginal sex. Lick and suck and finger whatever you want, but keep the babymakers separate, or accept the tiny risk.

I don't want it to be illegal, for completely separate reasons.

Flawed statistics - this has been achieved through contraception. Taking abortion out of the equation would not make a significant difference to the overall birth rate. Unless you're suggesting that every family with 2 children in the western world has gone through 6 - 8 abortions. It also completely ignores the fact that developed nations currently rely on net immigration to be economically sustainable; overpopulation is not a concern in the countries where abortion rates are high, but not BECAUSE abortion rates are high.

Also flawed logically - "poor families" in global terms do not have access to abortion as an option, and DO have a high birth and infant mortality rate. Due to lack of education and contraception. Not due to a lack of said abortion facilities.

A final point would be that most abortions are NOT economically motivated in the sense of being literally unable to afford to raise a child. Most (non-rape, not related to disability) abortions are for comfort, convenience and because they disrupt a "life plan". I do wish that, at least, people would be honest about this unpalatable fact.

A foetus isn't a human being yet, it's just a collection of cells that can't survive outside of the womb. The death penalty is 'justifiable' murder.

The concepts are completely different, you can be for one and against the other without a conflict occuring. I'm pro choice and I'm vehemently against the Death Penalty since I don't think murder is ever justified, state sponsored or otherwise.

hang on your describing an embryonic stage prior to being a fetus and we are discussing fetus

So? Maybe people in those places have a different morality code to us, laws are made by people so therefore must be driven by the morality codes of those people and not the other way round

Laws are made by governments not people, and governments tell people what to think by creating laws, it's called formal social control.

Governments aren't made up of people then? :joker:

Of course they are, I meant they are not made by society in general. Your point was moral reasoning affects laws, I don't think they do I feel laws affect moral reasoning Niamh.

I disagree, if that were the case nothing and no laws would ever change, they change because society demands it of their governments, if moral opinion starts to change amongst it's people. Of course each country is different and I think religion may have alot to do with different countries moral compasses

We vote for politicians to represent us in parliament. Then they make laws on our behalf. Just because half the population can't be arsed to vote doesn't mean that politicians don't act of behalf of the population when it comes to lawmaking.

Right, there is just too much in there to respond to it all in depth, but I will skim through it, and focus on the major bits relating to our discussion, as I see it.

I don't know where that first paragraph is going, or what you're trying to say. Laws and history are constantly reviewed and updated in line with the moral Zeitgeist of the day. It was ever thus, so what relevance the previous 100 years, or other what other societies do, is supposed to have on my opinion on this is slightly baffling. I just don't get where it fits in to our discussion. We don't sacrifice children into the foundations of every new building project we take up either. And...?

The next bit is semantics and bears no relevance on either of our opinions.

Birth control - to say you think people should be made to carry to term and support a child for the rest of the parents life, after an accident in the bedroom is completely foreign to my own morality. Sexual intercourse is one of the ways that maintains the bonds between pairing humans, and we also use sex as a way of conflict resolution, coping with stress and many other wonderful reasons, but mainly, because when it's good, it's ******ing great, in a way that hands and mouth can never be because that sense of worn out euphoria is unmatched.

Yeah - you're probably right about the statistics, because I was talking in general terms about what happens when women aren't able to make informed decisions about their own sexual reproductive organs, which eradicating abortion would do, although my point would have been more appropriate if we didn't have contraception these days (although there are states in America that have tried to make it illegal to use contraception very recently - which highlights the potential slippery slope we face).

Attitudinal changes happen depending on who is in power. Religion has a bigger part to play is some places more than others.
Having said that look at the 'bible belt'?

Do you think? I suppose it's a bit which came first the chicken or the egg though, I mean it is the people who put the governments in power after all

Yes they issue a manifesto and you think, hmm that sounds good... Then they get in and do the exact opposite :laugh:

I think my opinion can be summed up fairly succinctly thus:

It's undeniably inconvenient that pregnancy is a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. People want to have sex. They don't necessarily want to have children. The (last resort) solution is to kill their unborn child in the womb.

That's the basics of it, morality completely removed. The semantics used to make it more palatable exist for that reason alone: to make the process clinical and provide emotional distance. "Abort" instead of "kill", "fetus" instead of "unborn child" etc. All in all, I find that people are just keen to justify sit as 100% clinical and remove the moral question.

People don't want to call it what it should be, even for those who support it: a necessary and unfortunate evil. The rhetoric that surrounds it is purely to protect the emotional well-being of the person having it done, because the reality is hard to deal with. When you have an abortion, you end a human life. There is no logical argument to the contrary. It is human, it is alive. Some people might be able to justify that - fine - but I can't accept them justifying it by attempting to change the facts.

Sorry, my last reply was a bit of a ramble...

I don't think people fully appreciate the reality of the situation, as I mentioned earlier. For one, even if we are going to accept that we have moved so far away from the biological imperatives of our existence as to refuse to accept the consequences of a sexual relationship then we should be looking to the morning after pill as a contraceptive. There's no reason that it should ever reach the point of a termination, except that people don't really understand what they are doing when it comes to abortion and it is so freely accepted an ethical way to end "the consequences of a mistake". Sure, there are times (like rape) when people's sense of perspective is lost but the issue of education is all the more crucial for that reason.

Then, there's the complicating factor that it often isn't just a blob of cells. Early first trimester terminations aren't quite so common as late first trimester/early second trimester terminations because women are usually 4+ weeks by the time they realise and waiting times on the NHS can be upwards of 5+ weeks. Statistically, those relying on abortions aren't financially able to use private clinics so we're looking at an average of 9-12 weeks for abortions by which time there is a viable heartbeat and, quite often, a pain sensitive central nervous system (8+ weeks).

The zeitgeist is irrelevant. It changes when people seek to change it. Attitudes don't change without being challenged and, yes, we have clearly come a long way - but that doesn't mean there isn't quite some way to go. That this is accepted by so many has no bearing upon how morally questionable it is, it doesn't make it any less barbaric just because people don't think it is. That's where it fits in - because you have so clearly demonstrated the profound ignorance of the masses. It's OK because everyone says it's OK... everyone does it. That's a fairly obvious logical fallacy.

I think there are much more persuasive arguments in favour of abortion as systemic disease of human consciousness than a simple termination of an error. That we live in a society where people feel a baby is a mistake, something they cannot cope with or the end of their plans is indicative of the problems within society. Whilst I can accept that this is the painful reality of modern humanity, I don't think that makes it justifiable. Just a grotesque byproduct.

Then we have the usual: the misinformation and outright lies. How many people in this thread alone have said "it's just a bundle of cells"? A myth that most people believe, because that's the rhetoric that makes the reality of disposing of an inconvenience more bearable.

I'm going to post a link to a picture of a later term abortion (not unusually late, mind you). This isn't intended to be divisive. It's merely to HOPEFULLY put the "bundle of cells" rhetoric into perspective.




Again I have to emphasise: there is a clear and questionable agenda to normalise and medicalise abortion by distorting the facts. By placing an image of a featureless blob of cells in the public mindset. It is a lie, it is an illusion, the truth is horrendous. The truth is that this mangled baby is the lucky one; because when they aren't torn apart like this, sometimes they're born alive. Sometimes they try to take a breath. Sometimes they even let out a little cry, before being left in a dish to suffocate because their lungs can't operate and because yes... they can't survive without their "mother"s body. Her choice. Her barbaric choice.

You might think this is necessary. You might believe that it helps society to be stronger, better, fairer in other areas. And even if you're right? At least have the balls to see and accept it for what it is.

People may not want to call it that out loud but having known women who have had abortions (and I'm sure many people in this thread do too), the emotional turmoil they go through is proof enough that they know exactly what it is. Abortion is a euphemism, foetus is a euphemism, but you can't take the edge off of what you've done to your body and the thing that was growing inside it. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs once, that's unfortunate and I feel sorry for anyone who has been in that position. But I know girls who've had abortions, plural. I think that's irresponsible and I would have thought that the emotional trauma of what happened the first time would make you more responsible, but for some, apparently not.

Part of what makes us human is our personality, our appearance, our voice, our mannerisms, our friends, our jobs, our relationships... an unborn foetus (or unborn child, if you prefer) does not have any of those things yet. It is a blank canvas. A murderer on death row, on the other hand, has all of those attributes. That is a life. They are not a blank canvas. For me, that's where the difference lies.

Exactly... I find the abortion of a consensual healthy fetus hard to accept but I understand it enough to be able to accept someone doing it. Multiple abortions (under the same conditions) basically unforgivable. I simply wouldn't want anything to do with that person. That may make me judgemental but then, I personally don't have any problem with judgement, be that being judged or making judgements. And the rhetoric is part of the problem; yes, it exists to "spare" those who have had to make that decision, to make the decision easier to live with. But in the process, it seeps into general public opinion and makes it "easier" to consider it in the first place. Easier to look at it as a "non-life" or merely a "hypothetical life", when honestly, that's just bull****. A convenient defence mechanism.

I agree to an extent but again, I find it to often be an excuse. A newborn baby, say a few hours old, is no different to an unborn fetus. They operate purely on instinct and have no personality, they all look fairly generic. They have no mannerisms or friends, jobs or meaningful relationships (beyond how others feel about them; they themselves have no cognitive emotion). But how would people feel if they heard that someone had walked into a neonatal unit with a machine gun and killed 5 babies? Horrified. Anyone would. And not just for the families; for the babies, themselves. For the loss of innocent life. And yet, show those same people 5 abortions and it's excused as "sad, but understandable / necessary". There is literally zero logic in it. This is what infuriates me. People try to make it seem logical, clinical and scientific when all it is, is a string of excuses for ending a human life for convenience.

Perhaps you're right and I am just influenced by the propaganda of abortion clinic terminology, I really don't know, I've not given much thought to how I feel about abortion because I'm male, I'll never have to go through that process and I suppose I've never really wanted to have an opinion on it either, it's a very emotional subject. I feel that the difference between a newborn baby and a foetus is that if you've carried a baby to term, you wanted that baby. You wanted that baby so badly, you were going to love it more than you'd loved anything else before, maybe you'd already thought about what it would be like when it grew up - so while it might not have any of the things I listed, yet, you, the parent(s) have still thought about those things. With a foetus, if you didn't want it, you're specifically not thinking about those things because dehumanising it and thinking of it as a clinical procedure allows you to detach yourself from the responsibility of what's happened. It all comes down to perspective, ultimately; if the woman carrying that foetus doesn't want it then she won't let herself be protective of it, not too dissimilar from what happens in nature with the runt of a litter.

The thing of it as well is that there are different scenarios where abortion might be used - rape babies are different from disabled babies and they're different from just plain unwanted babies. The ethics are what dictate attitudes towards the topic. A woman gets raped - does she keep the baby and have to live with the proof of what happened to her every day? Will she love that child as much as she should? Will that child have a normal life, when they become aware that their mother doesn't love them or if they find out that they were a rape baby? I'd imagine that would be an extremely painful discovery to make. Or would the mother keep the baby and love it despite all of those things and the child never finds out? Or does she have the right to terminate that baby as it's an extension of the crime that was committed against her? Should she be forced to keep it and have her life changed forever even though she did not consent?

And that's just for rape babies... there are different ethical questions for disabled babies and different questions for unwanted pregnancies too. It's a tough subject and I think that is why there has been this effort to turn abortion into a clinical, non-emotive procedure even though the actual act puts women through all sorts of turmoil.

A friend of mine got pregnant aged 19 and had her beautiful daughter. The father has refused to acknowledge that the child is his and hasn't paid any child support to her. She then got pregnant again aged 21 and aborted it. She was so devastated and still is today. She said that she would never get an abortion again if she were ever to fall pregnant again. She's got a daughter, she thought she could disconnect the idea of an abortion from the beautiful baby girl that she brought into the world already but she couldn't.

I just don't know where I stand on the issue. On the one hand I see young girls being irresponsible with young guys and then all of the pressure falling at the feet of the young girl while the young guy can disappear off and say it's not his problem. On the other hand I see people being punished for mistakes they've made and either they have a child they're just not able to support or get rid of it and forever feel remorse over it and having that memory haunt them forever.

People can't have abortions after a specified number of weeks. I think I'm right in saying it's 12 weeks, unless there is a threat to the health of the mother and/or child and then it can be extended to 20 weeks, with longer if there are extenuating circumstances. All this comparing a fetus to a newborn child is dramatic nonsense. What's more... I reckon if it was men who got pregnant, gave birth and then cared for that child for the next 18 years, abortion would have been legalised centuries ago.

NHS abortions are regularly carried out up to 16 weeks because of waiting times. And yes, there is a MASSIVE difference between a 12 week old fetus and 16 weeks. But again, to suggest that that's the reality of a large number of abortions is another deliberately constructed lie.

I'll admit, comparing an early fetus before the development of brain function and the central nervous system to a newborn is sensationalist. But at 16 weeks, it really isnt at all. The only logical difference is that a newborn is bigger and doesn't live in a womb. An inconvenient truth? Probably.

I have far less problem with very early abortions (essentially, forced early miscarriage) but again... This is not the reality of a large number of abortions.

Oh and this...

...is frankly drivel. I'm sure it would have been legalised centuries ago, you're right. But so what? Does that justify it? "Kids are hard work, probs easier to just kill them amirite?"