---

If the only argument against abortion is that it's murder, then I would have to argue that I consider "killing" anything to be "murder". If you kill a bug, that's murder. It's not a crime because bugs can't defend themselves (in trial or physically), and neither can a fetus.

I will say that I do NOT support abortion in the vast majority of the cases, though. Not because it's any more wrong than killing an equally aware creature of a different species, but because it's ridiculously irresponsible, inconsiderate, and ignorantly selfish--just like killing a bug for no reason at all.

---

No. That's not why it's legal. It's legal because a fetus isn't considered a human until they develop higher brain function, and have a beating heart. But ultimately, what defines humanity is not that.

FP

-------
I think we are in rats' alley
Where the dead men lost their bones.

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 10:24 pm on July 18, 2008

---

Quote: from FurryPanther at 12:05 am on July 19, 2008

---

Quote: from iinsurgent at 9:54 pm on July 18, 2008

---

The DNA doesn't change? It's a human at fertilzation.

---

  Exactly. And what do we call it when you kill another human being willingly? Oh, right. Murder.

  FP

---

 

 Actually, that's what you call it when you kill another human being unlawfully:  

 

---

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice

---

 

 - www.dictionary.com

---

The only reason abortion isn't legally murder is because a fetus isn't legally a human. Which is completely fallacious.

FP

---

Consider, though, the problem with simply using the word "human" as the determining factor in whether or not something is murder. A person who is brain dead or in a persisting vegetative state hasn't changed their DNA at all. They're still human, but their personhood and, as I've been stating throughout this thread, their potential is gone. The problem isn't that a fetus isn't legally a human; any idiot who understands what DNA is knows that a fetus is human genetically. The problem is that a fetus isn't legally its own person.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

No. That's not why it's legal. It's legal because a fetus isn't considered a human until they develop higher brain function, and have a beating heart. But ultimately, what defines humanity is not that.

FP

---

Really? Is it not our higher brain functions in which we develop our consciousness, our ability to be self-aware and our personality?

What exactly makes us human if that doesn't? Our DNA? In that case, killing a single cell of a human being is murder..

-------
Genetics is fate. Change our genes, achieve free will.

Do you know why murder is murder? Because you kill a person's potential. You deaden the rest of their fourth-dimensional selves. Simply because an underdeveloped ball of cells doesn't currently think and feel doesn't mean it won't be sentient in the future. Abortions deaden entire lifetimes and family line in the future.

See, now, if you're like on or two other pro-choicers, you could just say that the fifth dimension will keep that child alive. You know, the choice to let it live is in the multitude of alternate time-lines somewhere. Personally, knowing that we collapse actuality to our reality merely by the act of observation, that's a callous, self-obsessed response. Think of it this way: if a butterfly can flap its wings and affect the world in some enormous way, how many bugs will that child kill in its life?

The point is, that's a human in there. We throw the term fetus in so we can dehumanize it, to make it easier to look at as just a growth inside of us. But determination of murder or not should take into account the fourth-dimensional lives of the infant; everything it, and all its descendants, will do in the future. When you map the entire existence of an infant in the womb and prove that this child will have no more effect on the world than a passing wind or the newest diet fad, well then, I no longer have any right to tell you that erasing the child is wrong, though I'd still say it is. But until that day, I adamantly fight abortion, and leave you with this thought: abortion has killed far more lives than the holocaust ever did. Abortion clinics are the death camps of the unborn.

And if a woman is going to make the argument of how stressful it is to have a child, and how it can ruin her life. . .grow up. Life is filled with tough situations. Just because your parents aren't nice to you doesn't mean that shooting them is legally or morally correct. Hard-knock life, don't let yourself get there in the first place.

Spare me the frequent arguments about being raped and such. There are exclusions to every rule.

---

No impact on the ecosystem? I daresay the disappearance of humans would have a rather great impact on the ecosystem. It's sheer ignorance to think that the disappearance of any species would have absolutely no impact on the ecosystem.

Point, though, that I'm also not arguing the morality or immorality of abortion, just pointing out that it's fallacious to say that aborting a fetus is no different from stepping on a cockroach.

---

Your very right, the disappearance of human's would have a substantial impact on the ecosystem. A positive one at that. We are the one's destroying it...

I still do not see your argument... I find it amusing that you think human's are much more special than bugs.

-------
You made me this way. I can't control it. I don't want to...
Ƒ ₪ Ș
I'm looking for paid bloggers, visit:
www.dietsuccesstips.com

---

Let me ask you this: if cockroaches were to somehow begin to cause the slow destruction of the world, do you think that they would (a) realize it, (b) stop what they were doing and (c) try to fix it?

---

I know exactly what your getting at, and it's easily countered by asking you the same about humans. Have we realized the effects of global warming... Yes. Are we fixing it? That's highly debateable. In my personal oppinion we aren't doing much to solve the problem that's been created. As we are still consuming the remainder of our natural resources. (Another topic for another day.)

How are we do know that the cockroaches wouldn't realize if it they were to slowly cause the destruction of the planet? It's very possible they would. However it's unlikely they'd ever do anything to get to such a scenario.

-------
You made me this way. I can't control it. I don't want to...
Ƒ ₪ Ș
I'm looking for paid bloggers, visit:
www.dietsuccesstips.com

Or, if you don't like that, would lions stop hunting zebras because they realized they were overkilling in a region? Or would cows stop farting if they realized that they were producing enough methane gas to do damage to the atmosphere?

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

Quote: from FurryPanther at 4:18 pm on July 19, 2008

---

 No. That's not why it's legal. It's legal because a fetus isn't considered a human until they develop higher brain function, and have a beating heart. But ultimately, what defines humanity is not that.  

 FP

---

Really? Is it not our higher brain functions in which we develop our consciousness, our ability to be self-aware and our personality?  

What exactly makes us human if that doesn't? Our DNA? In that case, killing a single cell of a human being is murder..

---

Look, if we're going to pretend that there is a "fuzzy line" between destroying a single skin cell from an adult human and aborting a fetus, then someone is just being a jackass.

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

Many of us are, however, trying to fix it. Haven't you noticed how big "going green" has become in the past couple of years? Sure, we're nowhere near where we need to be, but we're starting. Would cockroaches even start?  

Or, if you don't like that, would lions stop hunting zebras because they realized they were overkilling in a region? Or would cows stop farting if they realized that they were producing enough methane gas to do damage to the atmosphere?

---

We are attempting to solve a problem that we created. Seems like the only logical answer. Cockroaches would not ever have to worry about correcting such a problem, would they?

Lions/Zebras/Cows Farting: Nature has a way of correcting itself. We've distanced ourselves from nature. If we went with our natural instincts, the world would be far different than it is today.

Post edited at 4:55 pm on July 20, 2008 by Gabriel Gray

-------
You made me this way. I can't control it. I don't want to...
Ƒ ₪ Ș
I'm looking for paid bloggers, visit:
www.dietsuccesstips.com

See, that's the thing. "Nature" has a way of correcting itself, but it's not through the animals' choice, is it? When lions overkilling their main prey causes them to start dying of starvation and therefore hunting less, that's not their choice, is it? When methane gas kills cows out in their fields so that they, obviously, stop farting, that's not their choice, is it? Humans haven't been driven to the point yet where nature is forcing us to drive cars that are better for the environment or recycle or anything along those lines, but we're doing it anyway, by choice. Show me one animal species that would do such a thing.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

Why wouldn't they? Sure, cockroaches can't build factories or drive cars, but I'm certain there are several other ways in which they could cause serious problems for the world (over population, carrying natural diseases that destroy vegetation, etc.). Sure, humans created problems, but we're starting to turn around and correct them. Do you honestly think that a cockroach or any other animal, for that matter, would consciously do the same?

See, that's the thing. "Nature" has a way of correcting itself, but it's not through the animals' choice, is it? When lions overkilling their main prey causes them to start dying of starvation and therefore hunting less, that's not their choice, is it? When methane gas kills cows out in their fields so that they, obviously, stop farting, that's not their choice, is it? Humans haven't been driven to the point yet where nature is forcing us to drive cars that are better for the environment or recycle or anything along those lines, but we're doing it anyway, by choice. Show me one animal species that would do such a thing.

---

Your argument has turned into a bunch of random crap. The primary difference here is being that the problems we create are not correctable by nature as long as were here.

Cockroaches have been on this earth for 300 million years. How long have been been here? It's hard to say, but it's between 200,000 and 3.6 million years. It's funny how cockroaches have yet to make a negative impact on the planet.

http://www.essortment.com/articles/cockroaches-promote-diseases_1775.htm

You make it sound as if we ever cockroach you see is carrying a disease. This is not correct, and you will notice that roaches are doing a lot to improve the planet. Naturally. The only reason we are are attempting to improve the planet is because we've fucked it up.

By the time we correct our problems, it may be too late.

Back to abortion and bugs. I still find it rather ignorant that you value your life and the life of other humans over that of a little bug. Trying to prove that bugs are insignificant creatures is rather pathetic, without them the world would be vastly different. As proven in the articles i've provided.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7891/the_need_for_insects_in_our_world.html

-------
You made me this way. I can't control it. I don't want to...
Ƒ ₪ Ș
I'm looking for paid bloggers, visit:
www.dietsuccesstips.com

---

Ever kill a scorpion? Cockroach? I don't see how it's any different than abortion. I bet you don't even think twice about it? So why is it so wrong to abort an undeveloped baby? After all, just as a bug, it's defenseless.

Just because a baby is one of our own does not mean we must "protect" it. After all, I don't see many people protecting bugs.

Discuss...

---

So what's the difference between a person and a cockroach, since potential (value) is relative, and the ability to protect oneself is rather arbitrary (besides your implication that we should kill off that which is defenseless...)?

And to avoid the chances for a diversion that I don't intend I'll simplify my question further.

What is the difference between a person and a cockroach?

PS: Socratic method ftw.

Post edited at 10:44 pm on July 20, 2008 by Rastafarian

-------
"Who are you?" Sophie asked.
She received no response to this either, but felt a momentary
confusion as to whether it was she or her reflection who asked
the question.