Is it murder?

[RKenshin]

Because we're forming our own political group to combat both pro-life and pro-choice, called pro-stfu.

[BIGSTIC]

Sorry for page old reply-

The issue here is that you and your friend are arguing different things. He is arguing the morality of murder, you're arguing the *legality* of an action.

However in America's system, Legality > Morality. So in certain situations there is no reason to even bring up the morality of the situation.

And since we are showing baby pics her is one of my boy at 24 weeks.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...stic/Baby3.jpg

[Turambar]

I'm against abortion, but for killing babies.

Hi Maddox! I didn't know you posted here.

[Jefe]

God so many godamn dumb people here. Don't fuking mix abortion, miscarriages and so on with this case. Those instances are completely different and irrelevant to this case.

Anyways, based on thes statute:

Indiana: The killing of "a fetus that has attained viability" is murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. Indiana Code 35-42-1-1, 35-42-1-3, 35-42-1-4.

From a personal perspective, yes.

Edit: Ops, cited wrong source (half asleep, sorry).

[Keno]

I couldn't give a fuck about what the law says regarding whether it's murder or not. Simple fact is, if you shoot my partner and kill my unborn child, I will end your life even if it's the last thing I ever do.

You're a big tough guy on the internet, huh?

Also to the people who think that you shouldn't abort your fetus just because it has toes and ears and fingers and such... are you serious? It is still JUST A BALL OF CELLS at that point. Higher brain function is what we use to determine the leap between fetus and human. And no, I don't mean higher brain function as in calculus and such, but more as in cognitive ability.

[Senoska]

Killing a human infant is the equivelant of stepping on a cockroach.

This is, quite simply, not true in any capacity at all whatsoever.

This is an image showing the first five weeks of human development:
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/ww...ges/Cst800.jpg

The last stage, stage 23, is still in the first trimester (first trimester is 12 weeks or 84 days, this is day 60). Eyes, ears, CNS, fingers, toes, genitals, heart, etc are all fairly well formed. I hear again and again that "oh it's just a ball of cells" that somehow people think it's just an unshaped mass until the third trimester where it suddently takes shape. Most structures are fully formed during the first trimester.

I'm not trying to make a morality play on this really. I just always get the feeling that people let their lack of understanding drive their indifference. I always wonder what people would think if they knew it wasn't just some blob of goo going into the 7th month.

It having a shape resembling that of a human is totally irrelevant to if it is morally okay to abort it. A fetus is a parasite, and if the mother doesn't want it then she needs to take care of it before the 3 month period, after that point (one could argue) that it has devolped to the point that it could feel pain, which is were my morality kicked in. It still is a "ball of cells" even if it resembles a human in the sense that it cannot feel, cannot breath, cannot think, and do anything we define as "human"

I find it funny that so many people are against this, how many of the people who are against abortion checked that little box on the back of their licenses that said they wanted to donate their organs? You find it morally okay to harvest a mans organs once his brain stops working, his heart stops beating, his lungs stop breathing, but you have strong moral objections to end the dividing of cells before any of this occurs? Think about it.

[Keno]

Killing a human infant is the equivelant of stepping on a cockroach.

This is, quite simply, not true in any capacity at all whatsoever.

This is an image showing the first five weeks of human development:
[]http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/Images/Cst800.jpg[/img]

The last stage, stage 23, is still in the first trimester (first trimester is 12 weeks or 84 days, this is day 60). Eyes, ears, CNS, fingers, toes, genitals, heart, etc are all fairly well formed. I hear again and again that "oh it's just a ball of cells" that somehow people think it's just an unshaped mass until the third trimester where it suddently takes shape. Most structures are fully formed during the first trimester.

I'm not trying to make a morality play on this really. I just always get the feeling that people let their lack of understanding drive their indifference. I always wonder what people would think if they knew it wasn't just some blob of goo going into the 7th month.

It having a shape resembling that of a human is totally irrelevant to if it is morally okay to abort it. A fetus is a parasite, and if the mother doesn't want it then she needs to take care of it before the 3 month period, after that point (one could argue) that it has devolped to the point that it could feel pain, which is were my morality kicked in. It still is a "ball of cells" even if it resembles a human in the sense that it cannot feel, cannot breath, cannot think, and do anything we define as "human"

I find it funny that so many people are against this, how many of the people who are against abortion checked that little box on the back of their licenses that said they wanted to donate their organs? You find it morally okay to harvest a mans organs once his brain stops working, his heart stops beating, his lungs stop breathing, but you have strong moral objections to end the dividing of cells before any of this occurs? Think about it.

I'm glad you brought that up. The thalamus isn't even fully formed until near 7 months into the term, which means the fetus cannot feel pain up until that point. Reactions to needles and other stimuli are simply that: autonomic reactions by the parasite. The parasite cannot feel until 28 weeks.

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain

[Senoska]

It having a shape resembling that of a human is totally irrelevant to if it is morally okay to abort it. A fetus is a parasite, and if the mother doesn't want it then she needs to take care of it before the 3 month period, after that point (one could argue) that it has devolped to the point that it could feel pain, which is were my morality kicked in. It still is a "ball of cells" even if it resembles a human in the sense that it cannot feel, cannot breath, cannot think, and do anything we define as "human"

I find it funny that so many people are against this, how many of the people who are against abortion checked that little box on the back of their licenses that said they wanted to donate their organs? You find it morally okay to harvest a mans organs once his brain stops working, his heart stops beating, his lungs stop breathing, but you have strong moral objections to end the dividing of cells before any of this occurs? Think about it.

I'm glad you brought that up. The thalamus isn't even fully formed until near 7 months into the term, which means the fetus cannot feel pain up until that point. Reactions to needles and other stimuli are simply that: autonomic reactions by the parasite. The parasite cannot feel until 28 weeks.

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain

Thanks for the link (*'-')b will read more into it.

[Kuya]

Damn baby killers, etc, etc.

[Beckwin]

I voted no. Involuntary manslaughter at most. If you shot a man in the balls or somehow ruined a woman's ovaries it's not like you could be charged in the slightest for killing the children they could potentially have in the future. You just get charged for what you did- in this case, shooting someone. Attempted murder.

trying to turn this into an issue of relativity with abortion is ridiculous. abortion is a free choice on the part of the pregnant woman for personal and/or medical reasons; fetuses dying as a result of injury to the pregnant woman is just that. (technically a miscarriage?)

[Demosthenes11]

I find it funny that so many people are against this, how many of the people who are against abortion checked that little box on the back of their licenses that said they wanted to donate their organs? You find it morally okay to harvest a mans organs once his brain stops working, his heart stops beating, his lungs stop breathing, but you have strong moral objections to end the dividing of cells before any of this occurs? Think about it.

ahahahaha, is that a bad troll post? Your logic is horrible

[Quicklet]

It having a shape resembling that of a human is totally irrelevant to if it is morally okay to abort it. A fetus is a parasite, and if the mother doesn't want it then she needs to take care of it before the 3 month period, after that point (one could argue) that it has devolped to the point that it could feel pain, which is were my morality kicked in. It still is a "ball of cells" even if it resembles a human in the sense that it cannot feel, cannot breath, cannot think, and do anything we define as "human"

I find it funny that so many people are against this, how many of the people who are against abortion checked that little box on the back of their licenses that said they wanted to donate their organs? You find it morally okay to harvest a mans organs once his brain stops working, his heart stops beating, his lungs stop breathing, but you have strong moral objections to end the dividing of cells before any of this occurs? Think about it.

I find it rather humorous when the term "parasite" gets thrown around in these debates as if everyone should think that way. While literally true, I don't think it presents a prima facie argument for moral justification under every circumstance, considering that these "parasites" can arise because of intentional and often negligent actions.

I also think it's problematic to consider the ability to feel pain as a requirement to be considered human, or at the very least, if you're going to make an exception for people who have disorders/temporary states preventing them from feeling pain, I don't think you can simply base your moral argument on whether or not something feels pain. It's primarily a psychological justification to make yourself feel better about doing something that you would otherwise feel guilty about.

[Keno]

It having a shape resembling that of a human is totally irrelevant to if it is morally okay to abort it. A fetus is a parasite, and if the mother doesn't want it then she needs to take care of it before the 3 month period, after that point (one could argue) that it has devolped to the point that it could feel pain, which is were my morality kicked in. It still is a "ball of cells" even if it resembles a human in the sense that it cannot feel, cannot breath, cannot think, and do anything we define as "human"

I find it funny that so many people are against this, how many of the people who are against abortion checked that little box on the back of their licenses that said they wanted to donate their organs? You find it morally okay to harvest a mans organs once his brain stops working, his heart stops beating, his lungs stop breathing, but you have strong moral objections to end the dividing of cells before any of this occurs? Think about it.

I find it rather humorous when the term "parasite" gets thrown around in these debates as if everyone should think that way. While literally true, I don't think it presents a prima facie argument for moral justification under every circumstance, considering that these "parasites" can arise because of intentional and often negligent actions.

I also think it's problematic to consider the ability to feel pain as a requirement to be considered human, or at the very least, if you're going to make an exception for people who have disorders/temporary states preventing them from feeling pain, I don't think you can simply base your moral argument on whether or not something feels pain. It's primarily a psychological justification to make yourself feel better about doing something that you would otherwise feel guilty about.

My argument is not solely based on the ability to feel pain. If you read my post I said, "higher brain function" and later reclassified it as "cognitive ability". Someone else mentioned that fetus (is that the correct plural?) can feel pain at the three month mark so I just noted that they cannot feel pain until the 7 month mark. I wasn't saying that the ability to feel pain should be the sole criteria for classifying humans and fetus.

[Turambar]

My argument is not solely based on the ability to feel pain. If you read my post I said, "higher brain function" and later reclassified it as "cognitive ability". Someone else mentioned that fetus (is that the correct plural?) can feel pain at the three month mark so I just noted that they cannot feel pain until the 7 month mark. I wasn't saying that the ability to feel pain should be the sole criteria for classifying humans and fetus.

"Higher brain function" and "cognitive ability" aren't really good criteria for determining humanity either. If you put a bullet in a coma victim or a mentally disabled individual, you'd be guilty of murder.

[Nystul]

I couldn't give a fuck about what the law says regarding whether it's murder or not. Simple fact is, if you shoot my partner and kill my unborn child, I will end your life even if it's the last thing I ever do.

You're a big tough guy on the internet, huh?

Also to the people who think that you shouldn't abort your fetus just because it has toes and ears and fingers and such... are you serious? It is still JUST A BALL OF CELLS at that point. Higher brain function is what we use to determine the leap between fetus and human. And no, I don't mean higher brain function as in calculus and such, but more as in cognitive ability.

Silly, horrible argument that shows you have no knowledge of this stuff. Cognitive ability? In what sense? Until you're 2 you barely grasp that other people have their own intellect (why little kids will lie to you while covered in chocolate "I didn't eat it"- they don't know you can put things together).

You can't make a moral argument on this either way because it will draw in a lot of stuff. If you agree that killing a newborn is murder, then why? Because it has cognitive ability? It has no more cognitive ability than a cow, and you eat them. It has no more cognitive ability the day it is born than it did the day before. Survivability? Premature babies are born unable to survive on their own, it takes medicine etc. Adults are often unable to survive on their own without intervention, can they be killed? Even a healthy full term baby is unable to survive on it's own (dump a baby in the woods and...3 days until dead rotting baby!).

The "shoot off the balls" argument doesn't fly either, beckwin. A testicle left to it's own devices will never become a human. Neither will an ovary. However if two people create a pregnancy, that "little ball of cells" will, if left to it's own devices,become a human. You can say that the baby was none the wiser...so, I could shoot you in the head in your sleep. You would never know you died, you would feel nothing, be unaware of your own passing. That is not legal. I'm sure family will be upset...in this case I'm sure the mother and father feel a loss.

If you're going to argue about fucking cognitive ability, you might want to actually...know what that means.

Edit: I sure as fuck hope you're a vegan. Every animal you may eat for food is capable of feeling pain. It is a very primitive sense, and in many ways the neurological mechanisms that govern it are pretty well conserved. By your logic you're a mass murderer?

[archibaldcrane]

Anyways, based on thes statute:

Indiana: The killing of "a fetus that has attained viability" is murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. Indiana Code 35-42-1-1, 35-42-1-3, 35-42-1-4.

From a personal perspective, yes.

I wouldn't consider a 5-month fetus to have "attained viability" - odds are extremely poor that if birth was induced at 5 months the fetus would survive, so if that's how they word the law then it's not murder of any sort, just attempted murder on the mother.

Am I reading the law incorrectly?

[Beckwin]

what if you shoot the balls and ovaries of a married couple trying to have children but hadn't achieved pregnancy yet (and the shooting didn't kill them)- does that make you a murderer?

[Demosthenes11]

I think you can make that distinction on your own

[Khamsin]

Anyways, based on thes statute:

Indiana: The killing of "a fetus that has attained viability" is murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. Indiana Code 35-42-1-1, 35-42-1-3, 35-42-1-4.

From a personal perspective, yes.

I wouldn't consider a 5-month fetus to have "attained viability" - odds are extremely poor that if birth was induced at 5 months the fetus would survive, so if that's how they word the law then it's not murder of any sort, just attempted murder on the mother.

Am I reading the law incorrectly?

Depends on if they mean that it can survive if labor is induced now, or if they mean it appears the baby will likely proceed to term without complication? When you first get pregnant, all sorts of things could happen between then and 9 months where you might naturally miscarry or it just doesn't work out, but after a certain point it's pretty clear that the baby is doing just fine and, left alone, will pop out a healthy baby boy/girl in a few months. Look at it from the perspective of a couple who goes to a fertility clinic and really wants a baby. They'll be excited to see the pregnancy test come out positive, but how long must they wait before they can truly celebrate and count on having a healthy baby for sure?

[Turambar]

Anyways, based on thes statute:

Indiana: The killing of "a fetus that has attained viability" is murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. Indiana Code 35-42-1-1, 35-42-1-3, 35-42-1-4.

From a personal perspective, yes.

I wouldn't consider a 5-month fetus to have "attained viability" - odds are extremely poor that if birth was induced at 5 months the fetus would survive, so if that's how they word the law then it's not murder of any sort, just attempted murder on the mother.

Am I reading the law incorrectly?

It's not uncommon for baby born after 21-22 weeks to survive with proper hospital care. The record is actually just shy of 5 months of pregnancy (19 weeks, 6 days actually).