Is Murdering Another Human Wrong?

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: JackReyes

if i understand your opening post you want to know if abortion is murder?

legally speaking.... no it's not. in the united states it is legal for a woman to have a procedure done that terminates a pregnancy.

No, his post is worded pretty bad. He is saying it is murder.

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The argument is that while alive it's not "human" ... and then a set of arbitrary definitions are used to support the argument.

Just like you set arbitrary definitions to say a fertilized egg is a human being.

No. That's the opposite of what I did.

I used hard facts.

Is it a unique living organism? If so what species is it?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
False. I already answered that question. A white blood cell is one cell that is part of a multicellular organism. The organism, not the individual cells, are what matters.

OK, then when does the dividing egg becomes an organism? No one can tell.

That's a lie. As I already explained, it's an organism at the moment of conception. There is no dispute about that. None. Zero. The waters are muddied by saying "yes it is a living organism but we arbitrarily decide it's not human based on criteria we pull from out behinds".

You already decided that by saying sperm weren't human. It has human DNA, thus is human by your own argument. Unless you arbitrarily decide it's not.

False. It's quite easy to prove. How many chromosomes does sperm have? What about a human?

You got caught with your foot in your mouth on this one, don't try to move the goal posts now.

You said, quite specifically, the organism, not the individual cells, is what matters. Therefore, the organism with human DNA matters.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
So now you are saying that right and wrong should not be based on the facts

Right and wrong are moral/philosophical concepts which are still evolving to this day. Yes it's about what is the most shared opinion at a specific place and time.

In judeo-christian societies some things are wrong while in others they are accepted.

Personal definitions are indeed worthless when in a society, so you can be mad that society doesn't share YOUR definition of what is a human being but no one forces you to have an abortion anyway.

Just don't be a dick who wants to prevent other people who decide to have one to do it.

It's their choice and since society allows it you have no saying in it.

Like I said it's how societies work, nothing prevents you to try to change laws or to go to a different place.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
False. I already answered that question. A white blood cell is one cell that is part of a multicellular organism. The organism, not the individual cells, are what matters.

OK, then when does the dividing egg becomes an organism? No one can tell.

That's a lie. As I already explained, it's an organism at the moment of conception. There is no dispute about that. None. Zero. The waters are muddied by saying "yes it is a living organism but we arbitrarily decide it's not human based on criteria we pull from out behinds".

You already decided that by saying sperm weren't human. It has human DNA, thus is human by your own argument. Unless you arbitrarily decide it's not.

False. It's quite easy to prove. How many chromosomes does sperm have? What about a human?

You got caught with your foot in your mouth on this one, don't try to move the goal posts now.

You said, quite specifically, the organism, not the individual cells, is what matters. Therefore, the organism with human DNA matters.

Yes. Do I need to say it again?

How many chromosomes does a human have? How many does a sperm have?

Sperm =/= unique human organism
If you think they are you really should bow out of this discussion now.

a reply to: gggilll

Your post is off topic. If you want to say it's right because it's legal then slavery was right. I mean no one forced others to own slaves why ruin it for those who wanted to?

That's another topic.

This topic seemed to be about whether abortion was the killing of a human life.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: gggilll

Your post is off topic. If you want to say it's right because it's legal then slavery was right.

It's not off topic. The topic isn't if abortion is right. It's if abortion is murder. Murder is a clearly defined legal concept.

"Right" or "wrong" are moral concepts and as such subject to endless philosophical debates.

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: gggilll

Your post is off topic. If you want to say it's right because it's legal then slavery was right.

It's not off topic. The topic isn't if abortion is right. It's if abortion is murder. Murder is a clearly defined legal concept.

"Right" or "wrong" are moral concepts and as such subject to endless philosophical debates.

Is abortion the killing of a unique human life? What circumstances can you take a life without it being murder? If abortion is the ending of a human life, and it is done outside the parameters of what the law considers justified, is that not murder?

If you reply back with the argument "it's legal so it's not murder" then you have gone off topic. OP clearly understands it's legal.

According to US and EU laws, abortions under certain circumstances isn't murder, so that pretty much seals the point. That also means these societies do not consider fetus under a certain age as "human beings". You can not like it but claiming it's a ploy from scientists or liberals or whatever to allow the killings of baby is a bit on the paranoid side.

Now if we want to argue whether it's right or not, we can, but we will never find a single truth since these moral concepts are mostly relative and not absolute.

For those of you who have your hands in your ears ...

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12]]

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

a reply to: gggilll

So you made the exact argument I said you would. Surprise. Clearly OP was not talking about whether it is currently legally murder, but whether it SHOULD be classified as such, based on the facts.

originally posted by: JackReyes
Many agree that women who sleep around can abort their unborn children, if they have children during sexual intercourse.

I don't know of any women who have given birth during sexual intercourse, but I'm sure it's happened.

Oh and those women who "sleep around." They can't get pregnant without men who sleep around. So men, don't sleep with loose, immoral hussies, k?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

Oh and those women who "sleep around." They can't get pregnant without men who sleep around. So men, don't sleep with loose, immoral hussies, k?

That there is good advice. It's a travesty men are let off the hook. They should not be. If you get a woman pregnant there should be no out, meeting that child's needs should be mandatory.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I mistyped without.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I mistyped without.

I know. I am not some troll waiting for you to mistype something so I can pounce on you knowing full well what you meant.

What you meant was perfectly clear so I responded to what you meant

You don't get it. Stop thinking about the term "murder" as an absolute. Here's a little thought experiment to demonstrate:

Lets say you are forced to choose between killing Adolf Hitler or Pope Francis, would you be fair and flip a coin or would you kill Hitler? You'd kill Hitler. Clearly murder of different forms carries different moral weight and judgement.

Now, lets say you had to choose between killing an 85 year old innocent man and a 5 year old innocent girl. I suspect you probably wouldn't flip a coin for this one either. Assuming you're like most people, you'd kill the old man for the sale of the little girl. To murder the little girl would be an atrocity far greater than the alternative. Clearly its better to give the 5 year-old a chance at life by killing the 85 year-old, a man who has already lived a long life. Thus we value life as a sort of opportunity - an opportunity that every innocent being deserves.

This is where it gets interesting. If you had to choose between killing a 1 year old child or a zygote (small collection of cells developing soon after conception that is microscopic in size), which would you choose? This hypothetical is, for me and probably most people, an easy choice as well. You kill the zygote in favor of the 1 year old child. Yet this seems opposite to the last hypothetical. Last time we killed the 85 year-old to save the 5 year old. We killed the older for the younger. Yet now we are killing the younger one in favor of the older one. Why? Because the zygote has no semblance of consciousness, at least not in any form we recognize. After we are born, we have no recollection of being in the womb. That's not surprising either. Experiences generate memories, and prior to birth, a fetus has not had any cognitive experiences. Perhaps you could argue that a fetus near birth is theoretically capable of cognitive thoughts, but the earlier in time you go towards conception, it becomes harder and harder to make that argument. The fact that you would kill the zygote to save the 1 year-old means there is a DIFFERENCE between the two actions. If you want to call killing a zygote murder, go ahead.

I think that your making a poor semantically based argument and you fail to recognize the silliness of applying such a charged word as "murder" to actions of many varying degrees that can at one end become so extremely dissimilar to the meaning of the original term that to still apply that term is not an attempt at logical precision but instead a play into political rhetoric.

If you would rather have half the population loses basic rights to their own bodies, have every rape leading to conception birth a child, have already poor mothers grow increasingly crippled by the financial strain of another mistake, have the world population growth rate increase significantly, if you would rather have all of that so that you didn't have to kill that zygote, well then we're never going to be on the same page.

You should realize that when you equate abortion with murder, you are calling 1/5 of all the women in America murderers.

GOOD DAY SIR!

a reply to: JackReyes

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: gggilll

How can it be genocide sperm are not people

It would not be a sperm at that point. Rather a fertilized egg.

originally posted by: Squidleepie
You don't get it. Stop thinking about the term "murder" as an absolute. Here's a little thought experiment to demonstrate:

Lets say you are forced to choose between killing Adolf Hitler or Pope Francis, would you be fair and flip a coin or would you kill Hitler? You'd kill Hitler. Clearly murder of different forms carries different moral weight and judgement.

Now, lets say you had to choose between killing an 85 year old innocent man and a 5 year old innocent girl. I suspect you probably wouldn't flip a coin for this one either. Assuming you're like most people, you'd kill the old man for the sale of the little girl. To murder the little girl would be an atrocity far greater than the alternative. Clearly its better to give the 5 year-old a chance at life by killing the 85 year-old, a man who has already lived a long life. Thus we value life as a sort of opportunity - an opportunity that every innocent being deserves.

This is where it gets interesting. If you had to choose between killing a 1 year old child or a zygote (small collection of cells developing soon after conception that is microscopic in size), which would you choose? This hypothetical is, for me and probably most people, an easy choice as well. You kill the zygote in favor of the 1 year old child. Yet this seems opposite to the last hypothetical. Last time we killed the 85 year-old to save the 5 year old. We killed the older for the younger. Yet now we are killing the younger one in favor of the older one. Why? Because the zygote has no semblance of consciousness, at least not in any form we recognize. After we are born, we have no recollection of being in the womb. That's not surprising either. Experiences generate memories, and prior to birth, a fetus has not had any cognitive experiences. Perhaps you could argue that a fetus near birth is theoretically capable of cognitive thoughts, but the earlier in time you go towards conception, it becomes harder and harder to make that argument. The fact that you would kill the zygote to save the 1 year-old means there is a DIFFERENCE between the two actions. If you want to call killing a zygote murder, go ahead.

I think that your making a poor semantically based argument and you fail to recognize the silliness of applying such a charged word as "murder" to actions of many varying degrees that can at one end become so extremely dissimilar to the meaning of the original term that to still apply that term is not an attempt at logical precision but instead a play into political rhetoric.

If you would rather have half the population loses basic rights to their own bodies, have every rape leading to conception birth a child, have already poor mothers grow increasingly crippled by the financial strain of another mistake, have the world population growth rate increase significantly, if you would rather have all of that so that you didn't have to kill that zygote, well then we're never going to be on the same page.

You should realize that when you equate abortion with murder, you are calling 1/5 of all the women in America murderers.

GOOD DAY SIR!

a reply to: JackReyes

I never equated anything with anything. That's a flat out lie. I made simple factual statements that you simply could not handle.

I would kill the zygote over the 1yo for the same reason as I would the 85 over the 5yo. I choose the one who has the best odds of a long life. The zygote has potential risks that could kill it. the 1yo has already beaten those risks.

You simply feel a need to attack me because you are threatened and uncomfortable with the facts presented, so it's easier for you to attack me, since the facts are unassailable.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
but whether it SHOULD be classified as such, based on the facts.

And I answered that I sided with the majority saying it shouldn't.

And you replied that the position of the majority is only based on some scientists arbitrarily saying things like everyone one earth is blindly believing everything they are told and no one is capable of forming a personal opinion. How silly and self-centered.


You can be mad that me and the majority of people consider that under certain circumstances it's not murder to have an abortion.


It doesn't make my truth more correct than yours. Nor do all the definitions you bring up make your truth more correct than mine. Eventually a fetus isn't truly a independent human being until a certain point in time since it cannot exist on its own.

You can say all you want it's a "human organism", a murder is the killing of a formed human being, not a "human organism" whatever you mean with these words.

It seems you don't really want to have an exchange of point of views, you just want to tell everyone they are wrong and you have the only correct definitions of "murder" and "human being". I think we got the message thank you.

a reply to: gggilll

No, that was your logical fallacy of shifting the goal posts trying to move off topic.

My argument was and is ...

At conception do we have a unique living organism? (I cited multiple sources proving we do)

Is this a human organism? (I cited multiple sources proving it is)

If it's a unique, living, human organism, what justifies the ending of it's life?