What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is Abortion After 21 Weeks Murder? (1 Viewer)

We know that it is possible for a baby born at 21 weeks to survive. With this in mind, is an aborti

  • Yes, it is murder

    Votes: 23 37.1%
  • No, it is not murder

    Votes: 39 62.9%

  • Total voters
    62

ekbeats

Footballguy
Simple question.  We know that it is possible for a baby born at 21 weeks to survive.  It has happened.  If that is the date of viability, is an abortion after that date murder?  Murder here is a non-legal definition - simply defined as "the killing of another human being."

If you think it is not murder, please explain.  Is a fetus that can live outside the womb not a human being?  Why not?  What is the distinguishing element?  Just that it is inside a woman's body?  If you feel that way, it must be the same as aborting a baby the day before it is due, right?

Legitimately trying to understand how people rationalize this.  Thanks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting.  So it's murder if a 21 week fetus is killed by someone else.  But it's ok if it's done by a Doctor and a woman kill it as part of an elective abortion?  On what planet does that make any sense?


Not sure about planet, but it's makes sense in a country where abortion is legal in my town but not 20 miles to the south, at least accordingly to a majority of the 9 "best" judges.

 
We can argue legalities and Roe v Wade until we're blue in the face, but this is really the crux of the issue for me.  At some point in time a fetus in the womb becomes a human being with rights that are worthy of being protected.  The date of viability would seem like the most logical choice.  At that point the mother is a caretaker for a viable human life, whether that life is within her body or outside it.  Just my opinion.

 
It’s a fascinating question and one I’m not prepared to answer yet honestly.  I’m pro-choice but will say it gets harder for me to be OK with it as the weeks (pregnancy weeks) go by. I’d be very OK with a 15/16 week cut off.  Add in my daughter was 7 weeks premature (we had a very complicated pregnancy and were hoping beyond hope to make it to 33 weeks) and as the weeks stack up I get very uncomfortable with it.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting that with the exception of my boy dkp, people voting it is "not murder" don't seem too inclined to want to explain their logic.

 
Why not?  
I don't even think it is murder at 39 weeks. It is a different scenario as the woman and the fetus are linked and abortion is currently legal. If abortion was not legal and a woman went to an illegal doctor to get an abortion at 21 weeks I might agree. 

Everybody basically draws an arbitrary line regarding this. Just depends where. 

I don't have any issue with somebody drawing that line at 21 weeks. I also don't have any problem with somebody drawing it at 10.  

 
If a woman is walking around holding her newly born premature baby that has been delivered, and kills the baby, that is murder correct?  So the distinguishing factor here is whether the baby is inside the woman or outside, correct?
IMO yes. 

 
I don't even think it is murder at 39 weeks. It is a different scenario as the woman and the fetus are linked and abortion is currently legal. If abortion was not legal and a woman went to an illegal doctor to get an abortion at 21 weeks I might agree. 

Everybody basically draws an arbitrary line regarding this. Just depends where. 

I don't have any issue with somebody drawing that line at 21 weeks. I also don't have any problem with somebody drawing it at 10.  
I guess I'm not looking for whether or not it is murder as legally defined.  That is pretty clear and not really that interesting to be honest.  I'm looking for people's opinions their beliefs about murder broadly defined as "the killing of another human being".  It's almost a moral question.  I'm just fascinated about how people arise at their convictions on this issue.  You can justify abortion a number of different ways - It serves the greater societal good; the privacy right of the mother outweighs the right of an unborn fetus, etc.  But at some point one HAS to address the moral issue that's always been at the heart of abortion - when does a fetus become a human being that cannot be murdered?  If you argue that as long as the fetus is in the womb it isn't a human, how do you justify that, especially when we know at certain points after 21 weeks the fetus is viable and can live on its own?  Or even worse, at some point the fetus can feel pain?

It's an uncomfortable conversation but it's one that needs to be had.  The CDC has data that in 2018 approximately 6,200 fetuses were aborted after 21 weeks.  That's a big number.  We raise holy hell in this country because unarmed blacks are killed by police.  You know how many that was in 2021?  8.  The most there has been in any one year since 2015?  23.  Cities have burned because of these numbers.

The Roe v. Wade Overturned thread went to 24 pages in one day.  All of the talk is about the cold legal and political issues.  When talk started to creep in about the moral issues, mods quickly squashed it.  So let's talk about it here.  It's the least we can do.

 
How would you answer this scenario then?  A woman who is 8 months pregnant is stabbed in the stomach.  The fetus is killed but the woman survives. Not murder?
Murder. Because it is different. 

You literally can't create an analogy that works. Neither can the other side. 

 
Simple question.  We know that it is possible for a baby born at 21 weeks to survive.  It has happened.  If that is the date of viability, is an abortion after that date murder?  Murder here is a non-legal definition - simply defined as "the killing of another human being."


If  a woman has an abortion at 21 weeks, and she says

1) I am a murderer - I would agree with her

or

2) I am not a murderer - I would also agree with her

Something I taught my godson when he was young was that he was not responsible, nor should he put himself in a position to be responsible, for other people's "bad life decisions".

I'm not saying this to be callous but people have their own problems and their own lives and their own struggles. I cannot even begin to understand the deep matrix of someone's life in context before they made that decision to abort at 21 weeks.

If she, the woman and potential mother, is willing to live with that decision, then so be it. I won't interfere. She has to carry that weight and burden alone. I don't. My godson doesn't. My employees don't. The rest of society doesn't.

One of the things I notice about many Pro Life people ( not all, but quite a large number) is the unshakable feeling as if the person having the abortion is somehow " Getting Away With Something Bad " Now how people want to define "Bad" for themselves is up to them, but I can assure you, across my long life, I've met and encountered many women  who have had abortions and none of them have come out the other side whole. Not a single one. Nor have any of the women I knew that were molested as children. Nor any women who have had a miscarriage ( or multiples of them) Maybe some do a better job of hiding it in public or in some situations, but the carnage is there.

My Body/My Choice, to my viewpoint, exists until the infant/baby is outside the womb. I know some people will not agree and some will aggressively oppose that viewpoint, but it's not my burden, it's not my pain, it's not my choice.

Now if the Cyclons show up and blow up Caprica and Picon and Sagittarius and all the rest, and now humans are down to 80 thousand people left period, then you have a different situation. But even in that scenario, I would still push for My Body/My Choice.

Maybe the mother having the abortion won't see it as " bad life decision "  OK, that's her choice too.

But here is where the rubber meets the road for me - If you make a choice, even if you regret it later, eat the pain in silence. If it's your body, your choice, your burden, then carry it alone. I don't want to hear it. Again, not to be cruel, but I have my own problems in life. Everyone has their own problems.

Where I think the best and practical argument against abortion is via tax dollars. My property taxes pay London Breed's salary. She came up with the genius idea to pay street thugs 300-500 a month NOT to shoot each other in gangland disputes in public. She's a complete and total idiot. I also don't want my tax dollars going to reinforce the "borders" in foreign countries when our own borders are a swinging gate. Because that's also happening right now. You can't scream for silence if you are taking other people's money.  In any manner or methodology where tax dollars are funding abortions by proxy, then that's a legitimate gripe in my book. If it's "her burden" then she and her partner can go pay for it themselves. I'm sure saying that will start to piss some more people off too, I really don't care.

If it's your body, your choice. Then it's your problem all the way to the bone. Own it. Own all of it and everything that comes with it.

 
If it's your body, your choice. Then it's your problem all the way to the bone. Own it. Own all of it and everything that comes with it.
I'd say it's also the problem of the viable fetus.  "Your body, your choice" is a nice platitude, and the Left has done a marvelous job drilling that into the public consciousness.  Allows people not to have to address the moral dilemma I have laid out.  

I guess I can't understand how we can so dismissively say that a viable fetus - with a separate heartbeat, separate DNA, and at some point the ability to experience pain - is "your body."  It's not "your body" at that point.  It's a separate body, and you are just the caretaker to it - in very much the same way you are after the baby is born.

I guess I'm on an island here.

 
You guys just refuse to outline your thought process.  Feels very much like an intellectual cop-out.  Which is your right I guess.
I think part of the problem is that the question is framed in a confusing way.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think what you’re trying to ask is “is terminating a pregnancy at 21 weeks morally equivalent to killing a baby after it’s been born?”

 
Yes, it's murder.   Do you trust someone willing to murder another person to protect and raise them?  You make a big deal about "viable fetuses", but premature babies require a lot of care. They may need help breathing or a feeding tube.  So, I think the more apt analogy is asking if taking someone off life support is murder.  

 
What do we mean by "viable" after 21 weeks exactly?  Had this discussions some 20 years ago with the actual doctor at Cincinnati Children's Hospital who produced the research that ended up being the process for "viability" at 21 weeks.  He was always careful to remind me that even though babies CAN survive, the success rate was under 5% and that survival in every single case required many medical supplies and machines.

 
You should be more precise in your question. Legally it depends on the law in the place you live.

But morally, anyone with two functioning brain cells knows that if a fetus could survive outside the womb, then it’s a human, and killing a human is murder.

 
We can argue legalities and Roe v Wade until we're blue in the face, but this is really the crux of the issue for me.  At some point in time a fetus in the womb becomes a human being with rights that are worthy of being protected.  The date of viability would seem like the most logical choice.  At that point the mother is a caretaker for a viable human life, whether that life is within her body or outside it.  Just my opinion.


What do we mean by "viable" after 21 weeks exactly?  Had this discussions some 20 years ago with the actual doctor at Cincinnati Children's Hospital who produced the research that ended up being the process for "viability" at 21 weeks.  He was always careful to remind me that even though babies CAN survive, the success rate was under 5% and that survival in every single case required many medical supplies and machines.
For my personal line on the topic, I am close to what ekbeats is getting at.  IMO, the crux of the debate is around viability mark.   Maybe it's not the best additional line of thinking, but when I think about it I also think about the end stage of life, what we consider to be a dead human and when/if we are willing to disconnect from support and let them go.   

Anyway, the reason I didn't answer that question is what Commish highlighted here - viability <> a high chance of survival at that exact date, so I am pretty unwilling to tag that with a murder charge.   I am more and more willing as the days and weeks go on to define it as such though (extreme examples aside).   

 
Interesting that with the exception of my boy dkp, people voting it is "not murder" don't seem too inclined to want to explain their logic.
Killing does not equal murder.  Most abortions after 20 weeks are if there is danger to the mother.  Stand your ground laws would cover the mother. 

 
There are States that have fetal murder laws.  In those States, yes, it is murder.  I leave the decision on how to treat such things up to the legislature of my State.  It's not a votable issue for me so however they want to treat it is fine with me.  I don't plan on ever killing a fetus so I really don't care.    

 
Killing does not equal murder.  Most abortions after 20 weeks are if there is danger to the mother.  Stand your ground laws would cover the mother. 
This is not true at all.   After 20 weeks an abortion is as dangerous  as giving birth and c section is less dangerous  than both.

 
I guess I'm not looking for whether or not it is murder as legally defined.  That is pretty clear and not really that interesting to be honest.  I'm looking for people's opinions their beliefs about murder broadly defined as "the killing of another human being".  It's almost a moral question.  I'm just fascinated about how people arise at their convictions on this issue.  You can justify abortion a number of different ways - It serves the greater societal good; the privacy right of the mother outweighs the right of an unborn fetus, etc.  But at some point one HAS to address the moral issue that's always been at the heart of abortion - when does a fetus become a human being that cannot be murdered?  If you argue that as long as the fetus is in the womb it isn't a human, how do you justify that, especially when we know at certain points after 21 weeks the fetus is viable and can live on its own?  Or even worse, at some point the fetus can feel pain?

It's an uncomfortable conversation but it's one that needs to be had.  The CDC has data that in 2018 approximately 6,200 fetuses were aborted after 21 weeks.  That's a big number.  We raise holy hell in this country because unarmed blacks are killed by police.  You know how many that was in 2021?  8.  The most there has been in any one year since 2015?  23.  Cities have burned because of these numbers.

The Roe v. Wade Overturned thread went to 24 pages in one day.  All of the talk is about the cold legal and political issues.  When talk started to creep in about the moral issues, mods quickly squashed it.  So let's talk about it here.  It's the least we can do.
If this is the ultimate goal of the thread and where you want it to really go, then talking about where anyone draws their arbitrary line between "conception" and "birth" isn't the way to go.  That's not a discussion on the morality of this entire thing.  Morality comes when we start discussing the termination of life (regardless of where you draw that line) and talk about the results of forcing women to have babies (i.e. gov't support for those abandoned, support for those who can't afford the baby, all the other infrastructure kinds of things that will need to be in place for this influx of babies etc).  THAT is where morality comes in, yet very few people ever talk about these things and we definitely don't see action on these things.

 
You guys just refuse to outline your thought process.  Feels very much like an intellectual cop-out.  Which is your right I guess.
Because i wont use an analogy? 

Things like situation, intent, etc always matter for murder convictions(or moral judgments)

If you cant see that the situations you keep trying to compare to are obviously different, that isnt on any of us. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ignatiusjreilly said:
I've read a lot of statements in this forum that I disagree with, but this is probably the one I disagree with the most. It is so far from simple.


:goodposting:

These are really hard questions. My own view is that day one after fertilization its not a human so its not murder. But by day 280 (or whatever) it is. At some point, therefore, things change. I tend to use viability - but its a really hard question. I don't pretend to think I have the definitive, be all, end all answer. Reasonable minds can disagree. 

 
60 weeks.  I'm not sure that people really know what they're getting into until the terrible 2s hit.  If they decide at that point that they can't afford it, or that maybe they're not really ready to be a parent, who am I to judge?

 
60 weeks.  I'm not sure that people really know what they're getting into until the terrible 2s hit.  If they decide at that point that they can't afford it, or that maybe they're not really ready to be a parent, who am I to judge?
Maybe it's me, but you might want to check your math here.

 
Mayor Pete summed it up nicely IMHO:

"So, let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, that means almost by definition you've been expecting to carry it to term," he went on.

"We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen the name, women who have purchased the crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice."

"That decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made," he said.

 
Ah, right.  That's embarrassing.  I'm not used to aging things in weeks.  My bad, but I hope the point still stands.
I was just giving you a hard time.  Wanted to get to a "I was told there'd be no math" joke but couldn't find a good way to get there.

 
Your joke went over about as well as my thread. 😆
I actually thought this was an interesting thread, precisely because it's not a simple question.

I think to understand the complexity of the issue, it helps to start by considering the extremes. Let's say you believe that as long as a fetus is in a woman's body, she has the right to control it. That would mean that if a 40-week pregnant woman used a coathanger to induce an abortion, that would be the exact same thing as if she got an abortion at six weeks ... but if she waited until five minutes after the baby was born and tossed it in a dumpster, that would be something wholly different. I think even the most ardent pro-choicer would recognize the differences between those situations.

At the other extreme, let's say that life begins at conception. So now that means that if a woman has a five-week miscarriage, it's exactly the same thing as her toddler getting run over by a car. More importantly, from a public policy perspective, it means that any woman who gets an abortion MUST be prosecuted for murder. Not only that, but all miscarriages, stillborns, etc. have to be investigated as potential crime scenes. Think I'm exaggerating? This is actually how things work in Honduras (and previously in Communist Romania).

Once you realize how untenable each of those extremes are, you can see why it's impossible to give a straightforward answer to your poll question. If five weeks isn't "murder" and 40 weeks is, then when does the fetus cross some sort of line? Some people say when it has a heartbeat, others when it becomes viable outside the womb, but we're all just guessing. Furthermore, once you concede that it's not the exact same thing as murder, you have to start thinking about when other interests come into play, such as the woman's interest in preserving her bodily autonomy.

Incidentally, it is precisely that doubt that makes me lean more pro-choice. I just feel like the state should tread very lightly in trying to solve what is essentially an insoluble problem. But I also understand the pro-life position, because if you believe that abortion is murder, it makes sense to do everything you can to try to prevent it.

 
I actually thought this was an interesting thread, precisely because it's not a simple question.

I think to understand the complexity of the issue, it helps to start by considering the extremes. Let's say you believe that as long as a fetus is in a woman's body, she has the right to control it. That would mean that if a 40-week pregnant woman used a coathanger to induce an abortion, that would be the exact same thing as if she got an abortion at six weeks ... but if she waited until five minutes after the baby was born and tossed it in a dumpster, that would be something wholly different. I think even the most ardent pro-choicer would recognize the differences between those situations.

At the other extreme, let's say that life begins at conception. So now that means that if a woman has a five-week miscarriage, it's exactly the same thing as her toddler getting run over by a car. More importantly, from a public policy perspective, it means that any woman who gets an abortion MUST be prosecuted for murder. Not only that, but all miscarriages, stillborns, etc. have to be investigated as potential crime scenes. Think I'm exaggerating? This is actually how things work in Honduras (and previously in Communist Romania).

Once you realize how untenable each of those extremes are, you can see why it's impossible to give a straightforward answer to your poll question. If five weeks isn't "murder" and 40 weeks is, then when does the fetus cross some sort of line? Some people say when it has a heartbeat, others when it becomes viable outside the womb, but we're all just guessing. Furthermore, once you concede that it's not the exact same thing as murder, you have to start thinking about when other interests come into play, such as the woman's interest in preserving her bodily autonomy.

Incidentally, it is precisely that doubt that makes me lean more pro-choice. I just feel like the state should tread very lightly in trying to solve what is essentially an insoluble problem. But I also understand the pro-life position, because if you believe that abortion is murder, it makes sense to do everything you can to try to prevent it.
Good post Iggy.  I think it's interesting as well, because as you say, reasonable minds can differ on when life begins, and when that life is worthy of state protection.

 
Good post Iggy.  I think it's interesting as well, because as you say, reasonable minds can differ on when life begins, and when that life is worthy of state protection.
100%.  But like a lot of other political topics people are dug in and believe their line of when life begins is fact.   Unlike any other topic the ramifications of going past that line is the ending of a human life, so then tension ramp up.    IMO the most reasonable lines deal with viablilty and heartbeat/brain activity because to me that at least correlates with how we treat the end stage and determine when somebody is dead (hence viability/able to live without a machine, and lack of brainwaves/heart beat correlating to in womb and on our death bed).   Before that and it's inconsistent how we determine if something is dead late in life, and after that IMO it's a living human and we have to have more oversight and discussion. 

 
ekbeats said:
I'd say it's also the problem of the viable fetus.  "Your body, your choice" is a nice platitude, and the Left has done a marvelous job drilling that into the public consciousness.  Allows people not to have to address the moral dilemma I have laid out.  

I guess I can't understand how we can so dismissively say that a viable fetus - with a separate heartbeat, separate DNA, and at some point the ability to experience pain - is "your body."  It's not "your body" at that point.  It's a separate body, and you are just the caretaker to it - in very much the same way you are after the baby is born.

I guess I'm on an island here.


Something that you don't seem to be processing here is that this issue might not be a moral dilemma for many other people. And that's OK. It might not be OK to you, but you don't get to determine if it's OK for them.

No one has to be beholden to your standards.

I get that this is an extremely complex issue. All I can say is this from my viewpoint - I don't expect to agree with people and their views, however I do expect that if people want to be taken seriously and treated as a person of integrity, they need to be consistent.

I don't respect that there is this hard push to dance around defining what a woman is and shouting the term "birthing people" when it's politically expedient to do so, then just call them "females" and "women" right now because saying anything else from the radical left would start to incite actual women voters who are Pro Choice.

You are on an island because you won't acknowledge that you can't make people think and feel as you do. And that's OK for them to do that. You just aren't OK with it.

I recognize you are clearly invested in this on a very personal level. So I'll part with a gift for you. Trying to push arguments used before won't change hearts and minds. In Japan, there is a massive long term birth rate crisis. At their current trajectory, it will cause the complete and total collapse of their society in the near future. That situation right there is the very best argument you could make for being hard line Pro Life. There are real stakes involved in a scenario like that. Also the birth rate in Western nations has been in a total free fall as well. With many people living much much longer and out of control inflation, this all stacks to being a death knell for the world's future.

That kind of argument sells, the kind you are using now doesn't.

Push the birth rate angle and do it very well and you'll start to get more people on your side and within the scope of your viewpoint. Right now you are doing a poor job of selling the perception of why others and the masses should align to your worldview.

If you don't want to be dismissed or feel dismissed, you need to level up.

 
Good post Iggy.  I think it's interesting as well, because as you say, reasonable minds can differ on when life begins, and when that life is worthy of state protection.
It’s definitely a complicated issue.   For me it all comes down to a view of reasonable viability outside the womb.  As science improves and timelines change…..it gets harder and harder to justify support for abortion after say 25 weeks.  Is 25 the right number?  28?  22?  I’m not an expert and every situation is different.  

Ultimately, I have zero interest in being the arbiter of morality.  None of this stuff is easy.

 
Something that you don't seem to be processing here is that this issue might not be a moral dilemma for many other people. And that's OK. It might not be OK to you, but you don't get to determine if it's OK for them.

No one has to be beholden to your standards.

I get that this is an extremely complex issue. All I can say is this from my viewpoint - I don't expect to agree with people and their views, however I do expect that if people want to be taken seriously and treated as a person of integrity, they need to be consistent.

I don't respect that there is this hard push to dance around defining what a woman is and shouting the term "birthing people" when it's politically expedient to do so, then just call them "females" and "women" right now because saying anything else from the radical left would start to incite actual women voters who are Pro Choice.

You are on an island because you won't acknowledge that you can't make people think and feel as you do. And that's OK for them to do that. You just aren't OK with it.

I recognize you are clearly invested in this on a very personal level. So I'll part with a gift for you. Trying to push arguments used before won't change hearts and minds. In Japan, there is a massive long term birth rate crisis. At their current trajectory, it will cause the complete and total collapse of their society in the near future. That situation right there is the very best argument you could make for being hard line Pro Life. There are real stakes involved in a scenario like that. Also the birth rate in Western nations has been in a total free fall as well. With many people living much much longer and out of control inflation, this all stacks to being a death knell for the world's future.

That kind of argument sells, the kind you are using now doesn't.

Push the birth rate angle and do it very well and you'll start to get more people on your side and within the scope of your viewpoint. Right now you are doing a poor job of selling the perception of why others and the masses should align to your worldview.

If you don't want to be dismissed or feel dismissed, you need to level up.


Nah. I'm not personally vested and I'm not trying to ram my opinions down anyone's throats.  I'm not even pro-life.  My position is very much down the middle.  I am pro-choice early on in the pregnancy.  But at some point that clump of cells crosses over into a "human being" (for want of a better term) that is worthy of societal protection.  That cross-over date is a gray area, and I think a reasonable range is between 10 and 25 weeks.  Is it the time when the fetus registers a heartbeat?  Is it the earliest date of viability (21 weeks)?  Is it the time when the fetus can feel pain?  Is it the point when the fetus gains some discernible form of consciousness?  A lot of room for reasonable debate within that gray area.

I just can't come around the position of allowing an abortion all the way up to the due date.  But I do appreciate your consistency, honesty, and willingness to discuss it.  Your argument about birth rate is interesting, as are most things you say, and probably a good topic for another thread - one that discusses some of the practical implications of the abortion issue and the changes to come.  Hopefully the country can come together and support the people who will need it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top