NYC also recently passed a law allowing abortion up until birth.
Is a baby 1 minute before birth less human then 1 minute after?
When should it be considered murder to kill a human?
19
After 2 years old (Peter Singer)
13
Conception
11
Can feel pain (18-19 weeks)
1
Brain Waves Detected (42 days)
0
Heartbeat (18 days old)
deletedalmost 6 years
All these arbitrary comments saying if you removed a fetus from the womb it wouldn’t survive, so it has no rights. Comatose people can’t survive without assistance, so they have no rights. Infants can’t survive without being fed by paren/guardian, so they have no rights.
Conception and 2 years old are the only responses that don’t include some arbitrary rationale that doesn’t hold up if you follow it.
deletedalmost 6 years
BSM legally men have to pay child support. Men are held accountable. women aren’t.
Alright, focusing on the actual premise of your argument which I'm going to recreate here.
1. Potential personhood does not equal personhood.
2. Only persons have rights, specifically the right not to be killed or have their rights abused.
Conclusion: Because the Fetus is a potential life and not actualized life, it does not have rights and doesn't confer a negative moral duty to not kill it.
Which are not 100% effective, have costs associated with them which some people can't afford, and can be dangerous to the health of the woman.
So now you're saying that if you're poor, you don't get to have sex, if you're unlucky, you don't get to have sex, and if you're unhealthy, you don't get to have sex
Men do
Not personal preferences, medical facts. Why are you opposed to aborting a first trimester fetus? If you removed it from the womb, it wouldn't survive. If the mother became sick, it might not survive. If the mother died, it wouldn't survive. We're talking about a perfectly healthy fetus, with no defects. It's potential for life, yes. But if I buy a plane ticket to LA tomorrow, I have a potential to run into Kylie Jenner and have her fall in love with me. Potential doesn't mean a thing.
Better to spend your time and money on more constructive things like building a real life animatronic Nicolas Cage who will follow you around and quote from the movies he's been in or curing cancer.
Both are equally noble pursuits.
deletedalmost 6 years
Why? And if women appaprently have the "right" to sex regardless of their consequences?
You know everything you've stated primarily are based on your preferences right? You establish your preference, and carve out exceptions for the mentally/physically/developmentally disabled without any justification as to why you're doing that.
Everything else you're stating are merely opinions on how you feel about people and what they choose to believe, but that's alright, I think anyone who listens to Nickelback is a filthy degenerate worth of summary execution, however that's just my opinion.
i just don't want to read a tonne of bs about god's precious life being snuffed out
if it can't survive outside the womb, it's not human life yet. if it would need to be put in a special case and monitored by medical professionals to stay alive, it's not human life yet. this excludes illnesses and disabilities. being a ball of cells that should be in a womb but are not in a womb does not constitute an illness.
and if anyone thinks that women should (a) not have sex unless they want a baby, (b) not have a choice about how their body runs, or (c) have to carry a child to term as punishment because they knew what they were getting into, you're a scumbag
I believe abortion shouldn't be allowed unless it's a danger to the mother or the actual baby being guaranteed to be born with a birth-defect that is considered severe.
Adoption centres exist for a reason. Yes the child will be brought up a lot worse than most, but I'd rather live and be adopted than die because the mother/father weren't careful enough or don't want the responsibility of a child ect.
If the parents aren't able to accept the risk of bringing a child into the world they shouldn't be having sex. Although taking advantage of a person is a much different story and there should be certain exceptions when it comes to that (such as the current mental state of the parents, money ect.) they should be strict exceptions.
But that's just my views and I'm not exactly the PM or President am I?
Being someone's child doesn't confer any positive moral obligations, otherwise putting your child up would be immoral.
In any other voluntary association in society, you can terminate it whenever you'd like. That's part of contractual freedom.
This is mostly null, by what theory of justice are you imposing a positive moral obligation on the parents?
Let's modify your analogy, and make it even more generous to illustrate the concept.
I knowingly infect my child with a contagious disease that I know will kill them in a span of nine months unless I pay for a hospital bed which they will receive the care by professionals.
At any point in time I can cancel this relationship, I could still be possibly be sued for damages or charged with child abuse for purposefully infecting my child, however the actual heart of the question, providing a hospital bed is a positive moral duty, which I've yet to see any justification for where exactly this positive duty would come.
Regardless of the justifications of my reasoning, the ways in which you'd actual acquire a positive moral obligation to do something is quite rare, and requires extremely well solidified grounding in order to be valid.
Currently, this is the legal status quo, as the parents of a child can refuse any medical treatment to their child regardless of their reasoning or justification, unless proven in a court of law they aren't acting in the child's best interest which is EXTREMELY difficult to do.
I don't agree with the premise thats caked in, but the overall idea is 100% correct.
If you believe in capitalism and property rights, and have a solid grasp of the philosophical justifications for both, believing that a woman can't at least evict the fetus is complete unjustifiable.
I really dislike the moral grounding here of this argument, why do people have to arbitrary complicate this decision, however I don't expect you to fully rationalize a coherent argument when most people here are merely spraying emotional bile all over the wall and hoping something sticks.
I believe that personhood (or whatever you want to call it) begins at conception, however that doesn't justify someone living at someone else expense, and that includes the mother. Therefor the question of "personhood" doesn't really matter. My principals are universalized throughout my entire belief system, and if someone can point out a contradiction I would honestly thank them for it rather then try and argue with them.
Once technology develops to the point where the zygote can be captured and grown separately outside of the womb, woman's reliance to rely on "natural conception" will completely evaporate, finally giving every single woman in America 100% control over biological and reproductive functions without the risk of unplanned pregnancies because there will be no eggs to fertilize at that point.
We can finally get back to the true purpose of sex, like the hedonistic apes that we are.
I find a lot of people big on perpetuating reckless capitalistic individualism and traditional gender roles typically lean pro-life, which to me seems like you want your cake and you want to eat it too- keep the state away from my shit but also inside a uterus. Childrearing should be a community effort, and there is no reason women should suffer restrictions on bodily autonomy just because of your hypocritical moral standpoint.
If the world was a better place, yes, perhaps there would be less abortions. Is it a better place? No. Does your moralising about ensuring a better place for children born to parents (or parent, usually just the female) who cannot afford or are not in the position to care for a child make a difference? No.
i still don't really understand the pro-life side since that (potential) human doesn't even experience any loss, they don't have the level of consciousness to know what they've missed out on. they're placing a value judgement on life, but life is no more or less valuable than "nothingness"
No, but is it wrong to allow a baby to be born into a world that no longer gives a about it? Or would the preference be to spare it from faceless oblivion and suffering?
Besides this, what right do you have over something that isn't yours? That feotus is inside some-body that you don't own or have any authority over, so why should you be the one deciding?
Abortion is unfortunate, let's make this clear. It isn't an easy decision to make. From people that i know who have had abortions, trust me, it can be heartbreaking.
When women have sex, they assume all of the risk and responsibility. Sex is not equal by design. Women have to organise contraceptives (and oftentimes suffer from it).
I get prolifers, honestly. You think a baby is being killed. This myth needs to be dispelled. And this isn't even taking into account the life of the foetus after birth. You'd think the people who care so much about abortion would also care about the life of the child after birth.
