if you think life starts at birth why would you vote at all in the poll if there's no option for it, that's like me asking u whats ur favourite ice cream favour out of strawberry and vanilla and you pick strawberry even though ur fav is chocolate
out of all of the american conservative views that people have, this is one of the few views that i hold that may be contrary to the conservative norm.
blister you are incredibly dim sometimes. the poll maker wants people to choose an arbitrary date pre-birth that signals the beginning of life, but because he knows that this site is full of horny hetero heathens that will all vote for "at birth" he has set the only alternative option to pre-birth to 2 years old
“Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being—i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body."
This was poorly demonstrated ( by me ;D). I was trying to articulate that the Zygote was demonstrably closer to what we would consider a "person" than any other lifeform. Due to it being of the human species (which a Sperm or Egg is not) and being closer to an organism than not being one it's very different than just a clump of cells like a finger.
There is no other life form that we know which eventually develops into the what we know as a newborn baby than the Zygote. Due to personhood being very closely linked to being a human (or mutually exclusive) the earliest form of a human should be the earliest point. Due to that being the earliest stage of a human's existence I think it's a perfectly good point to consider personhood arriving then.
When you refer to the Sperm it is of a different species than the Zygote and thus it would incorrect that personhood could start there due to personhood being an extension if not the same as being human.
I would like to posit the questions: If we could find out in the womb through genetic research if a foetus was going to be straight or gay would it be morally right to end the existence of that lifeform if she didn't want a homosexual child? Or if we could find out that the child would be a certain gender would it be morally right for a mother to terminated the pregnancy just because the foetus is of the incorrect gender?
I don't think you actually want to use this standard, and heres why.
If the current legal position was reversed, and abortion was made illegal, what arguments would you use to reverse this position? You can't use morality, because that's subjective, you can't speak to suffering of the child or the mother, because that's subjective as well. Depending on the calculus used, preventing 60 million abortions a year could be used to justify causing misery and suffering to others, because you don't have any standards to appeal to. You would simply just "disagree" with them on the personhood, and this would be a preference relevant to morality, but irrelevant to the law. (because law and morality are separate and independent)
These two contentions that;
A. We shouldn't make laws against abortion, because morality and law are separate.
B. Abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible as a moral duty.
Are in fact, in direct contradiction with one another. If you have a moral obligation to provide abortion services, you would have to have some reasonable basis (either some concept of moral facts or some other justification/reasoning) that it could rest upon.
“Forced motherhood results in bringing miserable children into the world…It must be pointed out that the same society so determined to defend the rights of the foetus shows no interest in children after they are born.” - Beauvoir
I do not know yet how to articulate my argument for stating that there is something inherently wrong and disturbing with the debate when men wish to create laws to restrict a womans right to her own body and outweigh their own rights over the potential person they have inside themselves, while ignoring all the risks/circumstances etc when this might be needed. But I'll return once I've managed to figure that one out.
After some thinking I'll reply to literally no one since I'm the only one who really cares about my own opinion, but I'd very much like to hear if I'm contradicting again.
1. Law and morals are often shared in a society, but laws should not simply be made due to ones moral views but also with serious thought of its consequences, implications etc. Stating you should make laws simply based on morality is wrong and naive.
2. Having a "pro life" opinion without mentioning/care'ing about the consequences and ignorantly stating things like "its their fault they deserve it" is arrogant and disgusting.
Thus, calling people arrogant whom simply stand with the "pro life" side without giving a thought on what that stance actually means, besides thinking abortion is wrong, is quite a reasonable view.
Regardless, I still believe there is an contradiction to state that a zygote is a person simply due to its potential of being a human since "you could take it out and give it nutrients" when that simply isnt possible with todays technology before an x number of weeks while ignoring the fact you could technically do the same with a sperm. In particular, given the research and advances in cloning, stem-cell research, and other advances in assisted fertilization it wouldn't be unreasonable to make the claim that this could be possible in the future.
I am pro-choice dw. It is because of a mixture of several things:
-underage/immature
-inability to provide sufficient care
-risk to the mother
-mother a man for the baby, and would be willing to sue for child support (yes, women can do that even when they sedate and a man for sperm to make a baby), government enforced, and mother would be detained
-2nd thoughts (can be caused by emotional, financial, or family-based crises)
-the fact that there are enough children in the foster care system that have not found families yet, and forcing that child to be born just to be sent away and adding to that list would be wrong.
the law in nyc was passed IF the mother is AT RISK it's not like they're gonna be like yeah u get to abort this baby bc you changed your mind shift + delete baby do you think this is sims 4 idk how some of you are this obtuse even out of the game thinking you have the right to police someone's body and choices how about u look after your own instead
"According to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."
also thanks for the video i really needed a good laugh imagine being that self entitled thinking a woman needs to be patronised like she forgot jesus ~loves her and the lil cells in her tummy~... LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
in conclusion, i'm not returning to this thread u guys are gross:
Not really, I'm just saying, hypothetically, women shouldn't be the ones paying for men up. I'm not actually advocating for chemical castration, but the fact of the matter is it would be a hell of a lot more fair to neuter irresponsible men than to punish every single woman who dated a man who didn't know what a condom is.
Nevermind the fact that a lot of these women are going to be unprepared for motherhood and possibly send kids to foster homes, or otherwise be unable to take care of them. I'd say abortion is a lot more humane than more underprivileged kids.
I was waiting for you to show up here, so the far-left could have a bananas extremist representative. Imo the far-right is way over-represented in the abortion conversation.
All jokes, and whatnot. This user has reported people for homophobic jokes. This is a post advocating for eugenics. No judgement. Depends on the mods definition of "zero tolerance." Chemically castrating half the populace sounds pretty extreme to me.
