why do yall actually care about what people do with their p*ssies that u will never be near?????? keep up the act like yall arent just a bunch of incels
Depends, I'm going to need more information to determine whether or not your reasoning is justified here.
Do you feel bad for the mother or the zygote/fetus/whatever you want to call it.
In the first case; yes, completely justifiable to feel empathy for someone "losing" her pregnancy, just like it would make sense to have a similar response to her not getting a promotion or getting demoted from her job.
The denial of a potential actualization is sad regardless.
However, in the second case it's a hard maybe, depends on your justifications.
I personally assume as a given personhood begins at conception, however I take the autonomy pathway out, and generally I try (if I see a contradiction I try to resolve it or modify my beliefs accordingly)
Regardless of the personhood of the zygote, I generally hold the bodily autonomy argument outweighs the rights of the fetus inhabit the womb without consent and reject contractual arguments or post-conditional arguments that generally follow.
Look up "Evictionism" theory of abortion by Walter Block and Roy Whitehead for more information.
how do you guys feel about miscarriages? i think a miscarriage is a terribly sad, unfortunate situation for all parties involved. however, isn't a miscarriage just an involuntary abortion?
from what i've read, miscarriages occur before 20 weeks of pregnancy. i also found out that most abortions take place before 20 weeks. i don't know the details about how/why miscarriages occur, i'm just curious about the ethical implications.
if the human body is able to 'expel' a 20 week old foetus naturally, what does that say about the 'personhood' of a foetus?
from here i only see 2 options.
1. miscarriages are terribly sad, all foetuses have personhood. given that abortions occur in the same time period, abortion is wrong.
2. a miscarriage is an uncontrollable, natural process that the human body goes through. hence, 20 week old foetuses have no personhood, and abortion is sometimes necessary.
thoughts? i will admit i still have a lot to learn about this topic. personally i would say i am pro choice, but then i realised that miscarriages upset me, and i don't really see a way to reconcile those two things.
'NYC also recently passed a law allowing abortion up until birth. Is a baby 1 minute before birth less human then 1 minute after?'
to respond to this, i would say it is wrong to abort a baby 1 minute before birth. just as human as a regular baby. any of us could have been born a couple minutes earlier or later. heck, i was born a week late, and my brother was premature.
Except that if we concede something like the murder of a foetus as immoral ( it would be murder if it's ending the existence of a person) than it logically follows to be unjustifiable from a stand moral realist position. If you concede that something's immoral than it opens the door for being unjustified if not always if we take a developed stance of moral realism ( such as morality is more like an equation with certain variables rather than a law than cannot be broken) .
On your point of veganism you said that it's affecting the world by not being one and it's immoral not to be one. Why should I ought to care about the world being damaged? I'll be dead by the time the real affects start kicking in so why should I ought to care about the consequences? Whence does the immorality come from?
You are making moral realist claims and trying to prescribe them to other people e.g. saying it's immoral not to be a vegan but still hold to some moral relativist position. When you begin to tell people what ought to occur your defence against abortion starts to fall apart. From your own view point immorality cannot be prescribed to others because all moral views are held equally yet you've began to place suffering as an objective standard. Why should I ought not to commit suffering to other creatures on the basis of morality?
This was to establish the distinctiveness of the Zygote from it's components rather than a premise to defend it's personhood or to show it being closer to a organism rather than a cell. Nevertheless as I've stated this was an argument from biological potentiality rather than philosophical potentiality (which is what the sperm is). When I refer to nutrients is was to show the direct biological chance of a Embryo becoming a human which a sperm can not do on it's own (needing a separate alive creature to reach this biological leap).
Poll
