It's a completely accurate hypothetical. A hypothetical doesn't need to occur for it to be an accurate assessment of something, especially a moral stance. In fact most specific moral questions use such hypotheticals. One popular example is the consequentialist vs in consequentialist train question.
You wouldn't kill a baby just because it appeared to be stillborn for a couple minutes.
So, one more time, and this is the only part you need to respond to, you would not believe killing this newborn is a moral action? Yes or no?
Its's honestly quite absurd to compare a healthy baby to an embryo.
This has nothing to do with the hypothetical. It's really quite a simple question and doesn't require all of the dodging you're doing.
It's not your decision, it's the pregnant person's, and it's silly to compare an embryo to a functional human.
It's also not my decision if someone decides to rape someone else, but that doesn't mean I can't have a moral objection to the action (or try to implement some form of prevention/punishment for the action).
That is not an accurate analogy. You wouldn't kill a baby just because it appeared to be stillborn for a couple minutes. It's honestly quite… more absurd to compare a healthy baby to an embryo. It's not your decision, it's the pregnant person's, and it's silly to compare an embryo to a functional human.
Are you actually comparing the removal of an embryo that can't think, speak, or do almost anything else from a woman's body to someone who murders living human beings? I don't see the similarities.
The same argument could be made for a conventionally known murderer.
"Is it your choice if they murder someone? No, it's the murderer's c… morehoice, and who are you to tell them what's right and what's wrong? Are you the arbiter of what's morally just in this world?"
Yes, I am. I'll even make it more similar by saying that the murderer only kills his victims as they sleep, so they also do not think, speak, or act (at least in any conscious sense). Your moral statement is no more steady than mine is. If you do not see the similarities then you have a very narrow understanding of the question.
Are you actually comparing the removal of an embryo that can't think, speak, or do almost anything else from a woman's body to someone who murders living human beings? I don't see the similarities.
I'm pro-choice. The simple fact is the people who are pushing to ban abortions aren't the people who are going to take care of those unwanted child. It's going to be the mother whom most likely will have to care for the unwanted child. Do you know what happens to unwanted children? Best case scenario, they are adopted and find a good family. But the reality is majority of those children will be neglected and will probably die anyway or grow up to repeat the same mistakes as their parents and do the same; have more unwanted children. I don't like how abortions are treated so casually, so I do believe there should be some sort of law put into to place where people don't abuse them. But with the rate of poverty and unfit parents, abortions are a necessity, like it or not. It's easy for someone to say no to abortions because they aren't the ones who are effected. But I'd rather a child to die in the womb instead of endure a life of abuse and poverty because their parents are unwilling and unable to provide a life for them. Truthfully I think a 3 strike rule should be implemented, but shouldn't apply to rape or medical emergency pregnancies. The penalty for having 3 abortions that weren't because of rape or a medical emergency should be sterilization for both parties. That's how I see it anyway. Abortions shouldn't be taken so casually, but I understand we do have a need for them.
So you are now saying that this murderer kills his victims while they are sleeping, though you didn't before. The difference I see is that these people the murderer is killing are still human beings. They have lived lives and done good and bad, an embryo that can't act in any way is technically not a human, therefore in my opinion, it's not wrong to remove them from your body. And what about all the damage pregnancy does to a woman's body? Swelling, bruising, aches, mood swings, the possibility of death during child birth. Those things still happen, therefore I can see why a woman would not want to experience that.
Yes, I am. I'll even make it more similar by saying that the murderer only kills his victims as they sleep, so they also do not think, speak… more, or act (at least in any conscious sense). Your moral statement is no more steady than mine is. If you do not see the similarities then you have a very narrow understanding of the question.
Except that murder victims are alive on their own, fully developed and outside of the womb, and are an active part of this world. Embryos aren't alive on their own, aren't developed and can't live outside of the womb, and are not a part of society. So your comparisons aren't accurate or reasonable to say the least.
Yes, I am. I'll even make it more similar by saying that the murderer only kills his victims as they sleep, so they also do not think, speak… more, or act (at least in any conscious sense). Your moral statement is no more steady than mine is. If you do not see the similarities then you have a very narrow understanding of the question.
Except that murder victims are alive on their own, fully developed and outside of the womb, and are an active part of this world. Embryos ar… moreen't alive on their own, aren't developed and can't live outside of the womb, and are not a part of society. So your comparisons aren't accurate or reasonable to say the least.
Exactly. Embryos aren't developed and don't even have an established gender at that point, therefore they're not human beings. Compare it to the murder victims mentioned above, that are integrated and established into society and have developed personalities. They're living, breathing, functioning human beings who can think and feel. That's why it's wrong to kill them, compared to embryos. That's my stance on it, anyway.
Many people against abortion always like to think of the baby in the last two months of pregnancy, they never think on BEFORE and after. They say (not all of them) "They are killing a baby! It's bad!" it's not a baby, it's not alive in the early stage of pregnancy. Besides they always worry for the baby when it's not even born, but when they are born, they say nothing, they dont care if they give it under adoption, or if it's abandoned, or if he lives under bad conditions because the mother don't have the money and they forced her to have it.
Abortion should be a choice for those in an unfortunate situation, but be punished if they choose it just because they were reckless.
"My body, my rights." This no longer applies when you're a few months pregnant, since there is a living person inside your womb. You didn't want a kid and you wanted to play with fire? Fine, your decision. It will affect your health, not ours. Let's not forget the costs and all.
Now let's see it from another perspective. There are people who tried to play it safe, and it still happened. Can you really blame them? Things happens, and we shouldn't shame them for their decision.
A life is a life. If a mother is in danger, and it could kill her, then abortion should be performed. It's not something to argue about.
And I'd like to add something related to rape. The victims didn't choose to be into a relationship, or be a parent. All their rights were violated by the predators. If the victims want to raise the kid or not is up to them, not the family, not you, and certainly, not some "blind" priests.
Okay, maybe not exactly like that. I meant people who think that making an abortion is as easy as going to a dentist. They don't care much about protection but when shit happens, they be like "oops, whatever". Maybe that doesn't happen in your country, but plenty of youth in Russia can't use protection properly and think that it's not a problem as long as you can get rid of the baby.
women who prefer to make an abortion instead of using protection
no one uses abortion like that
"Hey have you got a condom?"
"… moreNo I just wait to see if I get pregnant then go through the lengthy and potentially costly process of organising a abortion while I become a hormonal wreck of acne, emotion and nausea " - literally no one, youve been reading to much pro life propaganda
I'm pro abortion under any circumstances. Parent(s) shouldn't have their lives and/or health ruined by child they don't want. I don't consider a embryo/fetus a 'human' in the social/moral sense until it's born. An embryo in the abortable stages is just a clump of cells which isn't capable of any thought, emotion, or feeling.
I read this really interesting hypothetical - suppose you're forced to choose between dropping an embryo or an infant from a fatal height. For a pro-lifer following the 'abortion is murder' argument, it should be impossible for them to decide as the lives are supposedly equal... but that wouldn't be the case obviously.
I'm not one to shy away from playing Devil's advocate. However, it is interesting to note this small statistic...
How many abortions are due to rape?
2,532
CONCLUSIONS: An average of 554 rapes result in pregnancy each year. An average of 1,402,550 abortions are performed each year. If every rape-caused pregnancy ended in abortion, 1 out of every 2,532 abortions would be performed for rape.
1 out of every 2,532 abortions are performed due to rape. Seems to be an interesting defense if it's such a small percentile of people that do it due to rape in the first place. As well, only roughly 1% of people even go through an abortion due to rape to begin with.
Its a stupid argument anyway and has nothing to do with the moral objections people have. If the pro life believe a embryo is a person with rights why is that innocent person suddenly denied a right to live because of crimes committed by the father that makes no sense. Imagine getting thrown in prison because a crime your father committed, you wont because your a individual with rights, unlike a embryo.
Its such a weak argument so is the mother being in danger one, one life is not more valuable than the other if they are both people with a right to live. The bottom line is embryos are not people (yet) and dont have human rights
I'm not one to shy away from playing Devil's advocate. However, it is interesting to note this small statistic...
How many abortions a… morere due to rape?
2,532
CONCLUSIONS: An average of 554 rapes result in pregnancy each year. An average of 1,402,550 abortions are performed each year. If every rape-caused pregnancy ended in abortion, 1 out of every 2,532 abortions would be performed for rape.
1 out of every 2,532 abortions are performed due to rape. Seems to be an interesting defense if it's such a small percentile of people that do it due to rape in the first place. As well, only roughly 1% of people even go through an abortion due to rape to begin with.
Okay, maybe not exactly like that. I meant people who think that making an abortion is as easy as going to a dentist. They don't care much a… morebout protection but when shit happens, they be like "oops, whatever". Maybe that doesn't happen in your country, but plenty of youth in Russia can't use protection properly and think that it's not a problem as long as you can get rid of the baby.
I'm not one to shy away from playing Devil's advocate
I'm just saying, let's not use rape as a reasoning to justify others' moral equivalences about getting one done cause of some pandering sense of progressive-mindedness.
Just cause a small percentage of people are saved by abortions because of rape or pregnancy complications doesn't mean a lot of us pro-choice people should hide under the assumption many don't do it for self-serving reasoning.
And I just have to ask, what does the death penalty have to do with abortions? It seems you have confused your arguments.
Its a stupid argument anyway and has nothing to do with the moral objections people have. If the pro life believe a embryo is a person with … morerights why is that innocent person suddenly denied a right to live because of crimes committed by the father that makes no sense. Imagine getting thrown in prison because a crime your father committed, you wont because your a individual with rights, unlike a embryo.
Its such a weak argument so is the mother being in danger one, one life is not more valuable than the other if they are both people with a right to live. The bottom line is embryos are not people (yet) and dont have human rights
I'm not one to shy away from playing Devil's advocate
I'm just saying, let's not use rape as a reasoning to justify others' moral eq… moreuivalences about getting one done cause of some pandering sense of progressive-mindedness.
Just cause a small percentage of people are saved by abortions because of rape or pregnancy complications doesn't mean a lot of us pro-choice people should hide under the assumption many don't do it for self-serving reasoning.
And I just have to ask, what does the death penalty have to do with abortions? It seems you have confused your arguments.
As am I, but why let that get in the way of individual belief patterns of right and wrong?
I believe people will do as they will. And I hold no condemnations towards those who want to abort their future baby because they simply can't handle the responsibility or don't want to go a year without having a dick shoved into their pink box.
But I refuse the notion it is noble or respectful in all instances by itself.
Because the same people who say its a innocent baby that is looking forward to meeting mummy, has a fully functioning brain and fully formed pain receptors are the same people that say its ok to abort if that baby is a product of rape and to me those thought processes dont line up
Im not a fan of these types of condridictions
Edit. I dont care why people have abortions its their choice they can do it for any reason they want, its the double standards of the anti choice that gets my goat
As am I, but why let that get in the way of individual belief patterns of right and wrong?
I believe people will do as they will. And I h… moreold no condemnations towards those who want to abort their future baby because they simply can't handle the responsibility or don't want to go a year without having a dick shoved into their pink box.
But I refuse the notion it is noble or respectful in all instances by itself.
Because the same people who say its a innocent baby that is looking forward to meeting mummy, has a fully functioning brain and fully formed… more pain receptors are the same people that say its ok to abort if that baby is a product of rape and to me those thought processes dont line up
Im not a fan of these types of condridictions
Edit. I dont care why people have abortions its their choice they can do it for any reason they want, its the double standards of the anti choice that gets my goat
So you are now saying that this murderer kills his victims while they are sleeping, though you didn't before.
I added something to the hypothetical.
The difference I see is that these people the murderer is killing are still human beings.
How do you define a human being? People who view the growing fetus as a human being would have just as much moral duty to stop an abortion as they would to stop a murderer killing people in their sleep.
Your moral argument, from the perspective of a someone who thinks killing the fetus is equivalent to murder, can just as easily be applied to a murderer and it make no less sense.
They have lived lives and done good and bad, an embryo that can't act in any way is technically not a human, therefore in my opinion, it's not wrong to remove them from your body.
Well, they are technically human. To be "human" has very specific parameters that a fertilized egg meets. The only difference between a fertilized egg and a 20 year old is terms of simply "being human" is how long they have been alive. A human being, an ambiguous term which is still argued unendingly in philosophy, does not. Your definition can be used as human being, or a "person against abortions" definition can be used and neither is more right or wrong than the other.
And what about all the damage pregnancy does to a woman's body? Swelling, bruising, aches, mood swings, the possibility of death during child birth. Those things still happen, therefore I can see why a woman would not want to experience that.
What about all the damage the murder victim did to the murderer? All the times the victim shouted at the murderer, laughed at him, mocked him, shit in his lawn. Those things happened, and I can see why the murderer would not want to experience that.
So you are now saying that this murderer kills his victims while they are sleeping, though you didn't before. The difference I see is that t… morehese people the murderer is killing are still human beings. They have lived lives and done good and bad, an embryo that can't act in any way is technically not a human, therefore in my opinion, it's not wrong to remove them from your body. And what about all the damage pregnancy does to a woman's body? Swelling, bruising, aches, mood swings, the possibility of death during child birth. Those things still happen, therefore I can see why a woman would not want to experience that.
Autonomy, an interesting idea. A newborn can also not live on their own. If they were left by themselves they would die. Is it morally acceptable to kill them because they are not self-sustaining?
If the murderer only killed newborns, human's that are not fully developed and cannot live on their own, would that be okay?
Except that murder victims are alive on their own, fully developed and outside of the womb, and are an active part of this world. Embryos ar… moreen't alive on their own, aren't developed and can't live outside of the womb, and are not a part of society. So your comparisons aren't accurate or reasonable to say the least.
but when they are born, they say nothing, they dont care if they give it under adoption, or if it's abandoned, or if he lives under bad conditions because the mother don't have the money and they forced her to have it.
If a child lives under bad conditions, or is adopted out, or is abandoned, would it be morally acceptable to kill them?
Many people against abortion always like to think of the baby in the last two months of pregnancy, they never think on BEFORE and after. The… morey say (not all of them) "They are killing a baby! It's bad!" it's not a baby, it's not alive in the early stage of pregnancy. Besides they always worry for the baby when it's not even born, but when they are born, they say nothing, they dont care if they give it under adoption, or if it's abandoned, or if he lives under bad conditions because the mother don't have the money and they forced her to have it.
If killing a born human is not allowed and could get you arrested, then so should abortion. You're killing a human being in both cases. It's wrong on all fronts. I don't care about the government's say. Fuck the government. This is my opinion.
But newborns are already born, can breathe, can think, can feel, and their organs are developed compared to that of an embryo. So yes it's a completely different ballpark than an embryo, and that's why it's wrong to kill newborns and not embryos. Considering embryos aren't developed at all, don't have a gender, can't think or feel, aren't in the actual world, etc.
Autonomy, an interesting idea. A newborn can also not live on their own. If they were left by themselves they would die. Is it morally accep… moretable to kill them because they are not self-sustaining?
If the murderer only killed newborns, human's that are not fully developed and cannot live on their own, would that be okay?
Here's the thing about those who say it should be legal for rape victims and other circumstances similar to it, but illegal for all other cases of abortion. Okay, so how is the government going to prove that those women were raped and impregnated by their rapist? Rape victims barely win in court, because of "circumstances" and insufficient evidence. So how are they going to prove that rape is their reason for having an abortion?
Abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Not just for that specific reason, though. There are many reasons to have an abortion and they're all valid. If you make abortion illegal, then imagine how many women will die because of botched abortions. Maybe it's just me, but I care more about the lives of girls and women than embryos.
I'm pro-choice for i believe that if a person wants an abortion they'll do it in any way they can, so let's give them choice so they don't go endanger themselves in a random back alley butcher.
I think it should be legal, depending on the cirumstances. If the baby is a product of rape and the girl is too young (or even if she's older), if she's a teenager who had a wind night with her boyfriend and now having a baby could ruin her life (ex. let's say her dream is to be a great athete but a baby could ruin it), if the woman or the baby has some kind of health issue and continuing with the pregnancy could damage or even kill one or both, if the woman belongs to a very poor family with already many children and taking care of one more would be impossible, if the mother is a fucking child. You see, in this kind of scenarios. But if the woman is a grown adult who had a crazy night one day and doesn't want to have a baby because... reasons (don't get me wrong, I would HATE to have children on my own), just bear it for nine months, and then give it in adoption to a cute gay couple that will give them the love a mother didn't want to feel. People say that it's "Putting the fetus rights before the woman's rights!" or that "The fetus doesn't have the capacity to feel or think, and therefore, it's not a human being", but a) The fetus is just as human as you [not because the seed is still a seed it means that it won't become a beautiful tree. The "fetus" IS a human, it will become a human. newborn babies don't have the capacity to feel or think, or there is no evidence at least, and nobody wants to kill them] b) this means equality of rights to both c) unless you have some health issue or you're a kid or something like that, you're not the one getting fucking killed and d) ARE 9 MONTHS OF YOUR LIFE WORTH MORE THAN 90 YEARS OF SOMEONE ELSE!?
Anyways, I think it should be legal. Women will keep getting abortions, but in dangerous ways that will get them both killed. Let's at least save one if we can't save both. We should be allowed to do it and taught not to.
Absolutely unjustified.
If killing a born human is not allowed and could get you arrested, then so should abortion. You're killing a huma… moren being in both cases. It's wrong on all fronts. I don't care about the government's say. Fuck the government. This is my opinion.
It's not kill when they still don't have a brain or a heart. You say that it's alive in the early stage of pregnancy (the first months), well, the fetus does not have a concsiousness, he does not think, and does not have a brain well developed.
If a child lives under bad conditions, or is adopted out, or is abandoned, would it be morally acceptable to kill them?
Yes, i don't know how is it ther, but in Chile the orphanages and that suff are really f***ed up, and besides, if you know that your child will be starving, being forced to work, will not have a good education, you better abort him. And i say again, its not killing.
Look i believe thar women must choose weather to have or not the baby, and onemust respect the decition, but i don't believe that they must wait until the final month to decide, unless they are rape victims and stuff like that.
it's not alive in the early stage of pregnancy.
Yes it is.
but when they are born, they say nothing, they dont care if they gi… moreve it under adoption, or if it's abandoned, or if he lives under bad conditions because the mother don't have the money and they forced her to have it.
If a child lives under bad conditions, or is adopted out, or is abandoned, would it be morally acceptable to kill them?
You can't just say it's "not killing." An argument can't be made at all when you say that. A growing fetus has every characteristic that officially categorizes them as alive. By having an abortion you are, well, stopping that fetus from being alive anymore. "Killing" is doing just that, stopping something from being alive anymore. So by having an abortion, you are deliberately causing the death of the living thing inside of you. If getting an abortion "isn't killing", then there would e no debate about the whole topic in the first place.
It's not kill when they still don't have a brain or a heart. You say that it's alive in the early stage of pregnancy (the first months), wel… morel, the fetus does not have a concsiousness, he does not think, and does not have a brain well developed.
If a child lives under bad conditions, or is adopted out, or is abandoned, would it be morally acceptable to kill them?
Yes, i don't know how is it ther, but in Chile the orphanages and that suff are really f***ed up, and besides, if you know that your child will be starving, being forced to work, will not have a good education, you better abort him. And i say again, its not killing.
Look i believe thar women must choose weather to have or not the baby, and onemust respect the decition, but i don't believe that they must wait until the final month to decide, unless they are rape victims and stuff like that.
Then females who have never been pregnant have no opinion either. Sorry, but I don't buy this "men can't talk about abortion" rubbish. I've … morenever seen a pro-life person oppose abortion because they want to control women. They oppose it because they see it as legalised murder and I can understand that viewpoint. It's not about trying to control or oppressed women, it's about actively pushing back against that is, in their view, morally wrong.
Then females who have never been pregnant have no opinion either.
To be fair, this point doesn't hold because chances are high that the females who have never been pregnant will be one day so it's only fair that they should be allowed to have a stance on the subject in the prospect of their eventual pregnancies. I mean, you have your opinion on retirement, right? Maybe you think it's fair in your country, maybe you think it's unfair but the point is that you're not a retired person but you have a say in it because you will have to be one one day and don't want to get screwed over when the day comes.
Then females who have never been pregnant have no opinion either. Sorry, but I don't buy this "men can't talk about abortion" rubbish. I've … morenever seen a pro-life person oppose abortion because they want to control women. They oppose it because they see it as legalised murder and I can understand that viewpoint. It's not about trying to control or oppressed women, it's about actively pushing back against that is, in their view, morally wrong.
A grown woman or a fetus/embryo, you really think there isn't a more important life to save there?
I'd consider a grown woman more important than a fetus, let alone an embryo.
A grown woman or a fetus/embryo, you really think there isn't a more important life to save there?
Nope. Both are human beings, the … moreonly difference is that one has already been born, and is biologically mature.
I'd consider a grown woman more important than a fetus, let alone an embryo.
At what point would you consider their importance equal, the exact moment of birth?
Comments
It's a completely accurate hypothetical. A hypothetical doesn't need to occur for it to be an accurate assessment of something, especially a moral stance. In fact most specific moral questions use such hypotheticals. One popular example is the consequentialist vs in consequentialist train question.
So, one more time, and this is the only part you need to respond to, you would not believe killing this newborn is a moral action? Yes or no?
This has nothing to do with the hypothetical. It's really quite a simple question and doesn't require all of the dodging you're doing.
It's also not my decision if someone decides to rape someone else, but that doesn't mean I can't have a moral objection to the action (or try to implement some form of prevention/punishment for the action).
Are you actually comparing the removal of an embryo that can't think, speak, or do almost anything else from a woman's body to someone who murders living human beings? I don't see the similarities.
Yes, I am. I'll even make it more similar by saying that the murderer only kills his victims as they sleep, so they also do not think, speak, or act (at least in any conscious sense). Your moral statement is no more steady than mine is. If you do not see the similarities then you have a very narrow understanding of the question.
I'm pro-choice. The simple fact is the people who are pushing to ban abortions aren't the people who are going to take care of those unwanted child. It's going to be the mother whom most likely will have to care for the unwanted child. Do you know what happens to unwanted children? Best case scenario, they are adopted and find a good family. But the reality is majority of those children will be neglected and will probably die anyway or grow up to repeat the same mistakes as their parents and do the same; have more unwanted children. I don't like how abortions are treated so casually, so I do believe there should be some sort of law put into to place where people don't abuse them. But with the rate of poverty and unfit parents, abortions are a necessity, like it or not. It's easy for someone to say no to abortions because they aren't the ones who are effected. But I'd rather a child to die in the womb instead of endure a life of abuse and poverty because their parents are unwilling and unable to provide a life for them. Truthfully I think a 3 strike rule should be implemented, but shouldn't apply to rape or medical emergency pregnancies. The penalty for having 3 abortions that weren't because of rape or a medical emergency should be sterilization for both parties. That's how I see it anyway. Abortions shouldn't be taken so casually, but I understand we do have a need for them.
So you are now saying that this murderer kills his victims while they are sleeping, though you didn't before. The difference I see is that these people the murderer is killing are still human beings. They have lived lives and done good and bad, an embryo that can't act in any way is technically not a human, therefore in my opinion, it's not wrong to remove them from your body. And what about all the damage pregnancy does to a woman's body? Swelling, bruising, aches, mood swings, the possibility of death during child birth. Those things still happen, therefore I can see why a woman would not want to experience that.
Except that murder victims are alive on their own, fully developed and outside of the womb, and are an active part of this world. Embryos aren't alive on their own, aren't developed and can't live outside of the womb, and are not a part of society. So your comparisons aren't accurate or reasonable to say the least.
That's kind of my point. What's the big deal with removing something that, like you said, isn't alive on its own and isn't developed?
Exactly. Embryos aren't developed and don't even have an established gender at that point, therefore they're not human beings. Compare it to the murder victims mentioned above, that are integrated and established into society and have developed personalities. They're living, breathing, functioning human beings who can think and feel. That's why it's wrong to kill them, compared to embryos. That's my stance on it, anyway.
Many people against abortion always like to think of the baby in the last two months of pregnancy, they never think on BEFORE and after. They say (not all of them) "They are killing a baby! It's bad!" it's not a baby, it's not alive in the early stage of pregnancy. Besides they always worry for the baby when it's not even born, but when they are born, they say nothing, they dont care if they give it under adoption, or if it's abandoned, or if he lives under bad conditions because the mother don't have the money and they forced her to have it.
Abortion should be a choice for those in an unfortunate situation, but be punished if they choose it just because they were reckless.
"My body, my rights." This no longer applies when you're a few months pregnant, since there is a living person inside your womb. You didn't want a kid and you wanted to play with fire? Fine, your decision. It will affect your health, not ours. Let's not forget the costs and all.
Now let's see it from another perspective. There are people who tried to play it safe, and it still happened. Can you really blame them? Things happens, and we shouldn't shame them for their decision.
A life is a life. If a mother is in danger, and it could kill her, then abortion should be performed. It's not something to argue about.
And I'd like to add something related to rape. The victims didn't choose to be into a relationship, or be a parent. All their rights were violated by the predators. If the victims want to raise the kid or not is up to them, not the family, not you, and certainly, not some "blind" priests.
Still my and only my choice.
Okay, maybe not exactly like that. I meant people who think that making an abortion is as easy as going to a dentist. They don't care much about protection but when shit happens, they be like "oops, whatever". Maybe that doesn't happen in your country, but plenty of youth in Russia can't use protection properly and think that it's not a problem as long as you can get rid of the baby.
I'm pro abortion under any circumstances. Parent(s) shouldn't have their lives and/or health ruined by child they don't want. I don't consider a embryo/fetus a 'human' in the social/moral sense until it's born. An embryo in the abortable stages is just a clump of cells which isn't capable of any thought, emotion, or feeling.
I read this really interesting hypothetical - suppose you're forced to choose between dropping an embryo or an infant from a fatal height. For a pro-lifer following the 'abortion is murder' argument, it should be impossible for them to decide as the lives are supposedly equal... but that wouldn't be the case obviously.
I'm not one to shy away from playing Devil's advocate. However, it is interesting to note this small statistic...
1 out of every 2,532 abortions are performed due to rape. Seems to be an interesting defense if it's such a small percentile of people that do it due to rape in the first place. As well, only roughly 1% of people even go through an abortion due to rape to begin with.
Its a stupid argument anyway and has nothing to do with the moral objections people have. If the pro life believe a embryo is a person with rights why is that innocent person suddenly denied a right to live because of crimes committed by the father that makes no sense. Imagine getting thrown in prison because a crime your father committed, you wont because your a individual with rights, unlike a embryo.
Its such a weak argument so is the mother being in danger one, one life is not more valuable than the other if they are both people with a right to live. The bottom line is embryos are not people (yet) and dont have human rights
Russia has serious issues
I'm just saying, let's not use rape as a reasoning to justify others' moral equivalences about getting one done cause of some pandering sense of progressive-mindedness.
Just cause a small percentage of people are saved by abortions because of rape or pregnancy complications doesn't mean a lot of us pro-choice people should hide under the assumption many don't do it for self-serving reasoning.
And I just have to ask, what does the death penalty have to do with abortions? It seems you have confused your arguments.
Im pointing out the double standards of the pro life
im pro choice
As am I, but why let that get in the way of individual belief patterns of right and wrong?
I believe people will do as they will. And I hold no condemnations towards those who want to abort their future baby because they simply can't handle the responsibility or don't want to go a year without having a dick shoved into their pink box.
But I refuse the notion it is noble or respectful in all instances by itself.
Because the same people who say its a innocent baby that is looking forward to meeting mummy, has a fully functioning brain and fully formed pain receptors are the same people that say its ok to abort if that baby is a product of rape and to me those thought processes dont line up
Im not a fan of these types of condridictions
Edit. I dont care why people have abortions its their choice they can do it for any reason they want, its the double standards of the anti choice that gets my goat
Who are you referring to exactly?
I added something to the hypothetical.
How do you define a human being? People who view the growing fetus as a human being would have just as much moral duty to stop an abortion as they would to stop a murderer killing people in their sleep.
Your moral argument, from the perspective of a someone who thinks killing the fetus is equivalent to murder, can just as easily be applied to a murderer and it make no less sense.
Well, they are technically human. To be "human" has very specific parameters that a fertilized egg meets. The only difference between a fertilized egg and a 20 year old is terms of simply "being human" is how long they have been alive. A human being, an ambiguous term which is still argued unendingly in philosophy, does not. Your definition can be used as human being, or a "person against abortions" definition can be used and neither is more right or wrong than the other.
What about all the damage the murder victim did to the murderer? All the times the victim shouted at the murderer, laughed at him, mocked him, shit in his lawn. Those things happened, and I can see why the murderer would not want to experience that.
Autonomy, an interesting idea. A newborn can also not live on their own. If they were left by themselves they would die. Is it morally acceptable to kill them because they are not self-sustaining?
If the murderer only killed newborns, human's that are not fully developed and cannot live on their own, would that be okay?
On what grounds? Your first argument is invalid.
Yes it is.
If a child lives under bad conditions, or is adopted out, or is abandoned, would it be morally acceptable to kill them?
Absolutely unjustified.
If killing a born human is not allowed and could get you arrested, then so should abortion. You're killing a human being in both cases. It's wrong on all fronts. I don't care about the government's say. Fuck the government. This is my opinion.
But newborns are already born, can breathe, can think, can feel, and their organs are developed compared to that of an embryo. So yes it's a completely different ballpark than an embryo, and that's why it's wrong to kill newborns and not embryos. Considering embryos aren't developed at all, don't have a gender, can't think or feel, aren't in the actual world, etc.
Here's the thing about those who say it should be legal for rape victims and other circumstances similar to it, but illegal for all other cases of abortion. Okay, so how is the government going to prove that those women were raped and impregnated by their rapist? Rape victims barely win in court, because of "circumstances" and insufficient evidence. So how are they going to prove that rape is their reason for having an abortion?
Abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Not just for that specific reason, though. There are many reasons to have an abortion and they're all valid. If you make abortion illegal, then imagine how many women will die because of botched abortions. Maybe it's just me, but I care more about the lives of girls and women than embryos.
I'm pro-choice for i believe that if a person wants an abortion they'll do it in any way they can, so let's give them choice so they don't go endanger themselves in a random back alley butcher.
I think it should be legal, depending on the cirumstances. If the baby is a product of rape and the girl is too young (or even if she's older), if she's a teenager who had a wind night with her boyfriend and now having a baby could ruin her life (ex. let's say her dream is to be a great athete but a baby could ruin it), if the woman or the baby has some kind of health issue and continuing with the pregnancy could damage or even kill one or both, if the woman belongs to a very poor family with already many children and taking care of one more would be impossible, if the mother is a fucking child. You see, in this kind of scenarios. But if the woman is a grown adult who had a crazy night one day and doesn't want to have a baby because... reasons (don't get me wrong, I would HATE to have children on my own), just bear it for nine months, and then give it in adoption to a cute gay couple that will give them the love a mother didn't want to feel. People say that it's "Putting the fetus rights before the woman's rights!" or that "The fetus doesn't have the capacity to feel or think, and therefore, it's not a human being", but a) The fetus is just as human as you [not because the seed is still a seed it means that it won't become a beautiful tree. The "fetus" IS a human, it will become a human. newborn babies don't have the capacity to feel or think, or there is no evidence at least, and nobody wants to kill them] b) this means equality of rights to both c) unless you have some health issue or you're a kid or something like that, you're not the one getting fucking killed and d) ARE 9 MONTHS OF YOUR LIFE WORTH MORE THAN 90 YEARS OF SOMEONE ELSE!?
Anyways, I think it should be legal. Women will keep getting abortions, but in dangerous ways that will get them both killed. Let's at least save one if we can't save both. We should be allowed to do it and taught not to.
Look at these pictures.
One of them is a that of a human baby. The other is an embryo. Can you spot the difference?
It's not kill when they still don't have a brain or a heart. You say that it's alive in the early stage of pregnancy (the first months), well, the fetus does not have a concsiousness, he does not think, and does not have a brain well developed.
Yes, i don't know how is it ther, but in Chile the orphanages and that suff are really f***ed up, and besides, if you know that your child will be starving, being forced to work, will not have a good education, you better abort him. And i say again, its not killing.
Look i believe thar women must choose weather to have or not the baby, and onemust respect the decition, but i don't believe that they must wait until the final month to decide, unless they are rape victims and stuff like that.
You can't just say it's "not killing." An argument can't be made at all when you say that. A growing fetus has every characteristic that officially categorizes them as alive. By having an abortion you are, well, stopping that fetus from being alive anymore. "Killing" is doing just that, stopping something from being alive anymore. So by having an abortion, you are deliberately causing the death of the living thing inside of you. If getting an abortion "isn't killing", then there would e no debate about the whole topic in the first place.
Thank you. It's refreshing to see that there are people who understand our point of view.
To be fair, this point doesn't hold because chances are high that the females who have never been pregnant will be one day so it's only fair that they should be allowed to have a stance on the subject in the prospect of their eventual pregnancies. I mean, you have your opinion on retirement, right? Maybe you think it's fair in your country, maybe you think it's unfair but the point is that you're not a retired person but you have a say in it because you will have to be one one day and don't want to get screwed over when the day comes.
Nope. Both are human beings, the only difference is that one has already been born, and is biologically mature.
At what point would you consider their importance equal, the exact moment of birth?
That's honestly pretty scary....Embryo? More important than a grown female? Right.
You didn't answer my question.
I thought I made my point clear. A woman is more important than an embryo, but a woman and a baby are of equal importance.
Wrong again. Know your place .