Oof. As a staunch pro life guy, pro life women who have had abortions are the worst and do more damage than good by discrediting the movement. Just shut up about it.
Because it makes us look hypocritical. "Abortion is wrong, except for mine. Don't get an abortion even though I did."
You wanna be an anti abortion advocate start off by not getting pregnant at 13.
And don't get me wrong, I'm glad that you're against abortion and you can help the cause in other ways, but arguing for it... it's like when a guy is trying to talk to you about accepting God and getting into heaven when he's known for getting drunk and beating his wife and kids.
Don't dare lecture me about getting pregnant it was not my choice, I made a mistake afterwards but don't bring that into this.
I never claimed my abortion wasn't wrong, I believe it was and that I never should have been able to access this especially as a scared child who didn't understand the consequences of what she was doing.
You can think what you want but I've found pro-choice women are more like to listen to you when you actually have an experience of this sort of thing as they think you have a deeper understanding of the topic.
Your example is completely irrelevant it's more like would you listen to a man who used to get drunk and beat his wife then found God and has made a better life for himself? Well these preachers tend to be more successful. I'm not a believer in God so I can't talk directly but just from what I've seen those who were atheists and went though change have an easier time converting people.
This was nauseating to read. Especially since you used to be pro womens bodily rights and now you aren't. Just because you decided to have a rape baby in no way means anyone else should have to. That's horrific.
No, I used to be anti-womens bodily rights and anti men's bodily rights. I used to put women's comfort above bodily rights and life, that is what is horrific.
P. S: Don't call them 'rape babies' they're just babies they aren't their conception you aren't a doggy style baby or whatever.
A lot of people see it that way. Just because you're okay with it, doesn't mean a lot of people are okay going through with a pregnancy due to rape. That's beyond unfair to the victim to not only be raped, but then to be forced to have a baby. Its sick to want that for anyone.
Also, who's gonna pay for the pregnancy healthcare costs? And what happens to the baby after its born and the mom doesn't want to be a mom? If you had any clue what the foster system was like, you wouldn't say "adoption is great" cause it isn't in most cases.
I'm not from the US so I can't comment much on healthcare costs but I do know charities exist to help with costs, and that there are organisations that will cover the costs of the pregnancy so you don't abort.
I know a lot about the adoption system and it's not perfect but it's better than murder for sure.
The us healthcare and adoption/foster system are a fucking nightmare. It's way smarter to get an abortion unless you literally can afford to have a baby. Otherwise you and the kid are screwed.
I said I don't know much about the healthcare system but I do know what you have said is bullshit. As I said many charities and organisations exist to help pregnant women with costs and adoption isn't perfect but murder is never a better never mind smarter option.
You know nothing about my situation so don't act like you know a single thing, my opinion changing is very closely related to having an abortion it's not what you people pretend it is. I should never have been allowed to have that abortion, it would have saved both me and my baby, it'll always be my biggest regret
Again I really do hope you never kill an innocent child for your own selfishness.
Like I said, birth control works. I'll never need to. But if I did happen to have a birth control failure, I wouldn't hesitate to get an abortion. An early term abortion is an evacuation of cells. Nothing more.
And if I was raped, there would be even less of a question to get an abortion. I'm sorry that happened. That is awful. Beyond awful. But being through that, you of all people should understand how people should not be forced to go through with any, let alone a rape induced pregnancy.
Pro-Choice all the way. I was pro-life until my first child. Almost dying on my son's birth bed changed my way of thinking. Abortion is a personal private choice and should remain legal/safe.
I don't think it's hypocrisy. I used to be pro-choice, it was having an abortion that actually helped change my mind, I hate that it's something I've done and I do wish I could go back and change it but I can't.
Why is it hypocrisy to after becoming pro-life know I'd never have one again and regret what I've done, I'll never forgive myself for it but it doesn't make me a hypocrite.
I don't think I should have been allowed an abortion, I never said I did, I wish I hadn't been as it was my worst mistake. Why are you putting words into my mouth?
I think he's saying the fact you are saying this truth for yourself does not mean you can project your view onto other women and their situations and perspective. Thus, it becomes their right and choice. Best guess. I'm not negating your view or passion for your cause. I think it's a high human purpose to take our trauma and fear and use it to benefit of others... to save a life, to change one life for the better gives value to our tragedy. Heals pain with good. That is the thinking and motivation, to take mourning and turn it into life. Jesus tried to save people and look what he got... some were saved, a lot listened and walked away. Some people will hear your message if delivered well, others cannot hear.
I think you should have been given choice, but given therapy and support and options as life should always be favored.
That doesn't give you the right to force your beliefs on other women. Religion and government should be kept separate. And it's only religious nuts that are pro-life.
If you're not religious than you have no reason to force your beliefs onto others with the law. You also have no reason to be pro-life if you're not religious at all. But I can see that you're lying because the myTake clearly says you're religious! The myTake talks about the baby's soul and shit. That's religion.
I never mention a soul lmao, I don't believe in souls although that isn't even a religious belief. I certainly never say I'm religious you you obviously didn't read it.
Religion isn't the only reason to want people to stop killing babies and certainly not the only reason to have laws, if you really believe it is you must be some kind of sociopath.
I know everything about it because I've heard every argument. You can't make a pro-life argument that isn't religious in some way. Nobody who uses logic would be pro-life.
You're making shit up now. Because science clearly proved a fetus doesn't have brain activity until a certain point. Science also proves that a woman miscarries all the time without realizing it. So an abortion is simply inducing a miscarriage. Actual science doesn't support pro-life in anyway. But your imaginary religious science probably does.
You do realise the first brain activity that can be picked up is at just over a month pregnant, the baby's heartbeat can start as early as 3 weeks not to mention scientifically speaking the foetus is fully human. As I said is a misscariage happens so early on that it can be put down to a late period (A period comes roughly every 28-32 days) then the woman couldn't have known she was pregnant unless she was trying to get pregnant, that really isn't comparable to the murder of a baby. Miscarriages can cause PTSD in women they aren't something simple or easy.
So if you're going to keep spitting crap go and do it to someone as misinformed as you.
It is a person, it's just at a earlier stage of development. They have the possibility to become anything, to do anything, and don't deserve to be killed because they're younger than us. What makes them a person is no different than what makes anyone else a person, they're their own selves.
Just say you couldn't understand rather than say that. My justification is they are a person because they are no different from any other person, they're just younger. They're their own selves that is what defines a person.
What about fertilized eggs? Technically they’re younger and do they have personhood? What about potential people? Like the moment an egg and sperm touch? What about before and egg and sperm touch? When is a person a person?
The main philosophical question: What about some specific attribute makes something deserving of personhood?
For that matter, why does genetics matter? What about hypothetically Superman? Does he deserve personhood? And if genetic similarity is really what it’s about, isn’t it a rather arbitrary standard that something deserves personhood if it’s this genetically related, no more and no less? I mean this genetic argument could be used to justify racism and sexism.
A fertilised egg, a zygote, yes it's a person. A sperm/egg? You mean a diploid human cell with no possibility of on it's own becoming human? No, they aren't comparable.
Genetics? I'd like you to expand on that.
Superman is an alien, does he deserve personhood well by definition no as he isn't human, the debate around do aliens deserve personhood is very different from do unborn humans deserve personhood.
I mean we might assign some arbitrary standard on what is a person, like “having human DNA”, but are things that don’t have human DNA implying they don’t deserve ethical treatment?
If the implication above is false, the human DNA is not the standard of what deserves personhood.
What if they were in close proximity, and they we about to touch? Would preventing them from combining be immoral?
If being human is the standard if what deserves to have ethical treatment, would you be perfectly fine with harming some animals, say a cat?
Moral philosophy isn't one set of ideas, you realise there are hundreds of moral philosophies. So you're talking as if you're belief on moral philosophy is the only one which is why you're just fundamentally wrong here.
It is a living being, a human. We give humans the fundamental right to life, to say that a unborn child does not deserve this makes no sense if you believe a born child does.
Let me ask you why you see birth as a massive signifier of someone gaining their human rights?
It’s not necessarily only about personhood. I think the mind is what makes a person a person. More specifically if something is self awareness and the ability to understand the implication of death, then we cannot kill such a thing.
It’s also out of legality. Let’s be general first. Suppose you have two people. One person has a healthy body and another person need some part of that body to survive. If you’re making the law, should it be a legal obligation for a person to give up some part of their body for the other person to survive off of?
You never answered my question and I'd like to get an answer before I answer another on of yours, what is it about birth that to you makes a person deserving of their human rights?
It should not be legal to force a person to give up their bodily rights for another person to survive. Why do I think that? Because a lot of issues, organ donations for example, should not be compulsory. A person shouldn’t be forced to give up their organ and a doctor that does such a thing in my eyes is immoral.
This illustrates an important thing in moral philosophy. It’s called being consistent. If I have a general principle for morals, it should be apply for any circumstance. Otherwise, if I make exceptions, why is any moral reason I give is valid?
So you don't consider a person to be a person before they're 18 months old, if they have dementia, if they've got PTSD and are having a flashback, if they're in a coma etc
People in coma are in altered states of awareness.
As for PTSD, they would just be reliving an event. I would still think they would be able to distinguish themselves as a thing.
As for dementia and younger than 18 month old. I guess not. But the thing is that our morals should not be ad hoc, meaning we want a certain conclusion so we pick the axioms to prove that conclusion.
Another thing, no, this does not mean we should kill babies younger than 18 months. Our legal system is not only about morals, but practicalities. It’s not practical to murder newborns.
Even if a fetus is a person (for the sake of argument), if we are to remain consistent with our values, the question of a person’s life or a person’s bodily autonomy come up. Which is more important?
If a person’s life, should compulsory organ harvest be necessary for all healthy people to participate? If someone’s freedom of bodily autonomy is more important than a person’s life, shouldn’t we allow abortion?
(Remember, one should be consistent with morals if they were to make a moral argument).
First of all your point was on self awareness so I gave plenty of examples where that just wouldn't hold up, you can't pretend that still holds. If it's not practical to kill newborns why is it practical to kill other babies?
On the whole organ donation thing, that persons right to bodily autonomy doesn't breach anothers right to live it's passive which is completely different.
You're the one who is completely morally inconstant, that is assuming killing babies can be considered any kind of moral stance.
I pointed out about how that would contradict with a person’s right to their body with the example I gave you.
Organs are needed more than what’s available. By not signing up to donate, even post humorously, a person won’t receive your organs and could die. Is your right to bodily autonomy trump that or a person’s life. If so, should organ donation be compulsory?
How so? Might not be popular, but if you have a principle of morals, it should be applicable universally.
You're morals are inconstant here though, you don't understand the difference between your actions directly or passively affecting someone. Getting an abortion directly murders a child, not donating your organs might mean someone cannot have a transplant and will die, do you see the difference?
On your last point, I don't even know how to respond everyone has a different set of moral principles, how on earth would it be practical to apply them all when they contradict each other?
No. The thing is that you feel one is more personal than the other. But that doesn’t seem like a justification of why one is bad and the other one isn’t.
And now that you brought up murder, if abortion is murder, should a women be charged with manslaughter (Manslaughter is unlawful killing without malice afterthought and intent) if she has a miscarriage.
No I meant this. Say you have a value like “You should do the action that helps the most amount of people”. That principle should be applied in many different circumstance. You can’t say “Oh except for that situation. And that one. And that one.”
Miscarriage is an uncontrollable event, the way you talk about it you clearly don't understand the weight of the topic. It's a tragedy that can cause PTSD in women, manslaughter is still the crime of killing a human being not a human being dying that happens to be inside of you, you didn't kill the child. A case can be made for women who cause a miscarriage to face some sort of not punishment but help for this such as if it was due to drug addiction or something.
You still don't understand the difference between a passive action and a direct action, so I'm not going to comment on that further till you actually understand it.
I assume what you're talking about there is utilitarian ethics which do say that you should do what causes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, however there are different from of this and apart from radical utilitarianism they draw the line between passive and direct actions, retaining the rights of the individual where they do not directly infringe on the rights of others. As you clearly cannot grasp the difference between passive and direct action I wouldn't expect you to understand this.
You did involuntarily kill another human. That is a thing. Involuntary manslaughter.
The line between passive action and direct actions are not so distinct. Tell me how they both have different moral values. If you are in a situation where you can help people, and you do not actively participate in it, are you not morally responsible?
This is why we can’t have this conversation. You’re too thick to understand the difference between passive and direct action, honestly if you want to talk go learn basic terms.
Not buying the rape argument. Here's a simple test: In one hand you have an embryo in a petri dish. In the other hand, you have a 2 month old infant. If you had to drop one off a 6 story building, which one would you drop?
Pro choice all the way. What I do with my body, shouldn't necessarily be what you do with your body. Why should i tell you what you can and can't do with your body. THATS WRONG
Just because the baby hasn't been born doesn't mean it is not a person to try and say it doesn't have it's own body is just so stupid, I can't comprehend the levels of denial that would take.
The baby still deserves a chance, doctors can be wrong on such things.
I think we're talking about different things lmao, people breaking the law and the law existing are different, you can't force morality but you can and it always has been legislated.
Because murder is defined as the UNLAWFUL killing of a human being. Any lawful killing is not murder. As long as the abortion is lawful, then it's BY DEFINITION not "murder".
@taleswapper So what you're saying is it depends on the country your in? If we made it legal to kill someone because they were wearing yellow would you still see it as murder? Or is it really just all definitions to you?
"If we made it legal to kill someone because they were wearing yellow would you still see it as murder?" No. Homicide, yes. Unethical, yes. Immoral, maybe. But NOT murder. By using the word for a crime for actions that are NOT a crime, you don't make those actions criminal. Instead, you dilute the meaning of the word. Once, "rape" was forced sexual congress with an unwilling woman by a man not her husband. Now it means (to third wave feminists, anyway) "Any interpersonal activity which may be construed in a sexual way, that the woman decides at some later time she didn't REALLY appreciate, and she doesn't want to accept responsibility for her part in, but she reserves the right to agree to if it's a hot guy."" We have "verbal rape" from a casual compliment; "eye-rape" from someone looking at her for "too long", etc.
Definitions MATTER. Especially when you start talking about laws regarding capital crimes.
@taleswapper I really don't know why you brought feminism into this, rape is still just defined as forced sex, yes I'm paraphrasing before you go ape shit. Anyway homicide is a synonym of murder, their exact definitions differ but the meaning is the same, this is the problem with using words if you don't understand them at a deeper level. No one is saying definitions don't matter but there is far more to it than that, if your using the argument that the definition doesn't quite sum up the act in certain countries you have no leg to stand on.
i dont think its murder because a fetus is not a fully developed human being and scientifically it does not have same level of consciousness as a human being.
The consciousness argument has been debunked so many times, as has the development argument. Your logic is flawed at best and evil at worst, depends how nice the person looking at it is.
Considering human rights doesn't the woman has right to her body and her life considering the risks of pregnancy and choice of giving birth or not. So who do you think deserves human rights an alive person or a developing embryo which is supposed to be alive
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
27Opinion
Huge props! Love this so much. The world needs more people like you to understand what is really happening. Amazing myTake 🙌
Now this is a novel sight... someone admitting they were wrong! Beautiful
Oof. As a staunch pro life guy, pro life women who have had abortions are the worst and do more damage than good by discrediting the movement. Just shut up about it.
Why? I made a horrible mistake when I was 13, how do I discredit the movement by hoping other women don't do the same thing?
Because it makes us look hypocritical. "Abortion is wrong, except for mine. Don't get an abortion even though I did."
You wanna be an anti abortion advocate start off by not getting pregnant at 13.
And don't get me wrong, I'm glad that you're against abortion and you can help the cause in other ways, but arguing for it... it's like when a guy is trying to talk to you about accepting God and getting into heaven when he's known for getting drunk and beating his wife and kids.
Don't dare lecture me about getting pregnant it was not my choice, I made a mistake afterwards but don't bring that into this.
I never claimed my abortion wasn't wrong, I believe it was and that I never should have been able to access this especially as a scared child who didn't understand the consequences of what she was doing.
You can think what you want but I've found pro-choice women are more like to listen to you when you actually have an experience of this sort of thing as they think you have a deeper understanding of the topic.
Your example is completely irrelevant it's more like would you listen to a man who used to get drunk and beat his wife then found God and has made a better life for himself? Well these preachers tend to be more successful. I'm not a believer in God so I can't talk directly but just from what I've seen those who were atheists and went though change have an easier time converting people.
Suit yourself. There's some merit to your argument, but that was just my perspective. I skimmed over the part about the rape, so for that I'm sorry.
Sorry I was so aggressive about it.
Nah, the fault is with me. I think you're right after mulling it over a bit more. Nevermind, I was wrong.
Thank you, again sorry I was so aggressive, no matter who is right or wrong the way I shouldn't have been such a bitch.
Being aggressive is good, and I'm the bitch lol.
Lol, well thank you for seeing my side.
Yes, because banning abortion has been such a great success...
This was nauseating to read. Especially since you used to be pro womens bodily rights and now you aren't. Just because you decided to have a rape baby in no way means anyone else should have to. That's horrific.
No, I used to be anti-womens bodily rights and anti men's bodily rights. I used to put women's comfort above bodily rights and life, that is what is horrific.
P. S: Don't call them 'rape babies' they're just babies they aren't their conception you aren't a doggy style baby or whatever.
A lot of people see it that way. Just because you're okay with it, doesn't mean a lot of people are okay going through with a pregnancy due to rape. That's beyond unfair to the victim to not only be raped, but then to be forced to have a baby. Its sick to want that for anyone.
Also, who's gonna pay for the pregnancy healthcare costs? And what happens to the baby after its born and the mom doesn't want to be a mom? If you had any clue what the foster system was like, you wouldn't say "adoption is great" cause it isn't in most cases.
So we should murder an innocent child who did nothing wrong so the mother is more comfortable, no that is what is sick to want.
I'm not from the US so I can't comment much on healthcare costs but I do know charities exist to help with costs, and that there are organisations that will cover the costs of the pregnancy so you don't abort.
I know a lot about the adoption system and it's not perfect but it's better than murder for sure.
The us healthcare and adoption/foster system are a fucking nightmare. It's way smarter to get an abortion unless you literally can afford to have a baby. Otherwise you and the kid are screwed.
I said I don't know much about the healthcare system but I do know what you have said is bullshit. As I said many charities and organisations exist to help pregnant women with costs and adoption isn't perfect but murder is never a better never mind smarter option.
Lol okay. Well, at least your opinion can't stop it from being accessible.
it will one day, I hope you never kill an innocent child for your own selfishness.
I'll never get pregnant, get an abortion and then change my opinion about if AFTER. cause that's weak and hypocritical.
Also, birth control works. I think I'll be safe.
You know nothing about my situation so don't act like you know a single thing, my opinion changing is very closely related to having an abortion it's not what you people pretend it is.
I should never have been allowed to have that abortion, it would have saved both me and my baby, it'll always be my biggest regret
Again I really do hope you never kill an innocent child for your own selfishness.
Like I said, birth control works. I'll never need to. But if I did happen to have a birth control failure, I wouldn't hesitate to get an abortion. An early term abortion is an evacuation of cells. Nothing more.
You're sick. I hope you never kill a baby and that one day you see sense and actually protect children.
And if I was raped, there would be even less of a question to get an abortion. I'm sorry that happened. That is awful. Beyond awful. But being through that, you of all people should understand how people should not be forced to go through with any, let alone a rape induced pregnancy.
I care about protecting kids that already exist. Not cells.
Everyone is just cells, those kids do exist and you support their murder.
Pro-Choice all the way. I was pro-life until my first child. Almost dying on my son's birth bed changed my way of thinking. Abortion is a personal private choice and should remain legal/safe.
The hypocrisy of pro-life, many of the pro-life women have had abortions themselves.
I don't think it's hypocrisy. I used to be pro-choice, it was having an abortion that actually helped change my mind, I hate that it's something I've done and I do wish I could go back and change it but I can't.
Why is it hypocrisy to after becoming pro-life know I'd never have one again and regret what I've done, I'll never forgive myself for it but it doesn't make me a hypocrite.
So you're special and all other women shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion? It's pure hypocrisy.
I don't think I should have been allowed an abortion, I never said I did, I wish I hadn't been as it was my worst mistake. Why are you putting words into my mouth?
I think he's saying the fact you are saying this truth for yourself does not mean you can project your view onto other women and their situations and perspective. Thus, it becomes their right and choice. Best guess.
I'm not negating your view or passion for your cause. I think it's a high human purpose to take our trauma and fear and use it to benefit of others... to save a life, to change one life for the better gives value to our tragedy. Heals pain with good. That is the thinking and motivation, to take mourning and turn it into life. Jesus tried to save people and look what he got... some were saved, a lot listened and walked away. Some people will hear your message if delivered well, others cannot hear.
I think you should have been given choice, but given therapy and support and options as life should always be favored.
That doesn't give you the right to force your beliefs on other women. Religion and government should be kept separate. And it's only religious nuts that are pro-life.
I'm not religious at all so again you're wrong.
If you're not religious than you have no reason to force your beliefs onto others with the law. You also have no reason to be pro-life if you're not religious at all.
But I can see that you're lying because the myTake clearly says you're religious! The myTake talks about the baby's soul and shit. That's religion.
I never mention a soul lmao, I don't believe in souls although that isn't even a religious belief. I certainly never say I'm religious you you obviously didn't read it.
Religion isn't the only reason to want people to stop killing babies and certainly not the only reason to have laws, if you really believe it is you must be some kind of sociopath.
*An exclusivity religious belief.
Exclusively* I apologise for the spelling my phone is cracked.
Pro-life is only for people with a religious mentality.
Then you know nothing about it.
I know everything about it because I've heard every argument. You can't make a pro-life argument that isn't religious in some way. Nobody who uses logic would be pro-life.
Almost all pro-life arguments are secular, your lack of knowledge on this is glaringly obvious to anyone who knows anything dude, just stop.
A secular argument is one that is completely logical and scientific. There is nothing scientific about being pro-life.
Actually all science points towards pro-life, you really need to get a clue or stop talking lmao.
You're making shit up now. Because science clearly proved a fetus doesn't have brain activity until a certain point. Science also proves that a woman miscarries all the time without realizing it. So an abortion is simply inducing a miscarriage.
Actual science doesn't support pro-life in anyway. But your imaginary religious science probably does.
You do realise the first brain activity that can be picked up is at just over a month pregnant, the baby's heartbeat can start as early as 3 weeks not to mention scientifically speaking the foetus is fully human. As I said is a misscariage happens so early on that it can be put down to a late period (A period comes roughly every 28-32 days) then the woman couldn't have known she was pregnant unless she was trying to get pregnant, that really isn't comparable to the murder of a baby. Miscarriages can cause PTSD in women they aren't something simple or easy.
So if you're going to keep spitting crap go and do it to someone as misinformed as you.
I’m gonna ask this: What makes a fetus person?
Not a human. To be a human, you just need human DNA.
But a person. Something that deserves moral consideration.
It is a person, it's just at a earlier stage of development. They have the possibility to become anything, to do anything, and don't deserve to be killed because they're younger than us. What makes them a person is no different than what makes anyone else a person, they're their own selves.
So you’re justification that they’re a person is that they’re a person.
You see the problem with that? I might assert banana is a person because it’s a person.
You can’t use the claim that it’s a person to justify its a person.
Just say you couldn't understand rather than say that. My justification is they are a person because they are no different from any other person, they're just younger. They're their own selves that is what defines a person.
What about fertilized eggs? Technically they’re younger and do they have personhood? What about potential people? Like the moment an egg and sperm touch? What about before and egg and sperm touch? When is a person a person?
The main philosophical question:
What about some specific attribute makes something deserving of personhood?
For that matter, why does genetics matter? What about hypothetically Superman? Does he deserve personhood? And if genetic similarity is really what it’s about, isn’t it a rather arbitrary standard that something deserves personhood if it’s this genetically related, no more and no less? I mean this genetic argument could be used to justify racism and sexism.
A fertilised egg, a zygote, yes it's a person. A sperm/egg? You mean a diploid human cell with no possibility of on it's own becoming human? No, they aren't comparable.
Genetics? I'd like you to expand on that.
Superman is an alien, does he deserve personhood well by definition no as he isn't human, the debate around do aliens deserve personhood is very different from do unborn humans deserve personhood.
I mean we might assign some arbitrary standard on what is a person, like “having human DNA”, but are things that don’t have human DNA implying they don’t deserve ethical treatment?
If the implication above is false, the human DNA is not the standard of what deserves personhood.
What if they were in close proximity, and they we about to touch? Would preventing them from combining be immoral?
If being human is the standard if what deserves to have ethical treatment, would you be perfectly fine with harming some animals, say a cat?
Personhood and ethical treatment are different so why you're acting as if they're the same confuses me.
Actually in moral philosophy, for something to be a person, it is by definition part of the set of things that deserve moral consideration.
A human just have human DNA. See the difference?
Moral philosophy isn't one set of ideas, you realise there are hundreds of moral philosophies. So you're talking as if you're belief on moral philosophy is the only one which is why you're just fundamentally wrong here.
Well I mean in philosophy, there is a set of definitions that are agreed upon in order to talk.
But let’s just go with your definition of a person. It’s important not to commit an equivocation fallacy.
My question still holds. Why does a fetus deserve moral consideration?
It is a living being, a human. We give humans the fundamental right to life, to say that a unborn child does not deserve this makes no sense if you believe a born child does.
Let me ask you why you see birth as a massive signifier of someone gaining their human rights?
It’s not necessarily only about personhood. I think the mind is what makes a person a person. More specifically if something is self awareness and the ability to understand the implication of death, then we cannot kill such a thing.
It’s also out of legality. Let’s be general first. Suppose you have two people. One person has a healthy body and another person need some part of that body to survive. If you’re making the law, should it be a legal obligation for a person to give up some part of their body for the other person to survive off of?
You never answered my question and I'd like to get an answer before I answer another on of yours, what is it about birth that to you makes a person deserving of their human rights?
Well my question I posed illustrates a point.
It should not be legal to force a person to give up their bodily rights for another person to survive. Why do I think that? Because a lot of issues, organ donations for example, should not be compulsory. A person shouldn’t be forced to give up their organ and a doctor that does such a thing in my eyes is immoral.
This illustrates an important thing in moral philosophy. It’s called being consistent. If I have a general principle for morals, it should be apply for any circumstance. Otherwise, if I make exceptions, why is any moral reason I give is valid?
So you're not going to answer my question, got it.
Also for that matter, if abortions are murder, should miscarriages be considered manslaughter?
Manslaughter is unlawful killing without malice afterthought and intent.
Should a women who had a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? If not, what does this say about the personhood of fetuses?
Like I said if you want me to answer another on of your questions, answer mine first.
One*
Personhood should be about self awareness.
So you don't consider a person to be a person before they're 18 months old, if they have dementia, if they've got PTSD and are having a flashback, if they're in a coma etc
I should clarify when someone with dementia is at a very late stage not just from diagnosis.
People in coma are in altered states of awareness.
As for PTSD, they would just be reliving an event. I would still think they would be able to distinguish themselves as a thing.
As for dementia and younger than 18 month old. I guess not. But the thing is that our morals should not be ad hoc, meaning we want a certain conclusion so we pick the axioms to prove that conclusion.
Another thing, no, this does not mean we should kill babies younger than 18 months. Our legal system is not only about morals, but practicalities. It’s not practical to murder newborns.
Even if a fetus is a person (for the sake of argument), if we are to remain consistent with our values, the question of a person’s life or a person’s bodily autonomy come up. Which is more important?
If a person’s life, should compulsory organ harvest be necessary for all healthy people to participate? If someone’s freedom of bodily autonomy is more important than a person’s life, shouldn’t we allow abortion?
(Remember, one should be consistent with morals if they were to make a moral argument).
First of all your point was on self awareness so I gave plenty of examples where that just wouldn't hold up, you can't pretend that still holds. If it's not practical to kill newborns why is it practical to kill other babies?
On the whole organ donation thing, that persons right to bodily autonomy doesn't breach anothers right to live it's passive which is completely different.
You're the one who is completely morally inconstant, that is assuming killing babies can be considered any kind of moral stance.
I pointed out about how that would contradict with a person’s right to their body with the example I gave you.
Organs are needed more than what’s available. By not signing up to donate, even post humorously, a person won’t receive your organs and could die. Is your right to bodily autonomy trump that or a person’s life. If so, should organ donation be compulsory?
How so? Might not be popular, but if you have a principle of morals, it should be applicable universally.
You're morals are inconstant here though, you don't understand the difference between your actions directly or passively affecting someone. Getting an abortion directly murders a child, not donating your organs might mean someone cannot have a transplant and will die, do you see the difference?
On your last point, I don't even know how to respond everyone has a different set of moral principles, how on earth would it be practical to apply them all when they contradict each other?
No. The thing is that you feel one is more personal than the other. But that doesn’t seem like a justification of why one is bad and the other one isn’t.
And now that you brought up murder, if abortion is murder, should a women be charged with manslaughter (Manslaughter is unlawful killing without malice afterthought and intent) if she has a miscarriage.
No I meant this. Say you have a value like “You should do the action that helps the most amount of people”.
That principle should be applied in many different circumstance. You can’t say “Oh except for that situation. And that one. And that one.”
Miscarriage is an uncontrollable event, the way you talk about it you clearly don't understand the weight of the topic. It's a tragedy that can cause PTSD in women, manslaughter is still the crime of killing a human being not a human being dying that happens to be inside of you, you didn't kill the child. A case can be made for women who cause a miscarriage to face some sort of not punishment but help for this such as if it was due to drug addiction or something.
You still don't understand the difference between a passive action and a direct action, so I'm not going to comment on that further till you actually understand it.
I assume what you're talking about there is utilitarian ethics which do say that you should do what causes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, however there are different from of this and apart from radical utilitarianism they draw the line between passive and direct actions, retaining the rights of the individual where they do not directly infringe on the rights of others. As you clearly cannot grasp the difference between passive and direct action I wouldn't expect you to understand this.
You did involuntarily kill another human. That is a thing. Involuntary manslaughter.
The line between passive action and direct actions are not so distinct. Tell me how they both have different moral values. If you are in a situation where you can help people, and you do not actively participate in it, are you not morally responsible?
This is why we can’t have this conversation. You’re too thick to understand the difference between passive and direct action, honestly if you want to talk go learn basic terms.
great take
Not buying the rape argument. Here's a simple test: In one hand you have an embryo in a petri dish. In the other hand, you have a 2 month old infant. If you had to drop one off a 6 story building, which one would you drop?
This is no different from the fertility clinic 'argument' which is posed, it's ridiculous at best and I've already covered it.
Real life and fantasy are completely different...
Your whole this is also fantasy, don't make me insult you.
You just did insult me, and you managed to do it with poor grammar. That tells me all I need to know.
A spelling mistake is all you've got lmao, you shut up dude.
What I have is far, far more than you can handle. That's obvious. I've wasted enough time on this. Have a great day!
Whatever you say.
Pro choice all the way. What I do with my body, shouldn't necessarily be what you do with your body. Why should i tell you what you can and can't do with your body. THATS WRONG
It's not a woman's body, it's the body of her baby.
It's her body
No it's not, her body she can do anything with not the baby's body though that isn't her's.
it's HER body
the baby hasn't even been born yet you fucking cuck
also, what would you be if the babys life was in danger, inside the womb, if she were to have it. meaning, if she had it, the baby would die
Just because the baby hasn't been born doesn't mean it is not a person to try and say it doesn't have it's own body is just so stupid, I can't comprehend the levels of denial that would take.
The baby still deserves a chance, doctors can be wrong on such things.
im telling you, the baby hasn't been born yet, its not murder
It's still murder, just because that baby has not moved a few inches forward out a vagina yet doesn't mean it's not a human worthy of rights.
Nope!
@yulbsari Yup
Reasonable.
You can't legislate morality.
By banning abortions, you mean?
That what laws are, no law exist for any reason other than people believe it's moral and best for society.
Sure, that's the intention, but that's not reality nor how it actually works, or we wouldn't have so many people in prison. Naive at best.
I think we're talking about different things lmao, people breaking the law and the law existing are different, you can't force morality but you can and it always has been legislated.
Good take
i don't think abortion is murder..
Why?
Because murder is defined as the UNLAWFUL killing of a human being. Any lawful killing is not murder. As long as the abortion is lawful, then it's BY DEFINITION not "murder".
@taleswapper So what you're saying is it depends on the country your in? If we made it legal to kill someone because they were wearing yellow would you still see it as murder? Or is it really just all definitions to you?
"If we made it legal to kill someone because they were wearing yellow would you still see it as murder?" No. Homicide, yes. Unethical, yes. Immoral, maybe. But NOT murder. By using the word for a crime for actions that are NOT a crime, you don't make those actions criminal. Instead, you dilute the meaning of the word. Once, "rape" was forced sexual congress with an unwilling woman by a man not her husband. Now it means (to third wave feminists, anyway) "Any interpersonal activity which may be construed in a sexual way, that the woman decides at some later time she didn't REALLY appreciate, and she doesn't want to accept responsibility for her part in, but she reserves the right to agree to if it's a hot guy."" We have "verbal rape" from a casual compliment; "eye-rape" from someone looking at her for "too long", etc.
Definitions MATTER. Especially when you start talking about laws regarding capital crimes.
@taleswapper I really don't know why you brought feminism into this, rape is still just defined as forced sex, yes I'm paraphrasing before you go ape shit. Anyway homicide is a synonym of murder, their exact definitions differ but the meaning is the same, this is the problem with using words if you don't understand them at a deeper level. No one is saying definitions don't matter but there is far more to it than that, if your using the argument that the definition doesn't quite sum up the act in certain countries you have no leg to stand on.
meh; you asked, I answered.
@taleswapper You didn't answer well lmao.
i dont think its murder because a fetus is not a fully developed human being and scientifically it does not have same level of consciousness as a human being.
The consciousness argument has been debunked so many times, as has the development argument. Your logic is flawed at best and evil at worst, depends how nice the person looking at it is.
but how can science be debunked
an embroy or zygote is not a human
The thing is scientifically you're wrong lmfao, there is no difference scientifically speaking hence why science supports the pro life stance.
can you show any article that states your theory
Considering human rights doesn't the woman has right to her body and her life considering the risks of pregnancy and choice of giving birth or not.
So who do you think deserves human rights an alive person or a developing embryo which is supposed to be alive
You can gather your own information, and the child of course.
I agree
This is why I chose to be an abortion doctor.
Do you support the death penalty?
Depends, I support the death penalty under very strict circumstances.