Really? No reason at all?
I’m a supporter of abortion on demand, but to say that a fetus isn’t some form of human life is just silly.
That the child is currently incapable of consciousness is irrelevent. The fact is that, outside of some foreign influence, the child will become conscious just as an adult sleeping will regain consciousness. The sperm and egg, those are potentials with no rights, once fused they have become an actual with as much right to life as you or I.
Some of us just have issues with other people proclaiming their need to “force” their opinions on us, that’s all.
I wish people would stop saying this. We get it, ok? It’s just that it’s not any sort of valid support for your point.
People believe many ridiculous things, and believe them sincerely, and act on them, and are punished. The following analogy is not meant to compare anti-abortion activists to any group of people; I have a good deal of sympathy with them, since while I am pro-choice it is a pragmatic matter for me, and as a matter of personal opinion I am uncomfortable with abortion.
But people have commited truly heinous deeds, convinced that they were doing the right thing. People with schizophrenia have murdered others, under the grip of their delusions, feeling that it was right or necessary in some respect. That does not make their actions acceptable. The fact that we can, to some extent, understand their point of view does not mean that it is valid or that actions they commit are morally positive. Very few people, even those doing evil things, truly believe they are evil.
To say that anti-abortion activists, proceeding from the precept that this is the wholesale slaughter of children, may rightly decide that the ends justify the means and commit evil acts in the name of a greater good is false. It ignores the fact that their precept equating fetuses and human beings is unjustifiable.
You don’t have to agree with me here. Note that I do not mean to compare anti-abortion activists to people who commit murder (except in the specific case of those who indeed do commit murder.) I just mean to point out that the fact that an action is understandable within one single frame of reference does not make it morally right or acceptable. If they are proceeding from incorrect beliefs, they are liable to commit evil acts.
Which is exactly my point. There is no reason to consider it in the same class as a human becuase that is the matter for debate. Perhaps ** Muad’Dib ** would like to explain by what reasoning s/he came to the conclusion that violating someones body and forcing an 18 year responsibility is acceptable.
To me you need something more concrete than a feeling to use force strip rights from someone.
- No ones body has been violated.
- You can give the child up for adoption. Many hospitals are drop-off zones where a child can be left, no questions asked.
- You can’t strip rights that were never there to begin with. I view the right to abortion as the same as the property rights of slave holders, in that they never really existed.
Which is how I view those that support and commit abortion. Sort of a “Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do” situation.
Why do you keep comparing a medical procedure to slavery?
-
Sure it has. You are preventing me from doing what I wish to my body. That is violation of my right to do what I wish with my body.
-
Yes but I (hypothetical I) have to go through a long, painful and sometimes debilitating pregnancy and cap that off with the ordeal of birth. Regardless this seems to be an irrelevant point.
-
The analogy to slaves is not an accurate one. Your ‘right’ of ownership violates that slaves rights and therefore is not an ethically or morally justifiable right. However I have the right to do with my body whatever I please. Whether it be taking certain drugs or inserting instruments into orifaces. Certainly that right exists and you need to justify taking it away from someone. Simply saying that you don’t view that right to exist does not make it go away.
I’m confused. It sounds like you’re saying that people are less human when they’re asleep. Because you acknowledge that fetuses are not yet human, yet equate them to a sleeping person. An adult who is asleep is not “dormant”. They dream. They have brain activity. If you can show a fetus having brain activity, then the statement makes sense, because they would not be conscious but would have some level of cognitive function.
When does brain activity start?
No one is forcing an 18 year responsibility. Muad’Dib’s sister chose that responsibility when she decided to have sex.
That will do two things: send it back to the states where it will be legal in some states and push it underground where it is not.
In other words you’ll bring back the coathangers and backalleys and very probably condemn some women to death. All in the name of being “pro-life.”
The ultimate question on this issue is not if abortion is moral or immoral. The ultimate question is should abortion be legal or illegal. If you truly care about a woman’s health the answer to that question is to always argue against anti-abortion laws.
Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. It is merely consenting to sex.
And you exercised that right to your body by having unprotected sex. Now there is another body that is dependent on you that you do not have the right to violate.
Popycock. It is no different then a man gambling then saying that he never consented to losing any money.
I do care about a womans health, but I also care about a childs life.
If you cared, you would trust women to make the decisions that are right for them, not what’s best for you.
Not at all, I am saying that the sleepers retain their humanity because they will regain consciousness they will awaken ( 
). The fact of other brain activity is just a technical problem of the example, not the argument. If you insist on it, then say a person under deep anesthesia retains their humanity because they will one day awaken.
No she didn’t unless you assume that abortion is morally wrong. It is legally acceptable to have an abortion and if it is morally acceptable to her to have an abortion then she has not undertaken that responsibility. She had intercourse with the reasonable expectation that she could terminate the pregnancy if she wished. She has undertaken no responsibility to care for that child save the unlikely event that she could not get an abortion if she desired one i.e. stranded for 9 months somewhere, medically unfit for abortion or what have you.
The only way that she has undertaken responsibility for that child is if abortion was morally unacceptable. However we have come back to the same problem of whether or not abortion is morally acceptable or not. To me when the morality of an action is in doubt then it is immoral to force your judgement on someone else.
I do. But the point is that they have no right to make a decision to kill an unborn child. It is a falacy.
Again, imagine it was 150 years ago and you were arguing with another about slavery. The other person keeps arguing about you violating his property rights by freeing his slaves. But you would argue that you were not taking away his property rights because those property rights never existed in the first place. You can never have the right to own another person just as you can never have the right to freely kill another person.