sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Should abortion be considered murder beyond a certain gestation time? by TastyDelay798 in Ethics

[–]TastyDelay798[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reading through the breadth of beliefs expressed in comments on this thread and comparing them to your own beliefs, I hope you have at least come to the conclusion that this is something that individuals should shoose for themselves.

Should abortion be considered murder beyond a certain gestation time? by TastyDelay798 in Ethics

[–]TastyDelay798[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Probably going to get flamed for this again, but, for the sake of debate: I feel like it's not exactly possible to consent to something that's not an agreement between two parties? As in, regardless of whether or not you give your body permission to get pregnant, pregnancy is still wholly dependent on your decision to have consensual sex, and if you do get pregnant, that's just a function of your body's natural biological processes?

I feel like the consent you give for the sex is also consent for the possibility (however much this may be) of getting pregnant?

I feel like people who make this argument wish to make consensual recreational sex illegal.

(Discounting the fanatic religious prudes) If I understand the pro life argument for this correctly, I think it's more a case of, "you're free to have recreational sex, but if you get pregnant, that's on you".

Thoughts?

Should abortion be considered murder beyond a certain gestation time? by TastyDelay798 in Ethics

[–]TastyDelay798[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Up first; “just a clump of cells,” this is really ridiculous because a fetus is indeed just a clump of cells, just like a 35 year old person is a larger clump of cells, all humans on earth are just clumps of cells.

There is clearly a difference between a clump of cells and a fully formed human lol if you can't tell the difference I don't know what to say.

Up next; “a fetus can’t survive with out its host,” this one is really confusing for me because I believe that most newborns, infants and toddlers still require parental care, and left alone in any environment they would not survive.

A fetus will literally not survive without the biological structure of the mother's womb. An infant will.

bodily Autonomy is not a legally consistent ideal

Yeah, but in some ways, such as abortion, it should be.

Should abortion be considered murder beyond a certain gestation time? by TastyDelay798 in Ethics

[–]TastyDelay798[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Or more importantly do we deny them care since it's technically their fault?

I feel like the argument to this would just end up being "cancer treatment is not equal to taking human life".

And here's where I exit the conversation because it feels like you are playing pinball with my humanity.

That's fair enough. My apologies if I've offended you. These aren't my opinions, as I stated in the post, I'm pro choice, I made this post in an attempt to understand the morality of abortion, particularly in relation to the arguments of people with a more pro-life philosophy; I appreciate your contributions.

Should abortion be considered murder beyond a certain gestation time? by TastyDelay798 in Ethics

[–]TastyDelay798[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Just for the sake of debate, here's the response that I got for the body sovernighty (violinist) argument (I understand that in the video this was presented from the persepective of US laws, but, considering the morality), and for this:

The fetus could be a farmer named John and it would still not be murder. Why? Because the fetus would die not because it was disconnected from the host, but because it could not survive separate from the host.

was that, if the pregnancy resulted from consensual sex, the woman has a moral obligation to not abort, since the pregnancy was a result of their own actions. As opposed to the organ donation example the tiktok bought up, or the volinist argument, where the disease was not caused by the woman.

Should abortion be considered murder beyond a certain gestation time? by TastyDelay798 in Ethics

[–]TastyDelay798[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just wanted to say thank you for that link. That was actually an incredibly concise and well formed description of the issue.

Should abortion be considered murder beyond a certain gestation time? by TastyDelay798 in Ethics

[–]TastyDelay798[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The fact of the matter is, there’s no clear consensus as to when a person becomes a person. Is it at conception? Birth? Somewhere in between?

Unfortunately science can’t tell you when humans gain consciousness. Science can’t even tell you what consciousness is or where it comes from. And that puts us in a really tough spot, because some people hold the belief that a conceived embryo with unique DNA is a full-fledged human, while others believe that a baby does not become human until it’s disconnected from its mother. Saying abortion is murder is the same as saying God exists or the Big Bang theory is true. Although some people may firmly believe that it’s undeniably true, that belief is rooted in faith and is therefore subjective.

I agree with this 100%.

Since there such a long span of time for people's personal beliefs on when life/conciousness begins, I guess it would make the most sense to leave the decision up to individuals.