If you disagree with any of the following you are being irrational:
Human life beginning at live birth is just as mad a proposition as human life beginning with conception.
The moment of birth, natural or induced is arbitrary with regards to the development of the fetus, thus there is indeed a point at which abortion becomes murder. It would be better if society as a whole could have a conversation about what point that should be and how to accurately measure it.
didnt read
MY BODY, MY CHOICE you sexist pig
it took me a moment to realize this was an argument for abortion
Oh, then can I make the choice to put my hands around your neck and grip tightly?
> accurately measure it.
Most the factors people use to decide emerge slowly, meaning there is no accurate point. The only binaries are conception and birth.
From a utilitarian point of view, we pick a point in time where the least amount of society gets terribly affected. DESU the only thing wrong with murder is that it upsets people.
>DESU the only thing wrong with murder is that it upsets people.
Unironically this.
Do you know that in nature, sometimes parents kill their children because they can't take care of them? Nature understands that it's far more logical to sacrifice the life of a new born offspring and keep the adult animal alive because the animal can have kids again in the future.
Abortion is binary though. No one wants to do half an abortion and end up with a downs baby.
>nature does it therefore it's good
The point of civilization is overcoming nature.
>murder isn't wrong
Edgy freshmen phil 101 here
I don't think "human life" is a suitable as a useful starting point at all. I would say "human life" does begin at conception i.e. the bunch of cells is a human and it is alive. A fly or an ant or a bacteria is alive, so is a sperm.
The question is at what point does the fetus actually have a preference to live that could overide the potential mother's preference not to have to go through with pregnancy.
>overide the potential mother's preference not to have to go through with pregnancy
Under no circumstances should any life override the other by definition. Nor should the child's life force other human being (mother) to go through what the child's life demands unless mother's wants it herself. Unless it's genuine and mother herself wishes to bring the child into this world and care for it, the mother should have the choice not to bring the child into this world.
>Under no circumstances should any life override the other by definition.
I don't agree with that as a priori. I don't have any problem with cutting digging up a plant and eating it or using antibiotics to cure an infection. Just to be clear I am not saying either of those things are a direct equivalent of abortion I am saying the statement "Under no circumstances should any life override the other by definition" is clearly not a claim any human being would actually agree with.
>Under no circumstances should any life override the other by definition
Any life at all? Like a third trimester fetus?
By life I meant the life of another human being/human-like sapient being. my apologies for not specifying it.
The point is that the life of the child should never override the mother's life, bodily integrity etc. The child is inside her and depends on her, if she wishes to end the life, then it's her decision.
Let's be real here, large majority of mothers definitely want to keep their child as it grows inside them, as it is the natural reaction of their bodies, hormones etc. Most cases where mother wants to get rid of the child is when she knows she can't take care of it, the child couldn't give it a proper life if she has it at that time (finances, age etc.) or because someone raped her. Yes, there are cases where a woman is just a roastie a fucks around, but would you really want such a person to bring a child into this world?
To me the criterion is the separateness of the foetus from a woman's body. Once it's out it becomes an entity with its own set of rights. It's probably a dumb criterion however.
I agree with that.
Do people on life support deserve rights?
Which siamese twin has the right to kill the other one? The one who breached the birth canal first I suppose...
>the only thing wrong with murder is that it upsets people
This is what a secular society does to you
Going off on a bit of a tangent here, but out of interest can you tell me anything that is wrong with anything that is wrong with anything other than it "upsets" sentient beings. I'm not being edgy btw, I just don't see any other basis for any form of morality.
People on life support are not inside a person's body. They rely on society for survival, as do newborns if abandoned. Being incapable to survive without external resources is not the issue, being inside another person is.
>Siamese twin weird argument
A mother would be legally responsible for murder as well if she killed a newborn after it is born. So would the killer Siamese twin. If you are talking about which twin gets to live in case of separation surgery, it's the one with highest chance of surviving the surgery
>without external resources
That came out wrong. What I meant is without constant aid of others.
>Being incapable to survive without external resources is not the issue, being inside another person is
No. The issue is do they deserve legal protection from murder. Your argument is that they're inside of someone so they don't which is bafflingly stupid and based on no apparent moral reasoning.
If YOUR consciousness were in a fetus would it not deserve protection from murder?