What is the moral justification behind abortion?

If they do not abort the baby even if they could, they have commitment to raise it properly.

This. We need to bring back eugenics.

Well put. The problems arise when people don't view pregnancy as a medical condition, or as more than simply a medical condition, which is easy enough to empathize with.

Ultimately I think the liberal argument, that it's nobody's business but the woman's, isn't really a moral argument but an amoral argument against moral arguments. The morality of liberalism includes the notion of individual sovereignty -- as in it is often more immoral to violate individual sovereignty than to violate a moral code. The actual morality of abortion is tangential to these arguments. The reason it's so contentious is because the arguments for and against are in totally different terms, totally different universes. Pro-lifers say abortion is wrong, and therefore must be forbidden, pro-choicers say it's wrong to forbid whatever you might think is wrong.

A word I like is "elephantocetomachia", a fight between an elephant and a whale, coined by a writer during the British debate over firearms possession. It's a fight that literally can't be settled because the two parties can't meet on the same field. To paraphrase: One side tried to settle law by citing history, and one tried to settle history by citing law.

It should be noted that, obviously, the debate did reach a conclusion after all.

The fetus doesn't have any preferences to live or die so the mother's preference not to carry the pregnancy to term are the deciding factor.

since when does possesing certain charachter traits justify killing somebody

Pretty sure fetuses try their damndest to survive.

How the fuck do you know?

Is there a justification for life at conception + 1 week fetus being as important as an adult human unless you are religious and litteraly believe in ensoulment?
I can understand why someone would think destroying something that will naturally become a human is kind of bad but it's pretty minimal compared to the well being of an actual human so I wouldn't say it's morally anywhere close to murder.
Are there good reasons for someone who don't believe in souls?

It's great. If it comes out alive at a viable stage just jam scissors into it's neck and snap it's little spine. Throw another one on the pyre for moloch.

Remember your comfort and lifestyle is more important than innocent babies.

I want to know how the fuck does know

>since when does possesing certain charachter traits justify killing somebody

You're an idiot.

There is no moral justification for premeditated murder of the innocent.

Anti-natalism is the bitter truth.

Sure, but what about abortion?

> Pro-lifers
Probably same people who unironically support capital punishment.

>1 week fetus

Except abortions are performed at 20+ weeks

>a fetuses life isnt as valuable as an adult human

So at what point do you think a life should be given full, or equivalent rights to an adult?

If he had never acted on his desires it wouldn't be right to kill him.

Many of us would prefer that we were aborted given a choice.

So you have no clue then.

> equivalent rights to an adult
age 14 like in all progressive states

>& humanities

Fucking yuck.

What's ironic about being pro life and pro capital punishment? Ones a infant that's never commuted any offense ever, the other is a grown person who took another's life, usually in a awful manner to get the needle.

Not really comparable.

>not being pro-choice and pro capital punishment

Brainlets.

> What is so ironic in being against murder, while supporting murder?

Why choose a completely arbitrary age like that? How does that have any more merit than life being started at conception?

Why?

> It's okay only when men do it!
Typical misogynist Veeky Forumsterics.

It's generally untold but they are also generally against giving more money for adoption service and fosterhomes.
They are most of the time religious, want ensouled babies to be saved but once they are born then they are in the harsh dogs eat dogs world and they can btfo.
Despite what being pro-life is generally closer to being a member of a weird religious cult.

>murdering a complete innocent is just like being fine with executing serial killers!

>executing a murderer is murder

It's justice.

>we need to bring back eugenics
There's actually an argument about how abortion would be dysgenic. People who are genetically predisposed to having defective babies generally have less children. For instance, when a mother has a child with down syndrome she is more likely to having no other children and investing everything in their retarded offspring, who won't reproduce anyway. If you encourage her to abort, what you'll have in the future is more people who carry these defecting genes reproducing, and spreading this tendency further.

im anti abortion and pro capital punishment

Abortion isn't a problem as long as it's done before the fetus develops advanced brain function.

After that however, it becomes an ethical problem.

The easy solution is to make contraceptives easily available, so that fewer abortions need occur.

Yes, they often are. I don't really see how they're so inconsistent, as one party is innocent of anything, and the other (allegedly) is guilty of something very bad.

I think people who claim to view life as an intrinsic, sacred good SHOULD also oppose death penalties for the good of their own souls if they believe in them, but I don't necessarily believe that and I do oppose the death penalty.

Well I'm a non-reducive physicalist so I guess the formation of the Thalamus is the earliest moment they could develop a continuous subjective experience?
I don't think we need to nitpick further that because I don't think we could know further but I don't see how they could before that?

It isn't completely arbitrary it is when human became biologically adult.

Believing life has value and innocent life should be protected is on par with Jim Jones.

Ok chief

So... Why exactly abortion is a no-no, but killing pigs who are smarter than a fetus is yes-yes?

There is no moral justification for premeditated murder of innocent unborn children.

>it is when human became biologically adult.

Not everyone goes through puberty at the same age. However conception does.

How is 14 less arbitrary then claiming life, and therefore rights begin at conception.

There are probably at least a few pro-life vegans.

If one is to be considered a rational being, there is no justification whatsoever.

If you are responsible enough to get pregnant, you better be responsible enough to carry it through.

>Abortion isn't a problem as long as it's done before the fetus develops advanced brain function.
Yes it is, because you know with nearly 100% certainty that it would develop advanced brain function if you didn't abort it. This is like a dictator sterilising everyone in a region and claiming this wouldn't be genocide because technically he didn't kill anyone. You can't diminish a crime with false technicalities. Where we draw the line as far as human life begins is always arbitrary, but at least don't cynically pretend there's no ethical probelm with the killing of a fetus when you know for certain it would become human if you didn't attack it.

> Not everyone goes through puberty at the same age.
What? This doesn't have any sense. Everyone is adult when they adulted.

Being pregnant isn't something that happens because you are responsible enough.

That doesn't means that a potential life has as much value as an actual one.
At least, if there medical problems needing the fetus to be killed to save the mother, then it should be done.

The current administration, in one of its inaugural acts, yanked funding from foreign NGOs focused on family planning & counselling, women's health and etc. if they also counselled (not even provided) women on abortions. These are the same groups providing contraceptives, intervening in abusive child marriages, screening women for health problems that may complicate a pregnancy etc.

It is estimated that, as a result, tens of thousands of women will die in the near future, and abortions -- dangerous, amateur ones -- will skyrocket, as they always do wherever contraceptives and professional care are unavailable.

These, I can only guess, are the same people who oppose supplying first fucking responders with fucking Narcan, which saves countless lives as easily as any lives were ever saved. "They made their choice" I heard one man say, which is almost as explicit as saying "they deserve to die and emergency personnel should see to it that they do". There is a breed of people who, rightly or otherwise, think that everyone should lay in the bed they make and burn. It's fine if that's what they think, but I wish they understood that they aren't good Christians.

> it would develop advanced brain function if you didn't abort it
Yeah... And sperm would do exactly this if you will not use condoms. And not having sex all the time probably some degree of murder too if you think about it honestly enough.

Narcans being used as a crutch in my area now. We get junkies shooting up in public knowing emergency services will give them a dose when they OD. One guy recently got his 7th revival. I don't know what the answer is but somethings gotta change.

>I can only guess

Dont

> but I wish they understood that they aren't good Christians.

And why are you assuming that they are Christians?

>Everyone is adult when they adulted.

So a completely arbitrary point in time choosen by you that has no biological basis to speak of.

The fetal brain does not begin to develop until 3-4 weeks into the pregnancy, at which point it is little more than a hollow tube filled with dividing neurons.

By 12 weeks nerve cells are beginning to from rudimentary connections between different parts of the brain but the neural circuits responsible for conscious awareness are yet to develop.

The brain structures necessary for conscious experience of pain do not develop until 29-30 weeks and by that point we are already close or past the limit most countries set for abortion.

I don't particularly support late term abortions but low oxygen levels and a constant barrage of sleep-inducing chemicals from the placenta ensure that the fetus remains heavily sedated until birth and is highly unlikely to be conscious let alone be able to form any conscious preferences about whether it lives or dies.

Then dont get pregnant?

Rape of course is an exclusion because it wasn't your choice to get knocked up

Basically it comes down to it being ok for women being sluts.

>by that point we are already close or past the limit most countries set for abortion.

Yes, but while most European countries have limits of 20 weeks or less the Democratic party is against a ban after 20 weeks in the US.

>Yeah... And sperm would do exactly this if you will not use condoms.

Well not the sperm, the fetus it creates with an egg.

>And not having sex all the time probably some degree of murder too if you think about it honestly enough.

No it's missing half the equation. Tf Are you on about.

>That doesn't means that a potential life has as much value as an actual one.
That's why I said it's arbitrary. Under current standards of morality we all make believe that babies are the most precious lives around, and that the noble thing to do is for a group of adults to gladly sacrifice themselves in order to safeguard a building full of week-old infants. yet a fetus that we know for sure will become a baby in a few months is worth as much as a cockroach.
>Yeah... And sperm would do exactly this if you will not use condoms. And not having sex all the time probably some degree of murder too if you think about it honestly enough.
Obviously. This is again why I said it is all arbitrary. You could argue that sperm or eggs going to waste would be a form of abortion. But one thing is certain:sperm and eggs by themselves can't form humans. But a fertilized egg is almost certain to become one and you have to take forceful action to prevent it from doing so.

Raped women are more fertile than otherwise; it's a survival instinct to show your worth to the conquering nation.

> fertilized egg is almost certain to become one
Is it really guaranteed? I heard they are rejected all the time.

It isn't arbitrary but given to us by the wisdom of God according to the pre-established harmony of scripture.

Violating persons demeans moral worth.

So a completely religious argument with no basis in biology then? Unlike fertilization which can easily be defined in biological terms.

>Is it really guaranteed?
No but the likeability is high. However, we can be 100% certain that babies can't develop out of sperm and eggs alone. This is why theres a false equivalency when comparing masturbation or ejaculating in a condom to abortion.

I don't live in the US and I don't have the slightest care what the Democrat Party platform is. Nor does a couple of months or more over 20 weeks seem remotely a problem as far as I am concerned. Although I may have doubts about longer.

Besides which the vast majority of abortions are early on, before 12 weeks.

>but at least don't cynically pretend there's no ethical probelm with the killing of a fetus when you know for certain it would become human if you didn't attack it.

Well I never said it is completely ethically neutral before advanced brain function occurs. I'm just saying that the life, financial situation of the mother and her own choices, for example, might outweigh any consideration of the fetus before advanced brain function occurs.

I understand that concern. It's entirely legitimate. The change, I think, should be mandatory inpatient hospitalization for anyone revived by emergency personnel. Some junkies would almost prefer death to this, and so some would instead die in their homes or in secluded places, but the benefit would outweigh the good. Good luck getting the voters who won't pay for Narcan to pay for expansion of medical services for this, though.

>assuming that they are Christians
Because conservatives largely are, and these are both conservative stances. Don't take me to mean that all Christians are like this, just that people who are like this are often Christian.

It is grounded in human nature, we age and became adult. Certain age of course chosen somewhat arbitrary, but even moment of birth or moment of fertilization take some arbitrary time to be defined.

>not listening to Jung
everyone can deny it but every now and then we all get very fucked up thoughts. what separates us from the John Wayne Gacys of the world is that we know we shouldn't act on them.

>Because conservatives largely are,

So are the vast majority of democrats in office. But are they real christians or is it just lip service that must be done to be elected?

>Don't take it to mean

I didn't, I took it as you assumed those in white house who pushed for that policy are christian, and not in a playacting sense. That is a pretty big assumption.

Thank goodness we have refugees to replace wh*teoid cavemen

Women that can give you sons are valuable.

Women that cannot, are not.

>or moment of fertilization take some arbitrary time to be defined.

A sperm cell entering the nucleus of an egg and resulting in a zygote is not some "arbitrary time to be defined" as it is a very definite and observable biological process.

Who cares? Make family, give birth to 5 children, they give birth to 5 children each, 10 generations later, you got billion of descendants. Replaces white race with user race.

It isn't happening in a literal moment. There is still some range of time. Like there is some range of time to become fully adult.

>her own choices
That's the thing. The argument here is whether or not it should be her choice. If you were to give to a fetus the same rights you'd give to a baby, it wouldn't be.

I'm not religious so I'm not in hysterics about discussing this. But what amazes me the most about this type of conversation is that the same people who are pro-abortion tend to be in favor of more progressive animal protection laws, almost ot the point where they would rather extend human rights to a chicken than to an unborn fetus. It's a bizarrely selfish and self-hating behavior for a human to have.

This is only if you are a rapist, but then society should fuck with you anyway.

To be fair, there is no point to bring a poor child into the life of misery in the unloving family.

>There is still some range of time

No, it is an event. And if a women is pregnant that you can with 100% certainty say that event has already occurred.

Unlike your selection of 14 as a rough proxy of when puberty occurs. Or maybe you want to go back to faking some religious motive for you choosing that age again.

A chicken has a more developed brain that a early stage fetus.

Oh, I certainly don't think that the WH acts on Scripture or anything. I don't think the Pres. even knows what NGO stands for. It clearly wasn't his idea, and was done as a tribute to a powerful donor group, the base itself, or possibly it may have been a Pence thing. I'm pretty sure Pence is as sincere in his faith as he is about anything, and would be vulnerable to a thundering catfish or burning hedgerow telling him that signing the death warrant of thousands of African child brides isn't great. From a secular standpoint, it was just another place to cut spending far from home.

I don't want to get into whether self-identified Christians are always truly Christian, or whether sincere faith often involves playacting, but I think that even nominal Christians want to see themselves as good nominal Christians. The same way that in days of old being Christian meant (to themselves) being a basically moral civilized person, whether or not they had much time for God.

How do you choose such things? How is that judgement made?

Should the child ever have any say, or chance to say? There are plenty of adults who were raised in poor unloving homes that aren't going to agree that they should have been aborted.

Well, it is a statistically mean age of puberty. You can't and shouldn't fine tune law personally to every single person.

To be fair, murder is never the solution to any lesser problem.

But is have a less developed soul.

It's evil and against God.
Moral justifications can work on either end of the scale.

Not a real thing.

>"The baby doesn't have a choice if you do it!"
>"I'm against suicide!"

(I don't have an established opinion on this btw, I just think it's retarded to hold those two positions simultaneously)

Babies ARE cancer

Then I guess we should sterilize most african nations for the sake of greater morality, since I guess we can so easily quantify what's the treshold for love and poverty we want for a child to be allowed to be born.
But you know for certain that the fetus will most likely become more developed and human-like than an adult chicken in a matter of months.

>Well, it is a statistically mean age of puberty.

Right, and you cannot say puberty has occurred in a 14 year old, or started to unfold without conducting tests. Whereas with a pregnant women you can 100% say that conception has occurred.

>We should punish people who haven't done anything wrong with capital punishment, but not people who have done any sort of crime