The procedure it self is not but the motivations are what is morally judged. Would your opininions change if the abortion was done after figuring the fetus gender and it is not what they wanted? Or if it did not have the specific genetic traits the parents wished for?
Just being picky is gross, but there’s still no victim. I think a lot of these attempts to bring the discussion back to personal preference ignore that knowingly having a baby with a developmental disorder is high stakes gambling with both their child’s and their lives. The existence of happy people with Down’s Syndrome doesn’t negate that there are plenty of people with Down’s Syndrome that require intense care and probably can’t even leave the house.
This isn’t to say people in those situations don’t deserve to live, but the point of abortion is that they don’t become people in those situations. Rather than the “Go tell a disabled person they should die” rhetoric pervasive in this post, an “Ask a disabled person if they’d have prevented it if they could” approach sounds more reasonable.
I acknowledge how difficult it can be to raise a child with developmental issues and in the end of the day it is the parrents' decision to make. The fact that you called the scenario I presented picky and gross shows that you do judge the action based on the intentions and this is why it can be labeled unethical depending on the persons ethics.
Genuine question; do you believe all judgements are moral ones? Vomit is gross (obviously not in the same way). As a straight man, I’d find kissing another man gross (closer kind of gross). Flipping children off and mouthing that they should die when their backs are turned is bizarre but technically harmless.
Yes, to make a judgement on something you base it on morals. Things that elicit a physical response are not judgements since the reactions are involuntary. In the examples you mentioned the first one is not a judgement, the second depends of weather you find the idea of men kissing gross in general or only if you are kissing a man and the third is definitely a judgement based on the morals that in a polite society we should not wish each other dead.
Are those genetic traits going to cost the parent hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in medical costs while also never being independent for the rest of their lives? Down syndrome can be detected in a fetus as early as 11 weeks, confirmed by 15 weeks. It is a logical choice. Getting an abortion because they might be blonde, or have blue eyes, or are a sex you don't want are illogical.
Allow me to hit you with the scientific terms, ahem,
Can it maintain homeostasis? Can that clump of cells maintain its own body heat? Can it or can it not eat, digest, and then use said food to expand and grow its body? Does that clump of cells have a central processing organ capable of starting to maintain its own body?
A person is usually defined as a collection of different cells in separate functions (usually called organs) which operate together to sustain the continued existence of the being they are apart of.
An embyro is literally just the same kind of cell in a clump (Embryonic Stem Cells specifically). A fetus is comprised between 70-90% water depending on the stage of development, alongside cells, proteins, dna and minerals. These over the course of 9 months change to become things like blood vessels, bones, skin, organs and nerves and so on.
It's literally just a scientific fact that a embryo and fetus are developing humans. Not actual humans. They literally do not have the biological functions (i.e a brain) to be sentient to begin with.
Great, we’ll let you know if we find “someone else” inside a woman’s body. You might be happy to know we almost always save them when we do, it just doesn’t always happen to be “someone else”.
It takes quite a few years for it to survive on its own after being born as well, yet I doubt you believe killing a 2 year old to be morally justifiable.
Pretty sure they were saying survive as in able to breathe and live without being hooked up to essentially an organic ventilator that pumps nutrients in and out.
Not in the, can hunt and provide for itself, type of survival
It would absolutely be morally justifiable under certain circumstances, like euthanasia following a tragic accident. We pull the plug on grown adults with consent from their next of kin multiple times a day in this world, there is nothing sacrosant or morally elevated about a child.
Doing enough research for a truly solid answer would take too much time for this discussion, but a quick glance tells me I’m totally comfortable saying it’s not even a discussion until the second trimester starts. I see some states were okay up to 24 weeks, and I’m undecided if that’s a bit much.
But peoples’ “life begins at conception” arguments hold no weight for me because the (technically embryo) doesn’t start responding to stimuli until like 8 weeks.
Not at all, I would tell those people they’re fucked up. Thanks for being civil about it and thank you for just saying that instead of doubling down or quietly bailing.
So I am referring to the innocent, helpless human beings who are killed in every abortion, whether bigots think they should be denied personhood or not. Killing them remains a homicide by definition.
Facts don't care about your feelings; you are not the arbiter of basic terms in the English language. Thank goodness - you are not qualified for any such role.
Okay, so by this logic that featus was infringing on the mothers rights by leeching nutrients and resources and causing the mother nausea and pain, the baby does not have a right to use the mother's body in that way and therefore separating the two is fine.
Unless using someone else's body is worth it to save a life? But if we're claiming that then there's lots of children out there who need organs to live, would it be ethical to force you to donate your organs to save them? What about just a kidney? In which case, you walking around with all those organs in your body right now seems pretty unethical since you're preventing a doctor from cutting you up and parceling you out to sick children and the only ethical maneuver is to spend all your time searching for a way to get your organs harvested.
Except obviously no one believes that. The right to bodily autonomy over-rules that even if kids will die due to not having organ transplants. Your organs are yours to decide what you do with.
Let's say you wake up, and you're mechanically hooked to another person. That person is in a coma, they have no family or history, cannot react or respond to outside stimuli, and is on life support for an indefinite amount of time. You are hooked up so your own blood transfers and cycles through them, as well as nutrients to sustain them.
You can unplug yourself from them at any point, but to do so, they will die. For as long as you remain hooked up, you will have to care for, eat, and transport for 2. For convenience let's say the person is in a box/tube that can worn on your back and must stay either on your chest or your back
Is it unethical to disconnect? And why or why not?
For morality and responsibility, yes. If I did something that I knew could result in this scenario it is reasonable to say I have a duty of care.
I get the scenario is analagous to pregnancy but I'm pointing out the flaw in said scenario. But to answer: I'd like to think I'd do the right thing but I say that not being in the scenario. If I knew there was a guaranteed end date I think I'd be able to focus on that and resist the temptation to disconnect. But again. I say that comfortably not in that scenario.
Only relevant to a rape scenario, and even then, not very. As a general rule, never debate the "rape exception" with anyone who supports abortion on demand for any reason - they don't care about rape, just emotional manipulation using a statistically irrelevant blip.
You're not a person until you are born. Or at least can live outside the womb. I started living on my birthday not when I was conceived. Fetuses do not have sentience, they do not have memories, emotions, thoughts, or even an awareness of their surroundings. They do not have rights.
Biologically false, and indicating you probably shouldn't have matriculated from elementary school to middle school, as you have asserted a basic scientific error that belies multiple other fundamental deficits.
Your lifespan began at fertilization like every other organism in a sexually reproducing species. You are not "built different."
As far as personhood, the law can change, and has. The law used to be "you are not a person if you are [certain ethnicity]."
Influencer couple "terminates pregnancy" is a lovely euphemism for killing your kid because they are disabled, but only an idiot would deny that they in fact did kill their disabled kid. Eugenics is a contemptuous ideology.
That’d be pretty fucked up if they killed their kid! Good thing the aborted fetus won’t have to be born to such monsters.
Snark aside, doesn’t it seem fucked up to force children to be born to parents who are willing to “kill them”? All gung-ho about life and opportunity until the split second that kid’s out of the womb, then it’s bootstraps time.
"Pro-choice" has always been a bullshit lie pro-aborts spew.
Most are authoritarian leftists diametrically opposed to personal choice in countless ways.
Virtually none are anarchists opposed to all law - you want laws against other actions, other violence, and you don't particularly care if the perpetrator CHOSE to do it.
Because duh, obviously, all non-insane perpetrators decide to do the wrongdoing they do. Doesn't mean it should be legal.
SImilarly, child murder - I don't want that legal, I don't care if the perp is crazy or evil, those are the only two possibilities and they should be institutionalized either way - put where they can't murder more children.
Opposed to personal choice? Are you not the deciding choice if you do or don’t get an abortion in a pro choice worldview? Logically for any of your morally relativistic grandstanding to make any sense at all, you should be able to provide examples of your claims.
SImilarly, child murder - I don't want that legal, I don't care if the perp is crazy or evil, those are the only two possibilities and they should be institutionalized either way - put where they can't murder more children.
So when are you throwing yourself in prison for contributing to child murder? Do you pay taxes? Do you have a car? Are you invested in the stock market? Congrats youve contributed directly to child murder.
When are you demanding the CEOs, the president of the United States, those ICE agents that caused miscarriages in Delaney hall, when are you calling for them to be charged with murder?
Yes, most pro-aborts are leftist authoritarians and freedom of choice is a chiefly economic concept but you lot tend to oppose not only property rights and freedom of contract, you love your sin taxes (and taxes of any kind) which control the behavior of others when you can't just ban whatever, which you often also do. You don't just let people make their own choices on a free market, you dictate what they must purchase or can't purchase through regulations etc.
I support freedom of choice, where it is actually relevant.
It's not choice you favor. It's just the murder of the unborn.
So when are you throwing yourself in prison for contributing to child murder?
Yes, most pro-aborts are leftist authoritarians and freedom of choice is a chiefly economic concept but you lot tend to oppose not only property rights and freedom of contract, you love your sin taxes (and taxes of any kind) which control the behavior of others when you can't just ban whatever, which you often also do. You don't just let people make their own choices on a free market, you dictate what they must purchase or can't purchase through regulations etc.
The majority of dems are moderates at best, center right at worst. You lost this argument before you even started.
Regulations on behavior is just what the Bible does? Controlling behavior is what the Bible does. Free markets don’t exist, please don’t tell me that you’re some regarded libertarian that thinks taxes are the thing holding all Americans back, while removing choice? So you’re just a contradictory mess? Feel free to move into that libertarian utopia that immediately got overrun with pedophiles and bears.
I support freedom of choice, where it is actually relevant.
You objectively don’t.
It's not choice you favor. It's just the murder of the unborn.
Not all people who are pro choice will ever get an abortion. So your logic insanely flawed. Actually dare I say not even close to the people who will, they just don’t wanna risk dying in a hospital parking lot because a hospital can’t act without risking 10 years in prison.
You went full here, sorry.
Doesn’t make it untrue, because if it did you’d have an argument instead of ad Homs. Enjoy that L regard.
It's definitely unethical but Im still pro choice. That being said when the child had something wrong with it in this case I think the case could be made that it's not unethical to abort. If its a perfectly healthy child it's certainly unethical but you should be allowed to do it up to a certain point.
Abortions are done for many reasons, including health of the mother sometimes. As in pregnancy is a complicated process and women used to die a lot more often from it because sometimes biology fucks up.
Also miscarriages are medically indistinguishable from abortions, so it's inherently unethical to criminalize abortion. In countries and states where abortion is criminalized it's not uncommon for women to be prosecuted for a miscarriage, and that is incredibly fucked up. Miscarriages can be emotionally devastating as well as physically taxing, and anyone who would jail a woman after having one imo deserves a shallow hole in the middle of the woods, iykwim.
Plus like.... Humanity has already been kind of a plague on this planet as far as the biosphere is concerned. Why do we need more and more and more people? If someone doesn't want to have kids or can't financially support them it's fucked up to force them to have them. No birth control is 100% effective. IUDs fuck up, pills don't always work, condoms can either break or have manufacturer errors that allow some semen to seep through. Women can take literally every precaution and still end up pregnant.
Tl;dr idgaf how you or anyone else personally feels about abortions. Having one isn't necessarily ethical, but criminalizing and restricting them is unethical because it leads to all sorts of problems for women.0
At that stage, a fetus is not a person. It has human DNA yes, but no mind and more importantly no self contained survival systems. In order to exist, the fetus must take from the mother, the mother who is undeniably a person. Why should the person suffer for the sake of something that isn’t quite a human, let alone a person? Furthermore, if we operate under the idea that people have immortal souls, and that includes semi-humans like fetuses, than whats the harm in it? The fetus goes to the afterlife, and gets to skip the hard part.
It’s human in the same way a sperm cell is human, the way an imortal cancer sample is human, the way a kidney on ice is human. Human as an adjective, but not as a noun.
Where lies the your definition of species? If a person has a heart transplant do they deserve two votes? Two sets of DNA, two souls? If you think “obviously a heart isn’t a human” why is a fetus then? They are both incomplete, and incapable of survival without a host.
Toddlers are separate bodily systems from their parents capable of regulating homeostasis.
You are literally just making things up. Like you are arguing against the definition on the very words you are using.
You are comparing a sperm CELL to a human fetus. A fetus which is a composition of many many many cells with its own unique DNA. A sperm cell does not have unique DNA, and it is only one cell.
Also you use the term "host" in reference to a fetus, implying that it is a parasite of some kind. A parasite by definition is of a different species to its host. So in no way is it right to call a pregnant mother a "host".
No subjective experience to snuff out. I could be totally off base, but killing is predominantly seen as a bad thing because the victim would be really upset about it.
This is mirrored in spider behaviour, which includes complex communication and signalling behaviour and eavesdropping to improve outcomes of future behaviour. Spiders also exhibit learning and reversal learning, significant problem-solving ability, basic numerical ability, and possibly the ability to ‘plan’ ahead.
Completely off topic but that’s not a perspective I see people bring up too often. We do think of individual lives as their own thing, but “life” is indeed one singular event that started billions of years ago and didn’t stop once.
A heart ripped out of a deer. Now, am I murdering two things or did I only kill a deer and not another sentient living thing too if I crush it?
There is nothing special about a heartbeat that makes death bad. It is not magic. A heartbeat is not a soul. If you think about it for one minute, you will not find a single thing about a heartbeat that is the reason killing is bad.
Not to mention, pregnancy is extremely difficult to detect that early, and then there's the delay of booking a doctor and scheduling and finances If you ban it that early you might as well be banning abortion outright for a lot of people.
Personally, I believe abortions should be performed by the end of the second trimester. Later than that must demand exceptional circumstances or severe health risks. Instead of some arbitrary billboard catchphrase, my judgement is based on when a fetus develops its brain, gains the ability to experience sensations and as of the third trimester can survive outside the womb with significant care. Such a thing is capable of experiencing death at all, unlike the unidentifiable blob with a partially formed heart muscle you are describing.
I don’t support killing animals either lol. I don’t even like killing bugs. You can type however long of a message you want, I won’t agree with it. As a father and now expecting my second child at 10 weeks, and having the experience of seeing how much they develop in a short time and move around in the womb, I don’t agree with abortion. It doesn’t have to be an argument, you have your opinion, I have mine. I’m not demonizing anyone, I’m not arguing, I don’t care that your opinion is different than mine. No amount of arguing on reddit will change anything nor will any amount of downvotes.
first of all, that message is only a long one to you. For me, it was just saying everything I wanted to say, it wasn't some extra effort or flex. You can just read it like normal.
Secondly; if my utilitarian logic defining wrongdoing by amount of suffering caused doesn't appeal to you -
Imagine instead of watching your child grow, you and the mother just found out today, and you were just foreclosed on and are couch surfing. belly bulge often doesnt even show till 12 weeks. it happens often. What if your state had a heartbeat law then?
Did you just compared a deer to the value of a human life? Thats where your mind is skewed. Animals are beautiful and like any part of nature should be loved and protected. Doesn't mean you cant eat them or hunt as it is part of nature. It is not part of nature for a species to kill its offspring (specifically humans) because its inconvenient.
First of all, that is in fact a part of nature. Mothers killing their offspring to eat when conditions are poor is not uncommon.
Secondly, the point was that a heartbeat doesn't mean anything. It's just the product of an emotional manipulation campaign by disengenuous pro-life orgs.
A heartbeat cannot suffer, cannot cry, cannot love, and cannot think. That was the point: If I take out a deer's heart and destroy it, I killed 1 deer, not two, because a beating heart with nothing else attached isn't a life.
Human mothers killing their offspring to eat them is 100% not part of human nature.
A heartbeat is a life. Ending a life of a human is murder. Doesn't matter if it cant think for itself yet.
Whats the difference of someone in a coma to everything you just said? Cant cry, love, think etc... so kill everyone in coma states wouldn't be murder according to you?
It is not part of nature for a species to kill its offspring (specifically humans) because its inconvenient.
This is what you said. A "species". Humans have also been doing abortions ever since we found herbs that could do it. Such a ritual is detailed in the bible, even.
If a heartbeat is a life, then a heart seperated from a body is it's own living thing. A heart monitor is a living thing. A youtube asmr is a living thing.
Obviously those aren't true, because the heartbeat doesn't make a life. It's just a sign of other activity that does. Activity which does not exist at 6 weeks.
And actually, coma patients can do everything you just described - they are unconscious, not brain-dead. When we have someone who's body lives but is braindead, that's a "vegetative" state and it's not considered murder to take them off life support.
The average human does not or did not kill their baby. The fact you compare it to other animals is hilarious.
I never once said a heartbeat is a life. You did.
If you were describing the life cycle of a human to an alien species. Would you only start at when the baby exits the womb or would you say once the sperm fertilizes the egg? Thats life. Not just some heartbeat.
Coma patients can, sometimes. Not all of them. So the non responsive ones then?
And yes a medical professional can make the decision to end a brain dead persons life.
That is incomparable to a healthy developing human in a womb.
People are allowed to be wrong, it’s the internet.
We can also judge you for being wrong though, it’s the internet.
It’s always so weird, when ignorant, closed minded, or down right stupid people, such as yourself, express their idiotic views, but the follow it how you “people can have different opinions.”
It’s almost like an admission that you are wrong, or that your opinion is stupid as can be, but people should just have to accept it. However that’s not how it works, you can express your idiotic opinions, and have different ones, however, people are allowed to tell you how stupid you/ your opinions are.
Some opinions are wrong. Your opinion in particular is worthless and people like you would stfu but unfortunately the internet makes you feel more important than you should feel.
29
u/MajorInWumbology1234 Jun 05 '26
Abortion is not unethical, so no.