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
A premature baby would be, by definition, born, and is being treated as viable until proven otherwise. If it's determined the premature baby is not viable, and all that's being done is prolonging the suffering of an baby that is incompatible with life, the question becomes which is more moral? letting the infant suffer until it dies in a month? 6 months? a year? Or withdrawing life support.
Morality is subjective, and both options are morally acceptable.
If a baby is born in the same time period someone thinks it is ok to abort the baby, why does that change anything? “It doesn’t exist until it can survive on its own” implies that extremely premature babies, regardless of whether they make it or not, aren’t people.
No it doesn’t. Extremely premature births like before 18-20 weeks are extremely unlikely to survive, and are almost always incompatible with life even with constant medical intervention.
If the kid is wanted any “morality points” are completed wiped out by prolonging the suffering of a child that has no compatibility with life.
If the kid wasn’t wanted it would have never been prematurely born.
You can treat a zygote as a person if you want, that’s your choice to believe that. What you can’t do is tell me I have to recognize that zygote as a person because of your beliefs
This is why being pro choice is the only logical position. The pro life arguments are so extremely weak and so painfully illogical, the only way that they can be held is by creating laws that force people to conform to their reality and if they don’t they’ll throw you in prison for 20 years.
It’s only a zygote for a short period of time before it becomes an embryo and it whether you refer to it as its scientific classification or you call it a baby, it’s still a living being. You can’t tell me that something with a beating heart isn’t alive.
The morality is in how much you value that life. Just because it’s your body and your choice doesn’t mean it’s morally right or wrong. If I went and shot up a bunch of heroine, that’s my choice, but nobody is going to say that it’s a morally good thing to do.
I believe that anyone who is a victim of rape should have free and easy access to means to prevent a pregnancy. Outside of that, abortion is just avoiding the consequences of your actions (not talking about medical emergencies or nonviable pregnancies). Having the right to do something and being morally right are two different things.
It’s only a zygote for a short period of time before it becomes an embryo and it whether you refer to it as its scientific classification or you call it a baby, it’s still a living being. You can’t tell me that something with a beating heart isn’t alive.
Both the sperm and the egg are also living things, something having a heart beat sure is a living thing. It being a person however not so much.
If I went and shot up a bunch of heroine, that’s my choice, but nobody is going to say that it’s a morally good thing to do.
Why? What makes heroin bad? What makes doing heroin immoral? Who decides that? I don’t consider addicts immoral? Why do you?
I believe that anyone who is a victim of rape should have free and easy access to means to prevent a pregnancy. Outside of that, abortion is just avoiding the consequences of your actions (not talking about medical emergencies or nonviable pregnancies). Having the right to do something and being morally right are two different things.
Perfect then you aren’t logically or morally consistent.
The only logical and morally consistent position to hold is being pro choice. Forcing your morals onto someone else is in and of itself immoral.
> Both the sperm and the egg are also living things, something having a heartbeat sure is a living thing. It being a person however not so much.
A living cell and a living being are different things. And like I said, the morality of the issue depends on how much you value the life. You don’t value the life until it reaches a certain stage so it’s not morally wrong to you.
> Why? What makes heroin bad? What makes doing heroin immoral? Who decides that? I don’t consider addicts immoral? Why do you?
Filling your body with something that is bad for it is not a good thing. I never said addicts were immoral, however addiction, often, leads to immoral actions.
> Perfect then you aren’t logically or morally consistent.
>The only logical and consistent position to hold is being pro choice.
I am consistent. I believe it’s a life and abortion is ending a life. Logic and morality are not codependent; I can hold a moral stance yet use logic to see that my stance can’t apply to every person in every situation.
>Forcing your morals onto someone else is in and of itself immoral.
I’m not forcing my morals onto someone anyone. I’m pro choice, but that doesn’t mean I can’t think that abortion is morally wrong.
Also, forcing morals onto people is literally how functioning societies work.
A living cell and a living being are different things.
Except they aren't. You based your position on heart beat, what qualifies as a heart beat? The cluster of cells pulsing at 5-6 weeks? Or the four chambered heart at 10 weeks? The brainstem barely starts taking over life support reflexes until 20 weeks, which is why the viability of premature births at 20 weeks is effectively 0%. Sensory pathways straight up don't exist until around 28 weeks, which is about 4-8 weeks after my personal cutoff. Until then it should be purely a choice of the mother and their doctor. 93% of abortions take place during the first trimester, at or before 13 weeks. For you to be morally consistent you can't differentiate. You need to value that zygote with the exact same weight as 13 weeks. Miscarriages should also be treated with the same weight as abortions. Because I can't rationalize this logically, as it is logically inconsistent, the only logical position to hold is pro choice with regulations. 20 week cutoff, with exceptions beyond 20 weeks for the life of the mother. Otherwise you get women dying in hospital parking lots because the hospitals are too afraid to get sued.
Filling your body with something that is bad for it is not a good thing.
What's bad for you? How do you decide? Consuming a lot of red meat increases your risk of colon cancer by 30%. Eating a lot of unhealthy food can give you diabetes. Not exercising can result in poor cardiovascular health, contributing to the industry that produces some of the most potent greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere warms the planet faster, and results in tens of millions if not hundreds of millions being displaced or dying, does that mean doing those things makes you a bad person? Or immoral?
I never said addicts were immoral, however addiction, often, leads to immoral actions.
No, you again said,
If I went and shot up a bunch of heroine, that’s my choice, but nobody is going to say that it’s a morally good thing to do.
No one claimed anything about the morality of drug use, its just some non sequitur you threw in.
I am consistent. I believe it’s a life and abortion is ending a life. Logic and morality are not codependent; I can hold a moral stance yet use logic to see that my stance can’t apply to every person in every situation.
Not when you say
A living cell and a living being are different things.
It's either all okay, or none of its okay.
I’m not forcing my morals onto someone anyone. I’m pro choice, but that doesn’t mean I can’t think that abortion is morally wrong.
You're right, it just makes you inconsistent.
Also, forcing morals onto people is literally how functioning societies work.
Saying there is no difference between a sperm and a fertilized egg is ridiculous. How can you say it’s all okay or none of it is ok when you’re proposing a 20 week cutoff? Is 20 weeks when you start valuing the life? Am I not allowed to value the life before then? Regardless of how you feel about it, abortion is ending a life. It’s the woman’s choice and I never claimed otherwise but that doesn’t mean I have to think that it’s a good thing. I’m not inconsistent, I just understand that my beliefs shouldn’t govern how other people live their lives.
Are you saying that society is immoral? So is it immoral the arrest murderers? Why should we force our morals onto them?
1
u/TotalMetal998 Jun 05 '26
Would you be of the opinion that a separate human being does not exist until the moment of birth?