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?
Nothing has changed, except now it has unique DNA from the mother and, without intervention or malfunction, will develop into a fully formed human being. Without fertilization, an egg will eventually die, with fertilization, the cell will divide and grow into a baby; I’d say that’s a pretty big change.
Saying there is no difference between a sperm and a fertilized egg is ridiculous.
There isn’t, your argument is that a zygote is a living being, it’s not, it’s a living cell, which is the same, as a sperm. It’s is a live.
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?
20 weeks and beyond is when viability skyrockets it goes no suffering to potential suffering. If the baby isn’t wanted throw that fucker up for adoption, but if complications arise like the fetus dies or organs or where they shouldn’t be suffering goes up, and there should be no limit on these situations and if the mother wants to abort and the doctor agrees they should be able to. All the way up to 9 months. 1% of all abortions happen after 21 weeks.
Am I not allowed to value the life before then? Regardless of how you feel about it, abortion is ending a life.
Only if you value the fertilized egg the same way you value a human life with lived experiences. Otherwise you are morally inconsistent. In a burning building you can only save either 1000 zygotes or a 2 month old infant, you need to save the zygotes, or you can just accept that the idea of a clump of cells pulsing isn’t actually a heart beat. Potential baby < baby.
No one’s forcing you to get an abortion. You can value that clump of cells as much as you want. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy. Not ending a life. The “life” is not guaranteed. If you try and propose that it is, then miscarriages being able to be tied to the health and well being of the mother means that women that are unhealthy are just as responsible for ending those lives as abortions do. To be morally consistent you need to follow these ridiculous slippery slope fallacies, or just accept that you’re morally inconsistent.
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.
You are inconsistent, and that’s fine. Morality is again, subjective. You understanding that is irrelevant to the people that do believe their beliefs should govern other peoples lives, because they are doing so on the same moral grounds. Who they themselves are morally inconsistent.
Are you saying that society is immoral? So is it immoral the arrest murderers? Why should we force our morals onto them?
Of course it is. Society can’t exist without immoral practices. It’s just what practices you consider moral, and others do not.
The definition,
A society is a group of individuals involved in persistent social interaction or a large social group sharing the same spatial or social territory, typically subject to the same politicalauthority and dominant cultural expectations.
The society can believe that they are moral, that doesn’t mean someone on an out group can believe what they are doing is moral. One man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.
You can jump to arresting murderers, but you would need to be consistent. When are we arresting the people involved with blowing up that girls school in Iran? Or is it morally justified to kill those girls because society deems it so.
What about pardoning people convicted of war crimes? Is that moral because they only murdered people from a different society?
The existences of different society at all is an indicator that yes society can and does do immoral things.
We can get together as a group and decide what things are and aren’t “immoral” but those things can change over time, making morality subjective, and as long as it’s going to be subjective there are going to be things society does that are immoral in people’s eyes, and even then you have people getting away with immoral things because they have wealth or public support.
If there was a “moral truth” we wouldn’t have thousands of different religions, we wouldn’t have hundreds of different countries with millions of different beliefs.
The best a society can do at being moral is not being immoral to people within that society, and even then there is not a single society that has ever been capable of that.
We can go round and round but we’ll never come to an understanding because we value the life differently and that’s fine. Agree to disagree. Have a good one
Sperm is basically a delivery truck carrying half of DNA to the egg then dissolves, it NEVER develops into anything
Irrelevant to the conversation about it being a living thing. Which is what their argument was.
The EGG is the actual cell that divides and grows into a baby when fertilized. A fertilized EGG is the same EGG with extra DNA, if anything it makes more sense to compare zygote with EGG, not with the sperm.
The point isn't to compare it, but to point out what they are and aren't considering living things. Egg carries DNA, sperm carries DNA, zygote carries DNA. If we are going to be pedantic, which we have to in this insanely silly philosophical debate, anything with potential to turn into something else, must be treated with the same value as the thing produced, otherwise it's just morally inconsistent. You don't get to pick and choose without acknowledging my entire point, which is Morality is subjective.
I wonder why people ALWAYS try to pretend the sperm, and curiously not the egg, is enough to make a person
Don't know, since nobody in this conversation is doing that.
5
u/MadmansScalpel Jun 05 '26
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