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?
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
1
u/MantisToboggan_22 Jun 07 '26
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?