A failure to understand or believe that abortion is murder does not make it no long a murder. For the people that believe Jews deserve to die their opinion does not change the fact that the holocaust was genocide. I also said “in the future” since, much like slavery was accepted in the past, I believe our understanding of human life will undergo change and abortion will be viewed as a murder of innocents.
Funny you should ask I work in a fostering program and have much more experience I’d wager with foster children both those taken from homes and those given up for adoption. However just because a child isn’t wanted and is in foster care does not mean you should be able to kill it.
Sure, once they are a child. But before that point wouldn’t it be great if they never wound up in the system? Anti-abortion people always bring up the "well put the baby up for adoption " idea, and my point is that’s not really a viable solution in America. Also, you didn’t answer my question. How many have You adopted? Because if it’s not at least 1, and probably should be more, your a hypocrite. You don’t want to care for a child, or judge you don’t have the means or capacity to, so you don’t adopt. Which is the same decision these women have come to in many cases.
Look into the statistics of age ranges for foster care/adoption, I think you will be very surprised at the data. But unfortunately regardless of how many children are left in poor life circumstances because of a failure by the government to give adequate incentives to promote fostering/adoption as well as funding to foster care organizations that does not change the morality of killing a healthy baby that would, if left to nature, be born. As I responded to another person, want and convenience does not dictate morality. Just because we don’t have the perfect solutions doesn’t mean we can stop playing the game.
So does all that mean the child doesn’t suffer? Does that mean that their suffering is preferable to abortion? Does it mean that the mother’s potential life long side affects didn’t occur? That her real risk of poverty, medical conditions, and death never happened? Or do all those things just mean absolutely nothing?
It’s not a game. It’s not about convenience. It’s about being able to choose for yourself, your family, and your body. There is literally no other situation in which we force people to give up their bodies, risk their lives, or give up their livelihood for someone else.
I have two children. They could need one of my organs to survive, but no one could force me to donate. No one. No one could force my husband. No one could force you. But when a person is pregnant, suddenly their body isn’t their own anymore. It’s viewed as an irreversible event that we have to leave up to chance no matter what. People talk about children who would be alive if not for abortion. What about subsequent children who wouldn’t be alive if an earlier pregnancy wasn’t aborted? The women who would have died if not for abortion?
Sure, there’s the “for the life of the mother exception”, but in reality, it doesn’t work out so clear cut. Doctors are afraid of spending their lives in jail and having insurmountable fines, so they wait until women are dying right here, right now. Women risk their fertility and their lives. Families risk losing their mother because of these unnecessarily harsh consequences. There’s no other situation in which we say, hey, you might die from this, but we won’t do anything until you’re dying right this second because if someone can “prove” that you wouldn’t have died, then we’ll go to jail for life.
It seems like you’re all for lab grown meat and killing off the livestock for meat industry correct? Fish and other animals would be similar? Anything with a nervous system and at least some semblance of intelligence or self preservation that probably isn’t a plant? With eventually lab grown plants or nutrients that aren’t used through forced reproduction or killing offspring since they’re alive, but not sapient.
How do you see birth control working in that future? With zero abortions, you’d have to have something like men and women sterilized at adolescence then allowed conceiving rights once they hit an arbitrary age like 18? Free condoms, medical procedures, or other variations of birth control in every home or at a free doctor for everybody under 18?
Presuming, for the sake of argument, that the consensus in the future comes to be that it is in fact murder, then yes - it’s rightly labeled “murder” regardless of the view one might hold.
But that’s beside my point.
To carry on with this particular context, what you’re asserting is that those who support a right to abortion believe that murder is okay, which is very much NOT what they in fact believe. They believe that it does not qualify as “murder” at all.
So again, you’re misrepresenting what they actually believe, and doing so in order to saddle them with a moral position they do not in fact hold, snd that dishonesty, in my estimation, calls into question the notion that you actually are a moral person.
Oh, and for the record, I think you’re wrong anyway. I think that when all of the reactionary, emotional fervor dies down and cooler heads prevail, the beginning of human life will be defined by the exact same thing that’s already the accepted marker for the end of human life - the presence or absence of measurable cortical activity.
And curiously enough, cortical activity can only be detected in fetuses well into the second trimester.
I disagree with your logic, it is a massive logical fallacy to say that becuase something isn’t murder now that even if it’s seen as murder in the future it wasn’t murder in the past. Slavery now is still the same as slavery in the past and past atrocities do not become humane because they are viewed through the lens of time. Now legally speaking sure, if slaves are allowed then slavery is legal, but legality does not in any way dictate morality. This begs the question why do you keep insinuating that because something is legal then it is moral?
The premise of your argument is that they’re going to consider it murder in the future. But what if they don’t? Anyway, the logical fallacy is worrying about what future societies might think, since they’re not here now.
Abortion is moral and merciful. Forcing an unwanted child into the world is cruel.
Your opinion that a fetus deserves rights is something that most of us don’t respect here.
it is a massive logical fallacy to say that becuase something isn’t murder now that even if it’s seen as murder in the future it wasn’t murder in the past.
I’m not convinced that’s actually true, but it’s irrelevant anyway, since that’s not what I said.
The other poster did not assert simply that abortion is murder, but that those who support a right to abortion explicitly advocate for murder.
The assertion was not about the morality of the act, but about the morality of the people who support the right to commit that act.
Do you grasp that distinction?
Slavery now is still the same as slavery in the past and past atrocities do not become humane because they are viewed through the lens of time.
Certainly, but again, that’s irrelevant, since the exact point I was making was that the other poster was rendering a moral judgment of the people - not the act.
And slavery makes a good comparison. Yes - we now view slavery to be wrong, and simply wrong - it was wrong in the past just as it would be wrong today.
But we can’t legitimately condemn those in the past who held slaves in societies in which holding slaves was deen to be entirely moral, since they were doing the exact same thing that we’re now doing - they were doing the best they could to lead a moral life. It’s not that they were evil and we are good - it’s that they were good by the standards of their time just as we are good by the standards of ours. That’s the most one can generally do, so that’s all anyone can ever justifiably be expected to do.
If standards change such that an act that at one time was judged to be good is later judged to be evil, then yes - it can be said that it was always evil. But those who committed the act specifically because they were taught that it was good - those who set out to be good people and acted as they did specifically because the society of which they were a part told them that [this] is what good people do - cannot legitimately be charged by later generations with advocating for evil. They advocated for good, just as we do. That they were, by our standards, wrong about what does or does not qualify as good doesn’t alter that fact.
This begs the question why do you keep insinuating that because something is legal then it is moral?
I… didn’t even come vaguely close to “insinuating” that. I have absolutely no idea where or how you got such a wildly inaccurate impression.
So far, all you’ve shown is that you don’t understand squat about murder, fetal development, slavery, or the holocaust. Care to add any other ignorant takes to the pile you’ve built yourself?
A failure to understand or believe that abortion is murder does not make it no long a murder. For the people that believe Jews deserve to die their opinion does not change the fact that the holocaust was genocide. I also said “in the future” since, much like slavery was accepted in the past, I believe our understanding of human life will undergo change and abortion will be viewed as a murder of innocents.
How many children do you foster? How many have you adopted? 3, 4, 10, 100?
Funny you should ask I work in a fostering program and have much more experience I’d wager with foster children both those taken from homes and those given up for adoption. However just because a child isn’t wanted and is in foster care does not mean you should be able to kill it.
Sure, once they are a child. But before that point wouldn’t it be great if they never wound up in the system? Anti-abortion people always bring up the "well put the baby up for adoption " idea, and my point is that’s not really a viable solution in America. Also, you didn’t answer my question. How many have You adopted? Because if it’s not at least 1, and probably should be more, your a hypocrite. You don’t want to care for a child, or judge you don’t have the means or capacity to, so you don’t adopt. Which is the same decision these women have come to in many cases.
Look into the statistics of age ranges for foster care/adoption, I think you will be very surprised at the data. But unfortunately regardless of how many children are left in poor life circumstances because of a failure by the government to give adequate incentives to promote fostering/adoption as well as funding to foster care organizations that does not change the morality of killing a healthy baby that would, if left to nature, be born. As I responded to another person, want and convenience does not dictate morality. Just because we don’t have the perfect solutions doesn’t mean we can stop playing the game.
So does all that mean the child doesn’t suffer? Does that mean that their suffering is preferable to abortion? Does it mean that the mother’s potential life long side affects didn’t occur? That her real risk of poverty, medical conditions, and death never happened? Or do all those things just mean absolutely nothing?
It’s not a game. It’s not about convenience. It’s about being able to choose for yourself, your family, and your body. There is literally no other situation in which we force people to give up their bodies, risk their lives, or give up their livelihood for someone else.
I have two children. They could need one of my organs to survive, but no one could force me to donate. No one. No one could force my husband. No one could force you. But when a person is pregnant, suddenly their body isn’t their own anymore. It’s viewed as an irreversible event that we have to leave up to chance no matter what. People talk about children who would be alive if not for abortion. What about subsequent children who wouldn’t be alive if an earlier pregnancy wasn’t aborted? The women who would have died if not for abortion?
Sure, there’s the “for the life of the mother exception”, but in reality, it doesn’t work out so clear cut. Doctors are afraid of spending their lives in jail and having insurmountable fines, so they wait until women are dying right here, right now. Women risk their fertility and their lives. Families risk losing their mother because of these unnecessarily harsh consequences. There’s no other situation in which we say, hey, you might die from this, but we won’t do anything until you’re dying right this second because if someone can “prove” that you wouldn’t have died, then we’ll go to jail for life.
So far, you have managed to involve slavery and holocaust into (apparently) a conversation about abortion.
Do you think you can top it off?
Day is young…
Going to pretend you’re not a troll BigToe.
It seems like you’re all for lab grown meat and killing off the livestock for meat industry correct? Fish and other animals would be similar? Anything with a nervous system and at least some semblance of intelligence or self preservation that probably isn’t a plant? With eventually lab grown plants or nutrients that aren’t used through forced reproduction or killing offspring since they’re alive, but not sapient.
How do you see birth control working in that future? With zero abortions, you’d have to have something like men and women sterilized at adolescence then allowed conceiving rights once they hit an arbitrary age like 18? Free condoms, medical procedures, or other variations of birth control in every home or at a free doctor for everybody under 18?
Presuming, for the sake of argument, that the consensus in the future comes to be that it is in fact murder, then yes - it’s rightly labeled “murder” regardless of the view one might hold.
But that’s beside my point.
To carry on with this particular context, what you’re asserting is that those who support a right to abortion believe that murder is okay, which is very much NOT what they in fact believe. They believe that it does not qualify as “murder” at all.
So again, you’re misrepresenting what they actually believe, and doing so in order to saddle them with a moral position they do not in fact hold, snd that dishonesty, in my estimation, calls into question the notion that you actually are a moral person.
Oh, and for the record, I think you’re wrong anyway. I think that when all of the reactionary, emotional fervor dies down and cooler heads prevail, the beginning of human life will be defined by the exact same thing that’s already the accepted marker for the end of human life - the presence or absence of measurable cortical activity.
And curiously enough, cortical activity can only be detected in fetuses well into the second trimester.
I disagree with your logic, it is a massive logical fallacy to say that becuase something isn’t murder now that even if it’s seen as murder in the future it wasn’t murder in the past. Slavery now is still the same as slavery in the past and past atrocities do not become humane because they are viewed through the lens of time. Now legally speaking sure, if slaves are allowed then slavery is legal, but legality does not in any way dictate morality. This begs the question why do you keep insinuating that because something is legal then it is moral?
The premise of your argument is that they’re going to consider it murder in the future. But what if they don’t? Anyway, the logical fallacy is worrying about what future societies might think, since they’re not here now.
Abortion is moral and merciful. Forcing an unwanted child into the world is cruel.
Your opinion that a fetus deserves rights is something that most of us don’t respect here.
I’m not convinced that’s actually true, but it’s irrelevant anyway, since that’s not what I said.
The other poster did not assert simply that abortion is murder, but that those who support a right to abortion explicitly advocate for murder.
The assertion was not about the morality of the act, but about the morality of the people who support the right to commit that act.
Do you grasp that distinction?
Certainly, but again, that’s irrelevant, since the exact point I was making was that the other poster was rendering a moral judgment of the people - not the act.
And slavery makes a good comparison. Yes - we now view slavery to be wrong, and simply wrong - it was wrong in the past just as it would be wrong today.
But we can’t legitimately condemn those in the past who held slaves in societies in which holding slaves was deen to be entirely moral, since they were doing the exact same thing that we’re now doing - they were doing the best they could to lead a moral life. It’s not that they were evil and we are good - it’s that they were good by the standards of their time just as we are good by the standards of ours. That’s the most one can generally do, so that’s all anyone can ever justifiably be expected to do.
If standards change such that an act that at one time was judged to be good is later judged to be evil, then yes - it can be said that it was always evil. But those who committed the act specifically because they were taught that it was good - those who set out to be good people and acted as they did specifically because the society of which they were a part told them that [this] is what good people do - cannot legitimately be charged by later generations with advocating for evil. They advocated for good, just as we do. That they were, by our standards, wrong about what does or does not qualify as good doesn’t alter that fact.
I… didn’t even come vaguely close to “insinuating” that. I have absolutely no idea where or how you got such a wildly inaccurate impression.
So far, all you’ve shown is that you don’t understand squat about murder, fetal development, slavery, or the holocaust. Care to add any other ignorant takes to the pile you’ve built yourself?