icomeanon6
It's "I Come Anon"
- 1,184
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Northern Virginia
- Seen May 10, 2024
I'm only going to post here once because the topic literally makes me feel ill.
There is exactly one question that needs to be answered concerning abortion, yet it is one that everyone wants to avoid: When does a human being's life begin?
The vast majority of us, I'm sure, would agree that convenience is no excuse for murder. We would also agree that it is wrong to kill someone to make amends for a violent crime that they bear no responsibility for in any way.
We all agree that Kermit Gosnell had no right to do what he did. The question is whether what he did would have been right had his victims still been inside their mothers and been only a few weeks younger.
If a fetus is not a human, then killing one is morally no different than killing an animal. If a fetus is a human, then killing one is morally no different than killing an infant. On top of that, the only real question concerning the morality of an abortion would be whether the mother's life is in danger, and whether we should kill one to save the other. Convenience cannot excuse murder, and neither can killing be amends for a violent crime if the object of the killing is not guilty.
(For the record, I apply the same reasoning to eating meat: if animals are in fact deserving of the exact same right to life as human beings, then there can be almost no moral justification for killing and eating them. That's a big 'if,' though.)
The question of when human life begins would have been answered by science already if science could ever answer it. It is a matter of our society's philosophy and conscience. I myself would argue that our courts are far too exclusive in deciding on which humans are alive, and that we should err on the side of protecting human life over human convenience or privilege.
Moreover, before we all accuse those who disagree with us on abortion as being either un-empathetic misogynists or un-empathetic murderers, I would ask that we all remember that most of us are acting on wildly different assumptions. What this issue calls for is understanding, and understanding will not come from personal animosity.
There is exactly one question that needs to be answered concerning abortion, yet it is one that everyone wants to avoid: When does a human being's life begin?
The vast majority of us, I'm sure, would agree that convenience is no excuse for murder. We would also agree that it is wrong to kill someone to make amends for a violent crime that they bear no responsibility for in any way.
We all agree that Kermit Gosnell had no right to do what he did. The question is whether what he did would have been right had his victims still been inside their mothers and been only a few weeks younger.
If a fetus is not a human, then killing one is morally no different than killing an animal. If a fetus is a human, then killing one is morally no different than killing an infant. On top of that, the only real question concerning the morality of an abortion would be whether the mother's life is in danger, and whether we should kill one to save the other. Convenience cannot excuse murder, and neither can killing be amends for a violent crime if the object of the killing is not guilty.
(For the record, I apply the same reasoning to eating meat: if animals are in fact deserving of the exact same right to life as human beings, then there can be almost no moral justification for killing and eating them. That's a big 'if,' though.)
The question of when human life begins would have been answered by science already if science could ever answer it. It is a matter of our society's philosophy and conscience. I myself would argue that our courts are far too exclusive in deciding on which humans are alive, and that we should err on the side of protecting human life over human convenience or privilege.
Moreover, before we all accuse those who disagree with us on abortion as being either un-empathetic misogynists or un-empathetic murderers, I would ask that we all remember that most of us are acting on wildly different assumptions. What this issue calls for is understanding, and understanding will not come from personal animosity.