Believe it or not, there exist people who aren't entirely into the idea of offing living creatures just because we don't share a species.
Yeah, I hear you."imagine if MLK were aborted. wouldn't that suck?"
"yeah, but what if Hitler was aborted?"
"Hitler wasn't THAT bad shut up"
Believe it or not, there exist people who aren't entirely into the idea of offing living creatures just because we don't share a species.
I think it says quite a bit that people on this thread seem to be actively avoiding context.
Yes I agree it can also hurt her in other ways in the future, but in the present it's going to do a lot more damage to her mentally and emotionally, especially if she is being forced to have the child against her will, because abortions aren't an option. It's my opinion that conception is not when life begins, a heartbeat isn't life it's survival, and if other women also agree with this then they should have the option to abort the baby and have a normal and mentally positive life, if they are forced to have the baby then this normal life is going to be incredibly difficult to achieve.
What? Who said anything like that? I assume you were responding to the person above you (post below), who said nothing of the sort. What was said was that important distinction for humans is, roughly speaking, our intelligence. That's not suggesting we start "offing living creatures just because we don't share a species." It does suggest that a fetus doesn't deserve the same protections as a more developed human deserves. Now, if you continue that logic, it does suggest that animals that lack our level of intelligence also do not deserve the same protections as humans, which is something I agree with. It says nothing about the level of protections those animals do deserve, though, and certainly doesn't suggest that we start going around killing them for no reason.Believe it or not, there exist people who aren't entirely into the idea of offing living creatures just because we don't share a species.
This is what i assume you were responding to.What is with humans and heartbeats? You can't live without lungs or a brain, but according to my Internet research, those don't normally develop until everything else has, unlike the heartbeat which develops much sooner. Why are we saying that we can't abort the fetus because it has a heartbeat and therefore is a alive? If anything, shouldn't we be using a developed brain as the basis for our definition of "alive" since it's what sets humans apart from other animals? (I know other animals have brains but obviously ours are a lot more advanced, while our lungs and hearts function mostly the same as other animals')
Abortion is a pretty hard topic to talk about if you ask one's opinion. Maybe it's family, religion, or one's morality that leads them to say yes or now. I'm in a seesaw in this but my opinion is not important. Who are we to judge the innocent or the guilty women that are pregnant and want abortion? They may not all have your family customs or morality or religion but we should let them be. If it's a sin to abort, then let them fall in their sinful was. What happens to those women and the future babies is on them and not on you.
Plus, how would you feel if someone who you don't even know tells you what's best for you? You'd be like who are you to tell me about my future? Plus, everybody sins sooner or later, so if you people know so much about the bible, then do this: look at yourself before looking at others. Remember, we make choices to our own path so will you let these women be instead of acting like them rip off experts?
While I am pro-choice myself, this argument does not hold water - we as a culture are anti-murder. Although you can make these same arguments about murder, that culturally maybe the murderer was told that they had to do it for some reason, and therefore we can't judge them - and yet we do, and rightfully so. Treating it as just a matter of "religious people are silly for caring" is disingenuous and oversimplifies their position - they care because they see it as murder, which we should and do care about.
What I'm having trouble understanding is the claim that abortion is murder to begin with. If it were a life that had made its impact in the world in some way or another, big or small, I could understand. But people are saying that the life of a fetus matters as much as the life of someone who's earned their keep, so to speak. Even if you are consciously taking the would-be life of a fetus, well, that's just it. 'Would-be life', as in it hasn't truly lived. It's dependent on another creature for survival, and clearly said individual doesn't desire this would-be life.
How can it be murder when it doesn't even have a life to take? It's barely alive, let alone living.
Some aborted fetuses aren't even alive whatsoever.
It's hard for me to understand that sort of argument.
In my opinion the point of life is irrelevant though; just like I'm not obligated legally to save the life of my (hypothetical) fully-formed child by giving up rights to my body, I shouldn't be obligated legally to save the life of a fetus, human life or not, by giving up rights to my body. Simple as that.
A fetus exists after its embryonic stage and before birth. By your logic, as long as the fetus is within your body it's fair game to abort. After all, so long as it has not yet crowned, it is in your body yes? But I don't think it's acceptable to many to take the "her body, her right" argument to that extreme. There's more to abortion than just a woman's right to her body - it's not as simple as that.