Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
i think theres a difference between believing something is immoral based on your standards and wanting something to be illegaldoesn't matter to me what other people do with their bodies
just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it should be outlawed
agreedi think theres a difference between believing something is immoral based on your standards and wanting something to be illegal
laws arent always moral i personally dont believe abortion should be entirely illegal but i dont deem it moral in my standards
ok for r**e cases and situations where the mom could die, shouldn't happen any other timeTitle
Morality is a dumb concept Same goes for religioni think its immoral in a big majority of cases
'just because you disagree with murder it doesn't mean it should be outlawed'just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it should be outlawed
obviously doesn’t apply to everything jfl'just because you disagree with murder it doesn't mean it should be outlawed'
yeah ik, but abortion is a subset of murderobviously doesn’t apply to everything jfl
would you consider medical euthanasia of brain dead people murder? genuine questionyeah ik, but abortion is a subset of murder
Why is murder wrongAbortion is murder
Murder is wrong
Therefore abortion is wrong
no, but that isn't analogous to a fetus of course. a 'brain dead' person will be braindead forever; it is the irreversible loss of all brain function. this is practically synonymous with death. a fetus will be consciouswould you consider medical euthanasia of brain dead people murder? genuine question
i believe that self ownership is true, aka property rightsWhy is murder wrong
not a guarantee, complications for mother are always a risk as wella fetus will be conscious
Yeah i ami believe that self ownership is true, aka property rights
judging by this question i assume you are a nihilist right
idc what others do with there bodysTitle
It's not their body when they have a babyidc what others do with there bodys
yes of course it isn't a guarantee, but by it's nature a fetus will be conscious. like for example, i could say 'humans have 2 arms', despite some humans missing an arm, but a human will be nature have 2 arms.not a guarantee, complications for mother are always a risk as well
so why can't i kill and r**e you and your family? genuine questionidc what others do with there bodys
good point, thank you for pointing that outyes of course it isn't a guarantee, but by it's nature a fetus will be conscious. like for example, i could say 'humans have 2 arms', despite some humans missing an arm, but a human will be nature have 2 arms.
this is what i don't agree with, i don't see it as murder. I don't think the prevention of consciousness is the same moral wronging as the taking of life.if the fetus cannot be conscious, then it is not murder to "kill" it.
for you to believe abortion is right, you have to argue against one (or both) of these:
- abortion is murder
why would r**e be exempt? I'm not really debating this point but just curious.- murder can be justified in the case of abortion
with the second point, do you believe abortion is justified in a case where the women isn't r***d, in danger, and is perfectly healthy? if the answer is yes, you must argue for that, without mention of r**e etc.
truly great argument someone doing something to there own body vs you doing something to anothersso why can't i kill and r**e you and your family? genuine question
It's not their body thotruly great argument someone doing something to there own body vs you doing something to anothers
the baby is part of there body noIt's not their body tho
Nope, it's the babies bodythe baby is part of there body no
yes but the baby is connected to the mother and they are oneNope, it's the babies body
The baby is a different human and not the same person as the momyes but the baby is connected to the mother and they are one
yes but its connected to the mother and is part of herThe baby is a different human and not the same person as the mom
my stance is:I don't think the prevention of consciousness is the same moral wronging as the taking of life.
i wasn't really arguing that r**e is exempt, but i can answer the question anyways:why would r**e be exempt? I'm not really debating this point but just curious.
the fetus is entirely dependent on the mom though its like if you were attached to your brother with tubes for example and he was only alive because your blood was feeding into him taking energy and nutrition away from you & altering your daily life he only needs to be attached for 9 months but still its your choice to stay attached to him or not, even if he could have a say at it (which he cant bc hes unconscious) whatever he says it should still be your decision to stay connected or not & its not unethical to disconnectThe baby is a different human and not the same person as the mom
It's still a different personyes but its connected to the mother and is part of her
never thought abt it like thisthe fetus is entirely dependent on the mom though its like if you were attached to your brother with tubes for example and he was only alive because your blood was feeding into him taking energy and nutrition away from you & altering your daily life he only needs to be attached for 9 months but still its your choice to stay attached to him or not, even if he could have a say at it (which he cant bc hes unconscious) whatever he says it should still be your decision to stay connected or not & its not unethical to disconnect
its a paraphrasing of the "famous violinist" thought experiment!never thought abt it like this
yeah that is where we disagree, especially on the unethical part. It's difficult to draw the line of what is considered "ethical" killing, which is why I originally raised my first example of a brain dead patient. What about a cancer patient that may recover but the family decides to pull the plug so that they would no longer suffer? Or coma patients? It's a grey area and difficult to define.my stance is:
murder is defined as the intentional, unethical killing of one human being by another. a fetus is a human, so abortion is murder.
I also disagree with this, the well being of the mother should be considered first, including mental health and lifelong impact.i wasn't really arguing that r**e is exempt, but i can answer the question anyways:
because to be consistent with my argument of bodily autonomy, then murder can never become acceptable, even with r**e
You're still ending the life of an innocent baby and it's the moms fault that the child won't experience the world because she's to scared to take on the responsibility of a motherthe fetus is entirely dependent on the mom though its like if you were attached to your brother with tubes for example and he was only alive because your blood was feeding into him taking energy and nutrition away from you & altering your daily life he only needs to be attached for 9 months but still its your choice to stay attached to him or not, even if he could have a say at it (which he cant bc hes unconscious) whatever he says it should still be your decision to stay connected or not & its not unethical to disconnect
theyve been real quiet sense this oneits a paraphrasing of the "famous violinist" thought experiment!
it's ethical only if it's self defence or voluntaryyeah that is where we disagree, especially on the unethical part. It's difficult to draw the line of what is considered "ethical" killing, which is why I originally raised my first example of a brain dead patient.
if the patients choose to be killed, it is voluntary. if they are killed against their will, it is not murder.What about a cancer patient that may recover but the family decides to pull the plug so that they would no longer suffer? Or coma patients? It's a grey area and difficult to define.
props to you tooI don't think we will agree on this tbh, but you did raise some good points. Thank you for a mature debate, that is rare here.
theyve been real quiet sense this one![]()
a parent has obligations to their child. if you can't neglect the child outside the womb, neither should you be allowed to harm him/her inside the womb. also, in cases besides r**e, you have sex knowing with the risk that there will be a child formed in the womb, so this also isn't analogous to abortionthe fetus is entirely dependent on the mom though its like if you were attached to your brother with tubes for example and he was only alive because your blood was feeding into him taking energy and nutrition away from you & altering your daily life he only needs to be attached for 9 months but still its your choice to stay attached to him or not, even if he could have a say at it (which he cant bc hes unconscious) whatever he says it should still be your decision to stay connected or not & its not unethical to disconnect
you say cases besides r**e so do you mean cases that are should be excused, and if so how would someone be able to tell if the victim was truly r***d?a parent has obligations to their child. if you can't neglect the child outside the womb, neither should you be allowed to harm him/her inside the womb. also, in cases besides r**e, you have sex knowing with the risk that there will be a child formed in the womb, so this also isn't analogous to abortion
even so, abortion is killing, while unplugging is letting someone die. there is a major difference there
nodo you mean cases that are should be excused
so you think a women who is r***d should be forced to have the baby
yesso you think a women who is r***d should be forced to have the baby
if a women is r***d most likely shes going to have to raise that baby alone and maybe even feel resentment towards them
i knowif a women is r***d most likely shes going to have to raise that baby alone and maybe even feel resentment towards them