Join 75,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

Thoughts on abortions

Register to hide this ad
doesn't matter to me what other people do with their bodies

just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it should be outlawed
i 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
 
i 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
agreed

a big issue is that people who really want abortions will get them illegally if they are illegal, and those can lead to much more health complications

or people getting rid of the child after its born

the foster care system (at least in the US) is fucking awful, i have three foster siblings who i haven't seen in years and have no idea if they are doing okay or not
 
would you consider medical euthanasia of brain dead people murder? genuine question
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 conscious
 
not a guarantee, complications for mother are always a risk as well
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.

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
- 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.
 
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.
good point, thank you for pointing that out
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
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.
- 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.
why would r**e be exempt? I'm not really debating this point but just curious.
 
I don't think the prevention of consciousness is the same moral wronging as the taking of life.
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.
why would r**e be exempt? I'm not really debating this point but just curious.
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
 
The baby is a different human and not the same person as the mom
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 disconnect
 
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 disconnect
never thought abt it like this
 
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.
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.
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
I also disagree with this, the well being of the mother should be considered first, including mental health and lifelong impact.

I 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.
 
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 disconnect
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 mother
 
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.
it's ethical only if it's self defence or voluntary
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.
if the patients choose to be killed, it is voluntary. if they are killed against their will, it is not murder.
I 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.
props to you too
 
theyve been real quiet sense this one🤣🤔
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 disconnect
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
 
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
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?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top