Let me guess, he doesn’t think its murder?
This is one of those interesting things. If we accept OP’s premise for the sake of argument… then what does that really change? Society accepts that people can be lawfully killed on purpose given the “right” circumstances (e.g.: criminal punishment, war combat, equivocal self-defense). We generally don’t like it, but we do fundamentally accept that human life is on the negotiating table when justified.
That’s what irks me about the murder label. We already willfully choose to end human lives, irrevocably destroying a vast collection of lived experiences and social connections in the process. What is destroyed when an unborn child dies? A life which knows nobody, understands nothing, and thinks/feels at best at a level no more complex than animals which we routinely slaughter without a second thought. One might argue that the life itself contains some unknowable potential for these things, but that theoretical future potential comes at the price of the mother’s current potential and freedoms.
The way I see it, the position is inherently precious. It fears the label of murder without caring to consider why the label exists. A philosophy so myopically focused on keeping one’s own moral hands clean that the term “second order consequence” may as well be written in hieroglyphics.
A life which knows nobody, understands nothing, and thinks/feels at best at a level no more complex than animals which we routinely slaughter without a second thought. One might argue that the life itself contains some unknowable potential for these things, but that theoretical future potential comes at the price of the mother’s current potential and freedoms.
This can all be true while it still being true that you are killing a baby.
In that same line of thinking, anti-abortionists are likely staunch supporters of the military, the death penalty, and gun rights for murder as self defense.
So which is it: is life precious or isn’t it? When is a life undeserving of protection? From birth? 5 years? 18 years?
The rights of the unborn shouldn’t precede the rights of the life being lived by the mother.
Whenever a woman has her period it should be considered murder and her IMPRISONED!
sperm is not a human life under any definition of the word. A fertilized egg 6 months into development almost certainly is.
Yeah, I don’t see how they can see it so black and white if they don’t consider a firtilized egg to be a full living human.
I think anything else would necessitate conceding that it’s a complicated issue, with lots of grey area, which I don’t think any forced-birther I’ve talked to has conceded.
They definitely are beyond a “fertilized egg” multiple months into a pregnancy. And yes, they are humans, just at the early stage. You think a baby magically becomes human when it leaves the womb?
Have you actually looked at a fetus in different stages of growth? Because they’re not sentient, and not all that human-looking even. Just a parasite that may, one day, be a human.
If you mean super-late-stage, then at that point the abortion is a health issue, and you and your uninformed opinions getting in the way only cause more risk of death for the mother.
And what about ectopic pregnancy? Please don’t tell me you’re dumb enough to believe those are salvageable. If that happens, and an abortion isn’t carried out ASAP, they’re fatal.
no one thinks it’s murder. not even you. you’re just lying to troll people (or because you hate women)
I genuinely do believe it is killing a human. The whole “its just a clump of cells!” is a reductionist argument that serves no purpose. We are all clumps of cells. I’m not religious either.
Yeah but killing a human in self defense is never murder.
Regardless, that clump of cells isn’t human, because it doesn’t have a brain, and that’s all that a human is. If it gets to the point where a brain is developing, it still remains a matter of self defense. Pregnancy is a life threatening condition, and no person has the right to use another person’s body without their consent.
No, it’s not reductionist. It’s exactly what it is. What is reductionist is making it some kind of moral panic based on misinterpretation of religious text in order to force your perspective on others. The bible gives instructions on how to perform an abortion, and we know that abortion saves lives. Ectopic pregnancy, miscarriages, and other perfectly legitimate medical reasons are part of why abortion access is necessary and should be enshrined as female health care. If you are secular and still anti-choice, then you might not understand that your personal morality has no place in an operating room.
I’m afraid I dont believe you. Have you approached the FBI, your local DA, over these “murders”? Have you even called the police? Have you hired a private investigator? If I knew someone was murdered I’d do all of these things.
Let me guess, you didn’t watch the clip where he explains it’s a complex issue that should be viewed from all angles and not just life and death. If you’re so worried about death then consider the women who’s lives are in danger because they have to endure a non viable pregnancy to term because a bunch of politicians have no concept of medical care.
Whats the point of bringing this up when you know full well you are okay with abortions in situations where the mothers life is not threatened
The mother’s life is not threatened if she is raped and a pregnancy results. Should she be forced to bring that fetus to term?
I’m for small government and personal rights. So I’m pro choice, because I don’t think big government should be forcing their people to do things they don’t want.
Im also for small government and personal rights. But I firmly believe murder should be a crime.
That’s not what murder is, and you know it.
Stop it with this weak rhetoric.
Is your belief that life begins at conception religiously founded?
The Bible prescribes an abortion (which would be murdering an innocent bystander, if the fetus was a person) as the punishment for adultery (Numbers 5).
Oddly, before 1980, there was no majority Christian consensus on when life began. When Roe v Wade dropped, the largest evangelical denomination called it, “a distinctly Catholic issue”.
For the vast majority of Christian history it was generally held that life began at the quickening, the first time the mother felt the baby kick. This was considered the moment of ensoulment, literally when the soul entered the body.
Unfortunately, due to the antisemitic influence of Rome hijacking Christianity, that’s a very Greek and neo-platonic view of when life began.
In Hebrew, spirit (ruach) means wind; the invisible force that brings life, the breath of God. Soul (naphesh) just means throat, it is the channel by which we breath in the life of God. So as many ancient and modern Jews believe, as would the early christians, life begins at first breath.
Of course, we’re not bound to ancient views, which is why Roe v Wade determined viability outside the womb would be the standard point of protection, which is makes a lot of sense.
You are free to believe that life begins at conception. This is an issue people have discussed and debated for as long as we’ve been alive.
You can’t believe that your view is explicitly taught by the Bible or is even the view of the majority of Christians for most of history.
The evangelical view of life beginning at conception began in the late 70’s as a political wedge issue that tested incredibly well with audiences so people like Jerry Falwell began beating the drum in order to build political clout.
I’m agnostic. I believe that a fetus has a right to life, same as anyone else. The situation is a bit complicated, sure, but the right to life is pretty basic.
It has no life to have a right to until it’s born.
Go ahead and tell me about all the experiences you had in your mother’s womb. About the goals and aspirations you had before you came out. Tell me about your experiences, your emotional fortitude, hell, tell me anything at all about the time before you were born, from your perspective.
A fetus does not have a right to life, but the mother does.
Your views are getting real people with all their dreams, aspirations, goals, hopes, etc. killed, just so you can feel a warped sense of false moral superiority for a few minutes on the Internet.
Everyone also has the fundamental right to bodily autonomy. You can’t even force someone to do something as harmless as donate their blood, but somehow some people feel it’s just fine to hold a woman hostage and force her to host another living being, even if that might cause them terrible health issues or even their deaths… even if the “woman” in question is a child victim of sexual abuse… even if they don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to that child after birth, and will just being another child to be abused and left to die.
If you cared about the right to life, you would support the right to women and their doctors to make the best choices for their lives, and the lives of the children that will still need to be cared AFTER being born. Sorry, but you don’t care about fetuses, you care about controlling women.
Then viability seems an eminently reasonable threshold. If you’re agnostic, there’s no intrinsic value to a clump of cells. If the fetus is capable of surviving on its own but can’t by virtue of being stuck in place it deserves protection.
Of course, when it’s threatening the life of the mother then even though there’s no malice or intent, it is legally justifiable to treat it as we would anyone else who would threaten a woman’s life.
As an actual father-in-waiting - no it is not. That little thing is going to be a human, maybe. Not a human yet.
Do you consider it mass murder when you ejaculate? All that sperm can be considered people by your logic. Is a woman having her period or a miscarriage murder? After all, all of those cells or dead fetuses she’s purging are clearly people. If a fetus, which is a parasitic clump of cells that isn’t conscious and depends on the host to survive, is considered a person, then by your logic, so is sperm, eggs, miscarried fetuses, and even cancer.
A bunch of cells in rapid development with the potential to become a human being. Murder is a strong term, but in a broad sense I don’t think your insinuation is wrong per se.
This might be getting a bit controversial, but for the sake of discussion:
The important thing here is, do you mind if that potential for life is taken away. In this case we place priority on the human being that eventually has to dedicate her life to that potential. Or is that new potential more important than that already existing, conscious human being (especially when there are physical / mental problems involved)?
It comes down to why we live, and why must we live? Personally I believe trying to avoid (potential of) suffering is a more reasonable concept.
If one gives life to a baby, you give it a potential for suffering which it otherwise does not. I’d say the ways one can suffer is of a greater weight than the ways one can be happy. So if you go the route of creating life, you better be damn confident that you are in a good position to do that.
In that philosophy ‘murdering’ a potential with a large chance of creating more suffering for the collective is not that bad. One might view this differently when the being is conscious and might actively not want to die, as we bring the complexity of individual human choice to the table and what worth that has; but I think we can agree that is not applicable on the unborn potential human being discussed in this topic.
