Must watch - "Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women's Health" directed by Punam Kumar Gill. You can find it at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eZ6O1MWNYbmTgdo.html And here's the science informing the film: hushfilm.com/science/ Other helpful resources in description. Feel free to check those out as well.

The ever-eminent philosopher Dr. Seuss said, "A person's a person no matter how small!"

Hot damn i am supprised hes prolife

@Bill-ou7zp

3 ай бұрын

He went to catholic school

1:36 that pun was fvckin hilarious Joe🤣

It surprises me how these arguments seem to ignore the mother's role in it. Ultimately, that fetus is a part of her, it's not growing in a vacuum

@IWasOnceAFetus

28 күн бұрын

The arguments don't ignore the role of the mother. They emphasize/debate the roles that adult humans have towards prenatal humans, whether they're biologically related or not. The arguments debate the ethics of killing. No one here is suggesting that prenatal humans grow in a vacuum.

@dobby2270

2 күн бұрын

⁠@@IWasOnceAFetus​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ “The arguments don't ignore the role of the mother.“ - no, they ignore. Because how you said “The arguments debate the ethics of killing.” and don’t include a wider range of topics, such as the socio-economic status of women in the world. Discussing the topic of abortion from only one side is called “ignoring.” That’s why in the very first comment the person wrote “a fetus doesn’t grow in a vacuum” because your propaganda channel shows arguments as if mothers don’t exist. But you are too stupid to understand it. You took this phrase literally “No one here is suggesting that prenatal humans grow in a vacuum.”🤡

the difference between the consumption of alcohol and not engaging in intercourse with respect to infringing upon a person is one is an action and another is the absence of action;one is not necessarily morally obligated to help others.

I know what Yogi BEAR would say about your Bear vs Buddy story and the decision to shoot or not to shoot? He'd say, "When ya get to a fork in the road, take it!"

@Joe, since you said "I'm just scratching the surface" is this why you were perhaps sending us a subconscious signal of that fact by scratching your nose 15 times during your 9:22 video? 🙂

The prudential argument seems to be, "If you are not 100% certain your action will cause no harm you should not take the action." How could anyone drive a car on prudential reasons? This feels like an argument from a hypothetical world where perfect knowledge is attainable (even if we don't currently have it) and all decisions can be delayed until we attain it.

@IWasOnceAFetus

2 ай бұрын

That's an over-simplification of the argument. The argument primarily has to do with moral uncertainty and what one should/should not do when faced with such moral uncertainty. If one is not certain about the moral status of a prenatal human, then one should err on the side of caution when it comes to abortion. Driving a car doesn't necessarily put you in a situation where you're faced with such moral uncertainties.

He takes a bit long with his version of the Prudential argument. Plus it's muddied by other things like the danger bears present (though, perhaps this is good, since it might analogize a pro-choicer's perception of the dangers pregnancy has). I prefer something concise like, "How confident should you be that there are no people in the building, before you demolish it?"

@IWasOnceAFetus

Жыл бұрын

I agree. I never understood why "bears" specifically, since it would have worked just as well without that specification.

I think it's admirable is that you wear a pro-choice hat sometimes when you speak but knowing from the beginning of the video that you lean toward pro-life Id like to ask you a question and hear your honest answer. When you made the channel name "I was once a fetus", were you trying to take advantage and play on the emotions of most humans?

@IWasOnceAFetus

2 жыл бұрын

I'm not Joe Schmid. Read the description. Also, "i was once a fetus" is a philosophical argument against abortion by Alexander Pruss. It's also very accurate.

At the end, Schmid appeals to the principle that "You can't deprive non-persons of goods." Let's call this the "Deprivation Requires Personhood" (DRP) principle. I don't think DRP undermines Marquis's argument. Marquis argues that depriving an *individual* of a future like ours (FLO) is wrong, and that abortion deprives individuals of FLO. Regardless of whether the fetus is a person, everyone agrees a fetus is an *individual*. Schmid said he does not want to conclude that failing to have intercourse is harming a non-person of the goods of existence. We can resist this conclusion by appealing to a different principle. Instead of relying on DRP, we can rely on DRI: "Deprivation Requires an Individual." When you fail to have intercourse, there is no already-existing individual that you are harming. This is unlike abortion, which actively and intentionally deprives an already-existing individual of FLO. Anyone who agrees with DRI also agrees with DRP, because DRI is a more general version of DRP: it applies not only to persons, but individuals in general. You can't expect to be successful in your objections if you are appealing to principles we already agree with. That's why Schmid's DRP does not affect Marquis's argument in the slightest. Philosophers also tried to object to Marquis by saying his view entailed that condoms are immoral, but this is not true. Prior to fertilization, there is no individual, and hence there is no deprivation (by DRI). I think Marquis's argument is still the strongest in the literature.

@IWasOnceAFetus

2 жыл бұрын

Nicely put. Thank you!

@exalted_kitharode

Жыл бұрын

Well you basically defined DRI so that it will arbitrarily exclude gametes but include zygotes, how convenient. What was the ground for this distinction in the first place?

@IWasOnceAFetus

Жыл бұрын

@@exalted_kitharode isn't that fairly obvious? The distinction is grounded in the fact that sex gametes aren't individuals while human organisms are.

@GodisgudAQW

Жыл бұрын

@@exalted_kitharode Gametes don't develop into adult humans, but zygotes do.

@abhaysreekanth

Жыл бұрын

@@GodisgudAQW gametes given the right environment with each other will develop into a human . A zygote also given the right environment will develop into a human

Joe 🤩❤️

The bear-hunting analogy is a bit ridiculous. There's little downside to refraining from shooting at an unknown in the bushes, while the upside to refraining is potentially huge. The assumption is that you will remain vigilant and are ready to shoot anything dangerous that might appear out of the bushes. (And if you're not prepared for that event, then you have no business hunting bears!) On the other hand, there's plenty of downside to forcing a woman to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy, such as the burden it will place on her body and her life, as well as on the life of her unwanted child. Of course, whether those considerations are compelling enough to counterbalance the consideration that a fetus _might_ be a person is another question. But it is worth noting that the former considerations are real and tangible, while the latter is merely theoretical.

@IWasOnceAFetus

8 ай бұрын

The "downside" in the analogy is that someone's right to life can possibly be violated. That's, of course, a huge downside. Not to mention, most burdens of pregnancy don't come close to justifying killing in general. It's simply saying that if people can't agree about the moral status of a prenatal human, then one shouldn't say it's fine to abort the prenatal human. The point is simply that if there's a *non-negligible* chance where you might kill someone in an abortion, you should err on the side of caution.

@IWasOnceAFetus

8 ай бұрын

One can also put out a less "theoretical" analogy if you'd like. Imagine you were hired to demolish a building. As Project Manager, you hire a team of experts to get the job done. When the time comes to press the trigger, you ask your Safety Officer if she's positive that no one isleft in the building. She replies, " I did a walk-through last night & I didn't see anyone. But I'm not a 100% sure." It's clear what ought to be done at this point. Given the small but reasonable chance that someone is still in the building, you ought to postpone the demolition. Going forth at this point would be reckless & negligent. This mirrors the other analogy & its point.

@BertRussell4711

8 ай бұрын

@@IWasOnceAFetus Nice try, but your analogy suffers from the _exact same weakness_ as the bear analogy: it fails to incorporate the very real damage associated with forcing a pregnancy to term. Put another way, no one gets hurt by refraining from demolishing a building. So, _speculate_ all you want about the possible murder of a fetus, but you are still left with the very real consequences of an unwanted child. Of course, if you think the former is more compelling than the latter, then have at it, Hoss. But that is a matter of opinion, and, unfortunately for your camp, the majority disagrees with you.

@IWasOnceAFetus

8 ай бұрын

@@BertRussell4711 (1) I don't see the "weakness" you speak of. If you're suggesting that simply being pregnant is reason enough to justify abortion in general, then I don't find it persuasive at all since most pregnancy complications don't even require abortions to treat. And the right to life is a serious right. If there's a small but non-negligible chance that you might end up violating it, you ought not be reckless. It's a simple principle. (2) The language of "force" you use is disingenuous at best. A law that bans infanticide is not "forced parenthood." A law that bans starving children to death is not "forced feeding." When someone tells you not to kill other persons, you're not the one who's being "forced" to do something unjust. (3) "No one gets hurt by refraining from demolishing a building." Yes that's the point. If you demolish the building & someone does get harmed, then that's morally wrong.

@IWasOnceAFetus

8 ай бұрын

@@BertRussell4711 "the very real consequences of an unwanted child"? You find it "compelling" to kill humans based on the justification that they're "unwanted"? That doesn't seem compelling at all. I bet even your own intuitions go against what you just said about that. The fact that a born child is unwanted has nothing to do with the child. The fact that a prenatal human is unwanted also has nothing to do w/ the prenatal human. If you blame a born child for being unwanted & kill him, it would be morally wrong. This same principle applies to prenatal humans.

Then an argument by analogy would be If no right to decide whom is allowed to sustain its existence via a particular woman’s body, it follows the state could force a person to allow any of their children to sustain their lives Kid gets in an accident at 14 years old, mom has to give up a kidney Kid drinks too much at 17, dad gives up part of his liver If a fetus is a person, what’s the logical bar that stops my hypotheticals?

@IWasOnceAFetus

2 ай бұрын

Your analogies fail. (1) accident: woman did not cause her son to be in need of her kidney. In abortion, the parent knowingly caused the prenatal person to be in need of her body. If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you have some obligation towards that person. You definitely have no right to kill that person on-demand. Same goes for the drinking kid and his dad. (2) The debate isn't about whether you have to sustain another person's life. It's about whether you have the right to kill another person on-demand.

@justdavelewis

2 ай бұрын

​@@IWasOnceAFetus Just so you know my position beforehand: Legally, I'm pro choice as I think a person should be able to have full bodily autonomy. Morally, I'm not sure. I think the later into the pregnancy it is, the worse it is, but I have a hard time saying it's flat out wrong. I find it really difficult to give a straightforward answer. The reason i'm legally pro choice is basically because of OP's argument. i) If A needs a specific body part (X) to survive, and B is the only person that can provide X should B be legally required to do so? I don't think so, I think that would be wrong, legally and morally. Would you be considered a murderer in this instance? No. ii) As you point out in your (1) response though, if it is the case that A needs X because of B's actions. Lets be extreme and say that B hits A with a car or something (intentionally), and as a result, A needs X from B. Legally, should B have to give up that body part? No, and that sounds like some sort of dystopian future novel. However, B in this case would be charged for attempted murder... There is more nuance in these, but I think this is the general point, no? The big question is this: Does ii) apply to pregnancy? Personally, I don't know. In specific scenarios, possibly. In the case of ii) and applying it to pregnancy, the result would seem to be that it would be legal to have an abortion, but then one would be charged with murder as a result and this seems wrong somehow, I may have to come up with a different analogy. Hitting someone with a car in this case, remember, is the act of getting pregnant and not the abortion of said pregnancy. The abortion is the refusal to give up body part X so that A can live. As a general rule, hitting someone intentionally with a car is illegal and morally wrong. There are exceptions of course, but the general rule here stands I think. Getting pregnant, isn't illegal or immoral. Going back to ii) and your 1) it feels like the issue is person A being in a state of need because of the actions of B aren't the same in these analogies and in pregnancy, as the act of getting pregnant (consensually) is not illegal or immoral. Is this an issue for the analogy? I'm not sure, I'd like to see what you have to say about the issue. I hadn't considered your objection in 1) so thank you for making me aware of that... maybe we can come up with an even better analogy and I will change my mind all the way and become pro life! The car hitting might be too extreme... but it might be just the same for any analogy, I don't know. There may be some analogy where its the negligence of B the causes A to require B to survive? Again, I'd like to see what you have to say:) What I am taking away from this though, is people need to not be precarious with their sex lives. Regardless of whether we are pro choice or life, abortions shouldn't be used as a form of contraception. Thank you for reading, if you did:) Its such a complicated question in my opinion and warrants serious thought.

@IWasOnceAFetus

2 ай бұрын

@@justdavelewis My thoughts briefly: (1) "Full bodily autonomy" would entail late term abortions-on-demand. In principle, bodily rights arguments don't/can't grant exceptions or they fail. This is one of the many reasons why I find bodily rights arguments utterly unpersuasive. (2) In response to argument (i): a real-life counter-example to your argument is the relationship between a lactating woman & a newborn baby. Newborn babies have the right to use someone else's bodies to stay alive. If the only one who can help the baby stay alive at the moment is the lactating woman, the baby definitely has every right to her breasts at the moment. Denying him/her this right effectively entails infanticide by means of neglect. The only way your argument seems to succeed is if you accept the moral permissibility of such a case & that would just be absurd. (3) As I've shown above, some forms of refusal *can* be morally problematic. But I think the dis-analogy in your argument, primarily, lies in the fact that you think "abortion is the refusal to give up body part X so that A can live." We're talking about abortion-on-demand, aka. a form of killing-on-demand. Not a mere refusal to allowing someone the use of one's body. Abortion is more akin to letting someone have your kidney & then forcibly retrieving it back by killing the recipient.

@justdavelewis

2 ай бұрын

@@IWasOnceAFetus Thanks for the reply! 1) Just to reiterate: I think bodily autonomy works as an argument for purely legal reasons, not necessarily moral ones. I think it could be problematic to mandate forced pregnancy no matter the situation. The autonomy argument is actually what convinced me to accept the legality of abortion, regardless of how I may personally feel about it morally. I could be mistaken about this, there may very well be a good argument which brings me in line with your views here, I just haven't heard it yet. 2) "Newborn babies have the right to use someone else's bodies to stay alive" - I think this might be where we disagree... Babies, and children alike, have the right to be cared for, not the direct use other peoples bodies, no one has that right, not even a baby. Mothers choose to breastfeed their children with their milk, but they don't have to, there is baby formula. In fact, some mothers have trouble getting their baby to latch on properly and therefore they have no choice but to use formula to feed their child, I know one such woman personally. Though I do agree with the sentiment that neglecting your child is morally wrong, I think your 'infanticide by neglect' defence there does not apply in this situation for the reasons mentioned above. If, however, your argument is the baby will die of starvation unless it is breastfed, then I don't thing that really changes anything... If the baby is in the position where it is starving, there is already neglect in the first place. I mention above that there are alternatives to breastfeeding, but even if there was no baby formula, neglecting your child is wrong, I agree. If the baby is starving because of reasons that aren't the mother's fault then the analogy no longer applies due to your reasoning here: "If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you have some obligation towards that person." This would be essentially same as the analogy where your child needs a kidney from you and only you, but it's not your fault. In fact, this is a weaker version of that argument because breastfeeding entails no personal risk to the mother. Donating a kidney is major surgery and that has a risk of complications and death, as does pregnancy in general and childbirth. Abortion will have risks too, but those risks are less great than ones that can arise in childbirth and some pregnancies. I think pregnancy dangers and childbirth complications are serious considerations in these discussions. I will say that most people would probably give up an organ for their child or a family member/friend if they could and knew it would keep them from dying, but it shouldn't be a law - and i think thats where a lot of my contentions come from to be fair. 3) "Abortion is more akin to letting someone have your kidney & then forcibly retrieving it back by killing the recipient." This is POTENTIALLY a more interesting analogy but i think it fails as well, because it doesn't properly reflect the nature of the pregnancy situation. Once the kidney is inside the other person, it is their kidney. In your analogy, the kidney is equivalent to the mother's whole body essentially, not just the womb. I do not agree that the child has a right to the mother's entire body. I don't think anyone has that right. Just as a separate curiosity, imagine a hypothetical scenario where for whatever reason, you can either choose between the unborn child's life or the mothers life. Would you choose the child or the mother to survive? In my opinion, i think the mother's life is more important than the unborn child's and so, If only one could be saved, I would choose the mother. I suspect you would disagree based on your comments, and that's cool, I can't tell you that's wrong. I can sort of see where you're coming from on a lot of these, but i just don't feel that the reasoning you've provided here is solid, and i think thats because we disagree on what rights an unborn child should have when compared to a human. That's ok though, I don't think there's necessarily a correct answer. This is an emotional conversation too. It's sad that people feel the need to get an abortion, no matter the circumstances.

@IWasOnceAFetus

2 ай бұрын

@@justdavelewis (1) Bodily rights arguments convince you of abortion's permissibility but I've already given you two good reasons for why bodily rights arguments are unpersuasive - they lead to extremist conclusions like late term abortions-on-demand as well as infanticide. I don't see how you can avoid those absurd conclusions. Plenty of other reasons why they're not good arguments for abortion. (2) Bringing up baby formula only adds to your dis-analogy. The initial point was to make this analogous to pregnancy & abortion, which is why I mentioned that the lactating woman was the only one who could help the baby at the moment, as is the case in abortion. As you yourself admit, the rightness or wrongness of infanticide in this situation does not depend on whether there are alternatives to breastfeeding. Even if alternatives did not exist, infanticide would still be unjustified. So your argument (i) where B is the only person who can provide X to A still essentially entails the moral permissibility of infanticide. (3) Now onto the point about the relationship between the woman & the baby. Notice that my first comment to you was in response to your arguments involving a mom & her kid, a father & his kid. It was simply a response to that. If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you're obligated to ameliorate the situation. Like i said, you have some minimal obligations to that someone. You definitely don't have the right to kill that someone on-demand. That's applicable even if there's no parent-child relationship, but even more so when there is. Now i think that's enough to discredit your arguments and most abortions that happen in reality. If by some chance the adults here were not responsible for the pregnancy, would they have a right to abort the prenatal human? I think not. Because you'd be arguing for killing the innocent party on demand & that's not justified. (4) Never implied that the kidney is analogous to a woman's entire body. The kidney is analogous to the woman's uterus. The analogy was simply meant to demonstrate that abortion isn't a case of mere refusal as you suggest but is more akin to active killing.

With regard to the last point on deprivation and how if you're not having sex with someone, you're depriving them of their "sex-with-you" future. The issue I think Marquis would convey with this point is that abortion is impositional, whereas electing to not have sex with someone, whilst is depriving them of some type of future, is not impositional. You can still elect in the first place, whereas the fetus cannot. The other issue is that Don Marquis would most likely draw a line in the sand between total deprivation of life and the deprivation of an experience. The latter can still entail other types of experiences, the other, in the case of the fetus, cannot.

Based Joe

@TheOtherCaleb

Жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 Yes

If the fetus cannot exist apart from the mother, then it is part of the mother. The mother can decide what she wants to do with her body. You can call it murder if you want, but sometimes murder is justified.

@IWasOnceAFetus

Ай бұрын

The prenatal human isn't a body part. That's silly and unscientific.

@yf1177

Ай бұрын

@@IWasOnceAFetus It's attached to the mother via the placenta. For more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta

@IWasOnceAFetus

Ай бұрын

@@yf1177 Your citation doesn't prove that the prenatal human is part of the woman's body. Your body parts are supposed to have the same DNA as you.

@yf1177

Ай бұрын

@@IWasOnceAFetus Half of the fetus DNA is from the mother, the other half is from the father. If both parents consent to an abortion, then that makes 100%

@IWasOnceAFetus

Ай бұрын

@@yf1177 A fetus has two feet. If the fetus is a body part of the pregnant woman, does the woman have four feet? If the fetus is male, does the woman have a penis?

Regarding his PC response to the Impairment Argument, he notes that PCs will not initially be convinced bc of the problem of suffering, but you could easily press your point with a simple question: "So, you believe it's worse to hurt someone's future, than to take it away? Doesn't that sound reversed?" Of course, some might answer "yes." In that case, I might say what PC streamer Destiny said on Ep. 50 of the I'm Doing Great Podcast. He said that those who lose limbs, etc. seem to adjust quite well, given time, to their impairments. After a while, they report similar qualities of life to others. Thus, the problem of suffering is overstated. Yet, the problem of killing someone/a future someone remains.

Have you ever been bear hunting?

8:20 He says there's nothing wrong with depriving a person who might exist in the future. I'm not sure how this squares with how we look at environmentalism. The main reason we don't chop down every tree on the planet is bc we care about people who don't even exist yet. I thought of that argument recently. But if that's the case, does that mean, as some like Joe imply, that we are depriving conceptual persons of a FLO by not biologically conceiving/creating them? I feel like we can get around that by noting that you don't have a right to be bio-conceived/created. I'm not sure. What do you think??? There must be SOME way around it. How else could we hold both beliefs simultaneously?

@IWasOnceAFetus

Жыл бұрын

I think you're onto something with the environmentalism objection. If I'm not mistaken, I've read similar objections in Patrick Lee's "Abortion and Unborn Human Life." I think that book might help you out in this regard. Also, I don't think Joe's objection can make sense of cases where a human embryo (presumably a non-person) is deliberately & genetically modified to grow into a mature person who desires all the wrong things, such as wanting to be a slave to other people, etc. I believe everyone would say that is wrong, even if the embryo were not a person. But locating the morally bad in future harm to persons in such a case seems absurd.

@IWasOnceAFetus

Жыл бұрын

In his defense of the FLO argument, Trent Horn belabours a similar point in his recent debate with Nathan Nobis, when he talks about NBC's ("Never Been Conscious").

@jimbojackson4045

Жыл бұрын

@@IWasOnceAFetus Ooo. I'm excited to view that debate. Thank you also for the book recommendation. Not much of a reader, but I'll look into him.

@IWasOnceAFetus

Жыл бұрын

@@jimbojackson4045 No problem! Thanks for stopping by. ✌🏻

@Yeatlova

Жыл бұрын

@@IWasOnceAFetus With the genetic modification thing. I think a critic is going to say human beings should have these certain "proper" desires in virtue of the type of beings they are. A pro choice person is most likely going to say the type of being we are is not our organisms, or body, rather our mind. And thus, when a mind comes into existence, the person has been harmed by such impairment, and an explanation of why such impairment is immoral has been generated. However, we cannot say the same for a 10 week fetus who is aborted, because abortion prevents a being from developing such perverted desires to begin with. So impairing an organism to the nth degree brings about a sufficiently relevant good that impairing an organism to the n+1 degree doesn't. You may appeal to an imaginary case were Mary genetically modifies her fetus to desire to be a salve, but 5 days later is hit by a car and her fetus dies. Clearly, the pro lifer says, Mary's actions were still wrong even if no person came into existence. However, if one makes such a move, they are confusing subjective wrongness with objective wrongness. In this case, with Mary's limited knowledge and limited beliefs, what she did was only subjectively wrong, not objectively wrong. However, when the fetus obtains a mind in the case of an impairment (n+1), Something objectively wrong has happened. For an actual person has been made worse off.

Philosophers Jeff McMahan, Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and others, all outspoken defenders of abortion also believe infanticide is morally permissible (euthanasia). This is problematic for most people.

@IWasOnceAFetus

2 жыл бұрын

Yep. And Peter Singer, John Harris, Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva, Jonathan Glover, J. Räsänen too. Ben Watkins of RealAtheology also admits that their pro-abortion position entails infanticide of born infants.

@IWasOnceAFetus

Жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 1) I was mostly trying to point out that most abortion arguments entail the logical permissibility of infanticide. I think this is generally speaking true regardless of whether you want to accept it or not. I was just stating that many leading abortion defenders (philosophers & bioethicists) agree with that point (2) I don't see how your position doesn't entail infanticide. Your position entails late term abortions. These are practically infanticide. Killing inside & outside at that point seems pretty irrelevant in the moral sense if you ask me.

@IWasOnceAFetus

Жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 (1) I didn't make any "rebuttals." (2) You may want to demonize the prenatal human as "violator" to justify killing him/her but that's just you. Because the fact is prenatal humans aren't "violators." (3) Using arguments from consent as justifications for abortion makes sense only if you equate prenatal humans to intruders/violators/rapists & I'm glad you admitted to doing so. Doesn't seem like a reasonable move to me because prenatal humans aren't intruders/violators/rapists or even equivalent to them.

@IWasOnceAFetus

Жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 (4) Bodily rights arguments are, generally speaking, self-defeating. Here's one example how: If it's wrong to force a human to give up SOME of her blood/kidney/bone marrow to save another human being, then it's even more problematic to force one human (the one in utero) to give up all of her blood/kidneys/bone marrow, all her organs, & her life itself, not to save the life of another human, but to simply render another human free of pregnancy. In the case of abortion, what the donor gives up is much more substantial (life itself) & what the recipient receives is much less substantial than life itself (freedom from pregnancy). (5) "I was just stating that many leading abortion defenders (philosophers & bioethicists) agree with that point." That wasn't an argument. Not even a proposition. You're arguing with yourself. (6) If killing inside & outside the womb is the only difference you have for saying that one is infanticide & the other is not, you have no justification for why your position doesn't entail infanticide. Location isn't a morally relevant difference.

@IWasOnceAFetus

Жыл бұрын

@@Oners82 Alright. I don't have time for people who lack self-control and you clearly can't wait for this discussion to turn into a contest of wills. You don't even seem to know what arguments are. One advice: Stop equating prenatal humans to rapists. Now shoo.

The real world does not have the luxury of philosophy. But your young.

@jonallen7619

4 ай бұрын

Said the imbecile

I agree that an abortion at any stage is murder. It is a human life at a certain stage of life. That said i agree with abortions within the first trimester. The reasons I'm prochoice is because it isn't well to do stable families getting abortions. Is broke, usually very young women who can't even take care of themselves. There are huge correlations between broken single parent homes and crime and poverty.

@GodisgudAQW

Жыл бұрын

Do good consequences justify murder?

@jacoblee5796

Жыл бұрын

@@GodisgudAQW In some cases, yes, you are a fool to think otherwise.

@GodisgudAQW

Жыл бұрын

@Jacob Lee Hmm, would you say the same about slavery? Because in my view, slavery is not as bad as murder, and slavery was vastly more socially beneficial than abortion is today. Yet I would never want to hold a principle that entailed that slavery is justifiable for its social and economic benefits

@jacoblee5796

Жыл бұрын

@@GodisgudAQW I agree, slavery isn’t as bad as murder but can you enslave an embryo?

@GodisgudAQW

Жыл бұрын

@Jacob Lee No, but you can murder one. And since we agree that murder is worse, if the benefits of slavery did not outweigh the moral wrongness of slavery, then the social benefits of abortion would have to be even greater than the social benefits of slavery back then in order for those benefits to be sufficient to make abortion permissible