The reason for this is that drawing the line of when life is to be considered life has disastrous implications for fully-born children and adults as well as for the unborn who will be so cruelly slaughtered in their mother's womb. Some people never draw the line, saying that abortion is perfectly justified up until the moment of birth, sometimes for weeks AFTER birth. But if babies can be murdered after they've been out of the mother's womb for a month, if that's morally justifiable, what's to stop anyone from killing anyone who's been born longer than that? Shall we draw the line for when the baby is able to survive outside his/her mother's womb? What does that mean for those adult human beings who cannot survive without life support, lying on hospitable beds at the mercy of their nurses? Killing them in cold blood would then be morally justified! Shall we draw the line for when the baby feels pain, as you seem to have suggested? Then what's to stop people from murdering those on morphine in hospitals, or on drugs, or having had anaesthetic? Is it them morally justified to gun down a bunch of desensitised people? Absolutely not! Shall we draw the line for when the baby has a heartbeat? What about those who have had heart transplants, cybernetic hearts, or pacemakers? Are their lives less valid? Shall we draw the line for danger to the mother? What does that mean for those who are alive but potentially pose a danger to other human beings, for example, those infected with viruses, etc? Shall they then be slaughtered to avert risking the death of someone else? Shall we draw the line for if the baby is conceived through rape or incest? What does that mean for those who are already born who have been born because of rape or incest? Are they then less valid, are they then to be murdered? Are illegitimate children not legitimate human beings? They had no part in the Crime committed against their mother, and yet we expect to justly punish them through the destruction of their lives?
As you can see, the only logical place to draw the line is the point of conception – otherwise there are disastrous implications, if you hold a logically consistent view, for those who have already been born. And if you hold a logically inconsistent view, then you're flat-out wrong. IN ensuring life to the unborn we protect the lives of the born. In butchering the unborn we open the door for the butchery of the born. It's morally reprehensible that a society supposedly dedicated to liberty violates with impunity the most sacred right of all – life; that a society supposed to be compassionate and caring is cold-blooded toward the most innocent and defenceless among them, the unborn.
@9CJ6CB65mos5MO
Babies are newborns, not zygotes with no possible capability to feel much of anything until a long way through pregnancy. The attribution and false equivalence you use for aborted fetuses and dead adults is that they are one and the same, yet their circumstance, status, and even basic ability to feel, think, and breath isn’t on nearly the same level. An adult isn’t able to be killed because they’re relying on medicine, since they’re out of the womb, capable of lacking consent, and are able to communicate. Comparing the two is ludicrously irresponsible to do. Babies can… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
That’s a mouthful of nonsense. You’re addressed absolutely none of my claims, and provided no reasoning why killing these adults is not morally equivalent to murder, you’ve just continued to reason in a vicious circle, assuming the merits of your argument in order to try to prove it’s uprightness…
@9CJ6CB65mos5MO
I am saying a fetus is not the same thing as a human, that’s a zygote with no ability to think, breathe, or feel, not a person on meds. I’m saying your false moral equivalency is ridiculous, and that the parent’s choice trumps that of the assumed wants of something that isn’t even conscious, or even barely developed. That’s why I’m fine with abortions in the earlier stages, but putting the benchmark at conception gives no parents any choice, and by doing so, would basically damn them to being forced to carry the fetus for the whole year because they didn’t see it for 2 weeks.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
And you've still (surprise!) addressed NONE OF MY CLAIMS, continuing to reason in a vicious circle by claiming it's a "false moral equivalency" without providing ANY logical reason WHY that's the case, and dodging the unanswerable questions I've presented you with! You have used the question begging fallacy, assuming the very position you're arguing for in order to argue for it. Can you offer any evidence under the sun that a "Fetus" is not the sae thing as a human? I don't honestly give a **** if parents are "forced" to carry their… Read more
