Current Events > Whether you are for or against abortion

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChromaticAngel posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

I understand you are trying to rile me up with your condescending attitude. But you are barking up the wrong tree. Feel free to continue if you like, just an FYI.

I feel that the beginning of human life is the zygote. At the very least, its close enough for me to consider it human.

You still haven't answered the question. Why is it immoral? Because it is human? Can you admit that?

How many more times would you like me to say it? Yes. Because it is human, or at the very least on the verge of becoming human if its not killed.

now answer the following questions.

1. Death Penalty: Moral or immoral?
2. Killing in self defense: moral or immoral?
3. Killing nonhuman animals: moral or immoral?
4. Suicide: Moral or immoral?
5. DNR: Moral or immoral?
6. Denying life-saving procedures because of religion that result in death (e.g. JW+Blood Transfusion): Moral or immoral?
7. Assisted Suicide: Moral or immoral?
8. Refusing to assist someone who is dying (and they die): Moral or immoral?

Because if your metric for morality is "it's human" then your answer to all of them except #3 should be immoral.

Completely unrelated. Those all involve the person being killed making a choice or life decisions that got them to thay point. Question 3 is irrelevant.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Jeez, guy. No need to get so emotional.

You're right, sorry. But pretty lame excuses nonetheless.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

Maternity leave?

This doesn't really exist in america. Many places offer it, but it's not really "leave" it's more like a paid severance as most women do not get their jobs back.

I've honestly never heard of an employer that doesn't offer it, aside from entry level jobs like McDonald's.
---

Zodd3224 posted...

Completely unrelated. Those all involve the person being killed making a choice or life decisions that got them to thay point. Question 3 is irrelevant.

Not unrelated at all. These all involve humans dying or otherwise being killed. If you think killing a clump of cells is immoral because it's human, can you explain why you consider the above situations to be not human or do you have more to your moral compass here than "it's human?"
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

That_Happened posted...

They didn't have enough money (nor the time to take off of work) to carry the baby to term either. And to a smaller extent the woman is in her late 30s and that's pretty late to even consider full term pregnancy without possible complications. Again, it was a matter of "protect us and our family or save this unborn zygote," and there were way too many negatives that outweighed the positives.

No time to take off work? Dafuq? Maternity leave?

She doesn't get paid leave. They'd be down to one income for a considerable amount of time, while incurring all of the added expenses that come with carrying a child full term, including doctors visits.

Carrying the baby to term is as simple as

Don't need to listen to you anymore at this point.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Vindris_SNH posted...

Maternity leave?

This doesn't really exist in america. Many places offer it, but it's not really "leave" it's more like a paid severance as most women do not get their jobs back.

I've honestly never heard of an employer that doesn't offer it, aside from entry level jobs like McDonald's.

It's generally not offered to any part timers, seasonal positions, or contractors.

But my point wasn't that it's not offered, it's that it's misleading to be called maternity leave because really what happens is you leave and don't come back. We generally call that being dismissed in the rest of the world.
---

Even Jane Roe was against abortion after she fucking grew up.
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

I've honestly never heard of an employer that doesn't offer it, aside from entry level jobs like McDonald's.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/05/17/paid-maternity-leave-elite-benefit-u-s/325075001/
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

Completely unrelated. Those all involve the person being killed making a choice or life decisions that got them to thay point. Question 3 is irrelevant.

Not unrelated at all. These all involve humans dying or otherwise being killed. If you think killing a clump of cells is immoral because it's human, can you explain why you consider the above situations to be not human or do you have more to your moral compass here than "it's human?"

The clump of cells shouldnt be killed if it hasnt consented to it. Or broken any laws. Or isnt in physical agony.
---

Zodd3224 posted...

The clump of cells shouldnt be killed if it hasnt consented to it. Or broken any laws. Or isnt in physical agony.

the clump of cells didn't consent to being conceived in the first place.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

The clump of cells shouldnt be killed if it hasnt consented to it. Or broken any laws. Or isnt in physical agony.

the clump of cells didn't consent to being conceived in the first place.

What's your point?
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

The clump of cells shouldnt be killed if it hasnt consented to it. Or broken any laws. Or isnt in physical agony.

the clump of cells didn't consent to being conceived in the first place.

ITT: Murder is ok because nobody ask their parents to conceive them
---

SageHarpuia posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

The clump of cells shouldnt be killed if it hasnt consented to it. Or broken any laws. Or isnt in physical agony.

the clump of cells didn't consent to being conceived in the first place.

ITT: Murder is ok because nobody ask their parents to conceive them

Murder discussion was last page. Try again.
---

SageHarpuia posted...

Even Jane Roe was against abortion after she fucking grew up.

Oh look it's that gimmick joke troll again
---

SageHarpuia posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

The clump of cells shouldnt be killed if it hasnt consented to it. Or broken any laws. Or isnt in physical agony.

the clump of cells didn't consent to being conceived in the first place.

ITT: Murder is ok because nobody ask their parents to conceive them

Oh know, another shitpost D:
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Yes, if you are referencing personhood versus existence.

And is this distinction ever evoked anywhere but to justify why some kinds of human beings have no rights? For being such an essential argument, I've never heard viability applied anywhere else, and that makes me skeptical.

RE Viability vagueness: You've already noted the exact difference between the viability of a zygote versus an infant. Viability means that the fetus can exit the womb to breathe, intake food, and pass excrements without the assistance it had in the womb. The infant not being fed days later is not exactly relevant to viability in this context.

Babies still need assistance to do most of those things though. A newborn baby cant really eat unless you give it chewed or soft food, for instance. Lots of neonates have issues, such as meconium aspiration, which affect those functions youve listed. Without assistance, they'll die.

This also means anyone on life support, if even temporary, is a non person with no rights.

You've also skipped one point. Is a foetus a non person because it happened to be born in a country without the healthcare adequate to ensure it survives if delivered early? It's still the same kind of thing in both countries, but the one born into the wealthy, developed country has personhood by virtue of its privilege.

Lastly, if having the biological apparatus to process nutrients "without help" is what confers rights and personhood, then surely flowers and animals and fungi can do this, and are therefore moral people?
---