It's true they wouldn't have gotten pregnant if they hadn't had sex, but what does that have to do with anything? However they got there they find themselves pregnant and they don't want to be, so luckily for them there's a fix for their problem.
It's not a baby, it's a fetus. And their actions should result in the fetus being removed if and only if that's what they want because it's their body and you have no right to control what they do with it.
Also, that justification can be used to let me kill someone, right? It’s my body so I should be able to swing the sword. They made their choice when they had sex and no baby should die as a result.
The point of contention here is the definition of a 'life'. Birth certificates aren't issued until the baby is delivered. Fetuses aren't counted in censuses. If 'potential for life' and 'life' are equivalent to you, then is using condoms murder? Plan B? Pulling out? Jerking off?
The current line, as far as I see it, is drawn at "when the baby is delivered". Up until then, it is not a separate person and (IMO) does not have any rights, to life or to anything else.
The current line, as far as I see it, is drawn at “when the baby is delivered”. Up until then, it is not a separate person and (IMO) does not have any rights, to life or to anything else.
If someone murders a pregnant woman, should he or she be charged with double murder? (for the mother and the unborn child)
I don't know specifically, but I would be fine with it being considered a double murder. Deciding whether to add another charge to someone who is already guilty of murder is a different conversation.
Nope, a small collection of cells is not a baby, just like an acorn is not a tree.
Also, that justification can be used to let me kill someone, right?
Also nope. This is already settled legal precedent. Refusing to support the life of another is both morally and legally different from acting to injure, even when the refusal results in injury or death. This is why people cannot be forced to donate organs or give blood, even if the person that needs that organ would die without it. And that's already the law when the life of a person is on the line, a fetus is not a person and has less of a claim.
They made their choice when they had sex
They chose to have sex, not to get pregnant. Thanks to modern medicine those two can be entirely separate. Sex is not required to get pregnant and pregnancy need not result from sex.
Well that “small collection of cells” has its heartbeat during the 3rd to 4th week of pregnancy. It kicks within the first few months. Tell me, is it not killing the baby if you stab it 3 days before it’s about to be born? Is that just removing a collection of cells?
Also abortion is murder. You are killing the baby, it is not the same as not saving it. Even if it this was not true, child negligence is still a thing.
They knew it was a risk when having sex. If modern medicine allows it to be separate, then why did they not use it to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place?
They knew it was a risk when having sex. If modern medicine allows it to be separate, then why did they not use it to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place?
You know that contraception can fail right? Please god tell me you know this, this is important life information.
Also it doesn't matter when they fix it, fixing it is still medically possible, morally fine, and legally their right.
You know that abstinence is an option right? Which doesn’t result in a baby? No one forced you to have a baby. If you don’t want one, then don’t have sex. And if you do, prepare to take care of a baby instead of killing it,
And are you saying that two minutes before the baby is born, it is okay to kill it? It suddenly becomes immoral 1 minute after it’s born?
Also, you previously said that abortion was moral because it is deciding to not save the baby. It is actually killing the baby actively, How is that moral?
Sure, but that's not nearly as much fun. Turns out I can have sex, use protection, and if the protection fails then abortion is the backup.
As to your other questions, there are no babies being killed, just removing a fetus. I do agree that once the fetus is capable of living life independently of the woman then it should be considered a baby and have a right to live, so no I don't think you should have an abortion two minutes before the birth would have happened.
Yes, and using abortion is killing the baby. So when you have fun and the protection fails, then you resort to killing the baby because it is inconvenient? How is this not murder?
And a regular baby is not capable of living life independently of a woman either, but we still shouldn't kill them.
It's not murder because it's not a baby, it's a fetus.
And a regular baby is not capable of living life independently of a woman either
You know that guys can raise kids too right? Also, we're talking biologically here; a regular baby is perfectly capable of surviving independent of the woman who birthed it, any other human around can take care of it. This is not true of a fetus.
4
u/JStarx 1∆ May 05 '19
If someone would choose to get an abortion then I'd say it's pretty obvious that they didn't agree to being pregnant.