You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Abortion: Your body, your choice? Or is it the child's body that you are choosing for?
The extreme cases (rape etc) are usually a very small % of actual pregnancies and the burden is upon you and your spouse, bf, random one-night stand partner etc etc of being mature enough to think before acting even when/during sex.
The only way I see it, is if your not willing to have kids don't have unprotected sex. It's immature and irresponsible IMHO.
If you are too irresponsible and immature to have safe sex, could it be that you're also too irresponsible and immature to take care of a child?
How does that make the act of killing the child justifiable?
If another person surgically attatches themselves to you are you not allowed to remove them?
The fetus doesn't surgically attach itself to the mother. Assuming it arises from a consensual act, the mother's actions have brought the child into being in this state of dependence. A more accurate parallel would be whether or not an adoptive mother would be justified in killing her infant after she agreed to take care of it. Unless both parties are completely and truly ignorant of the fact that vaginal intercourse without contraception leads to the conception of a child, both parties are aware that one of the consequences of sexual intercourse - indeed, the primary purpose of it - is the creation of a child, both parties assume the risk involved, the same way a woman adopting an infant is aware of the burden such an infant will place on her before agreeing to adopt. If it's wrong in the second case, it's wrong in the first as well.
That alone does not, but this issue is not one-dimensional.
I listed other justifications for killing the fetus in the article. Perhaps they would persuade you if you would consider them.
I responded to them at length in my first-tier responses lower down. I was addressing this point in particular, here.
There are unlimited justifications for killing a person whether before or after birth. That is why when someone commits murder he is entitled to a trial by jury of peers. Each case should be judged on an individual basis, not lumped together as in: What you seem to be saying is "Sometimes murder is justified, so let's just make it legal for everyone, under every circumstance." How's that sound? Like a plan?
@anarcho-andrei
As an "anarcho" you should understand that no thing, any, thing, can rule over another. A child acts much like a parasite to the host. It will and can kill the mothr to survive. This is what the biology of this life dictates.
Now put aside your ethics and look at it from the mother's perspective. seeing it from the "oh no, the child is so innocent" doesn't really cut it
People can, and do, incur positive obligations all the time. As I've said elsewhere, if the child poses a risk of harm to the mother, then the mother is justified in using whatever means necessary to preserve her life. Barring this instance, though, killing another human being - which a fetus undoubtedly is - is not moral or justifiable.
Its not a child, it's a fetus.
It's an developing, unique human being. Newborn and fetus are both different developmental stages of the same thing: a unique human individual.
If we're talking about a human fetus, then yes, the fetus is a child. Furthermore a person - entitled to equal protection of the laws according to the 14th to the US Constitution.
I guess so.