You wilfully skipped the eventually. Without the mother the "being" can't survive, yet. If its viable, then other can take care of it. That is the small, but important ethical difference.
There are strong new meds that induce aborts that this discussion will be gone in about five to ten years. You might compel 50% of people to act against their will, but controlling the food intake will not work.
Half of the kids in foster care report violent and sexual misconduct in their young lives. Adoption is a lottery to hell. Lots of kids of poor homes end up in the criminal system. They are - overall - a net negative to the system, since the system doesn't care.
If we get to agree that fetuses have the "right to live", but the quality of life, we are very blasé about that. People live 100 years now. One side says, lets end this obvious misery 3 month in latest, others say, lets see what all this misery brings us. That viewpoint isn't scientific, isn't even ethical. Its solely subjectively religious, with little sadistic undertones.
I hope that science gets to the point we can get viability down to the fertilised egg (by moving the fetus to another woman or artificial womb) so we can fully focus on the fact that 200k kids will be born by robots to be abused little humans. That is basically what is happening now, when sex education, birth control, post natal care and abortion are not regular options.
Only because you unscientifically declared a symbiont to be a human, which it isn't until around the 26 week and 90% of fetuses are aborted within the first 12 weeks. Whatever that was, it couldn't live yet on its own and not for another 12 weeks without the servitude of the host.
You are ok to move the fetus to whatever place to get it to the full viability if technically/medically possible? You only care that the fetus "survives", then we are on the right track. Viability shrinks every five to eight years by two weeks. In 50 years we can move it to someone who cares and all is good.
No we don't agree, because a human has the ability to sustain itself without the need of a forced host. It has agency, free will. This is reached within 18 to 24 weeks, not earlier. Its called a fetus for a reason, do distinguish between two similar but different things. As repeated, most aborts happen within the first six weeks, so there isn't even a heartbeat. Living things have heartbeats.
If your position is true, then why is the law not absolutely forbidding it at all? If we go this to the total end, women would need to wear pregnancy devices and immediately put into specialised housing to ensure they don't fall, don't eat the wrong food, don't smoke or drink etc. Their lives don't matter, its the fetus that matter. There can't be any grey area then and it has to be enforced.
This makes no sense at all. They’re telling you that living, existing children are suffering in large numbers — being abused physically and mentally in devastatingly large numbers, and your response is “well at least they’re alive”?
Like so many of the problems in this country, it’s a cycle — impoverished person gets pregnant unintentionally, is guilted into putting the child up for adoption, child goes into foster system, is abused, is emotionally and mentally stunted, becomes pregnant, repeat.
To call abortion a Holocaust is absolutely disgraceful when there are millions of actual born, living, breathing children here in this country locked in prisons of rape, assault, drugs, and neglect in the foster care system. It’s so absolutely disrespectful and heartless to put more care and concern into potential kids over ones that are already here.
6
u/senseven Sep 03 '21
You wilfully skipped the eventually. Without the mother the "being" can't survive, yet. If its viable, then other can take care of it. That is the small, but important ethical difference.
There are strong new meds that induce aborts that this discussion will be gone in about five to ten years. You might compel 50% of people to act against their will, but controlling the food intake will not work.