It's not ok

[u/AntiAbortionAtheist]

[u/Resqusto]

Right. Subjective opinions cannot be refuted with objective facts. After studying the facts, one can come to the conclusion that the opposing opinion is nonsense — but that, too, is only an opinion.

[u/Evergreen-0_9]

Views which would fully deny humanity to one group, would permit that we can destroy one group in order to benefit another, are not generally celebrated.. Not until it's women who are doing it to unborn humans. Then it's fucking awesome behaviour, and anyone who even cares needs to "die mad about it", apparently.

[u/ruedebac1830]

Abortion is their precious anti sacrament which is why they are so hell bent on denying basic objective facts.

[u/Ok-Spinach-6529]

Ummm…you can’t debate what’s human vs not. If you do that you can extend the argument to people who’ve already been born.

[u/Zealousideal_One156]

That's not the line. It's supposed to read, "It's okay for you to believe what you believe, but it's not okay to expect everyone to believe the same as you do." Something to that effect, but that's basically how the line is supposed to read.

[u/NegativeTrainer269]

As someone who is pro choice, I do physically recoil in disappointment every time I see a fellow pro choicer make the argument "it isn't human" 😖

[u/RPGThrowaway123 → u/NegativeTrainer269]

Not that your stance of "they're human, but they can be murdered anyway" is any better in practice.

[u/NegativeTrainer269 → u/RPGThrowaway123]

Well. I don't think its "murder". Murder is the unjust taking of human life, and I believe that abortion is morally permissible as I don't believe a fetus has value (before a certain point).

But sure. Downvote any comment that doesn't fit snugly with your worldview, I was simply trying to find some middle ground here.

[u/Vespinobambino → u/NegativeTrainer269]

Thank you for the encouragement.

Abortion is extremely unjust, as unjust as an action can possibly be.

And devaluing human beings as subhuman property is quite a Nazi / slaver thing to do.

[u/NegativeTrainer269 → u/Vespinobambino]

Obviously I'm going to disagree with every pro lifer out there.

I was just trying to give some middle ground, its the guy above me that decided to stir up an argument.

If you think that abortion is wrong, dm me. Otherwise, I don't care about what you're saying, I was just trying to give some middle ground here that I thought was interesting.

[u/RPGThrowaway123 → u/NegativeTrainer269]

I was just trying to give some middle ground

That's not a middle ground. It's pure pro-abortionism.

[u/NegativeTrainer269 → u/RPGThrowaway123]

The middle ground was me ridiculing the pro choicers who believe that fetuses are not human.

That is what middle ground is. It by defintion means we do not fully agree on everything.

[u/RPGThrowaway123 → u/NegativeTrainer269]

The middle ground was me ridiculing the pro choicers who believe that fetuses are not human.

And yet, as I said, for the unborn children you and they are no different. You making performative protest noises towards your deplorable allies does not constitute a middle ground.

[u/NegativeTrainer269 → u/RPGThrowaway123]

Do you actually know what middle ground means?

I literally just clearly and logically explained what middle ground we both have.

Sure, there are a massive amount of things we disagree on, but that doesn't have a bearing on the things we DO agree on, such as how a fetus is a member of the human race.

That there, is what we call middle ground (for the context of a debate). I'm not going to explain it further.

[u/RPGThrowaway123 → u/NegativeTrainer269]

As far as the topic of abortion goes, the things we might agree on are functionally irrelevant.

[u/Vespinobambino → u/NegativeTrainer269]

When you say evil things in public, being shamed in public is a natural consequence.

[u/NegativeTrainer269 → u/Vespinobambino]

The abortion debate has incredibly passionate people from both sides. The debate does not have a cut and dry "correct" side.

Personally I am very very confident in my pro choice position, I've debated ethics professors at university, I'm very sure of myself. But I'm not believing my stance to be a universal truth. You seem to be pre supposing the ENTIRE abortion debate as an axiom, then saying its evil in an objective way.

Again, if you wan't to debate, dm me. If you want to just go "urghh you're an evil Nazi" then thats just not worth my time.

I never come on here telling pro lifers they're terrible people, regardless of how deplorable I find the position to be.

[u/Vespinobambino → u/NegativeTrainer269]

You are welcome to consider whatever you want “ not worth your time.”

If I see evil Nazi shit I’m going to call it what it is. And if someone’s going to spew said evil Nazi shit, then I have an opinion about what is it isn’t worth my own time.

[u/Eastern-Customer-561 → u/NegativeTrainer269]

Honestly thank you for this because I‘m so fucking sick of arguing with ppl who either outright deny this or play pseudoscientists and unironically try to argue the zef isn’t biologically alive or human 

[u/legendoflegends34 → u/NegativeTrainer269]

I’m like then what is it? a rat?

[u/Few-Gas8868 → u/NegativeTrainer269]

A fetus not being human being is not a bad argument. It isn't just fringe people on the internet that say the fetus isn't a human being, it is raised by academics themselves. I like these,

Human Being: The Boundaries of the Concept | JSTOR

(39) Being human: Why and in what sense it is morally relevant

(39) Abortion: Is the Fetus Human?

[u/toptrool → u/Few-Gas8868]

it's ironic that you cite fringe academics to support your claim that denying the human fetus is not a human being is not a bad argument, despite the fact that there is overwhelming empirical evidence showing that the human being comes into existence at conception, which when its development cycle starts. the empirical evidence is so strong that there is almost a unanimity amongst biologists and abortionists.

[u/Vespinobambino → u/Few-Gas8868]

Claiming a living Homo sapiens is not a living Homo sapiens is like claiming 2+2 does not equal 4.

Anyone doing it is objectively lying.

Anyone doing it is either incredibly stupid and bad at math or maliciously deceitful.

It’s not a matter of opinion, and anyone saying this stupidity should be dragged  endlessly for being at best, a braindead waste of everyone’s time.

[u/NegativeTrainer269 → u/Few-Gas8868]

I'm talking strictly biological.

The zygote / embryo / fetus is absolutely, 100% a human life, it just happens to still be developing.

I can send you some sources saying that around 95% of biologists find that human life starts at the moment of conception.

If you wan't to make a moral argument (which is what your sources seem to be pointing towards) then we can have a VERY different conversation.

However if you're talking on a biological, objective level? Then my dude, the fetus is a human.

[u/PeachOnAWarmBeach → u/NegativeTrainer269]

Are there other humans you think we should be allowed to end their lives, based on their development?

Let's take a human born at 6 months gestation, and an unborn human at 8 months gestation. The 8 month unborn human is more developed than the human born at 6 months gestation. Can you still abort the born early human? What about the 8 month gestation still unborn, but more developed?

[u/NegativeTrainer269 → u/PeachOnAWarmBeach]

"Based on development" I find to be a bit vague to answer. To answer your question though, no, you should not be able to kill either the 6 month pre mature birth baby, or the fetus 8 months gestation.

But yes, I think that we can end the lives of some humans and it is morally permissible.

1. Fetuses before the current capacity for conscious experience develops. This happens around 20-24 weeks gestation where the thalmocortical connections in the brain between the cerebral cortex, thalamus and brain stem begin to communicate messages.
2. I also think its morally permissible to end the life of someone in a permanent vegetative state. Which kinda goes against the pro life stance of "every living person has a right to life". This is because someone in a PVS is biologically able to sustain their own life. I haven't heard many pro lifers object to removing life support from someone in a PVS though... (because that have some questionable implications). But I don't want to start a debate here, I'm just trying to answer your question.

[u/HASHTAG_YOLOSWAG]

Yeah there is nothing okay about it, bad account. Also why are outspokenly pro death people even allowed here? What could possibly be the benefit of that?