3 ms·

You're being hyperbolic but we don't allow children to make medical decisions for themselves until the age of majority, and parents can choose to make medical d

by paulmd 9y ago

You're being hyperbolic but we don't allow children to make medical decisions for themselves until the age of majority, and parents can choose to make medical decisions that they know will result in the death of a child (eg refusing treatment for life-threatening diseases due to religious concerns). So effectively yes, this is already the state of things, and there is no serious movement to restrict this form of post-birth abortion. Who would have imagined that all it would take for abortion to gain acceptance is to frame it as a religious liberty? (correct answer: anyone who's lived in America)

marcoperaza 9y ago
>parents can choose to make medical decisions that they know will result in the death of a child (eg refusing treatment for life-threatening diseases due to religious concerns). That is false. Parents cannot legally deny their children life-saving treatment. Also, I'm not sure where I am being hyperbolic. Peter Singer literally does advocate for the "right" to kill young children for a long time after their birth. So if you say that Peter Singer offers an "easy" moral approach to abortion, I have to ask whether you actually do agree with his logic and follow it to the same ultimate conclusions that he does.