3 ms·
I strongly support abortion but this is the dumbest argument there is. You're just perscribing new meanings to the words alive and life that almost nobody share
by guerrilla 5y ago
I strongly support abortion but this is the dumbest argument there is. You're just perscribing new meanings to the words alive and life that almost nobody shares with the subset of people who do this, which by the way excludes biologists. Abortions kill living human animals and there are many good reasons why abortions are justified, but not being alive isn't one of them. Everything that applies to a fetus also applies to a coma patient dependent on life support. If you want arguments that don't suck then look at bodily autonomy, health (including mental), self-defense, etc. instead of attempting to water down concepts to support your position. Seriously fallacious, sad to see it's so popular.
- gibrown 5y agoEverything you just said also applies to amputating a limb. Or cutting out a cyst. Those seem like much closer analogies than a person in a coma.
- guerrilla 5y agoOther than the potential to be independent which the two share, yes, I think that does support my point. We have no need to reclassify limbs as "not alive" in order to have good reason to amputate them. Doing so would be seen as quite neurotic.
- Falling3 5y ago> Everything that applies to a fetus also applies to a coma patient dependent on life support Except that coma patients are not dependent on another specific individual to stay alive. If one needed your kidney to live, but you refused and they died, you would not be responsible for their death.
- guerrilla 5y agoRequiring another person to be alive does not make one not alive. Your argument doesn't suport that it does and I more or less agree with your argument, which is one reason that I supoort abortion. Perhaps you read too much into what I wrote.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]