4 ms·
What you are describing is science. The scientists can determine when life begins, but when life begins is ultimately irrelevant. The state already has no issue
by softcactus 4y ago
What you are describing is science. The scientists can determine when life begins, but when life begins is ultimately irrelevant. The state already has no issue killing violent criminals, so even if scientists agree and say "a fetus is equivalent to a fully-developed human at 12 weeks", the question will still be "is it ethical to allow the mother to terminate that human beings life?". At which point you start comparing the value of an unborn human life to the cost that raising a child imposes on society. Again, pro-lifers wont engage with any of this discourse. The blame lies with them.
- golergka 4y ago> At which point you start comparing the value of an unborn human life to the cost that raising a child imposes on society Only if you're an utilitarian. There's perfectly good reasons not to subscribe to this moral philosophy.
- softcactus 4y agoAgain, religious pro-lifers refuse to have any ethical or philosophical discussion whatsoever. They are absolutists who are unwilling to entertain a utilitarian viewpoint or any other justifications for abortion. There is no "middle ground" with them.
- golergka 4y ago> Again, religious pro-lifers And why have you chosen to portray the most radical and unreasonable of all your numerous opponents? It's not exactly "straw-men" because these people exist, but looks pretty similar to it.
- softcactus 4y agoBecause they are the base that the republican party answers to. They are the Supreme Court justices who are members of the Federalist Society who have been playing the long game to overturn Roe and other decisions. I'm portraying those who have actually been doing the mechanisms of overturning Roe. This isn't some hypothetical debate, these are organized groups mobilizing to enact change.