4 ms·
If you're bent on arguing this from first principals, rather than a nuanced discussion about the quality of life of an unwanted child, remember that parents are
by verall 4y ago
If you're bent on arguing this from first principals, rather than a nuanced discussion about the quality of life of an unwanted child, remember that parents are not obligated at any other point to give up parts of their own body for their "child". It is only during a pregnancy where a woman is obligated to provide nutrients directly from her bloodstream. This is a "right" that the child, once born, no longer has - even if the child needs it to survive, the parents are under no obligation to donate blood or organs.
- paxcoder 4y ago
- hellojesus 4y agoDoesn't it logically have to go to first principals? If we're talking about quality of life of unwanted children, why not allow people to abort their children post birth, say 3 or even 12 years into its life?
- majewsky 4y agoNo, because in that case there are other options. A 3-year old child can be put up for adoption if the parents are unable to provide adequate care for it. At our current medical level of progress, doing the same for a 3-week-old embryo is impossible. If it were possible to transplant embryos instead of aborting the pregnancy, the moral argument around abortions would look very different. Edit note: I initially mistyped "put up for adoption" as "put up for abortion". This has since been fixed.
- hellojesus 4y agoWhy do other options have anything to do with it? So far as I've observed, policy makers in the US are pushing for abortion up until birth. We will soon have the tech to grow children in artifical wombs from conception. Why does self sufficiency define the cutoff for murder when it is time variant, and the child will necessarily grow the ability to live untethered?