Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Well if it’s life with equal standing then the calculus is simple. 1 year plus x% chance of death < 100 years - x% chance of death.
Life begins at conception with no exceptions people have a very simple and correct basis for their argument. They just have a flawed premise that a zygote is equal to a person.
The same can be said of the extreme pro choice of its not a life until it takes a breath. The logic is sound that abortion should always be okay again just based on a flawed premise.
The rest of us get to live in shades of grey where the debate of when it becomes a life is the paramount question because once it is a life the calculus becomes simple. The abortion debate is just the Trolly problem.
|
The two extremes are logical and testable. People arguing about when life begins between those posts don’t have a factual answer so are essentially rationalizing to avoid the true question - when does the mother’s life and lifetime override the fetus’ (potential) life.
The answer to that question is moral, ethical and I believe ultimately personal, with no correct answer. Having a legal standard based on viability is arbitrary but as good as any - but no one should believe that the fetus is actually less human the day before vs the day after 26 weeks. In fact allowing a woman’s right to trump the fetus’ right up until birth is just as valid - the chance of survival shouldn’t really enter into the decision, otherwise people are just using the firing squad model - there’s a chance my gun didn’t have a real bullet.
I don’t have a particular point here, I’d just prefer it if the debate was about the rights of the mother vs the rights of the fetus rather than focusing on when life begins and avoiding the real question.