Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
Not even with better diets and better pre-natal care? Because as you said, with better pre-natal care and better technology, the line moves back. We might be able to save a pre-mature baby at 20 weeks or 19 weeks etc....
|
So, "with medical intervention." I'm still not sure why you asked the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I like hypotheticals, (I note you didn’t answer it despite saying it’s uncomfortable). If you are trying make a morally consistent argument it’s good to test it.
In the end the only argument for abortion that actually holds up to any scrutiny is that body autonomy trumps rights of the fetus. Arguments like just a clump of cells is very similar to a theist arguing for the god of the gaps.
It’s uncomfortable but anyone making time constraint arguments is just deluding themselves to make themselves more comfortable.
In the end a baby is a baby when the host calls it a baby. Before that it’s cancer.
|
It's not uncomfortable, you're just acting like White Out with the "answer my question" "why won't you answer my question" "you didn't answer my question because it's uncomfortable" when the problem is the fact that the question is a pointless waste of time to everyone but you.
It's great that you like these hypotheticals that are supposed to reveal some greater moral truth or test the consistency of our morals but that sort of defies the reality of being human, which is that morals are culture and context dependent and evolve all the time. What you need to realize is that just because you make up a hypothetical you think is meaningful, one that allows
you to test your
own moral consistency, doesn't mean it's worthy of a response or a "tough question" or relevant to anyone else. It's not uncomfortable, it's silly.
"Should abortion be banned altogether when a lil 4 week bean can survive in the TX1101 Box, fed with Soylent Green until the age of 5 when it is released into the wild?" Sure man. Ban it I guess. Tough question you got there. But nobody is going to care when you ban it since in this hypothetical future abortion won't exist as women who don't wish to have a baby will have it painlessly extracted alive and well and placed into the Womb X Birth Pod. But of course, how you feel about this doesn't matter and can't be morally consistent, because it's just a precursor to the future where sex is for-pleasure only and "birth" is done 100% artificially with the eggs and semen extracted by both parties and placed into the Womb X10 Birth Pod where the parents then select which genetic traits they want their baby to acquire. In fact, natural birth, given the danger of it in comparison, will be criminalized. So technically, giving birth is morally wrong, if we care about being morally consistent with the hypothetical future.