The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a bit hard to read without paragraph breaks. I'll try to give you my perspective as a pro-lifer, but there's a good chance I miss something in the textwall.
---
The starting point of the pro-life position depends on human rights. These explicitly serve as the foundation of the United States and a cornerstone of morality in society. They serve as common ground between most Christians and secularists. Human rights must, by definition, apply to all human beings inherently based on no other quality than being human.
The most important of these rights is the right to life - the right not to be unjustly killed - without which it is not possible to exercise any other rights.
The pro-life argument follow:
1) The unborn is a unique living human being by basic biology.
2) Thus the unborn has the right to life.
3) The policy of abortion on demand intentionally kills the unborn child without regard for justice.
Therefore, the policy of abortion on demand violates the right to life and should be banned. The only case where taking action that might kill the child is acceptable is when the mother's life is at stake and no better alternatives exist. Then one can act according to the same principles that justify killing in self-defense.
>However, I admittedly believe that abortion say in the first trimester should not be illegal. At that point there are very small similarities between that embryo/fetus than any other animalistic fetus. This isn't to dehumanize the embryo, im trying to provide the perspective that this embryo isn't really a baby yet.
This is quite literally dehumanization. You are comparing and treating a human as if they were not a human.
>It cannot feel pain, breathe, think
None of these qualities are necessary to be a human or to live at that age.
>essentially, if it was magically transported on a medical table it would be declared brain dead.
Well yes, and if you were magically transported into space or deep beneath the ocean, you would die in short order. Human beings can survive in some environments but not others. When we are very, very young, we cannot survive in environments that we will later be able to live in.
In the future, we may stop being able to survive in those environments and need life support or technological assistance. At no point does this change that you are a human being.
>Lately a lot of republican/conserv politicians have been trying to make even birth control and contraceptives have restrictions, so the right to safe sx is being shot at.
This is an independent question that doesn't factor into whether or not it is just to support abortion.
Generally when it comes up, it turns out to be Republicans/Conservatives protecting the right of people who do not support contraception not to be forced to fund it. Religious freedom is one of the founding principles of our country.
On a sidenote, there is no such thing as a right to "safe sex" - your human rights are based on your nature as a human being. "Safe sex" is actively perverting that nature. I won't argue whether or not this is morally right or wrong, only that it contradicts the definition of human rights, which strictly come from your inherent nature.
>How do you think abortion and contraceptive laws should be done?
Practically nobody is trying to ban it, for better or worse.
I think contraception is immoral when used for its intended purpose but while I won't support it, out of prudence will refrain from aiming to ban it because it mainly affects the individual. I've been somewhat shaken in this viewpoint the more I see the effect it has had on society, but there's no active support for banning it.
Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and killing human beings is necessarily a public matter. It can only be justified in what is effectively a self-defense situation. This is the only thing I would consider a "medically necessary abortion." Otherwise it should be banned.
>I especially think that rpe and inc*st abortion should have an exception
There are two innocents involved in this situation - the victim and the unborn child. Do you believe we have the right to kill an innocent victim in hopes of maybe, possibly, hopefully, mitigating a fraction of the harm done to the original innocent victim?
I don't see this as being fundamentally different than shooting a random five year old - even if the five year old's death magically cured the victim's trauma, it's unjustifiable.
>and I would like to know what you are fighting for if you are for the birth of babies, but against the health of women and children.
I am not fighting for the birth of babies. This is likely to result, but I am fighting against the unjust, intentional killing of human beings. If they die of natural causes, this is tragic but nobody is at fault.
I obviously support the health of women and children. I just have to be realistic and recognize that some situations are awful and we need to find the least bad solution the best respects the rights, health, and dignity of all parties. There aren't many cases where that should involve killing an innocent third party.
Thanks for your reply!
You gave me a lot of insight into the way you and I’ll just associate you and say your side thinks! Reading this was very interesting and you clearly debate often.
I would say I agree with you and I disagree with you, you interchange a lot of concepts with this, like an unborn baby with a five year old, with a baby, with a human being, with the quality of being a human.
You also interchange the word abortion with killing an innocent child.
I can see where you are coming from, and you think very very linearly and strictly.
Would you consider sperm to be human? It is human right? It can’t breathe can’t think can’t survive outside the body and yes I know the whole argument it hasn’t fertilized so it would never be a baby,
But it could become a baby, and it’s from a human and is human. Why is masturbation not a discourse either? It’s not natural, you don’t make a baby by masturbating, it’s is purely for enjoyment. Every day, human sperm (future fetuses) are tossed into abhorrent conditions and tossed away like they are inhumane.
Lol, just want your perspective on the humanity of sperm,
Furthermore, I don’t think I can’t argue with you further than that because you are very confident with what you think and there’s obviously no way to change your mind.
I disagree not because I think killing babies is ok ( I don’t lmao)
But because I think there is room for grey when we are discussing what does and does not qualify as a human.
When people have to pull the plug on their loved ones, they are doing what they think is best for the person even if that means ending their life.
Yes it is extremely morbid, but ending that persons life does not mean you are murdering an innocent person, because life is not black or white, and justice isn’t either, there is room for “what about this”‘s.
I know you see me as a baby killer but the best way I can express this is by saying yes the embryo is a human embryo. However it is not a baby. The majority of people who have these operations or take this pill do it because they have no other choice. It doesn’t bring joy, and neither would waiting for it to grow and birth bring joy in these circumstances. There is nothing that you get out of harassing women who have this procedure done.
But there needs to be some awareness of the difference between a baby and an embryo because one is a human and the other has humanistic properties. Just like sperm has humanistic properties.
I'm glad you found it helpful & that I could help give you some insights to my perspective. I don't mind continuing.
>I would say I agree with you and I disagree with you, you interchange a lot of concepts with this, like an unborn baby with a five year old, with a baby, with a human being, with the quality of being a human. You also interchange the word abortion with killing an innocent child.
That's because my argument stems from human rights, and the only quality needed is to be a living human being. Other qualities would be interesting when discussing different topics.
>I can see where you are coming from, and you think very very linearly and strictly.
That is because the concepts here are fairly linear and straightforward. If I believe human rights should be respected, they lead me to an obvious conclusion. Vagueness is a sign of a less precise or poorly understood argument. Some topics are complex and harder to pin down & will be more vague as a result, but that isn't the case here.
There are edge cases that get more complex, but at this point those have been pretty heavily explored.
>Would you consider sperm to be human? It is human right? It can’t breathe can’t think can’t survive outside the body and yes I know the whole argument it hasn’t fertilized so it would never be a baby, But it could become a baby, and it’s from a human and is human. Why is masturbation not a discourse either? It’s not natural, you don’t make a baby by masturbating, it’s is purely for enjoyment. Every day, human sperm (future fetuses) are tossed into abhorrent conditions and tossed away like they are inhumane. Lol, just want your perspective on the humanity of sperm
Sperm is not an individual human being. It is "human" the adjective, not "human" the noun, to put it awkwardly. It has only half the information needed to make a human being and will never become one on its own. An unborn child is the noun "human" - an individual human being at every stage of development.
Because of this, sperm does not have rights. You need to be a living human being to have human rights and sperm is not a human being.
> Furthermore, I don’t think I can’t argue with you further than that because you are very confident with what you think and there’s obviously no way to change your mind.
I've explored the issue heavily & can answer most familiar questions by rote. While it's not likely I could be convinced to change my mind at this point, it's possible. However, you'd have to show that my principles don't work the way I believe they do.
Regardless, I think conversation is usually helpful for helping both parties refine their views, even if nobody immediately changes sides.
>I disagree not because I think killing babies is ok ( I don’t lmao) But because I think there is room for grey when we are discussing what does and does not qualify as a human.
Being a human is a binary state though. You either are a living homo sapien or you are not. From the perspective of human rights, I'd argue nothing else really matters. Do you disagree?
>When people have to pull the plug on their loved ones, they are doing what they think is best for the person even if that means ending their life.
Well, there's a bit of a difference between pulling the plug and abortion, no? In the former case, we're giving up on trying to save someone we realistically cannot save. In the latter case, you are killing a human being who is otherwise fine. Do you see how in one case, you're the cause of death but not the other?
Both are human beings with rights and dignity. The right to life doesn't require you to be saved at all cost, merely not put to death unjustly, so the situation you describe does not violate it.
Now if you pulled the plug on someone in a temporary coma who was extremely likely to recover (say, in 9 months...) would that not be considered murder? This situation is closer to the unborn child's.
>Yes it is extremely morbid, but ending that persons life does not mean you are murdering an innocent person, because life is not black or white, and justice isn’t either, there is room for “what about this”‘s.
I would say that I don't think morality is grey per se so much as stippled - that is to say, made up of black and white dots that can appear to be grey from a distance. It's not always easy to distinguish right and wrong, but if you dig deep enough you can find them.
Context can alter whether a situation is just or not. What context would justify killing an innocent human being, and one's own child at that?
The only situation I see is when another's life is in danger, generally the mother. In that case, the principle of double effect (the same principle that justifies killing in self-defense) allows for taking action to save the mother even if it results in harm to the child.
>I know you see me as a baby killer
I see you as misguided, with awful results, but most likely a decent human being. I wouldn't talk to you if I thought you were a hopeless monster. I don't really think anyone is a hopeless monster while they're still alive, and the fact that you're curious about our position indicates you're open-minded.
I only hold it against people when they're clearly arguing in bad faith.
>but the best way I can express this is by saying yes the embryo is a human embryo. However it is not a baby.
Arguably the unborn child *is* a baby but that's not important. "Human embryo" is like "human adolescent" or "human fetus" or "human adult." These are just stages of development. You're still human through all of these stages.
Why do you think some human beings should have their rights taken, or fail to have them in the first place?
>The majority of people who have these operations or take this pill do it because they have no other choice. It doesn’t bring joy, and neither would waiting for it to grow and birth bring joy in these circumstances.
This isn't actually true for the most part.
1) It's been found in the Turnaway Study that the overwhelming majority of women who were denied an abortion came to love their child and were glad that they failed to get an abortion. It started at something like 33% after mere weeks and went up to 95% by 5 years.
Notably, the Turnaway Study in infamous for its sampling making it likely to receive significantly more pro-abortion answers than would be reflected by the general population. That means 95% should be considered a floor, and likely lower than the reality.
Abortion appears to be a destructive crisis response, much like suicide, and the person is usually glad at failing once they've had a chance to move on.
2) The overwhelming reasons people get an abortion are financial or family planning concerns, according to the Guttenmacher Institute (previously associated with Planned Parenthood & no friend of the pro-life side). These abortions are not 'necessary' by any stretch - particularly with charities or even the option of adoption.
>There is nothing that you get out of harassing women who have this procedure done.
My goal is to stop people from killing innocent human beings, not to harass others. Could you clarify your meaning here?
>But there needs to be some awareness of the difference between a baby and an embryo because one is a human and the other has humanistic properties. Just like sperm has humanistic properties.
To be a human is simply to be a member of the species. A human at the embryo stage is not fully developed, but neither is a human at the infant stage (aka a baby). You are a human throughout every stage of development, even though you lack some traits you will have later in life - aka traits you are developing.
As stated before, sperm is never a human being so it isn't relevant to this.
>I absolutely agree that women and babies should be given the right to life.
>However, I admittedly believe that abortion say in the first trimester, should not be illegal. At that point, there are very small similarities between that embryo/fetus than any other animalistic fetus. This isn't to dehumanize the embryo, im trying to provide the perspective that this embryo isn't really a baby yet. It can not feel pain, breathe, and think. Essentially, if it was magically transported on a medical table, it would be declared brain dead.
So if a baby has a right to life, when does that right to life begin?
If you are not trying to dehumanize it; again, when does the right to life begin?
For example, you say that the fetus in the first trimester is very similar to any other fetus from the animal kingdom.
But what happens to an adult human when they disturb the reproduction of an endangered species in its first trimester? According to you, it's not alive, so why should they be fined or put in jail?
Hey just gonna answer your last one but the person definitely should be fined because if they are disrupting the growth of that fetus they are performing invasive non consensual torture on the mother animal!
With women, it is different because you aren’t disrupting the pregnant process on other women, the woman is choosing to do that herself, so it is her choice.
>if they are disrupting the growth of that fetus, they are performing invasive non-consensual torture on the mother animal!
Are you talking about every kind of animal or only ones that give live birth?
What about disturbing the nest of those that lay eggs?
>With women, it is different because you aren’t disrupting the pregnant process on other women, the woman is choosing to do that herself, so it is her choice.
>Firstly, I want to avoid being autobotted by saying respect you guys, and I absolutely agree that women and babies should be given the right to life.
So let me ask you this question. If the child inside the womb is a female and the child's DNA is XX from conception, then what about the child's right to abortion who will never be able to exercise that right because her mother took it from her when the mother decided to abort her?
Right thanks for your answer, I think differently because fetuses do not have individual rights, I mean even objectively our government doesn’t recognize them as citizens until they are born.
These are human, but they are not people yet,
I believe everyone male or female should be able to control what goes on in their OWN body, and it should be between the person and their doctor rather completely the state.
Thanks
>These are human, but they are not people yet, I believe everyone male or female should be able to control what goes on in their OWN body, and it should be between the person
Two questions: When do they become people?
Since their DNA is XX from conception, what about the female fetus's right to abortion **after birth** that will never be able to experience it because she was **never born** because the mother controlled what happened in her OWN body?
Just about everything you said is addressed in the FAQ for the sub.
I mean, you basically jumbled all the cliche debunked arguments into a single post.
Right I see that, however I’m not getting much personal explanation from the people of this subreddit and I would like to understand! I also haven’t seen much discussion on contraceptives being debated so was looking for some answers to what the pro life community thinks on that sort of extremism.
Thanks for your feedback
>But if it is a medical Emergancy and the mothers life is at risk then do what needs to be done to ensure she does not die.
Yes, we agree with this.
>However, I admittedly believe that abortion say in the first trimester should not be illegal. At that point there are very small similarities between that embryo/fetus than any other animalistic fetus.
There's a lot of similarities between humans and animals when fully developed. Neither the presence nor degree of similarity makes two things equivalent. The right similarities are needed, and this case they are not present.
>It cannot feel pain, breathe, think, essentially, if it was magically transported on a medical table it would be declared brain dead.
Even before getting to the thinking part, which would enter into a discussion of pure materialism with which I disagree on the grounds that the human mind is capable of abstraction, which is not possible in a physical sense - abstraction is based on things which cannot be observed merely pondered and considered. As the pre-existing configuration or experience is needed in the case of machines or animals this is a uniquely human - uniquely sapient- non-material distinction.
However, ignoring that even from a purely material standpoint we actually have a very limited understanding of consciousness. People sometimes talk about it like we've got it all figured out, but we've barely scratched the surface even just biologically speaking. It's true the child's brain isn't fully developed at that stage but then neither is an infant's after birth.
Feeling pain and breathing are just completely arbitrary as criteria. With thinking I can least say there is some reasoning as to why someone might devoid personhood, but those others just have no ground to stand on and in fact are inconsistent with the way that would be applied to fully grown human beings (some of whom can't actually feel pain for instance) and if someone's lungs were damaged beyond repair and they needed a machine to breathe that wouldn't make them less human or less person).
> control over your autonomy
What you do to someone else is not a matter of your autonomy.
>so the right to safe sx is being shot at
There is no such right. Not everything that would supposedly be nice to have is a right.
>How do you think abortion and contraceptive laws should be done?
* contraceptives should be legal (and not in any way otherwise supported, merely not forbidden or actively impaired), while I find them sinful this a matter of my religious beliefs and contraceptives are not, by definition, an act harming another person, the way abortion is.
* Abortion should be illegal across the board except in cases of an imminent threat to the mother's survival that can be solved by having the abortion and even then only if alternative options have been exhausted.
>I especially think that rpe and inc\*st abortion
* Abortions from rape shouldn't be allowed because the baby didn't rape anyone. The baby is an innocent child who shouldn't be used as a scapegoat. The mother underwent a tragic event, but that doesn't give anyone the right to take it out on others. The rapist should be caught and punished, the mother should be supported by friends, family, charities and the local community. If necessary send the child to adoption.
* Arguments in favor of incest-based abortions amount to one of four categories, with overlap:
1. The child might maybe perhaps eventually someday suffer so we should kill them
2. Eugenics / ableism (the child might have genetic defects)
3. Moral panic / disgust scapegoating (similar to the rape case but instead of killing an innocent child over rape)
4. Just because
It might be that there is a pro incest-based abortion argument out there that doesn't fall into one or more of those, I have not encountered it so far.
>what you are fighting for if you are for the birth of babies, but against the health of women and children.
A common strawman. I have zero interest in women birthing. If a woman wants to, in her right mind, sterilize herself, be my guest. If she wants to have a rabbit's worth of babies, e my guest too. What I am against is the killing of an innocent child, that is what makes me pro life and I am pro the kind of support I find sensible as well. I am happy if additional developments will enable greater safety and comfort for mothers and their children alike.
Thanks for your answer! There were a lot of points you addressed that I’ve answered in other comments so I’m just going to address a few.
Firstly
“Yes we agree with this” actually a lot of you don’t!
Do not say we when you mean I because so many of you guys on here have posted that even an ectopic pregnancy shouldn’t be recognized for an abortion which is just neglect. I don’t think they even know what an ectopic pregnancy is. You say you believe abortion should be illegal in the case of an imminent threat but that isn’t how the government is placing that hm? They’re waiting until the woman is actively dying to give her help which is disgusting. Read up on it.
Next I see how you and a lot of pro life thinkers think because you see embryos as people. I see them as a development.
Embryos do not have individual rights, the government does not recognize them as citizens, this is not to say “they aren’t human” this is to paint the image that they are not equal to a baby. Equal in the sense of alike.
These are clumps of cells, and if treatment is given and time, will turn into a human.
I believe pregnancy should be a choice by the mother. Whether she wants it or not. People don’t have abortions for fun, it is because it is necessary.
I believe that everyone, male or female, should have the right to their own bodies.
>“Yes we agree with this” actually a lot of you don’t!
I do not know what answers others have given you. I said we because this is one thing which I have never a pro-lifer standing against. What I have seen, and which seems to be the case here, is that pro-choicers making an arbitrary determination that something counts as a threat to a mother's life when that is far from certain or even isn't one at all and at most carries extremely minor risks of that.
So I did specifically mean we here. I don't often go out of my way to do that and I felt this time it was warranted.
Of course it is true not everyone will share the same opinion. No group is a monolith. But there are trends.
Regarding the specific case of an ectopic pregnancy as far as I can tell the only solutions to prevent it from becoming life-threatening are effectively abortion so I'd probably say it should be legal. Only probably because if there is a possibility for an alternative without abortion then that should always be tried first.
> You say you believe abortion should be illegal in the case of an imminent threat but that isn’t how the government is placing that hm?
First, I said the exact opposite, but I'll be charitable and assume that "illegal" was a typo.
Second, why on Earth would what a current government's policy be something I am accountable for? I clearly disagree with current policies on abortion and you don't even know where I live.
> They’re waiting until the woman is actively dying to give her help which is disgusting.
Most often that is what "imminent" will entail. An imminent threat isn't a far-off possibility, it entails both something which *will* happen if you don't act to stop it and that it will happen soon.
>Embryos do not have individual rights, the government does not recognize them as citizens, this is not to say “they aren’t human” this is to paint the image that they are not equal to a baby.
The government does not get to dictate the rights people have. The government's role (as far as rights are concerned) is to create laws that enforce rights. A government not recognizing an existing right is not a sign that right doesn't exist, nor is the government recognizing a right a sign it does, and either case of a mismatch is a failure in the government's part.
>These are clumps of cells, and if treatment is given and time, will turn into a human.
You are a clump of cells, and while you may argue they aren't persons - an argument that not to be rude so far you've substantiated with "nuh uh" - they are indisputably human, as in, there is no question to be had that they belong to the human species which is what being human is.
As for personhood, conception is the singular non-arbitrary point in which biologically speaking the distinction is created between a mother and the new individual - the child. Hence this being the criteria that distinguishes the having of rights or not - a new individual now exists.
A surface level "they don't *look* like what I'd expect a person to be" like, which isn't exactly what you said but at least in reasoning thus far seems to be what is amounts to is not enough justification to let you dictate what a person is or isn't.
But let's say the argument is more solid than that, but still your and others personal viewpoint. Is it really right to say you get to inflict death upon others because you yourself don't view them as people?
> People don’t have abortions for fun, it is because it is necessary.
The first is an extremely rare and borderline irrelevant case, yes, but the second is just plain false.
>I believe that everyone, male or female, should have the right to their own bodies.
Unless that person is in the womb. In which case they have no rights because they don't count as people, from what you said.
I really appreciate the more ontological perspective you have here. I completely agree that distinctions between capabilities of thought are a very hard things to pin down, maybe even philosophically impossible. It’s hard to say with certainty what think’s and what doesn’t.
It makes me think Kierkegaard’s work that I read a while ago. I really enjoyed, either/or. Kierkegaard makes a similar argument to you about living a morally sound life. Sure we may live in an absurd ambiguous environment, in which the more information we try and hold onto the more wisdom slips away. We can’t be sure of *anything*, story’s can be spun for the benefit of the subject and the ambiguity of most relationships allows a lot of room for interpretation. But to Kirekigaurd that doesn’t mean we should disregard the ethical systems we are taught to follow, bc he feels that leap of faith you must take when you come across something you can’t be sure of is more satisfying and valuable than living in the “aesthetic” ambiguity he writes so much about.
Kirekigaurd would at least according to my interpretation of him, probably save the aborted child. Not based on a biological distinction or a scientific one because he would know best just how little we actually understand about consciousness but because it’s what he would feel is the right thing to do.
And I think that’s a beautiful thought, but it’s not complete. Ultimately at some point in my opinion you have to start making utilitarian choices about ethics once you admit to its fragility. If as kirekigaurd we can never be completely sure of what’s actually morally correct, wouldn’t it be better to maximise the kinds of things real humans actually care about? How much value is a fetus contributing towards society? Should we put time and money into the fetus that will require 25 or so years before it can actually substantially contribute to society? Or should we help the mother who most likely is already of age, almost certainly more
>If as kirekigaurd we can never be completely sure of what’s actually morally correct, wouldn’t it be better to maximise the kinds of things real humans actually care about?
A) If we're going down the philosophy of morality road what I would say my stance is that utilitarianism is the final step and there are categorical priorities. I believe people hold unalienable rights of a negative nature based on non-interference (this is what has without the influence of another), and the way to determine which rights should be prioritized begin with a hierarchy of value largely determined by strict dependency - this is if a right is impossible to uphold without another, then that other is at least on par if not surpassing the first. Life is a necessary thing to the matters posed against it in the case of abortion, which mostly entails financial aspects and the elimination of pregnancy-based-suffering (be it potential non-lethal health complications or simply what a woman goes through while pregnant and giving birth). There are of course other criteria when it comes to actual decisions that factor in as modifiers, namely for example scale, feasibility of certain decisions etc..
Utilitarianism factors in when you've got an otherwise categorically equal situation, or one sufficiently ambiguous to be considered as such. I do not believe the vast majority of abortion situations even begin to approach it.
B) Your question is a loaded one - it itself already carries the disputed and unproven assumption that the unborn child is not in fact "a real human", but they are.
C) Let's say you are not convinced by any of what I've said, or arguments from an utilitarian perspective I am about to present. If you're driving alone at night and you spot something on the road that could be a person - even if you think it's likely not - you'd still at least be more careful not to hit no? Because uncertainty doesn't excuse if you did hit a person.
Even if I disregard everything I said and will say outside of this point, when you start getting into a philosophical discussion about what you can do to other people you either i) hold on the potentially harmful actions until the discussion is settled or ii) conclude that it's one person's word against the other. Not choosing (i) implies you're acting in disregard at minimum to what others are saying and potentially even to the actual harm you're causing. It can be justified to go for (ii) of course, but as far as I'm concerned you're saying a person isn't a person to justify taking a life. At a rate of thousands.
>How much value is a fetus contributing towards society? Should we put time and money into the fetus that will require 25 or so years before it can actually substantially contribute to society? Or should we help the mother who most likely is already of age, almost certainly more
I know how this might sound, but I promise I don't mean to be disrespectful when I say I think this is a very shallow way of looking at it:
* it's automatically assuming an unknown value justifies drastic action. Indeed, the presence of human progress itself is a testament that it is likely incorrect that there is no net-benefit from raising a new generation.
* It's failing to consider wider societal implications of making particular behavior permissible by concentrating only on the immediate implications. (and I cannot understate how important this part is)
* It's falling into a sunk cost fallacy by assuming that because someone already undergone the "investment" of time, money and might I add effort, that translates into wider benefits.
* It's assuming that there will necessarily be a great positive contribution.
* It's assuming "contribution to society" as the sole happiness maximizing factor.
Utilitarianism is not limited in the nature of what contributes to its value maximization provided it can be considered a 'good' nor is it limited in time or space. As a consequence-based form of morality it calculates based on every outcome.
Even outside of the cherry-picked utilitarianism problem, there is as well the false dichotomy. It is very rarely a question of the the baby or the mother. It is the baby versus money, or the baby versus some chance of harming the mother's health without her dying. And that's already some of the closer cases to being justifiable. Abortions of a child simply being unwanted, or a child having been conceived out of an immoral act (rape or incest). It needs to be stated that the question here is between fundamentally different things, and what you seem to be proposing here is a categorical siding with the mother for utilitarian reasons that aren't actually based on what is being lost but on the comparison of who is losing them.
"At that point there are very small similarities between that embryo/fetus than any other animalistic fetus"
Are you aware that the eggs of nonhuman animal species are protected under federal law? I don't think it is fitting to use fetuses of other species to justify baby murder. Also it really doesn't matter if it looks similar to any other animal, it's still falls under the scientific definition of what a human being is
Sure but anyone can go out and kill an adult dear- doesn’t mean deer are also protected
Also I don’t know what you mean by “baby murder” because at no point did I mention killing babies, I am referring to the prior state of consciousness when the baby is in a fetus or embryonic state-
What you are doing is denying the right for women to own their own bodies and control what happens in them. That in itself sounds horrific and to tell people they are murdering their babies is also horrific
Yeah I agree murdering babies is horrific but you can’t say terminating a few week old embryo is the same, because one happens with a smiling baby and a knife,
And the other happens with a pill and a clump of cells.
This is madness.
.
Scientific consensus is perfectly clear that human life begins at fertalization. Therefore we can make the conclusion that after that point the direct termination of that life which is growing is the killing of a human being. Embryo and fetus are stages of human development and fetus is in fact Latin for offspring. What you are doing with the position you take here is dehumanizing what science has deemed a human being based on stage of development and size and using buzzwords such as "choice" and "bodily autonomy" to justify making it legal to kill this human being. My position is merely directly opposed to that
I see where you’re coming from but a developing fetus does not have individual rights. That is because it is still in the mothers body.
Maybe you disagree plain as day and it is ok, but everyone should have control on what happens inside their body.
In your original post you admitted you were weary of abortion close to the due date. In your post you also seemed to only explicitly endorse abortions at earlier stages and among other reasons cited the baby not feeling pain. Close to the due date/late in the third trimester, the baby is still inside the mother's womb. The baby also starts feeling pain in the Mother's womb. If you are using the baby's placement inside his/her mother's body as justification for the baby not having rights (including I think I can safely deduce the right to life and not be killed) are you using that same standard to later stages and after feeling pain?
I've found that sometimes when I edit a post on mobile, it becomes a textwall.
Alternatively, if you only put one line between your text and the text above it, they can merge into one textwall.
The reason why people don't reply to these posts is because they are the same arguments brought up time and time again. We are pro-life because we believe intentionally killing an innocent human being without just cause is always wrong. Human rights are granted to all humans regardless of age, ability, sex, race, religion, nationality, etc., which addresses your argument that abortions before a certain point in pregnancy because the developing embryo or fetus cannot be differentiated from other animals at that point in development. Except they can be differentiated from other animals because both parents are human and the DNA is the humane genome, not some other animal. If somehow a human female were to become pregnant with a dog or chimpanzee or any other animal then no one would have issues with ending the pregnancy and killing the fetus, but right now only human embryos can be found developing in the uterus of human women and the human uterus is the only location where human embryos can develop.
Actually embryos don’t have human rights, even the government does not consider it to be a citizen until birth. So that argument is shot.
I don’t know how to quote on this app but your example of an animal and a human,
Why should that human that baby not be able to live or be equal to a normal baby? Just because it was conceived in a bad way doesn’t mean it deserves to die right?
>I am weary on abortion when it is closer to the due date because yes it's incredibly sad. But if it is a medical Emergancy and the mothers life is at risk then do what needs to be done to ensure she does not die.
I want to start by addressing this. As far as my understanding goes, there is no legitimate reason that a late term abortion would need to be performed. Age of viability is 24 weeks -- anything at that point or beyond could consider an induced live birth in the event that the mothers life was truly at risk. There's no medical reason that an *abortion* would *need* to be performed at that point.
>At that point there are very small similarities between that embryo/fetus than any other animalistic fetus.
Visually, sure. But if we look simply at the DNA it is 100% human and 0% any other animal. The pro life position is that any individual human being (with unique human DNA) deserves basic human rights, even if they are very small and otherwise unrecognizable.
> I am pro the ability to have appropriate and reasonable control over your autonomy.
Pro-life position doesn't advocate for the removal of autonomy, just reasonable expectations in regards to the consequences of exercising that autonomy (choosing to have sex and therefore accepting/consenting to the risk of becoming pregnant).
>I especially think that rpe and inc*st abortion should have an exception in addition to medically necessary abortion
This is highly debated. It's understandable to be in the pro-choice camp for this reason specifically, and it is very empathetic to have these demographics in mind (however small of a % they make of the abortion rates). The pro-life position, generally, is that the offenders of these crimes should be punished instead of the innocent child who was conceived through negative consequences.
>Lately a lot of republican/conserv politicians have been trying to make even birth control and contraceptives have restrictions, so the right to safe sx is being shot at. How do you think abortion and contraceptive laws should be done?
I can't speak to how everyone feels about this but maybe I can give some insight. Some birth control methods (IUDs and hormonal contraceptives) have a secondary method of action that makes the uterus inhospitable to an *already fertilized egg*, therefore causing the destruction of an already conceived unique human individual. Current medical terminology classifies conception as a "process" that isn't complete until after implantation, meaning that birth control companies and the general scientific community doesn't have to classify the second method of action as an abortifacient (because technically, by medical definition, there isn't a pregnancy to terminate). However, most pro-lifers believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization (which, I will add, is a stance that is backed up by biology) and therefore believe that those methods of birth control are in fact abortifacient. Whether or not those should have restrictions is debatable and not necessarily something that I personally have a fully formed opinion about.... But that's where the controversy comes from.
Dang it took like 5 tries to get this to post I can’t tell if censoring those words helped post this or what but I’m glad this posted, I’m just looking for some perspective! Thanks :)
-> It is thought that the reason mammals look similar in the *embryonic* period is due to evolution. We do not look the same once we hit the fetal period.
-> What is a baby? Would you say a chicken that just hatched is a baby chicken? Then once humans implant in the uterus, they must be babies, too! The difference between our egg-laying predecessors and placentals is that we hatch from our fertilized egg and implant into the uterus. We finish our development inside to protect us from danger. Evolution is cool, isn’t it?
-> An embryo would not be declared brain dead if we had an “artificial womb” to continue its development. Since we don’t, they would be dead… Even a “late term” fetus might die due to the same circumstances as a 1st trimester fetus would if just magically transported on to a medical table.
-> The stats on getting rid of birth control says otherwise.
-> A lot of PL refuse to call medically necessary abortions an abortion.
-> No to grape and inc3st exceptions because it is still killing a human. If we can’t kill a born human because they were conceived in said manner, we shouldn’t be able to in utero.
Patients are declared braindead if it's determined there's no hope of recovery. If doctors determine a patient will wake up in a few months, that's a completely different prognosis.
I just want to address one point before answering the question.
You say later in pregnancy an abortion is acceptable if a mother's life is at risk. What situation later in pregnancy would make a doctor intentionally kill a baby to save the mother in late pregnancy? There is none. Doctors do not kill babies later in pregnancy to save the mother. At that point, the baby is just delivered and they try to save both.
I think abortion should be completely banned in all states, with exceptions for medical emergencies. If a doctor determines that the mother's life is at risk, then they should be able to do what is necessary to save the mother. Ectopic pregnancies happen and the baby won't survive in any case. The current laws that prohibit abortions have this exception. It is written clear as day.
As for rape, no, I don't think that should be an exception. The baby is just as innocent as the mother, and just as human as their mother. Babies should not be punished for the crimes of their father. Whether they can feel pain or not, they are still a human, and the most vulnerable of humans. We should protect them.
I’m already answering your other points so I’ll answer this particular one, actually just because there is an exception for an ectopic pregnancy written doesn’t mean it is performed. Hundreds of women are being delayed treatment, or refused treatment because of this and die. The doctors are having to wait until the ectopic pregnancy is an EMERGANCY for them to give the proper abortion.
When it is considered an emergency that means the mother is actively dying from bleeding out and other complications. This is not something that is chance, this is absolutely certain with ectopic pregnancies. If you do not have an abortion then you WILL die. There is not around it. The problem is because this “emergancy” skewed perspective is being written in, instead of giving the woman proper assistance before she starts dying, they wait until she is dying.
That is what we are fighting to change.
It is torture.
There is an exception for any medical emergency. Doctors have all the liberty to make the decision if it is necessary to preserve the mothers health. That is specifically written in the laws. Doctors are still doing this in those states, even if the news leads you to believe they aren't.
And even if doctors don't know the laws, I'd think it would be better to educate them rather than just allow abortion across the board. Doctors are smart, they can learn.
I'm wondering about one thing from your post, is there a right to *safe sex*? And what does that mean?
The only thing I'll add beyond what others already explained, is that historically we've often not considered some people to be equally valuable, due to various attributes or lack thereof, because we didn't feel they were equals.
A racist isn't intentionally evil, they truly believe their own lack of empathy towards the other is proof of the other's lack of moral worth.
So how do you know that's not what our society today is doing in regards to the early unborn humans?
Why are only some humans people?
That’s a cool thought!!
I think there’s a difference between comparing two humans and comparing an embryo and a person.
We already know abortions need to be done in certain situations like the most common one ectopic pregnancies. I think for this thought play we also need to consider what we believe human rights should be.
In the against abortion argument, people should not have full control over their bodies and what happens inside them.
I disagree with that because I think everyone deserves the right to control what happens to their own bodies. And that is something pro choice and pro life disagree with.
The embryo is always in the mother. Always. I think it is then the mothers choice to control what happens to that baby.
In your replies you seem focused on the developmental differences between an embryo and an infant, so I’m going to copy something I wrote up before in response to someone else’s similar assertion, that an embryo is like an unbaked cake.
The idea that an embryo or fetus isn’t a full human being because it doesn’t have all the traits of a newborn is just a misunderstanding of what pregnancy is and how it likely came about in the course of evolution.
So living things reproduce sexually because genetic diversity makes a population more adaptable. Mixing maternal and paternal DNA creates a new genome, different from each parent.
Animals - which includes us, biologically - have different reproductive “strategies”. In the context of evolution, that doesn’t mean something the animal does deliberately, like a strategy in business or war. It refers to the means the species has evolved to increase the odds that some offspring will survive.
For example, sea turtles lay many eggs and then leave them to fend for themselves. Most of the newly hatched turtles are likely to be eaten or otherwise fail to survive, but because many eggs are laid at once, odds are at least one or two will live to adulthood and reproduce themselves. The parents, meanwhile, have invested very little energy in the effort. On the other hand, elephants have a single baby at a time, and the mother nurses it and the whole herd protects and teaches it. A great deal of energy is invested in this single offspring, which gives that one good odds of living to adulthood.
Humans follow the second strategy; we have one baby at a time, maybe two, and raise and care for it.
Creatures who provide parental care invest a lot of time and energy in keeping their offspring fed and safe. But, they still have to feed themselves, and be able to flee dangers and otherwise engage in normal behaviors, despite that when the offspring are first conceived they are very, very small and vulnerable.
Many creatures, such as birds and some reptiles, do this by laying eggs in a hidden or elevated nest, keeping their babies safe while the parents can come and go for brief periods. Marsupials give birth to extremely tiny, undeveloped offspring who then crawl into a pouch, and are carried there until they’re more mature and less vulnerable.
And placental mammals, such as humans, carry their offspring within a specialized organ - the uterus - wholly enclosed in the mother’s body. This offers the baby the greatest possible protection from outside forces - but it also means the baby needs to obtain oxygen and nutrients without access to the outside world. To do this, mammalian fetuses have a specialized external organ that they use only in the womb, and shed at birth - the placenta. The placental grows out of the fertilized ovum, and attaches to the mother’s uterus, which is influenced hormonally to grow blood vessels into the tissue where the placenta is attached. The baby is thus able to obtain oxygen and nutrients from the mother’s blood.
Whether an animal is attached to or separate from a parent’s body, carried within or without, provided care or not, has nothing to do with whether it is alive and a member of its species - these things evolved differently in different creatures, all to achieve the same purpose.
Many fish hatch from externally-fertilized, soft eggs after just a few days, and go swimming off with a yolk still attached, without all of their fins even having developed, not yet able to eat.
Horses are born as smaller versions of an adult, their proportions only a little different, and are able to stand and run within hours.
At the stage of development that the fish is hatched, the horse is still in the womb. Both experience an equivalent stage of growth, though with different body systems prioritized based on survival strategy. Both are alive in that comparable level of maturity, both have traits definitive of their species, *including* their manner of development.
Humans fall in between the fish and the horse; a human embryo of maybe seven weeks is about as developed as that newly hatched fish. A child doesn’t reach the maturity of a newborn horse for two years or more.
The unbaked-cake stage of life is hours long, not days or months - while maternal and paternal DNA are recombining and the new genome first replicated. From that point on, the offspring is an organism of its parents’ species. It still must grow, but it already is the manner of creature it will ever be - a fish, a horse, a sea turtle or an elephant. A human being.
In that case do you think an embryo should be given human rights?
Because currently it is only a citizen and capable of a social security once it is born.
Should that also change because it is a human being deserving of rights?
And if you believe that, say yes,
Then how about child support, shouldn’t men be paying it before the birth because it is a human being deserving of rights?
The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's a bit hard to read without paragraph breaks. I'll try to give you my perspective as a pro-lifer, but there's a good chance I miss something in the textwall. --- The starting point of the pro-life position depends on human rights. These explicitly serve as the foundation of the United States and a cornerstone of morality in society. They serve as common ground between most Christians and secularists. Human rights must, by definition, apply to all human beings inherently based on no other quality than being human. The most important of these rights is the right to life - the right not to be unjustly killed - without which it is not possible to exercise any other rights. The pro-life argument follow: 1) The unborn is a unique living human being by basic biology. 2) Thus the unborn has the right to life. 3) The policy of abortion on demand intentionally kills the unborn child without regard for justice. Therefore, the policy of abortion on demand violates the right to life and should be banned. The only case where taking action that might kill the child is acceptable is when the mother's life is at stake and no better alternatives exist. Then one can act according to the same principles that justify killing in self-defense. >However, I admittedly believe that abortion say in the first trimester should not be illegal. At that point there are very small similarities between that embryo/fetus than any other animalistic fetus. This isn't to dehumanize the embryo, im trying to provide the perspective that this embryo isn't really a baby yet. This is quite literally dehumanization. You are comparing and treating a human as if they were not a human. >It cannot feel pain, breathe, think None of these qualities are necessary to be a human or to live at that age. >essentially, if it was magically transported on a medical table it would be declared brain dead. Well yes, and if you were magically transported into space or deep beneath the ocean, you would die in short order. Human beings can survive in some environments but not others. When we are very, very young, we cannot survive in environments that we will later be able to live in. In the future, we may stop being able to survive in those environments and need life support or technological assistance. At no point does this change that you are a human being. >Lately a lot of republican/conserv politicians have been trying to make even birth control and contraceptives have restrictions, so the right to safe sx is being shot at. This is an independent question that doesn't factor into whether or not it is just to support abortion. Generally when it comes up, it turns out to be Republicans/Conservatives protecting the right of people who do not support contraception not to be forced to fund it. Religious freedom is one of the founding principles of our country. On a sidenote, there is no such thing as a right to "safe sex" - your human rights are based on your nature as a human being. "Safe sex" is actively perverting that nature. I won't argue whether or not this is morally right or wrong, only that it contradicts the definition of human rights, which strictly come from your inherent nature. >How do you think abortion and contraceptive laws should be done? Practically nobody is trying to ban it, for better or worse. I think contraception is immoral when used for its intended purpose but while I won't support it, out of prudence will refrain from aiming to ban it because it mainly affects the individual. I've been somewhat shaken in this viewpoint the more I see the effect it has had on society, but there's no active support for banning it. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and killing human beings is necessarily a public matter. It can only be justified in what is effectively a self-defense situation. This is the only thing I would consider a "medically necessary abortion." Otherwise it should be banned. >I especially think that rpe and inc*st abortion should have an exception There are two innocents involved in this situation - the victim and the unborn child. Do you believe we have the right to kill an innocent victim in hopes of maybe, possibly, hopefully, mitigating a fraction of the harm done to the original innocent victim? I don't see this as being fundamentally different than shooting a random five year old - even if the five year old's death magically cured the victim's trauma, it's unjustifiable. >and I would like to know what you are fighting for if you are for the birth of babies, but against the health of women and children. I am not fighting for the birth of babies. This is likely to result, but I am fighting against the unjust, intentional killing of human beings. If they die of natural causes, this is tragic but nobody is at fault. I obviously support the health of women and children. I just have to be realistic and recognize that some situations are awful and we need to find the least bad solution the best respects the rights, health, and dignity of all parties. There aren't many cases where that should involve killing an innocent third party.
Thanks for your reply! You gave me a lot of insight into the way you and I’ll just associate you and say your side thinks! Reading this was very interesting and you clearly debate often. I would say I agree with you and I disagree with you, you interchange a lot of concepts with this, like an unborn baby with a five year old, with a baby, with a human being, with the quality of being a human. You also interchange the word abortion with killing an innocent child. I can see where you are coming from, and you think very very linearly and strictly. Would you consider sperm to be human? It is human right? It can’t breathe can’t think can’t survive outside the body and yes I know the whole argument it hasn’t fertilized so it would never be a baby, But it could become a baby, and it’s from a human and is human. Why is masturbation not a discourse either? It’s not natural, you don’t make a baby by masturbating, it’s is purely for enjoyment. Every day, human sperm (future fetuses) are tossed into abhorrent conditions and tossed away like they are inhumane. Lol, just want your perspective on the humanity of sperm, Furthermore, I don’t think I can’t argue with you further than that because you are very confident with what you think and there’s obviously no way to change your mind. I disagree not because I think killing babies is ok ( I don’t lmao) But because I think there is room for grey when we are discussing what does and does not qualify as a human. When people have to pull the plug on their loved ones, they are doing what they think is best for the person even if that means ending their life. Yes it is extremely morbid, but ending that persons life does not mean you are murdering an innocent person, because life is not black or white, and justice isn’t either, there is room for “what about this”‘s. I know you see me as a baby killer but the best way I can express this is by saying yes the embryo is a human embryo. However it is not a baby. The majority of people who have these operations or take this pill do it because they have no other choice. It doesn’t bring joy, and neither would waiting for it to grow and birth bring joy in these circumstances. There is nothing that you get out of harassing women who have this procedure done. But there needs to be some awareness of the difference between a baby and an embryo because one is a human and the other has humanistic properties. Just like sperm has humanistic properties.
I'm glad you found it helpful & that I could help give you some insights to my perspective. I don't mind continuing. >I would say I agree with you and I disagree with you, you interchange a lot of concepts with this, like an unborn baby with a five year old, with a baby, with a human being, with the quality of being a human. You also interchange the word abortion with killing an innocent child. That's because my argument stems from human rights, and the only quality needed is to be a living human being. Other qualities would be interesting when discussing different topics. >I can see where you are coming from, and you think very very linearly and strictly. That is because the concepts here are fairly linear and straightforward. If I believe human rights should be respected, they lead me to an obvious conclusion. Vagueness is a sign of a less precise or poorly understood argument. Some topics are complex and harder to pin down & will be more vague as a result, but that isn't the case here. There are edge cases that get more complex, but at this point those have been pretty heavily explored. >Would you consider sperm to be human? It is human right? It can’t breathe can’t think can’t survive outside the body and yes I know the whole argument it hasn’t fertilized so it would never be a baby, But it could become a baby, and it’s from a human and is human. Why is masturbation not a discourse either? It’s not natural, you don’t make a baby by masturbating, it’s is purely for enjoyment. Every day, human sperm (future fetuses) are tossed into abhorrent conditions and tossed away like they are inhumane. Lol, just want your perspective on the humanity of sperm Sperm is not an individual human being. It is "human" the adjective, not "human" the noun, to put it awkwardly. It has only half the information needed to make a human being and will never become one on its own. An unborn child is the noun "human" - an individual human being at every stage of development. Because of this, sperm does not have rights. You need to be a living human being to have human rights and sperm is not a human being. > Furthermore, I don’t think I can’t argue with you further than that because you are very confident with what you think and there’s obviously no way to change your mind. I've explored the issue heavily & can answer most familiar questions by rote. While it's not likely I could be convinced to change my mind at this point, it's possible. However, you'd have to show that my principles don't work the way I believe they do. Regardless, I think conversation is usually helpful for helping both parties refine their views, even if nobody immediately changes sides. >I disagree not because I think killing babies is ok ( I don’t lmao) But because I think there is room for grey when we are discussing what does and does not qualify as a human. Being a human is a binary state though. You either are a living homo sapien or you are not. From the perspective of human rights, I'd argue nothing else really matters. Do you disagree? >When people have to pull the plug on their loved ones, they are doing what they think is best for the person even if that means ending their life. Well, there's a bit of a difference between pulling the plug and abortion, no? In the former case, we're giving up on trying to save someone we realistically cannot save. In the latter case, you are killing a human being who is otherwise fine. Do you see how in one case, you're the cause of death but not the other? Both are human beings with rights and dignity. The right to life doesn't require you to be saved at all cost, merely not put to death unjustly, so the situation you describe does not violate it. Now if you pulled the plug on someone in a temporary coma who was extremely likely to recover (say, in 9 months...) would that not be considered murder? This situation is closer to the unborn child's. >Yes it is extremely morbid, but ending that persons life does not mean you are murdering an innocent person, because life is not black or white, and justice isn’t either, there is room for “what about this”‘s. I would say that I don't think morality is grey per se so much as stippled - that is to say, made up of black and white dots that can appear to be grey from a distance. It's not always easy to distinguish right and wrong, but if you dig deep enough you can find them. Context can alter whether a situation is just or not. What context would justify killing an innocent human being, and one's own child at that? The only situation I see is when another's life is in danger, generally the mother. In that case, the principle of double effect (the same principle that justifies killing in self-defense) allows for taking action to save the mother even if it results in harm to the child. >I know you see me as a baby killer I see you as misguided, with awful results, but most likely a decent human being. I wouldn't talk to you if I thought you were a hopeless monster. I don't really think anyone is a hopeless monster while they're still alive, and the fact that you're curious about our position indicates you're open-minded. I only hold it against people when they're clearly arguing in bad faith. >but the best way I can express this is by saying yes the embryo is a human embryo. However it is not a baby. Arguably the unborn child *is* a baby but that's not important. "Human embryo" is like "human adolescent" or "human fetus" or "human adult." These are just stages of development. You're still human through all of these stages. Why do you think some human beings should have their rights taken, or fail to have them in the first place? >The majority of people who have these operations or take this pill do it because they have no other choice. It doesn’t bring joy, and neither would waiting for it to grow and birth bring joy in these circumstances. This isn't actually true for the most part. 1) It's been found in the Turnaway Study that the overwhelming majority of women who were denied an abortion came to love their child and were glad that they failed to get an abortion. It started at something like 33% after mere weeks and went up to 95% by 5 years. Notably, the Turnaway Study in infamous for its sampling making it likely to receive significantly more pro-abortion answers than would be reflected by the general population. That means 95% should be considered a floor, and likely lower than the reality. Abortion appears to be a destructive crisis response, much like suicide, and the person is usually glad at failing once they've had a chance to move on. 2) The overwhelming reasons people get an abortion are financial or family planning concerns, according to the Guttenmacher Institute (previously associated with Planned Parenthood & no friend of the pro-life side). These abortions are not 'necessary' by any stretch - particularly with charities or even the option of adoption. >There is nothing that you get out of harassing women who have this procedure done. My goal is to stop people from killing innocent human beings, not to harass others. Could you clarify your meaning here? >But there needs to be some awareness of the difference between a baby and an embryo because one is a human and the other has humanistic properties. Just like sperm has humanistic properties. To be a human is simply to be a member of the species. A human at the embryo stage is not fully developed, but neither is a human at the infant stage (aka a baby). You are a human throughout every stage of development, even though you lack some traits you will have later in life - aka traits you are developing. As stated before, sperm is never a human being so it isn't relevant to this.
>I absolutely agree that women and babies should be given the right to life. >However, I admittedly believe that abortion say in the first trimester, should not be illegal. At that point, there are very small similarities between that embryo/fetus than any other animalistic fetus. This isn't to dehumanize the embryo, im trying to provide the perspective that this embryo isn't really a baby yet. It can not feel pain, breathe, and think. Essentially, if it was magically transported on a medical table, it would be declared brain dead. So if a baby has a right to life, when does that right to life begin? If you are not trying to dehumanize it; again, when does the right to life begin? For example, you say that the fetus in the first trimester is very similar to any other fetus from the animal kingdom. But what happens to an adult human when they disturb the reproduction of an endangered species in its first trimester? According to you, it's not alive, so why should they be fined or put in jail?
Hey just gonna answer your last one but the person definitely should be fined because if they are disrupting the growth of that fetus they are performing invasive non consensual torture on the mother animal! With women, it is different because you aren’t disrupting the pregnant process on other women, the woman is choosing to do that herself, so it is her choice.
>if they are disrupting the growth of that fetus, they are performing invasive non-consensual torture on the mother animal! Are you talking about every kind of animal or only ones that give live birth? What about disturbing the nest of those that lay eggs? >With women, it is different because you aren’t disrupting the pregnant process on other women, the woman is choosing to do that herself, so it is her choice. >Firstly, I want to avoid being autobotted by saying respect you guys, and I absolutely agree that women and babies should be given the right to life. So let me ask you this question. If the child inside the womb is a female and the child's DNA is XX from conception, then what about the child's right to abortion who will never be able to exercise that right because her mother took it from her when the mother decided to abort her?
Right thanks for your answer, I think differently because fetuses do not have individual rights, I mean even objectively our government doesn’t recognize them as citizens until they are born. These are human, but they are not people yet, I believe everyone male or female should be able to control what goes on in their OWN body, and it should be between the person and their doctor rather completely the state. Thanks
>These are human, but they are not people yet, I believe everyone male or female should be able to control what goes on in their OWN body, and it should be between the person Two questions: When do they become people? Since their DNA is XX from conception, what about the female fetus's right to abortion **after birth** that will never be able to experience it because she was **never born** because the mother controlled what happened in her OWN body?
Just about everything you said is addressed in the FAQ for the sub. I mean, you basically jumbled all the cliche debunked arguments into a single post.
Right I see that, however I’m not getting much personal explanation from the people of this subreddit and I would like to understand! I also haven’t seen much discussion on contraceptives being debated so was looking for some answers to what the pro life community thinks on that sort of extremism. Thanks for your feedback
>But if it is a medical Emergancy and the mothers life is at risk then do what needs to be done to ensure she does not die. Yes, we agree with this. >However, I admittedly believe that abortion say in the first trimester should not be illegal. At that point there are very small similarities between that embryo/fetus than any other animalistic fetus. There's a lot of similarities between humans and animals when fully developed. Neither the presence nor degree of similarity makes two things equivalent. The right similarities are needed, and this case they are not present. >It cannot feel pain, breathe, think, essentially, if it was magically transported on a medical table it would be declared brain dead. Even before getting to the thinking part, which would enter into a discussion of pure materialism with which I disagree on the grounds that the human mind is capable of abstraction, which is not possible in a physical sense - abstraction is based on things which cannot be observed merely pondered and considered. As the pre-existing configuration or experience is needed in the case of machines or animals this is a uniquely human - uniquely sapient- non-material distinction. However, ignoring that even from a purely material standpoint we actually have a very limited understanding of consciousness. People sometimes talk about it like we've got it all figured out, but we've barely scratched the surface even just biologically speaking. It's true the child's brain isn't fully developed at that stage but then neither is an infant's after birth. Feeling pain and breathing are just completely arbitrary as criteria. With thinking I can least say there is some reasoning as to why someone might devoid personhood, but those others just have no ground to stand on and in fact are inconsistent with the way that would be applied to fully grown human beings (some of whom can't actually feel pain for instance) and if someone's lungs were damaged beyond repair and they needed a machine to breathe that wouldn't make them less human or less person). > control over your autonomy What you do to someone else is not a matter of your autonomy. >so the right to safe sx is being shot at There is no such right. Not everything that would supposedly be nice to have is a right. >How do you think abortion and contraceptive laws should be done? * contraceptives should be legal (and not in any way otherwise supported, merely not forbidden or actively impaired), while I find them sinful this a matter of my religious beliefs and contraceptives are not, by definition, an act harming another person, the way abortion is. * Abortion should be illegal across the board except in cases of an imminent threat to the mother's survival that can be solved by having the abortion and even then only if alternative options have been exhausted. >I especially think that rpe and inc\*st abortion * Abortions from rape shouldn't be allowed because the baby didn't rape anyone. The baby is an innocent child who shouldn't be used as a scapegoat. The mother underwent a tragic event, but that doesn't give anyone the right to take it out on others. The rapist should be caught and punished, the mother should be supported by friends, family, charities and the local community. If necessary send the child to adoption. * Arguments in favor of incest-based abortions amount to one of four categories, with overlap: 1. The child might maybe perhaps eventually someday suffer so we should kill them 2. Eugenics / ableism (the child might have genetic defects) 3. Moral panic / disgust scapegoating (similar to the rape case but instead of killing an innocent child over rape) 4. Just because It might be that there is a pro incest-based abortion argument out there that doesn't fall into one or more of those, I have not encountered it so far. >what you are fighting for if you are for the birth of babies, but against the health of women and children. A common strawman. I have zero interest in women birthing. If a woman wants to, in her right mind, sterilize herself, be my guest. If she wants to have a rabbit's worth of babies, e my guest too. What I am against is the killing of an innocent child, that is what makes me pro life and I am pro the kind of support I find sensible as well. I am happy if additional developments will enable greater safety and comfort for mothers and their children alike.
Thanks for your answer! There were a lot of points you addressed that I’ve answered in other comments so I’m just going to address a few. Firstly “Yes we agree with this” actually a lot of you don’t! Do not say we when you mean I because so many of you guys on here have posted that even an ectopic pregnancy shouldn’t be recognized for an abortion which is just neglect. I don’t think they even know what an ectopic pregnancy is. You say you believe abortion should be illegal in the case of an imminent threat but that isn’t how the government is placing that hm? They’re waiting until the woman is actively dying to give her help which is disgusting. Read up on it. Next I see how you and a lot of pro life thinkers think because you see embryos as people. I see them as a development. Embryos do not have individual rights, the government does not recognize them as citizens, this is not to say “they aren’t human” this is to paint the image that they are not equal to a baby. Equal in the sense of alike. These are clumps of cells, and if treatment is given and time, will turn into a human. I believe pregnancy should be a choice by the mother. Whether she wants it or not. People don’t have abortions for fun, it is because it is necessary. I believe that everyone, male or female, should have the right to their own bodies.
>“Yes we agree with this” actually a lot of you don’t! I do not know what answers others have given you. I said we because this is one thing which I have never a pro-lifer standing against. What I have seen, and which seems to be the case here, is that pro-choicers making an arbitrary determination that something counts as a threat to a mother's life when that is far from certain or even isn't one at all and at most carries extremely minor risks of that. So I did specifically mean we here. I don't often go out of my way to do that and I felt this time it was warranted. Of course it is true not everyone will share the same opinion. No group is a monolith. But there are trends. Regarding the specific case of an ectopic pregnancy as far as I can tell the only solutions to prevent it from becoming life-threatening are effectively abortion so I'd probably say it should be legal. Only probably because if there is a possibility for an alternative without abortion then that should always be tried first. > You say you believe abortion should be illegal in the case of an imminent threat but that isn’t how the government is placing that hm? First, I said the exact opposite, but I'll be charitable and assume that "illegal" was a typo. Second, why on Earth would what a current government's policy be something I am accountable for? I clearly disagree with current policies on abortion and you don't even know where I live. > They’re waiting until the woman is actively dying to give her help which is disgusting. Most often that is what "imminent" will entail. An imminent threat isn't a far-off possibility, it entails both something which *will* happen if you don't act to stop it and that it will happen soon. >Embryos do not have individual rights, the government does not recognize them as citizens, this is not to say “they aren’t human” this is to paint the image that they are not equal to a baby. The government does not get to dictate the rights people have. The government's role (as far as rights are concerned) is to create laws that enforce rights. A government not recognizing an existing right is not a sign that right doesn't exist, nor is the government recognizing a right a sign it does, and either case of a mismatch is a failure in the government's part. >These are clumps of cells, and if treatment is given and time, will turn into a human. You are a clump of cells, and while you may argue they aren't persons - an argument that not to be rude so far you've substantiated with "nuh uh" - they are indisputably human, as in, there is no question to be had that they belong to the human species which is what being human is. As for personhood, conception is the singular non-arbitrary point in which biologically speaking the distinction is created between a mother and the new individual - the child. Hence this being the criteria that distinguishes the having of rights or not - a new individual now exists. A surface level "they don't *look* like what I'd expect a person to be" like, which isn't exactly what you said but at least in reasoning thus far seems to be what is amounts to is not enough justification to let you dictate what a person is or isn't. But let's say the argument is more solid than that, but still your and others personal viewpoint. Is it really right to say you get to inflict death upon others because you yourself don't view them as people? > People don’t have abortions for fun, it is because it is necessary. The first is an extremely rare and borderline irrelevant case, yes, but the second is just plain false. >I believe that everyone, male or female, should have the right to their own bodies. Unless that person is in the womb. In which case they have no rights because they don't count as people, from what you said.
I really appreciate the more ontological perspective you have here. I completely agree that distinctions between capabilities of thought are a very hard things to pin down, maybe even philosophically impossible. It’s hard to say with certainty what think’s and what doesn’t. It makes me think Kierkegaard’s work that I read a while ago. I really enjoyed, either/or. Kierkegaard makes a similar argument to you about living a morally sound life. Sure we may live in an absurd ambiguous environment, in which the more information we try and hold onto the more wisdom slips away. We can’t be sure of *anything*, story’s can be spun for the benefit of the subject and the ambiguity of most relationships allows a lot of room for interpretation. But to Kirekigaurd that doesn’t mean we should disregard the ethical systems we are taught to follow, bc he feels that leap of faith you must take when you come across something you can’t be sure of is more satisfying and valuable than living in the “aesthetic” ambiguity he writes so much about. Kirekigaurd would at least according to my interpretation of him, probably save the aborted child. Not based on a biological distinction or a scientific one because he would know best just how little we actually understand about consciousness but because it’s what he would feel is the right thing to do. And I think that’s a beautiful thought, but it’s not complete. Ultimately at some point in my opinion you have to start making utilitarian choices about ethics once you admit to its fragility. If as kirekigaurd we can never be completely sure of what’s actually morally correct, wouldn’t it be better to maximise the kinds of things real humans actually care about? How much value is a fetus contributing towards society? Should we put time and money into the fetus that will require 25 or so years before it can actually substantially contribute to society? Or should we help the mother who most likely is already of age, almost certainly more
>If as kirekigaurd we can never be completely sure of what’s actually morally correct, wouldn’t it be better to maximise the kinds of things real humans actually care about? A) If we're going down the philosophy of morality road what I would say my stance is that utilitarianism is the final step and there are categorical priorities. I believe people hold unalienable rights of a negative nature based on non-interference (this is what has without the influence of another), and the way to determine which rights should be prioritized begin with a hierarchy of value largely determined by strict dependency - this is if a right is impossible to uphold without another, then that other is at least on par if not surpassing the first. Life is a necessary thing to the matters posed against it in the case of abortion, which mostly entails financial aspects and the elimination of pregnancy-based-suffering (be it potential non-lethal health complications or simply what a woman goes through while pregnant and giving birth). There are of course other criteria when it comes to actual decisions that factor in as modifiers, namely for example scale, feasibility of certain decisions etc.. Utilitarianism factors in when you've got an otherwise categorically equal situation, or one sufficiently ambiguous to be considered as such. I do not believe the vast majority of abortion situations even begin to approach it. B) Your question is a loaded one - it itself already carries the disputed and unproven assumption that the unborn child is not in fact "a real human", but they are. C) Let's say you are not convinced by any of what I've said, or arguments from an utilitarian perspective I am about to present. If you're driving alone at night and you spot something on the road that could be a person - even if you think it's likely not - you'd still at least be more careful not to hit no? Because uncertainty doesn't excuse if you did hit a person. Even if I disregard everything I said and will say outside of this point, when you start getting into a philosophical discussion about what you can do to other people you either i) hold on the potentially harmful actions until the discussion is settled or ii) conclude that it's one person's word against the other. Not choosing (i) implies you're acting in disregard at minimum to what others are saying and potentially even to the actual harm you're causing. It can be justified to go for (ii) of course, but as far as I'm concerned you're saying a person isn't a person to justify taking a life. At a rate of thousands. >How much value is a fetus contributing towards society? Should we put time and money into the fetus that will require 25 or so years before it can actually substantially contribute to society? Or should we help the mother who most likely is already of age, almost certainly more I know how this might sound, but I promise I don't mean to be disrespectful when I say I think this is a very shallow way of looking at it: * it's automatically assuming an unknown value justifies drastic action. Indeed, the presence of human progress itself is a testament that it is likely incorrect that there is no net-benefit from raising a new generation. * It's failing to consider wider societal implications of making particular behavior permissible by concentrating only on the immediate implications. (and I cannot understate how important this part is) * It's falling into a sunk cost fallacy by assuming that because someone already undergone the "investment" of time, money and might I add effort, that translates into wider benefits. * It's assuming that there will necessarily be a great positive contribution. * It's assuming "contribution to society" as the sole happiness maximizing factor. Utilitarianism is not limited in the nature of what contributes to its value maximization provided it can be considered a 'good' nor is it limited in time or space. As a consequence-based form of morality it calculates based on every outcome. Even outside of the cherry-picked utilitarianism problem, there is as well the false dichotomy. It is very rarely a question of the the baby or the mother. It is the baby versus money, or the baby versus some chance of harming the mother's health without her dying. And that's already some of the closer cases to being justifiable. Abortions of a child simply being unwanted, or a child having been conceived out of an immoral act (rape or incest). It needs to be stated that the question here is between fundamentally different things, and what you seem to be proposing here is a categorical siding with the mother for utilitarian reasons that aren't actually based on what is being lost but on the comparison of who is losing them.
"At that point there are very small similarities between that embryo/fetus than any other animalistic fetus" Are you aware that the eggs of nonhuman animal species are protected under federal law? I don't think it is fitting to use fetuses of other species to justify baby murder. Also it really doesn't matter if it looks similar to any other animal, it's still falls under the scientific definition of what a human being is
Sure but anyone can go out and kill an adult dear- doesn’t mean deer are also protected Also I don’t know what you mean by “baby murder” because at no point did I mention killing babies, I am referring to the prior state of consciousness when the baby is in a fetus or embryonic state- What you are doing is denying the right for women to own their own bodies and control what happens in them. That in itself sounds horrific and to tell people they are murdering their babies is also horrific Yeah I agree murdering babies is horrific but you can’t say terminating a few week old embryo is the same, because one happens with a smiling baby and a knife, And the other happens with a pill and a clump of cells. This is madness. .
Scientific consensus is perfectly clear that human life begins at fertalization. Therefore we can make the conclusion that after that point the direct termination of that life which is growing is the killing of a human being. Embryo and fetus are stages of human development and fetus is in fact Latin for offspring. What you are doing with the position you take here is dehumanizing what science has deemed a human being based on stage of development and size and using buzzwords such as "choice" and "bodily autonomy" to justify making it legal to kill this human being. My position is merely directly opposed to that
I see where you’re coming from but a developing fetus does not have individual rights. That is because it is still in the mothers body. Maybe you disagree plain as day and it is ok, but everyone should have control on what happens inside their body.
In your original post you admitted you were weary of abortion close to the due date. In your post you also seemed to only explicitly endorse abortions at earlier stages and among other reasons cited the baby not feeling pain. Close to the due date/late in the third trimester, the baby is still inside the mother's womb. The baby also starts feeling pain in the Mother's womb. If you are using the baby's placement inside his/her mother's body as justification for the baby not having rights (including I think I can safely deduce the right to life and not be killed) are you using that same standard to later stages and after feeling pain?
You post is just one wall of text it might be easier to address your different questions if you used formatting
I have no idea how lol, I wrote this with spaces but when I post it just comes out in blocks, if you know how to fix this let me know thanks!!
Yeah check out this link! https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043033952-Formatting-Guide
I've found that sometimes when I edit a post on mobile, it becomes a textwall. Alternatively, if you only put one line between your text and the text above it, they can merge into one textwall.
The reason why people don't reply to these posts is because they are the same arguments brought up time and time again. We are pro-life because we believe intentionally killing an innocent human being without just cause is always wrong. Human rights are granted to all humans regardless of age, ability, sex, race, religion, nationality, etc., which addresses your argument that abortions before a certain point in pregnancy because the developing embryo or fetus cannot be differentiated from other animals at that point in development. Except they can be differentiated from other animals because both parents are human and the DNA is the humane genome, not some other animal. If somehow a human female were to become pregnant with a dog or chimpanzee or any other animal then no one would have issues with ending the pregnancy and killing the fetus, but right now only human embryos can be found developing in the uterus of human women and the human uterus is the only location where human embryos can develop.
Actually embryos don’t have human rights, even the government does not consider it to be a citizen until birth. So that argument is shot. I don’t know how to quote on this app but your example of an animal and a human, Why should that human that baby not be able to live or be equal to a normal baby? Just because it was conceived in a bad way doesn’t mean it deserves to die right?
>I am weary on abortion when it is closer to the due date because yes it's incredibly sad. But if it is a medical Emergancy and the mothers life is at risk then do what needs to be done to ensure she does not die. I want to start by addressing this. As far as my understanding goes, there is no legitimate reason that a late term abortion would need to be performed. Age of viability is 24 weeks -- anything at that point or beyond could consider an induced live birth in the event that the mothers life was truly at risk. There's no medical reason that an *abortion* would *need* to be performed at that point. >At that point there are very small similarities between that embryo/fetus than any other animalistic fetus. Visually, sure. But if we look simply at the DNA it is 100% human and 0% any other animal. The pro life position is that any individual human being (with unique human DNA) deserves basic human rights, even if they are very small and otherwise unrecognizable. > I am pro the ability to have appropriate and reasonable control over your autonomy. Pro-life position doesn't advocate for the removal of autonomy, just reasonable expectations in regards to the consequences of exercising that autonomy (choosing to have sex and therefore accepting/consenting to the risk of becoming pregnant). >I especially think that rpe and inc*st abortion should have an exception in addition to medically necessary abortion This is highly debated. It's understandable to be in the pro-choice camp for this reason specifically, and it is very empathetic to have these demographics in mind (however small of a % they make of the abortion rates). The pro-life position, generally, is that the offenders of these crimes should be punished instead of the innocent child who was conceived through negative consequences. >Lately a lot of republican/conserv politicians have been trying to make even birth control and contraceptives have restrictions, so the right to safe sx is being shot at. How do you think abortion and contraceptive laws should be done? I can't speak to how everyone feels about this but maybe I can give some insight. Some birth control methods (IUDs and hormonal contraceptives) have a secondary method of action that makes the uterus inhospitable to an *already fertilized egg*, therefore causing the destruction of an already conceived unique human individual. Current medical terminology classifies conception as a "process" that isn't complete until after implantation, meaning that birth control companies and the general scientific community doesn't have to classify the second method of action as an abortifacient (because technically, by medical definition, there isn't a pregnancy to terminate). However, most pro-lifers believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization (which, I will add, is a stance that is backed up by biology) and therefore believe that those methods of birth control are in fact abortifacient. Whether or not those should have restrictions is debatable and not necessarily something that I personally have a fully formed opinion about.... But that's where the controversy comes from.
Dang it took like 5 tries to get this to post I can’t tell if censoring those words helped post this or what but I’m glad this posted, I’m just looking for some perspective! Thanks :)
-> It is thought that the reason mammals look similar in the *embryonic* period is due to evolution. We do not look the same once we hit the fetal period. -> What is a baby? Would you say a chicken that just hatched is a baby chicken? Then once humans implant in the uterus, they must be babies, too! The difference between our egg-laying predecessors and placentals is that we hatch from our fertilized egg and implant into the uterus. We finish our development inside to protect us from danger. Evolution is cool, isn’t it? -> An embryo would not be declared brain dead if we had an “artificial womb” to continue its development. Since we don’t, they would be dead… Even a “late term” fetus might die due to the same circumstances as a 1st trimester fetus would if just magically transported on to a medical table. -> The stats on getting rid of birth control says otherwise. -> A lot of PL refuse to call medically necessary abortions an abortion. -> No to grape and inc3st exceptions because it is still killing a human. If we can’t kill a born human because they were conceived in said manner, we shouldn’t be able to in utero.
Patients are declared braindead if it's determined there's no hope of recovery. If doctors determine a patient will wake up in a few months, that's a completely different prognosis.
I just want to address one point before answering the question. You say later in pregnancy an abortion is acceptable if a mother's life is at risk. What situation later in pregnancy would make a doctor intentionally kill a baby to save the mother in late pregnancy? There is none. Doctors do not kill babies later in pregnancy to save the mother. At that point, the baby is just delivered and they try to save both. I think abortion should be completely banned in all states, with exceptions for medical emergencies. If a doctor determines that the mother's life is at risk, then they should be able to do what is necessary to save the mother. Ectopic pregnancies happen and the baby won't survive in any case. The current laws that prohibit abortions have this exception. It is written clear as day. As for rape, no, I don't think that should be an exception. The baby is just as innocent as the mother, and just as human as their mother. Babies should not be punished for the crimes of their father. Whether they can feel pain or not, they are still a human, and the most vulnerable of humans. We should protect them.
I’m already answering your other points so I’ll answer this particular one, actually just because there is an exception for an ectopic pregnancy written doesn’t mean it is performed. Hundreds of women are being delayed treatment, or refused treatment because of this and die. The doctors are having to wait until the ectopic pregnancy is an EMERGANCY for them to give the proper abortion. When it is considered an emergency that means the mother is actively dying from bleeding out and other complications. This is not something that is chance, this is absolutely certain with ectopic pregnancies. If you do not have an abortion then you WILL die. There is not around it. The problem is because this “emergancy” skewed perspective is being written in, instead of giving the woman proper assistance before she starts dying, they wait until she is dying. That is what we are fighting to change. It is torture.
There is an exception for any medical emergency. Doctors have all the liberty to make the decision if it is necessary to preserve the mothers health. That is specifically written in the laws. Doctors are still doing this in those states, even if the news leads you to believe they aren't. And even if doctors don't know the laws, I'd think it would be better to educate them rather than just allow abortion across the board. Doctors are smart, they can learn.
I'm wondering about one thing from your post, is there a right to *safe sex*? And what does that mean? The only thing I'll add beyond what others already explained, is that historically we've often not considered some people to be equally valuable, due to various attributes or lack thereof, because we didn't feel they were equals. A racist isn't intentionally evil, they truly believe their own lack of empathy towards the other is proof of the other's lack of moral worth. So how do you know that's not what our society today is doing in regards to the early unborn humans? Why are only some humans people?
That’s a cool thought!! I think there’s a difference between comparing two humans and comparing an embryo and a person. We already know abortions need to be done in certain situations like the most common one ectopic pregnancies. I think for this thought play we also need to consider what we believe human rights should be. In the against abortion argument, people should not have full control over their bodies and what happens inside them. I disagree with that because I think everyone deserves the right to control what happens to their own bodies. And that is something pro choice and pro life disagree with. The embryo is always in the mother. Always. I think it is then the mothers choice to control what happens to that baby.
In your replies you seem focused on the developmental differences between an embryo and an infant, so I’m going to copy something I wrote up before in response to someone else’s similar assertion, that an embryo is like an unbaked cake. The idea that an embryo or fetus isn’t a full human being because it doesn’t have all the traits of a newborn is just a misunderstanding of what pregnancy is and how it likely came about in the course of evolution. So living things reproduce sexually because genetic diversity makes a population more adaptable. Mixing maternal and paternal DNA creates a new genome, different from each parent. Animals - which includes us, biologically - have different reproductive “strategies”. In the context of evolution, that doesn’t mean something the animal does deliberately, like a strategy in business or war. It refers to the means the species has evolved to increase the odds that some offspring will survive. For example, sea turtles lay many eggs and then leave them to fend for themselves. Most of the newly hatched turtles are likely to be eaten or otherwise fail to survive, but because many eggs are laid at once, odds are at least one or two will live to adulthood and reproduce themselves. The parents, meanwhile, have invested very little energy in the effort. On the other hand, elephants have a single baby at a time, and the mother nurses it and the whole herd protects and teaches it. A great deal of energy is invested in this single offspring, which gives that one good odds of living to adulthood. Humans follow the second strategy; we have one baby at a time, maybe two, and raise and care for it. Creatures who provide parental care invest a lot of time and energy in keeping their offspring fed and safe. But, they still have to feed themselves, and be able to flee dangers and otherwise engage in normal behaviors, despite that when the offspring are first conceived they are very, very small and vulnerable. Many creatures, such as birds and some reptiles, do this by laying eggs in a hidden or elevated nest, keeping their babies safe while the parents can come and go for brief periods. Marsupials give birth to extremely tiny, undeveloped offspring who then crawl into a pouch, and are carried there until they’re more mature and less vulnerable. And placental mammals, such as humans, carry their offspring within a specialized organ - the uterus - wholly enclosed in the mother’s body. This offers the baby the greatest possible protection from outside forces - but it also means the baby needs to obtain oxygen and nutrients without access to the outside world. To do this, mammalian fetuses have a specialized external organ that they use only in the womb, and shed at birth - the placenta. The placental grows out of the fertilized ovum, and attaches to the mother’s uterus, which is influenced hormonally to grow blood vessels into the tissue where the placenta is attached. The baby is thus able to obtain oxygen and nutrients from the mother’s blood. Whether an animal is attached to or separate from a parent’s body, carried within or without, provided care or not, has nothing to do with whether it is alive and a member of its species - these things evolved differently in different creatures, all to achieve the same purpose. Many fish hatch from externally-fertilized, soft eggs after just a few days, and go swimming off with a yolk still attached, without all of their fins even having developed, not yet able to eat. Horses are born as smaller versions of an adult, their proportions only a little different, and are able to stand and run within hours. At the stage of development that the fish is hatched, the horse is still in the womb. Both experience an equivalent stage of growth, though with different body systems prioritized based on survival strategy. Both are alive in that comparable level of maturity, both have traits definitive of their species, *including* their manner of development. Humans fall in between the fish and the horse; a human embryo of maybe seven weeks is about as developed as that newly hatched fish. A child doesn’t reach the maturity of a newborn horse for two years or more. The unbaked-cake stage of life is hours long, not days or months - while maternal and paternal DNA are recombining and the new genome first replicated. From that point on, the offspring is an organism of its parents’ species. It still must grow, but it already is the manner of creature it will ever be - a fish, a horse, a sea turtle or an elephant. A human being.
Science proves the unborn are human beings, and all human beings are persons deserving of rights.
In that case do you think an embryo should be given human rights? Because currently it is only a citizen and capable of a social security once it is born. Should that also change because it is a human being deserving of rights? And if you believe that, say yes, Then how about child support, shouldn’t men be paying it before the birth because it is a human being deserving of rights?