On Defining Life

[ModernDiogenes]

Taxonomy, which is increasingly driven by genetics, defines a human as a member of the species homo sapiens. This means that a zygote containing complete human DNA could not be taxonomically considered anything other than human.

Ok sorry but that’s opinion, not science.

A human life can maintain itself. It is capable of standing in its own as a living organism, apart from other organisms.

There is a word for an organism that requires a host for survival. That’s what a zygote is. It’s what a fetus is until such time as it can survive outside the womb.

 

[Lursa]

Ethical systems across cultures and times have independently recognized the inherent value of human life. This recognition isn't arbitrary but stems from the unique capabilities of humans such as rational thought moral agency and the capacity for empathy.

So, now you attempt to separate your soley "naturalistic' or biological premise from morality to populism?

Btw, other species demonstrate all those things. Crows, dolphins, orcas, bonobos, certain parrot species. Where is their "inherent" value or right to life?

Also, why would the unborn have 'more' moral agency' than the woman carrying it?

Your skepticism towards the foundation of the premise that human life has inherent value reflects a philosophical stance but not an argument against the premise itself.

Since you believe morality is subjective, you must accept that my morals about abortion are valid however I since I don't subscribe to the notion that morality is subjective, I don't accept your morals as valid.

Your "moral" argument is wholly based on a biological premise. Until you need to justify it with reason...and you end up with an invented "inherence," and an appeal to populism.

I supported mine with lists of moral and/or negative and positive impacts. Actual facts, results, consequences. The "whys" behind the moral stance of my arguments. Where is your 'why?'

 

[weaver2]

Ethical systems across cultures and times have independently recognized the inherent value of human life.

Yes most ethical systems recognize the value of the life of human beings. But most do not recognize the value of fetal life. If you think most do then name those systems.

This recognition isn't arbitrary but stems from the unique capabilities of humans such as rational thought moral agency and the capacity for empathy.

Yes, ethical systems that recognize the value of the lives of human beings base their recognition on such things as rational thought , moral agency and capacity for empathy. Those systems do not recognize those characteristics in fetuses. The value you are placing on life in an abortion discussion recognizes only the life of the fetus. There is no acknowledgment of the value of the already born family members whose lives will be affected by the addition of this potential life. This is the ethical system of a moral midget.

Your skepticism towards the foundation of the premise that human life has inherent value reflects a philosophical stance but not an argument against the premise itself.

Nobody is skeptical of the value of the lives of human beings. (well, maybe misanthropists) The skepticism expressed is about the Catholic and evangelical claim in the inherent value of the fetus at every stage of development from conception to birth. It's interesting that Catholic and evangelical women time their abortions just like all other women in the early stages of the first trimester because like all other women who abort they do recognize stages of differing value.

Since you believe morality is subjective, you must accept that my morals about abortion are valid however I since I don't subscribe to the notion that morality is subjective, I don't accept your morals as valid.

If morality is being discussed in an honest way more than just the fetus must be considered. Consider who gets abortions. 75% of abortions are performed for women working at low wage jobs living near, at or below the poverty line. An unplanned and unwanted pregnancy means destabilizing the family situation both financially and emotionally. For many of these families it may mean permanent poverty for them and the unplanned child. The statistics on what happens to children raised in poverty are shockingly depressing. Many end up in foster care. 90%of children that are not adopted and age out of foster care are unemployed and or incarcerated within 3 years . These 75% of women who abort know that that neither they or their parents or grandparents can care for a child or another child so that they grow up in the kind of environment that gives a child a chance of being a stable and caring adult. 40% of women who have aborted go on to later give birth to a child when their situation has changed so that child can be welcomed and cared for.

The pro-choice position does not limit your right to make private decisions about your personal life, it does not interfere with your religious beliefs, it does not have the power to destabilize your family, it does not ask you to do anything. It says your choices are your own to make. Banning abortion as the pro-life movement does is attempting to legally control the reproductive lives of all women and their families. How is that more valid?How can you ignore the inhumanity of forcing a family into deeper poverty or greater emotional destabilizations.

 

[Individual]

If it moves or employs cell division, it's alive.
But for government purposes, post birth of a relatively healthy new born is the earliest point in which government should be allowed any involvement at all.

 

[weaver2]

Life began billions of years ago. Should all life be protected?

Yup, Silence Dogood has to stop stomping the cockroaches in his kitchen and offer them all a slice of his chocolate cream pie.

 

[Bodi]

@weaver2 @choiceone @Gordy327

See? @collected ignored it again! LOL

Bodi said:
Women have the moral right to take a person that they do not want in their body, out of their body.

Prove that that is immoral or wrong.

 

[choiceone]

Every time I login I see the bell icon with 6-8 more messages. Although I do read what's posted I don't have the time to reply to every single post. So far I've seen nothing that makes my position wrong. Instead I see attempts at justification and the most common logical fallacies being committed is the is/ought fallacy - typically the naturalistic kind followed by the appeal to law.

We could all gripe about you posting too fast to us, too. It's okay to take your time replying.

You do not explain in detail the reason you think a logical fallacy is being committed. It is you, after all, who present a model of ZEF development that is ideal, since most embryos don't implant or stay implanted. Your claiming this is an interruption of a basic pattern is wrong - it is you who are assuming the ideal, the ought, instead of considering solely the empirical evidence, the is.

I've yet seen a single poster share the same definition for what is the criterion for personhood, instead what I've seen are mental gymnastics followed by the declaration that it's the lungs, consciousness, EEG markers, viability, or birth itself that then causes a human to be categorized as having personhood. You need to explain WHY your definition of personhood is correct and why others are wrong. If one asserts that it's lung maturity while another asserts that it's birth itself then how does one differentiate who is correct? Once again what YOU are doing is just declaring without a substantiated logical basis on what the criterion for personhood is.

I posted for you Scott Gilbert's explanation that scientists do not agree on even the criteria for when individual life begins/when personhood might begin. The geneticist favors fertilization, the embryologist gastrulation, the pulmonary specialist lung maturity/viability, the brain specialist the human EEG, etc. All arguments are biased from a politico-scientific view: every scientist argues from his/her specialty's perspective.

Gilbert goes on to say personhood can't be determined biologically, as it is a political category.

Civilizations have seen personhood starting at birth, using birth and death dates. Biblical religions, Buddhism, etc., all did it.

The US Constitution implies the reasons. A free person has the rights to life, liberty, and property, including the 4th A right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the 14th A reiteration of personal rights to life, liberty, and property. The government shouldn't have the right to search her or her medical information to know if she is pregnant. The Census is an actual enumeration of all persons, not a projected count, but zygotes, embryos, and fetuses can't be so enumerated, not even now, because of, e.g., molar pregnancy. disappearing twins, etc. This hinges on a woman's being a free person before an embryo ever exists.

The problem here is that the negative outcomes associated with pregnancy ("is") and leaping to the conclusion that abortion ought to be permissible ("ought") without bridging the gap with a moral argument. Just because pregnancy can result in harm does NOT inherently lead to the conclusion that abortion is morally acceptable. One must employ ethical reasoning that explains why certain facts about the world should lead us to adopt specific moral positions or actions. Your argument lacks this intermediary step and thus falls into the is-ought fallacy.

If you ban abortion and a woman denied an abortion by your law dies of medically unforeseeable complications in late pregnancy or childbirth, who killed her? It wasn't suicide - the wanted abortion would have saved her life. Doctors didn't commit malpractice - medical science does not claim the capacity to foresee all complications. You can't blame "nature" or "God," because what prevented abortion was the human law. We know in advance that an abortion ban is bound to cause the death or disablement of some women denied abortions in a large enough population.

Additionally, if the woman did not consent to pregnancy, but only to sexual intercourse, she consented to part of A's body being inside her body/sexual organ, not to B's body being there. She consented to a body part being inside her vagina, not inside her uterus. So even if the embryo is a person, it doesn't have a right to be in her body/sex organs. The embryo doesn't have a legally competent mind, so it isn't violating her, but the anti-abortion lawmakers have it and their law is causing the violation of her body.

These are two of the underpinnings of the moral outrage so widely displayed by pro-choice people.

 

[choiceone]

Just an additional thought. The above argument about "free persons" hinged on whether or not women were actually free or not. That's why in the Dobbs draft, Alito wrote about married women's personhood being merged in their husbands. It was a bad passage, so at least some of this was junked, because single women whose parents were deceased and who were, say, 17 or 18, could inherit and own property, including real estate, and manage their affairs, make contracts, run any business not requiring a degree or license they were ineligible for. Husbands could confer this status on their own wives, and did for various reasons. Fathers could keep their daughters' dowries from their husbands' use during the marriage, too.

So as far as right to property was concerned, women could be "free persons." At the same time, no one doubted that even married women had a right to life. How about the right to liberty? Single women whose parents were deceased and who were, say, 17 or 18 weren't legally under any man's control. They were "free persons."

Moreover, the Censuses show that women were included in "free persons" categories. Before slavery, there was the "all free white women" category, countering the categories for "free white men" by age and the "all other free persons" categories. The results of the actual Censuses show that married as well as single women had to be included because of the population balance by gender.

The point is that women were "free persons." And they were persons before they were ever pregnant. So there is no warrant to begin with "embryos," baldly stating that they're persons. When you do, you end up violating the rights of women as "free persons," because pregnancy is an unequal relationship. You either accord rights to the unborn and take them away from women, or you accord rights to women and refrain from giving them to the unborn. I favor this latter option because all women pre-exist their pregnancies. But logically, there isn't any other choice. They just aren't equal.

 

[Argent]

Ethical systems across cultures and times have independently recognized the inherent value of human life. This recognition isn't arbitrary but stems from the unique capabilities of humans such as rational thought moral agency and the capacity for empathy.

If you google which animals have rational thought, which have moral agency, and which are capable of empathy, you'll find those capabilities are not unique to homo sapiens. Humans and chimpanzees the considered the 2 most intelligent species on earth so you can't claim that our intellect makes us special.

 

[weaver2]

Who said potential economic hardship justifies a wrongdoing?

So you and the Catholic Church have issued your own Christian fatwa that abortion is a wrongdoing for anyone and everyone. Based on what
not the Bible.
not US law
not science
not statistics
not even public opinion.

The only legitimate reason for calling abortion a wrong-doing is that one's church says the tenets of our religion say abortion is murder and it is a sin. The Constitution protects this religious belief and the practice of this belief. But the Constitution also says Congress can't make the beliefs of any church into laws that all citizens have to follow. And that means that I don't have to follow your belief that my abortion is murder and you can't hang me for murder if I abort a fetus. You can talk all day on every soap box on every corner about the sacredness of the life of a fertilized egg and your church can punish those women who end the life of that zygote or embryo. But your control over the women of your church doesn't extend to me in my church or synagogue, or temple or mosque or me in no church at all. You and your beliefs do not have the right to control my reproductive life and make decisions that harm my family. Abortion is murder only in your church. Not in mine.

 

[Lursa]

Who said potential economic hardship justifies a wrongdoing?

Not me. But what's the wrongdoing?

This: forcing economic hardship on another that impacts her health, safety, and impacts those she's responsible for as well. That's immoral. They all suffer, and are at higher risk of sickness, living in high risk neighborhoods, poor diet for children supposedly trying to learn in school, etc.

The unborn suffers nothing.

 

[Gordy327]

See? @collected ignored it again! LOL

Which surprises no one.

 

[collected]

Ethical systems across cultures and times have independently recognized the inherent value of human life. This recognition isn't arbitrary but stems from the unique capabilities of humans such as rational thought moral agency and the capacity for empathy.

So, now you attempt to separate your soley "naturalistic' or biological premise from morality to populism?
Btw, other species demonstrate all those things. Crows, dolphins, orcas, bonobos, certain parrot species. Where is their "inherent" value or right to life?
Also, why would the unborn have 'more' moral agency' than the woman carrying it?

My claim isn't a leap to populism but an appeal to a widespread ethical recognition of the value of human life which isn't based on just popularity but on an extensive history of ethical reasoning across various cultures. The logical fallacy here is a straw man as you have misrepresented my argument to make it easier to attack bypassing the actual point of discussion.

Regarding your point about other species like crows, dolphins, orcas, bonobos, & certain parrot species showing traits of rational thought, moral agency, and empathy, and asking why don't they have a right to life well much of their behavior is rooted in instinct. Human rational thought involves the ability to reason, deliberate, and make decisions based on abstract principles, not just immediate stimuli or direct survival needs. Also you've introduced a red herring by shifting the topic from the inherent value of human life and the ethical considerations of abortion to the broader and different issue of animal rights.

You're also misrepresenting my stance. My argument is not that the unborn has more moral agency but that every human being regardless of development stage possesses inherent value and the right to life.

Your skepticism towards the foundation of the premise that human life has inherent value reflects a philosophical stance but not an argument against the premise itself.
Since you believe morality is subjective, you must accept that my morals about abortion are valid however I since I don't subscribe to the notion that morality is subjective, I don't accept your morals as valid.

Your "moral" argument is wholly based on a biological premise. Until you need to justify it with reason...and you end up with an invented "inherence," and an appeal to populism.
I supported mine with lists of moral and/or negative and positive impacts. Actual facts, results, consequences. The "whys" behind the moral stance of my arguments. Where is your 'why?'

My stance is not an appeal to majority opinion but a simply recognition of a principle that has been acknowledged across cultures and epochs. My moral stance does not rely solely on empirical outcomes but also considers intrinsic values and duties. The "why" is rooted in the belief of a principle that every human life has potential & dignity that merits protection.

If morality is purely subjective as you believe then each individual's moral reasoning including the belief in the inherent value of human life would be equally valid within their moral framework. In other words you must say that what I believe is valid and correct within my moral framework. My argument values life beyond utility or consequence. What issue do YOU have with my morals within my moral framework?

 

[collected]

Not me. But what's the wrongdoing?

This: forcing economic hardship on another that impacts her health, safety, and impacts those she's responsible for as well. That's immoral. They all suffer, and are at higher risk of sickness, living in high risk neighborhoods, poor diet for children supposedly trying to learn in school, etc.

The unborn suffers nothing.

False dilemma fallacy. You presuppose that the solution to economic hardship is the termination of the unborn. You suggest that the two options are abortion or inevitable suffering due to economic hardship. You also are stating something without evidence or proof and correlation does not imply causation.

You then equate the value of life with the capacity to suffer. The value of human life isn't contingent upon its current capacity for experiences but is inherent. With your logic any individual temporarily incapable of suffering due to age, unconsciousness, disabilities, or pain killers would be deemed less valuable.

The moral obligation to prevent suffering does not justify the termination of the unborn. Ethical decisions involving life and death demand more than a calculation of potential hardships. I find it ridiculous that someone would even consider justifying murder due to potential economic hardship. Should a robber be justified in robbing someone to avoid potential economic hardship?

 

[year2late]

Excellent.

Now that we have established that a zygote is a human life, can they be claimed on taxes as a dependent? To increase food stamps, welfare, etc because the number of people in a household has increased?

When can I take a life insurance policy out on the zygote?

When is child support going to start for the zygote?

When does Medicaid start for the Zygote?

Since women are going to be tasked with growing these zygotes to babies - when does the paid maternity leave start for the woman?

How about frozen embryos? Can they be claimed as dependents on taxes? Since ZEF are now determined to be humans and protected?

Quickly pondering if I have any more eggs left to lower my taxes. 16 dependents? I can deduct the deep freeze as the IVF clinic as child care as well!!!

Brilliant!!!

 

[Bodi]

My claim isn't a leap to populism but an appeal to a widespread ethical recognition of the value of human life which isn't based on just popularity but on an extensive history of ethical reasoning across various cultures. The logical fallacy here is a straw man as you have misrepresented my argument to make it easier to attack bypassing the actual point of discussion.

Regarding your point about other species like crows, dolphins, orcas, bonobos, & certain parrot species showing traits of rational thought, moral agency, and empathy, and asking why don't they have a right to life well much of their behavior is rooted in instinct. Human rational thought involves the ability to reason, deliberate, and make decisions based on abstract principles, not just immediate stimuli or direct survival needs. Also you've introduced a red herring by shifting the topic from the inherent value of human life and the ethical considerations of abortion to the broader and different issue of animal rights.

You're also misrepresenting my stance. My argument is not that the unborn has more moral agency but that every human being regardless of development stage possesses inherent value and the right to life.




My stance is not an appeal to majority opinion but a simply recognition of a principle that has been acknowledged across cultures and epochs. My moral stance does not rely solely on empirical outcomes but also considers intrinsic values and duties. The "why" is rooted in the belief of a principle that every human life has potential & dignity that merits protection.

If morality is purely subjective as you believe then each individual's moral reasoning including the belief in the inherent value of human life would be equally valid within their moral framework. In other words you must say that what I believe is valid and correct within my moral framework. My argument values life beyond utility or consequence. What issue do YOU have with my morals within my moral framework?

Why are you afraid to back up your argument?

Bodi said:
Women have the moral right to take a person that they do not want in their body, out of their body.

Prove that that is immoral or wrong.

 

[weaver2]

You presuppose that the solution to economic hardship is the termination of the unborn. You suggest that the two options are abortion or inevitable suffering due to economic hardship. You also are stating something without evidence or proof and correlation does not imply causation.

Poverty and children

Poverty itself can negatively affect how the body and mind develop, and economic hardship can actually alter the fundamental structure of the child’s brain.... Children who directly or indirectly experience risk factors associated with poverty ... have higher than a 90% chance of having 1 or more problems with speech, learning, and/or emotional development.
12,000,000 or 16% of American children live in poverty
47%of those children live in severe or extreme poverty
36% of all children that live in poverty are not covered by any health insurance


.... Poverty status and stress are two markedly consistent factors among perpetrators of child abuse, ........The correlation between poverty and stress, abuse, and neglect cannot be ignored.

Poverty and its Effects on Children | Children's Bureau

Learn more about poverty and its effect on children. Be an advocate for children's lives - explore ways to get involved and make a difference!

www.all4kids.org

In 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services, reported that there were approximately 407,000 children in foster care. ..... By age 17, over 50% of foster children will have an encounter with the juvenile legal system through arrest, conviction or detention. In addition, 25% of youth in foster care will be involved with the criminal legal system within two years of leaving foster care. If a child has moved to five or more placements, they are at a 90% risk of being involved with the criminal legal system.
https://www.crimlawpractitioner.org...eling,through arrest, conviction or detention.

People who enter the criminal justice system are overwhelmingly poor. 66% detained in jails report annual incomes under $12,000 prior to arrest...... A year after release, 60% of formerly incarcerated people remain unemployed.

https://www.masslegalservices.org/system/files/libraryThe_Relationship_between_Poverty_and_Mass_Incarceration.pdf

..... Poverty is one of the most significant root causes of homelessness.

10 Root Causes of Homelessness

Housing is a human right, but millions lack this basic right. According to a 2005 global survey, over 1.5 billion people don’t have “adequate” housing. It’s difficult to identify more precise numbers because countries have different definitions of “homelessness.” Tracking the issue is also...

www.humanrightscareers.com

You then equate the value of life with the capacity to suffer. The value of human life isn't contingent upon its current capacity for experiences but is inherent. With your logic any individual temporarily incapable of suffering due to age, unconsciousness, disabilities, or pain killers would be deemed less valuable.

This is just silly. Nobody is claiming the ability to withstand suffering measure the value of someone's life. Although Mother Teresa and the Flagellants had a go at it.

The moral obligation to prevent suffering does not justify the termination of the unborn.

I happen to think it does. Bringing a child into a situation that is psychologically harmful, financial insecure and emotionally unstable is just plain irresponsible. The situations of poverty have been studied often enough to know that they will hamper the child's physical, mental and social growth and their chances of living in poverty as an adult are almost 100% If you know of any situations where poverty consistently produces psychologically whole, responsible, stable, employed adults I'd be interesting in hearing about it.

Ethical decisions involving life and death demand more than a calculation of potential hardships.

Describe what more is needed.

I find it ridiculous that someone would even consider justifying murder due to potential economic hardship.

Yeah that's what happens when you turn a fetus into the equivalent of a born person and make abortions of a 1/2 inch embryo into murder of a person. When you start using your twisted semantics in debates you end up looking ridiculous.

Should a robber be justified in robbing someone to avoid potential economic hardship?

Non sequitur.

 

[Bodi]

The moral obligation to prevent suffering does not justify the termination of the unborn.

Prove it then... but we all know that you can't.
Heck, we all know you won't... because it is not
possible. Instead, you have to obfuscate the
argument, littering it with Fallacy accusations
instead of just proving your argument of morality.

 

[Lursa]

My claim isn't a leap to populism but an appeal to a widespread ethical recognition of the value of human life which isn't based on just popularity but on an extensive history of ethical reasoning across various cultures. The logical fallacy here is a straw man as you have misrepresented my argument to make it easier to attack bypassing the actual point of discussion.

I didnt say people didnt recognize a value for human life.

I asked you to show the same widespread ethical recognition for unborn human life...equal in value to the born.

Stop using words you dont seem to know the meaning of. Or just out of convenience when they work for you. "Logical fallacy" is one of your more blatant failures.

Regarding your point about other species like crows, dolphins, orcas, bonobos, & certain parrot species showing traits of rational thought, moral agency, and empathy, and asking why don't they have a right to life well much of their behavior is rooted in instinct. Human rational thought involves the ability to reason, deliberate, and make decisions based on abstract principles, not just immediate stimuli or direct survival needs. Also you've introduced a red herring by shifting the topic from the inherent value of human life and the ethical considerations of abortion to the broader and different issue of animal rights.

So do some of those other species. And why are you splitting hairs? If a right to life is inherent...why dont these other reasoning, empathetic species have it? Where does that "inherence" come from...when are you going to answer that?

You're also misrepresenting my stance. My argument is not that the unborn has more moral agency but that every human being regardless of development stage possesses inherent value and the right to life.

Who says? Again...you have not shown any "moral" reason why the unborn should, while I have provided many reasons.

Your "inherent value/rights" is still founded in thin air.

My stance is not an appeal to majority opinion but a simply recognition of a principle that has been acknowledged across cultures and epochs. My moral stance does not rely solely on empirical outcomes but also considers intrinsic values and duties. The "why" is rooted in the belief of a principle that every human life has potential & dignity that merits protection.

LMAO, yeah...that's populism if you're using it to validate anything. Esp if that's ALL you have to validate something.

If morality is purely subjective as you believe then each individual's moral reasoning including the belief in the inherent value of human life would be equally valid within their moral framework. In other words you must say that what I believe is valid and correct within my moral framework. My argument values life beyond utility or consequence. What issue do YOU have with my morals within my moral framework?

Nope...no more answers for you until you answer my questions. You may assume away...but your assumptions are as unfortunate and inaccurate as the rest of your conclusions.

 

[Lursa]

@weaver2 @choiceone @Gordy327

See? @collected ignored it again! LOL

Your post is amusingly hypocritical, considering you frequently do the same when an argument gets away from you and you cant control it. Rigidly and within highly specific and often-moving criteria.

 

[Lursa]

False dilemma fallacy. You presuppose that the solution to economic hardship is the termination of the unborn.

It is. For that woman, her family, the others she is responsible to? Of course it is. Do you know better than she does? Do you know it's not? You are presupposing...she isnt.

You suggest that the two options are abortion or inevitable suffering due to economic hardship. You also are stating something without evidence or proof and correlation does not imply causation.

See above. You dont know...SHE does. So you speculating in broad (rather dehumanizing) generalizations about strangers doesnt matter against her first-hand, boots on the ground knowledge. Why should your opinion, your feelings, be forced on women you dont even know? You wont be paying her consequences or those for the others she has responsibilities and obligations to...now will you? Easy to be that armchair quarterback, eh?

You then equate the value of life with the capacity to suffer. The value of human life isn't contingent upon its current capacity for experiences but is inherent. With your logic any individual temporarily incapable of suffering due to age, unconsciousness, disabilities, or pain killers would be deemed less valuable.

No, I didnt do that at all. Nothing like that at all.

My position is that when necessary to look for balance, it's immoral to choose the path that intentionally causes pain, suffering, disrespect, sacrifices that affect others, diminish one's capacity to contribute, etc.

The moral obligation to prevent suffering does not justify the termination of the unborn. Ethical decisions involving life and death demand more than a calculation of potential hardships. I find it ridiculous that someone would even consider justifying murder due to potential economic hardship. Should a robber be justified in robbing someone to avoid potential economic hardship?

See above. Each response refutes this . This doesnt even show you understood what I wrote.

 

[choiceone]

False dilemma fallacy. You presuppose that the solution to economic hardship is the termination of the unborn. You suggest that the two options are abortion or inevitable suffering due to economic hardship. You also are stating something without evidence or proof and correlation does not imply causation.

You then equate the value of life with the capacity to suffer. The value of human life isn't contingent upon its current capacity for experiences but is inherent. With your logic any individual temporarily incapable of suffering due to age, unconsciousness, disabilities, or pain killers would be deemed less valuable.

The moral obligation to prevent suffering does not justify the termination of the unborn. Ethical decisions involving life and death demand more than a calculation of potential hardships. I find it ridiculous that someone would even consider justifying murder due to potential economic hardship. Should a robber be justified in robbing someone to avoid potential economic hardship?

You overvalue life and undervalue liberty. As I have said repeatedly, pregnancy can cause the death or severe disablement of some women and girls, and this is not just because they chose to have sex. It can happen by rape or some mad scientist implanting embryos in a woman made unconscious. You can try to make exceptions to an anti-abortion law, but when you do, these laws don't work perfectly.

In Texas, one married woman was happily pregnant with twins, but one seriously deformed fetal twin having no capacity to survive to birth was threatening a healthy twin life. It would ultimately threaten the woman's life, but since it wasn't yet threatening it enough, the stupid anti-abortion law wouldn't let the woman have an abortion. The lawmakers hadn't bothered to include an exception allowing abortion to prevent the fatally deformed twin from killing the healthy one.

There are also problems with exceptions for rape. The point is that nothing justifies forcing a girl or woman to continue a rape pregnancy. The life of a person threatening or committing rape is not more valuable than the girl's or woman's moral right not to be raped, and the rape pregnancy is obviously a continuation of the rape. Ergo, the life of the rape embryo is not more valuable than the girl's or woman's moral right to end that continuation of rape.

And FYI, stealing is sometimes justified to avoid some potential economic hardships. There have been cases of parents stealing necessities of life to save their child from starvation or to pay for an operation necessary to prevent serious permanent disability of their child. It would be immoral to steal from a poor person, but not an excessively wealthy one in that circumstance.

You have overvalued life because you have not considered life without equal liberty. Of what value is it to have the life of a slave or involuntary laborer? Are you so incapable of empathy with a revolutionary that your value completely negates the value of the American revolution or the war against slavery? Well, why should a girl or woman be a government sex slave? This is, after all, what a woman is who endures forced pregnancy under a state with an abortion ban.

And why is liberty so valuable? Because it is impossible to have liberty without mind, but it is possible to have life without it. Liberty implies mind and the value of mind. Unbearable torture is not killing, but the suffering inflicted is a violation of liberty, and to kill the torturer in such a circumstance is morally reasonable.

 

[roguenuke]

87,600 women in the US are severely and often permanently harmed by pregnancy and childbirth every year. Kidney failure, strokes, aneurysms, pre-eclampsia, etc.

This is a significant, unpredictable risk that can cost a woman her job, her ability to earn an income, her ability to support the dependents (kids, elderly, disabled) that she is already responsible for. Not to mention the impacts and losses on her family and friends if she is disabled.

Please explain why a woman should risk all this if she cannot afford or is prepared to have a child, or another child? Morally, please explain why she and so many others must suffer in order to push a kid out?

I ended up with an umbilical hernia from my second pregnancy/labor/delivery, which required surgery. There are a couple of other, rather minor but still consistent, health issues I have from being pregnant. And I didn't have a C-section.

 

[Lursa]

You overvalue life and undervalue liberty.

Well said.

I write something similar, I believe in quality of life over quantity.

 

[Gordy327]

Well said.

I write something similar, I believe in quality of life over quantity.

As do I. Quality over quantity.