Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[Violet]

Are you advocating abortion after birth?

Advocating it? No... I think it is brutal, and that it is a massive waste of 9 months of pregnancy. I do not, however, see how it is ethically wrong.

My whole point is nothing magical happens immediately after birth... the baby is no longer dependent but it's still just as physically developed right before birth.

Not dependent? It needs the diaper change, the milk, the shelter, the time and money of a person that they might not have. Nothing magical ever happens... and although i think adoption or the like might be a better use of resources: killing the thing after it is born is not unethical. What gives a baby value is the amount of time and effort another person has put into having that baby. Without that value... why should it live except for a socialistic system willing to take it instead?

I don't see how you have responded to my point, which is simply a question based on the fact that both of the above (being anti-abortion right after conception, or pro-abortion right a minute or two before birth) are retarded options so the question is where to draw the line.

I do not see either option as factually retarded. Rather, I see killing a baby as an economical burden lifted... if that is so desired by what gives that baby its life in the first place. I say that there is no "cut off point"... and rather there is an individually decided concept of when a thing begins to develop 'right' of its own

Right before birth abortion is obviously wrong unless the mother might die or something like that I reckon. And abortion is obviously completely harmless right after conception... so my question is "When does the foetus become developed enough that it starts to get more immoral to abort it - just as it would be immoral to abort a baby that was just about to be born for no good reason?"

I disagree with it being 'obviously wrong'. Nothing about pregnancy is harmless. It is not a fetus that killing would be immoral (unless the person values it, and you value it because of their value of it)... nor a baby. Nor necessarily a full grown adult. It is simply killing... nothing necessarily immoral about it

---

Some rights are strictly freedom based though... they are more ethically based right?

That is likely why Meatball said,

Laws shouldn't enforce morality, they should protect rights and freedoms. Big difference.

That a thing does or does not is independent of wether a thing should or should not

Torture of animals for instance. Since animals aren't considered members of society this isn't about not restricting their freedom, this is about not torturing animals because it's unethical. I would think that's why it's illegal.

Non-human animals aren't considered members of society? :S My pet dog is a member of my society... are you suggesting that this does not often apply to other people? Also... how is torturing animals necessarily unethical? I think it is illegal because a few people made emotional arguments in court and managed to pass laws into place. :Sleepy:

Torturing invertebrates doesn't count, that isn't illegal. That's because they are considered less close to human or less able to experience pain or suffer or whatever - so you see, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

And why is it not? A poor man is less able to buy out a country than a rich man... should he get fewer rights because he is less able to do a thing? WHy deny things rights because they are different? "Too different" seems very subjective to me...