Abortion is morally wrong

[GrandizerII]

These same thoughts of bodily disruption can be applied to the fetus, Irrational. Except the quality that is also added in this case is certain death

I don't have empathy for fetuses. I do have empathy for women in this regard. Do you?

[Arthur123]

In my OP I state why this is the case I'm not merely asserting it. Asserting the negation won't be sufficient to undercut my arguments.

[Losty]

Ok here's your OP

Hello, I am new to these forums and am interested in engaging in fruitful and intellectual stimulating conversations! Today, I am interested in the topic of abortion. I believe it to be morally wrong for non-religious reasons. Simply put, a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception since it belongs to the species homo-sapiens and is genetically complete in its information. I look forward to any responses!

Kindest Regards,

You say: abortion is immoral because a fetus is a human being.

I say: abortion is not immoral, even though a fetus is a human being.

My argument is just as good as yours.

[JuliaL]

In my OP I state why this is the case I'm not merely asserting it. Asserting the negation won't be sufficient to undercut my arguments.

In the OP:

Simply put, a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception since it belongs to the species homo-sapiens and is genetically complete in its information. I look forward to any responses!

From the Brittanica site for human being:

human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning....

You are merely asserting that a fertilized egg is a human being because it contains a human genome. That is found nowhere in the dictionary definitions. You keep using that phrase. I do not thin it means what you thin it means.

[Losty]

In my OP I state why this is the case I'm not merely asserting it. Asserting the negation won't be sufficient to undercut my arguments.

In the OP:

Simply put, a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception since it belongs to the species homo-sapiens and is genetically complete in its information. I look forward to any responses!

From the Brittanica site for human being:

human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning....

You are merely asserting that a fertilized egg is a human being because it contains a human genome. That is found nowhere in the dictionary definitions. You keep using that phrase. I do not thin it means what you thin it means.

My daughter's favorite movie. Lol

[Ravenshire]

Arthur, I can see that you're clearly not here to debate the morality of abortion, but to preach your morality on abortion. Move along.

[GrandizerII]

In my OP I state why this is the case I'm not merely asserting it. Asserting the negation won't be sufficient to undercut my arguments.

Not sure who you're quoting here, but it can't be me. Anyhow, can you answer my question? Do you care about what women have to say concerning their own bodies? Or would you rather impose your own standards on them even if it makes they'll have to suffer due to these standards?

And, yes, a fetus may experience minimal suffering by being aborted, but a woman suffers to a much larger extent as they have a more advanced psychology than fetuses do. Plus, fetal death is relatively quick. A woman's suffering would last much longer if she were to be obliged to carry the unwanted baby to full term.

Do you get what I'm trying to explain to you here?

[JuliaL]

My daughter's favorite movie. Lol

One of my very favorites too.
It is so tempting and would be so easy to derail here with more trivia.
Must...not....think...of...iocane...powder.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax, genetics is all that matters. When you say you shouldn't kill a human being it is *implied* philosophically that the human is alive. This is because killing something that's not alive is incoherent.

Except that "life" is an attribute itself.

Look, if I say that every dog is blue, and you show me a dog that isn't blue and I turn around and say that every dog bar that particular breed is blue, am I not appealing to an additional attribute in the set I'm constructing?

You're saying that all things within set A have property C. I'm showing you a thing in set A that doesn't possess property C, and you're saying that this is okay because that A doesn't have property B, which is required to possess property C, and then pretending that you haven't appealed to property B.

The whole point of this argument is to get you to focus on the actual point of contention in this moral argument, life, rather than one that is irrelevant, like genetics. But because having to argue life would mean doing some extra legwork, you don't seem to want to go there, which is a pity because you kinda have to. Otherwise, your position is incoherent from the outset, and not worth considering.

If you want to talk about the morality of abortions that's fine, but let's not pretend your case is something it's not. You're trying to present an iron clad fact at the front end, while secretly appealing to a much more vague and philosophically interesting principle, that doesn't necessarily support you, on the back end.

[rexbeccarox]

Arthur, what's a "moral truth"? Can you give me a few examples?

Arthur, can you please answer this?

---

Losty bodily autonomy is important up until the point it is used to commit a morally impermissible act

Uh... who are you to assign your morals onto others? Who are you to tell anyone what is morally "permissible"? IOW: who died and made you god?

---

Incidentally, the Princess Bride might be my favorite movie ever made.