RE: Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it
February 23, 2020 at 10:30 pm
(This post was last modified: February 23, 2020 at 10:38 pm by Simon Moon.)
(February 23, 2020 at 9:17 pm)Agnostico Wrote:Quote:If a 1 year old has kidney failure, is it moral to force the child's mother to give up one of her's to save the child?[/b]
No but no kidneys or anything is sacrificed in pregnancy?
Is it right for a child's mother to kill her child?
So, you are okay not forcing a woman to be a life support system for her 1 year old child, but you are okay with forcing a woman to be a life support system for her fetus.
Why the different standards?
Not to mention, that may not be true (that nothing is sacrificed in a pregnancy). There are many health problems associated with pregnancy, some are rare, but they are a risk to the woman, nonetheless: liver damage ( Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy), gestational diabetes, Preeclampsia and more. Also, pregnancy permanently alters a woman's physiology, in general.
You seem fine forcing women to risk her health brought on by pregnancy, but you you fine with not forcing them risk their health to save the life of their existing child. Again I ask, why the different standards?
Quote:Is it right for a child's mother to kill her child?
She is not 'killing her child', she is ending a pregnancy.
The fetus has every right to continue living, but not at the expense of the bodily autonomy of the mother.
And you seem to understand this, when it comes to her 1 year old child. The reason, I am assuming, that you are fine with allowing the 1 year old to die, by not forcing the mother to give up a kidney, is because it violates her bodily autonomy.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
