To abort or not to abort

[Jacob(smooth)]

An interesting moral stance. Does it extend to actual people? So for eg, if I see a child fall off a train platform onto the track, do I have a moral obligation to lift the child clear? (go out of my way to ensure its survival)? Or is it enough not to take action to ensure its destruction (push him off).

IUDs work by impeding implantation of a fertilised egg. Is this taking action to ensure its destruction?

A)Attempt to push a child into the path of an on coming train.
B)Not attempt to save a child who has fallen in front of an on coming train.

A is not the same thing as B. A is analogous to abortion. B is not analogous to abortion. I fear you are attempting to conflate A with B....but to answer your question I would say yes, you have some obligation to lift the child from the tracks.

Actually, I'm seeing if you conflate a and B, with C And D. Where C and d are actively killing and failing to protect a fetus

So to be clear, I YO

We DO have a moral duty to go out of our way to protect the child once born, but NOT before its born.

And actively destroying the child is wrong either before or after birth.

Is that what you're saying?

[Heywood]

One thing that troubles me about pro-lifers (and I do take their arguments seriously) is this idea that a fetus has personhood rights on the basis of its potential to be a sentient being or in virtue of its human DNA. That's all fine but it seems like if one is going to value the status of a fetus, which is presumably not conscious or aware (question: is it perceptive? I don't see how) then pro-lifers should be adamantly against the way other conscious and sentient animals are treated.

Prolifers.....like non prolifers grant moral protection to future expectation of personhood. The difference is that prolifers recognize that a fetus has a future expectation of personhood because that is the consistent position.

[No_God]

People waste so much time debating and protesting abortion. Why not take time to help underprivileged kids of poor mothers who didn't seek out abortion services? Oh that's right. People rather flap their fucking gums than do something.

[Heywood]

People waste so much time debating and protesting abortion. Why not take time to help underprivileged kids of poor mothers who didn't seek out abortion services? Oh that's right. People rather flap their fucking gums than do something.

Peacefully trying to stop a moral wrong is doing something my dear.

[No_God]

Arguing on the internet does absolutely nothing.

[Heywood]

A)Attempt to push a child into the path of an on coming train.
B)Not attempt to save a child who has fallen in front of an on coming train.

A is not the same thing as B. A is analogous to abortion. B is not analogous to abortion. I fear you are attempting to conflate A with B....but to answer your question I would say yes, you have some obligation to lift the child from the tracks.

Actually, I'm seeing if you conflate a and B, with C And D. Where C and d are actively killing and failing to protect a fetus

So to be clear, I YO

We DO have a moral duty to go out of our way to protect the child once born, but NOT before its born.

And actively destroying the child is wrong either before or after birth.

Is that what you're saying?

There is a moral obligation to take reasonable care of the unborn.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Actually, I'm seeing if you conflate a and B, with C And D. Where C and d are actively killing and failing to protect a fetus

So to be clear, I YO

We DO have a moral duty to go out of our way to protect the child once born, but NOT before its born.

And actively destroying the child is wrong either before or after birth.

Is that what you're saying?

There is a moral obligation to take reasonable care of the unborn.

But you said

That does not mean we need to go out of our way to insure its survival.

[Mudhammam]

One thing that troubles me about pro-lifers (and I do take their arguments seriously) is this idea that a fetus has personhood rights on the basis of its potential to be a sentient being or in virtue of its human DNA. That's all fine but it seems like if one is going to value the status of a fetus, which is presumably not conscious or aware (question: is it perceptive? I don't see how) then pro-lifers should be adamantly against the way other conscious and sentient animals are treated.

Prolifers.....like non prolifers grant moral protection to future expectation of personhood. The difference is that prolifers recognize that a fetus has a future expectation of personhood because that is the consistent position.

Fine but that doesn't answer my question. There's nothing consistent as far as I can see in the position that "a future expectation of personhood" be regarded more sacred than the present sentience of a pig or a cow.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Prolifers.....like non prolifers grant moral protection to future expectation of personhood. The difference is that prolifers recognize that a fetus has a future expectation of personhood because that is the consistent position.

Fine but that doesn't answer my question. There's nothing consistent as far as I can see in the position that "a future expectation of personhood" be regarded more sacred than the present sentience of a pig or a cow.

If I understand Heywood argument it's that a fetus, Like a person under Anaesthesia, hopefully WILL achieve full sentience, whereas a pig or a cow won't ever be more than a pig or a cow.

[Heywood]

Fine but that doesn't answer my question. There's nothing consistent as far as I can see in the position that "a future expectation of personhood" be regarded more sacred than the present sentience of a pig or a cow.

If a lion kills and eats me, I don't think the lion is being evil. It is a predator and I am prey. I don't think I am evil when I eat cows or pigs because I am predator and they are prey. These types of actions are artifacts of ecology. Abortion is a deliberate conscious decision to prevent the existence of a person for motivations of convenience.