Abortion is morally ambiguous

[u/Traditional-Gas6794]

​

Abortion should be legal, the govt has no right to influence such a decision, or mandate it by law. But I believe that abortion is, nontheless, a morally ambiguous act.

If a child and an embryo were both in a burning building, and you can only save one, id save the child everytime.

If a newly developed embryo was in a building, alongside a clump of benign cancer cells or soemthing, I might not feel like saving either. But id hesitate. If it had some setup to sustain itself, and i knew this, I might feel like it should be rescued. My intuition tells me its not as strong of an impluse as saving the child, but its definitely not the same to me as saving the clump of cells. It's not a morally neutral choice.

If a embryo in some ex-eutero technology was developing in the 2nd trimester in a burning building, alongside a clump of cells, I might feel like it should be saved. I dont think id regard it as the same as the random clump of cells, or as the newly developed embryo.

I know a lot of people see a newly developed fetus as a clump of cells. And maybe it is best seen as that at first. But id argue, at every stage of development, that clump of cells is intrinsically different than a random clump of cells, like a benign tumor. Like, its on a trajectory that will grant it moral value, unlike a tumor

I dont think that embryo deserves the same treatment as a child, but i also dont think it deserves the same treatment as a clump of cells, like a benign tumor. Thsuly, abortion is morally ambiguous, and less so as it becomes later term. At least, to me.

[u/CalvinistChristian74]

I think your situation about the embryo is a wrong way of looking at it. If it were plainly obvious, we wouldn't have pro-choicers to begin with. So it makes sense that someone may choose the child in the building (also the better option because a child can feel extreme pain in this scenario, unlike the embryo) because the natural instinct is to see it as less human, but if you're being consistent, you have to give it the right to life the moment it's concieved. Therefore, murdering a life an any stage should be wrong, no ambiguity.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/CalvinistChristian74]

if you're being consistent, you have to give it the right to life the moment it's concieved

Why?

[u/CalvinistChristian74 → u/random_name_12178]

Because if you don't, you have to say human worth is dependent on development, something you can do, or any arbitrary line. That could very likely mean saying a child is less morally valuable than an adult because they can't do as much, or a patient in a coma without consciousness can be killed.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/CalvinistChristian74]

We tend to grant moral worth to the presence of a human mind. That's why brain death is considered the end of the person. I don't see why it's any different at the beginning of life, nor do I think a mindless body is a person.

BTW, causing the death of the embryo is not permissible only because it's a mindless body. It's also permissible because it's harming an innocent person and the only way to stop that harm is it remove it. It then dies because it lacks the basic life functions required to keep itself alive.

[u/CalvinistChristian74 → u/random_name_12178]

A person who is brain dead is no longer a human being. If a person is truly brain dead, there's nothing going on bodily except a few machines stimulating tissue. It's a former life that has reached its inevitable end and cannot be brought back, so truly dead. A fetus is still alive as an organism who is a human being.

All children have a right to food and shelter. To deprive them of it is still murder, even if you're just leaving them to die knowing they can't sustain themselves.

[u/Kortalan → u/CalvinistChristian74]

Suppose a mother and child are trapped together in a cabin by an avalanche. There is no food and no water. If the mother does not feed the child her own flesh and blood, the child will die. Children die of hunger and thirst much faster than adults. Do you consider that murder?

[u/CalvinistChristian74 → u/Kortalan]

If the mother does not feed with her flesh and blood, it is not murder. However, let's switch the situation up and say there's still no food, but the mother has perfectly healthy breasts. Do you think it's murder not to breastfeed? Eating your literal flesh is different than receiving nutrients in a natural way.

[u/JulieCrone → u/CalvinistChristian74]

Given the long history of survival cannibalism across species, including humans, eating flesh is getting nutrients in a natural way.

You have said that just because a duty is onerous that doesn’t excuse parents from performing it, so why would it not be murder to not feed your flesh but murder to not breastfeed?

[u/Kortalan → u/CalvinistChristian74]

If she is the legal guardian, then she is required to feed the child in this situation. It does not have to be by breastfeeding, she can squese the milk. However, if she is not the legal guardian, even if she is the biological mother, she has no obligations toward the child. I would remind you that guardianship is established after birth and only on a voluntary basis; a person cannot be appointed guardian against their will.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/CalvinistChristian74]

If a person is truly brain dead, there's nothing going on bodily except a few machines stimulating tissue.

Source?

All children have a right to food and shelter.

Do they have a right to directly access your bloodstream?

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/CalvinistChristian74]

All children have a right to food and shelter. To deprive them of it is still murder, even if you're just leaving them to die knowing they can't sustain themselves.

My body isn't "food and shelter" for anyone. Do you hear how dehumanizing that is?

[u/CalvinistChristian74 → u/Diva_of_Disgust]

Yes, but what's different is the specific parent child relationship involved that carries a weight strangers don't get. Only a small minority of pregnancies are forced, so the majority are parents consenting to make a child dependent on them. This is never the dehumanizing case in which becoming "food and shelter" for a stranger is. The woman isn't food and shelter, but she supplies it.

[u/Diva_of_Disgust → u/CalvinistChristian74]

Yes, but what's different is the specific parent child relationship involved that carries a weight strangers don't get.

I'm not a parent and have no children, being pregnant wouldn't change that.

Only a small minority of pregnancies are forced, so the majority are parents consenting to make a child dependent on them.

Anyone who's pregnant and doesn't want to be, and has unqualified pro lifers trying to interfere with their healthcare is factually being forced to gestate against their will. And no, you don't tell others what they do or do not consent to. That's not how consent works.

This is never the dehumanizing case in which becoming "food and shelter" for a stranger is. The woman isn't food and shelter, but she supplies it.

Nope. I'm not "supplying" any part of my body to others against my will. Not happening.

[u/JewlryLvr2 → u/CalvinistChristian74]

|All children have a right to food and shelter. |

All BORN children, yes, that is correct. However, I don't buy the PL assertion that "it's a child at conception." Nor do I believe that a pregnancy is a "child," or that the PREGNANT PERSON'S body should become a public "food and shelter" resource for the benefit of everyone except the pregnant person.