After week 24, my understanding is that since a fetus *could* live independently of the mother's womb, hence the womb is then both considered technically alive and a person with rights. — Sydasis
You mean that the pre-born are not as viable because they are still dependent on the mother and the womb and therefore have the right to kill the pre-born? Take care even still. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person whose independence is higher than your own.
After week 24, my understanding is that since a fetus *could* live independently of the mother's womb, hence the womb is then both considered technically alive and a person with rights. The mother can not do harm to the unborn child at this point unless it threatens the rights (life) of the mother. Although removing the baby at this point may not lead to the child's successful birth, lets consider the classical Schrodinger's cat experiment. We do not know if the cat inside the poisoned trapped box is alive or dead until we open the box, but until we do, the cat must be considered both alive and dead. If alive, it must be treated with rights. — Sydasis
An added note, but it would seem justifiable to kill the baby if it threatened the life of the mother, although I chuckle that it may be just as justifiable to kill the mother to save the baby in such a case. As for pre-week 24 abortions, I suspect that any time a man has sex with a women who is on the pill, they are likely accomplices to abortions they may not even be aware of. — Sydasis
You still have some work to do if you want to offer a complete argument against abortion, form a utilitarian perspective — Pseudonym
Why are there no philosophers and no threads arguing that when a homeless person freezes to death while there are warm places locked up all around him, that is murder; that refusing your spare bedroom to a refugee is murder. — unenlightened
In order to be consistent, you have to agree to give free crap to these other people
Comparing "me giving money to someone who is homeless or poor" to abortion is basically making the following argument......... — LostThomist
Utilitarians are morally decrepit......NEXT! — LostThomist
It seems you're equivocating over the word "unlawful," which can mean "not legal" or "not morally right." Abortion is lawful in the first sense at present, but not in the second. Because it's not lawful in the second sense, it ought to be made unlawful in the first. — Thorongil
It seems you're equivocating over the word "unlawful," which can mean "not legal" or "not morally right." Abortion is lawful in the first sense at present, but not in the second. Because it's not lawful in the second sense, it ought to be made unlawful in the first. — Thorongil
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.