BenShade Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Hello, This is my first post and I must be honest that I didn't exhaustivley read every post on this topic so if I have repeated somone I apologize. As a believer in UPB I sincerely believe that it is universally preferable not to kill unborn humans. However as a biologist isn't it evolutionarily expediant to allow those with so little empathy as to be comfortable killing their unborn child to do so? Perhaps killing your own flesh and blood is not a moral action, but doesn't it seem to indicate an extreme lack of empathy present in the person commiting the action? So if an action could be used as a strong indicator of a persons immorality doesn't that indicate a moral component? Who protests abortion clinics but some of society's most moral and caring people? Furthermore who advocates for abortion but those who would be inconvenienced if they had to pay for their promiscuity with the consequences of carrying a life to term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 If time travel were possible, and I went back to talk your mom into an abortion, did I just murder you? This isn't an argument. It doesn't even pass for an appeal to emotion. There is always more people involved than just the mother in making the "choice". At least 2, the mother and the doctor who decides to go in there and end it. If the doctor made the choice not to do it, and the mother didn't take matters into her own hands If the mother can take matters into her own hands, then why assert that it takes 2? This is like saying that it takes more than 1 person to smoke; The smoker and whomever sold, transported, made, and grew the ingredients. Absurd. doesn't it seem to indicate an extreme lack of empathy present in the person commiting the action? As I type this on my keyboard, I scarcely see how I could empathize with it, my property. Who protests abortion clinics but some of society's most moral and caring people? Assertion and false. Even if it were true, it wouldn't have any bearing on the (lack of) moral component of abortion. who advocates for abortion but those who would be inconvenienced if they had to pay for their promiscuity with the consequences of carrying a life to term. "Advocates for abortion" is poisoning the well. Also, it doesn't matter WHY I dispense with my property the way I do or if you agree with me. If it's my property, I can dispose of it however I see fit. You guys are approaching this as if the answer is subjective, which is of no use to others in an objective analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tfwoods3 Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 There is no question that if a pregnancy is not aborted, as long as any other event doesn't end it naturally, the pregnancy would result in a life. Aborting it ends that life from ever happening. Clint Eastwood-like saying, "you take away everything it was ever going to have". The doctor who chooses to go in there and end it has blood on his hands too. When my sister was pregnant I tried to talk her into an abortion, if she had listened to me, she would not have the 17 year old son she has today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts