نقاش أخلاقي: حوار الإجهاض في FriendZone
ملخص
يستضيف خادم FriendZone | Make Friends & Chat ⋅ Active Social Fun ⋅ Chill ⋅ VC نقاشًا معمقًا حول أخلاقيات الإجهاض وتعريفاته البيولوجية. يعرض هذا الإعلان حجة منطقية تتعلق بحقوق الإنسان ومكانة الطفل الذي لم يولد بعد. ويشكّل نقطة تجمع لأفراد المجتمع للمشاركة في نقاشات أخلاقية معقدة وتبادل وجهات النظر حول قضايا اجتماعية حساسة ضمن بيئة منظمة.
What are you talking about
Your analogy only works if you know the embryo will have a terminal illness and will die shortly after birth
If the baby has a terminal illness that will for sure take its life shortly after birth then I wouldn’t be against abortion
but if it’s like down syndrome or something then yeah I am against aborting a down syndrome baby because of course I am
That’s not a terminal illness
Not the same thing as a dog with a terminal illness that you euthanize to prevent suffering
Idk what’s confusing ab this lol
Which opinion?
I think life is better than death in all scenarios
Because down syndrome people have a right to life just like the rest of us do?
Having a mental illness doesn’t mean you get your right to life deprived
Obviously I prefer they take care of it
Worst option would always be death though
Sure and that’s better than death
Im happier with an adopted down syndrome baby than a dead one
I still think death is worse
Ask a foster child if they’d let you kill then
I bet they’ll say no
Death is worse
Feeling pain is also not a qualifier for the right to life btw
no
I have already stated that we are all cells, stop recycling the cells statement.
Thank you!🙏. This is the second time you are agreeing with my "hot takes", that's pretty awesome and very rare in our world.
Gabe also reemphasized that.
I guess, in few states, it's illegal. But abortion can be legal. So I guess we can't consider it murder.
That's exactly why I called a logical inference not a legal assessment. I am basically saying that the laws are wrong and illogical, infact some actually contradict the US Declaration of Independence - the first paragraph
Ultimately, what may be seen as the illogicality or logic of these laws will hinge on what one thinks the founding principles are. If the founding principles are that the inalienable right of liberty protects a person's control over their own body, then restrictive laws are downright contradictory. If the founding principles are that the inalienable right of life extends to a fetus at conception, then allowing for abortion seems equally irrational. Because the Declaration of Independence does not explicitly state when Life begins or how to resolve conflicts among the inalienable rights, it becomes a text that both sides can use to justify their positions.
But the most authoritative source on where life begins is at science and it says, that's at conception.
The founding principles do not say that a person has complete bodily autonomy period let alone to the extent that you can take human life with your bodily autonomy. Haven’t you heard of the draft?
You are making the same mistake as the previous person; confusing current law with morality. The law follows the morality, not the other way around. Early 19th century southern American slave owners would have considered African slaves to be not human and merely property simply because the law said so. Were they correct? Absolutely not
