Addressing the elephant in the womb


Making a dive-by argument with no backbone about abortion is not spiritual.


Nope. The person comes into existence when they brain is capable of experiencing personhood in the form of consciousness. Once that happens for the first time, abortion should be illegal.


I think existentialism is something you’ve never studied. Is a robot alive?


I plan on adopting, yes. And am researching Reactive Attachment Disorder so I’m prepared to deal with an adopted child that has that, as not having a consistent caregiver can lead to that, which would happen in the foster system.


Of course philosophy has a place here.

You need it to be able to answer the question as to why murder is wrong in the first place.

The very nature of the word “wrong” implies a philosophical discussion.


Extensialism has no place here. This is about life, not about death and the meaninglessness of life.


Why dont you do it right now. I mean inconvenience isnt a good excuse to not raise a child right?


It has everything to do with meaning and ethics. Tell me - what is the scientific law that says we should bomb ISIS? They are “alive”? What is the biochemical process that says ISIS ought to be killed?


What a stupid argument. I don’t have enough money to adopt, I’m not old enough or wise enough to adopt.

At least I’m responsible enough to keep my legs closed, unlike women who get abortions.


Well, you still cannot arguing on that alone. The mental gymnastics you are doing just to argue against me is phenomenal. You should be in the Olympics.


Wait though. Pro life. Why arent you adopting kids right now. You’re just going to let them go without loving families due to it inconvienicing you?

That’s always how it ends with pro lifers. Always pro life, but not in my backyard.


Why dont you answer? Tell me, what is the scientific law that says ISIS ought to be killed? Scientifically they are “persons” and a “life”. If morals and philosophy have no place in how we classify murder, then please tell me the objective scientific law that defines ISIS ought to be killed.


You’re trying to equate abortion to responsibility and it’s a false argument. Abortion is the irresponsible choice. They wouldn’t have to abort if they were responsible in the first place.


ISIS are terrorists. They are not innocent, unlike an unborn child. Apples to oranges.


You’re contradicting yourself. But anyway, in some cases it may be more responsible to abort early than raise a child in bad living conditions. Hey we are now having a moral / philosophical discussion. Please show me the scientific that defines the objective degree of “responsibility”.


Show me the scientific process that says they ought to be killed.


Getting pregnant is the result of irresponsibility, most of the time. If she wasn’t irresponsible, then she wouldn’t have to abort in the first place. You shouldn’t be having sex if you cannot deal with the consequences.


Those are moral / ethical statements. I thought you said philosophy has no place in this discussion.


That has nothing to do with science.


And neither does the question of whether or not any “person” ought to be killed. Do you get what I’m saying now?