It’s stupid to argue strictly one or the other. I’ve already argued the scientific aspect of it. And you need to quit moving the goalposts.
I’m not moving the goalpost. I’m showing you why whether or not a being should be killed is a philosophical question - not a scientific one.
Doesn’t preventing pregnancies reduce abortion? Seems like if your goal is to reduce abortions that you might consider reducing unwanted pregnancies. The issues go hand in hand.
What better options are there? The IUD experiment has been proven to be amazingly effective. You are free to offer alternatives but at least we know the IUD solution is very strong in reducing abortions.
And again with the govt? Nobody forces the kids to have an IUD. It is a choice. You seem intent on making sure the govt doesn’t pay for solutions even if abortions are reduced. Is money more important to you than life?
It’s both, really. Although if I were to have argued strictly philosophically you would have accused me of being on a moral high horse, so that’s initially why I took the science route.
So then you admit philosophy and ethics play a major role in the abortion debate?
You’re attacking perceived inconsistencies in my argument and not arguing why abortion isn’t murder. You’re parsing my posts and picking out little parts to argue against, not the entire post.
I’m sorry about your friend. Is your position that there can be NO bad outcomes? Every medicine I know of has potential harmful effects.
Again, nobody forces the kids to have an IUD.
Science does too. They both do, equally.
Fully agree Matt. Pro-Lifers go down a bad road, when they invoke Jesus/the bible as their reasons. It should be purely about human life/persons being denied life/liberty without due process of the law.
No I’m not. You explicitly said philosophy has no place in this debate. You’re wrong.
Yes you are. And you are wrong. You’re arguing purely on philosophy, which is stupid. Admit it.
It does which is why I’ve included brain development and consciousness as an input to my philosophical stance on abortion’s morality.
Consciousness and self-awareness alone don’t determine whether someone is worth living or not.
I’ve consistently used brain development as a supplemental input for my moral stance. You’re just flat out wrong here and mistaken.
That’s the philosophical question now isnt it. Thanks for joining the debate finally.
You have yet to provide one source backing up your claims. So your argument is trash. I’ve provided several sources to back up my argument.
Well it’s what you argued, so by your own standards you need to stand behind it.
You’ve done no such thing. There is no brain mechanics in early term fetuses that correlate with neurological activity seen in conscious individuals.
Oh yes I have. An australian site about neural development, Psychology Today, etc.
You have yet to back up your argument.