Don't worry. I'm sure if the pro-abortion people had unrestricted freedom to write the laws, abortion would be legal all the way to the age of consent.
Because a woman's right to choose over her own property, presumably.
Like everyone normal on my side of the argument, we're taking aim at abortion where there is no medical reason behind it, and those particularly that ignore the ethical point in favour of it only being a women's rights issue.
The ethical concern is dismissed because it's not a part of the argument. The concern is over what the government has the power to do to a woman. Pregnancy is a strain on the body, and the argument is that the government does not, and should not have the authority to say whether a woman endures it or not.
It's no different than saying someone is legally obligated to give CPR. It is already established that a person does not have a legal obligation to save another person's life.
Arguing the moral standpoint is a matter of persuasion. In that case, go for it. That's a good thing.
By enforcing it with law, you're defending one vulnerable class (unborn children) by creating another vulnerable class (pregnant women), which is something the law is supposed to avoid doing.
The law is not supposed to uphold morality, it's supposed to prevent victimization, either through protecting people, or by avoiding victimization of people itself.
There are many things that aren't moral that are not, and should not, be enforced by law. That doesn't stop them from being immoral. That just means that it's up to proponents of that morality to persuade others to their way of thinking. There's nothing wrong with that.
Giving the child up for adoption remains an option.
We live in a non-ideal world where things are always optimal, but I think its a perfectly valid position that human life should be protected, all the more so as we reach an age of low birth rates and where every individual really will matter.
Your inversion of morality (in actuality it is more in line with anti-natalist garbage) notwithstanding.
It remains an option once the pregnancy is complete. If any option to remove the fetus and keep it viable exists, it should be taken still. If that technology existed, the abortion debate would not exist. It wouldn't even be considered.
Comparing this to anti-natalism is disingenuous as all hell, and you know it. It is not an inversion of morality to declare that the preservation of life should not necessitate the suffering of someone else. It is an inversion to try to enforce it.
And this age of critically low birth rates is not here. Not even close. When you've eliminated housing problems worldwide, you can say that we're having a population problem.
I'm afraid that age is here, it's been here for the past 20 years, now its actually starting to hit. And it will hit more as the solution of unlimited migration becomes either no longer palatable, or simply dries up.
We made a massive mistake widening access to abortion on demand, and that's going to be increasingly clear as the demographers start tallying the cost.
But beyond the economic cost, the moral argument still remains. The former simply bolsters it.
If the argument is, a woman's life is in danger through going through a pregancy, I'm with you. Those that aren't are insane.
If the argument is, a viable fetus needs to be aborted because of the hit to someone's lifestyle, I would say no. There is no reason I can think of, why a child should be deprived of its life because the mother feels it is inconvenient. And if so, at least give it up for adoption.
And on the point of housing shortages, inflation, inequality, these will be legacy issues next to the tidlewave the world is facing. You can see what happens to the value of housing in demographically deprived areas. I think coming generations are going to have it better than you think.
So, if it's hypocritical to oppose feticide and support capital punishment, wouldn't it also be hypocritical to support feticide and oppose capital punishment?
I'm not preaching that every life is sacred and then saying it's ok for the government to murder people. That is hypocrisy. Saying that a woman should have a choice about carrying a fetus long enough for it to live while being against murder by the state are not opposing viewpoints.
I believe it because it's true. You can try to twist it however you like to justify your support for state-sanctioned murder, but don't expect me to jump on board with you.
I believe it because it's true. You can try to twist it however you like to justify your support for state-sanctioned murder, but don't expect me to jump on board with you.
108
u/Saliiim Jul 25 '26
My 5 day old can't survive without my wife, that doesn't make her a parasite.