I just want to make my own stance clear. Eggs and sperm are wasted all the time, naturally. I don’t think that’s what people are upset about when it comes to abortion. When an egg is fertilized, there is a spark of life. A human child begins growing. If it wasn’t a living human being, it wouldn’t be growing more cells, and it wouldn’t turn into someone like me or yourself. Destroying a fertilized egg/fetus when there are no medical problems causing harm to the child or mother is murder in my book. Anything else is just a strawman.
What about plan B? Other than that, my question was more geared toward Catholics, who typically are against birth control. It took them forever to even condone condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The rape situation is difficult for me to answer. I still think it’s murder and that it’s wrong to do, but regarding law, I honestly don’t know what’s best. I’ve never been raped, and even if I was I’m a male, so I have no ability to empathize with the psychological affects of birthing a rapists child. At the same time, I think birthing the child would be one way to bring good into the world out of a horrible and traumatic occurrence. Again though, I have no idea how such an idea would sit with the woman in question.
Here’s the problem: it’s not just birthing a rapist’s child, it’s carrying it for nine months. I’m going to guess that most abortions of rape pregnancies are very, very early in the pregnancy. (Most abortions in general are that.) I doubt that many, if any to be honest, women have chosen to carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide at the nine month mark that they can’t have a rapist’s child.
I never implied that the woman is choosing to abort after waiting eight months. It was just general.
But they’re all more-or-less the same to you. I’m pointing out how absurd it is to compare these situations.
To me, to deny that there’s any difference between aborting a viable baby (and it’s fair to call it a baby once it’s viable outside of the womb) and an abortion of a 5-week fetus is totally absurd and dishonest.
There is a technical and, I suppose moral, distinction. But, a five-week fetus is still a human child in my mind, so still murder.
Okay, so what about what I said regarding sex-ed, birth control, and the welfare state?
And by your own admission a pregnant rape victim is “just a strawman,” so I guess I don’t really know why I’m going into this.
That completely ignores my context to purposefully paint me as unsympathetic towards rape victims. When regarding the argument of whether or not abortion at any stage is murder, anything that relates to other moral situations and not the central argument is a strawman.
It was your own words and you still say it’s murder so I don’t think it’s that out of context.
Bringing up a different moral situation doesn’t argue the idea that aborting a five-week fetus isn’t murder. It’s just confusing the central point.
It doesn’t confuse anything, it just shows that there’s an obvious difference from case to case. Not all abortions are the same.
Also, the Bible, in Numbers 5:22, condones abortion in tests for infidelity so it isn’t even like abortion has anything to do with the Christian religion.
Well, first, it’s hard to say if that would be considered applicable law post-Christ (unless I’m missing something?), and that isn’t the same as rape. It’s not that it has to do with religion (I hate the idea of “religiousness”), I just think that killing a developing child without good reason is morally wrong. And of course different people have different opinions on the definition of “good reason.”
It’s not the same as rape but it’s still a child. My point was that the only time God’s word ever mentions abortion, it’s condoning it.