Just Abortion theory

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we really want women who don’t want to pregnant, don’t want to be mothers & aren’t going to take any caution prenatally to be having unwanted babies? What do you think those babies’ lives are going to be like?

+1

Every child deserves to be wanted.

The problem of unwantedness is a good argument for wanting children, but a poor argument for eliminating them.
What is most unfair to unwanted children is to kill them.

“Unwanted” describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we really want women who don’t want to pregnant, don’t want to be mothers & aren’t going to take any caution prenatally to be having unwanted babies? What do you think those babies’ lives are going to be like?

+1

Every child deserves to be wanted.

The problem of unwantedness is a good argument for wanting children, but a poor argument for eliminating them.
What is most unfair to unwanted children is to kill them.

“Unwanted” describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults.

You’re not entitled to a baby. Sorry you couldn’t conceive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: all are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development” (p. 20).

So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons” who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons.

Infants and mentally disabled adults—are still persons.

You, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our personhood would depend not on our current functional abilities (or what we can do), but on our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are).

We can show that since it is wrong to kill us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as follows:

If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.
I am an organism.
Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.
Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.
Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.
What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.

Killing anything is wrong is because it deprives that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours.” You and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO, and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo and fetus because it has a FLO.

It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.
The unborn are persons with a right to life.
You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours.

A living, breathing woman is much more valuable than a fetus. Period.

An unborn baby is living, and breathes to strengthen their lungs in utero.

“Unborn baby” is an oxymoron. You aren’t a baby until you’re born. Otherwise, I should start adding 9 months to the birthday I go by.

[Anonymous]

There is nothing like the desperation of wealthy infertile couples wishing to adopt a white infant in the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Those 650,000 aborted fetuses would have had a horrific quality of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Humans are not a “person” until they are born alive.

Human embryos and fetuses are potential people.

It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful.

There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth.

Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

You’re correct; it is dangerous when people assume that the lives of young, innocent, childbearing women are meaningless.

Both the mother and the baby are important.

The comparison between a baby’s rights and a mother’s rights is unequal. What is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life.

Yeah her “lifestyle” of making a living & going to school. How dare her!

Any civilized society restricts the individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person.

The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights.

Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.

Yes, Susan B. Anthony Was Pro-Life
She and Elizabeth Cady Stanton railed against abortion in the pages of their paper.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-b-anthony-was-pro-life-elizabeth-cady-stanton-roe-abortion-dobbs-decision-11655151459

In fact, it’s the pro-choice groups that have it wrong. During their lifetimes, both women vociferously condemned abortion. They certainly wouldn’t have embraced the use of their names to promote what they termed “foeticide.”

Stacy Schiff wrote, "There is no question that [Anthony] deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement.

“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death.”
– Susan B Anthony

And banning abortion robs women of their bodies, dignity & ability to make a living for an extended period of time.

And robs an unborn girl or boy of their very lives. It takes their ability to make choices about their lives- not one choice will they ever make, because they were killed by their mother.

The suicide rate is significantly higher among women who have had abortions than among those who haven’t.

It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and “out of control” condition.

The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

What is the suicide rate for unwanted children, born into poverty or abuse?

There is a difference between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. “Unwanted” describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults. Child abuse has not decreased since abortion was legalized, but has dramatically increased.

Imagine growing up knowing that you weren’t wanted. With a parent who can’t or won’t care for you. Why inflict that on someone? Not to mention the harm it does to their mother.

And access to abortion REDUCES child abuse/neglect.
“Our findings suggest that abortion legaliza- tion lowered rates of child abuse and neglect, based on total reports of child maltreatment.”
https://www.economics.uci.edu/files/docs/faculty_review/bitler-zavodny-aer-pap-2002.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we really want women who don’t want to pregnant, don’t want to be mothers & aren’t going to take any caution prenatally to be having unwanted babies? What do you think those babies’ lives are going to be like?

+1

Every child deserves to be wanted.

The problem of unwantedness is a good argument for wanting children, but a poor argument for eliminating them.
What is most unfair to unwanted children is to kill them.

“Unwanted” describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults.

I don’t care that YOU want someone else’s baby. Too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: all are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development” (p. 20).

So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons” who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons.

Infants and mentally disabled adults—are still persons.

You, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our personhood would depend not on our current functional abilities (or what we can do), but on our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are).

We can show that since it is wrong to kill us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as follows:

If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.
I am an organism.
Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.
Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.
Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.
What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.

Killing anything is wrong is because it deprives that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours.” You and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO, and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo and fetus because it has a FLO.

It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.
The unborn are persons with a right to life.
You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours.

A living, breathing woman is much more valuable than a fetus. Period.

An unborn baby is living, and breathes to strengthen their lungs in utero.

A woman is much more valuable than a fetus.

Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those 650,000 aborted fetuses would have had a horrific quality of life.

Because women are child abusers? Women physically and emotionally abuse their own children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those 650,000 aborted fetuses would have had a horrific quality of life.

Because women are child abusers? Women physically and emotionally abuse their own children?

Women who don’t want to be mothers do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: all are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development” (p. 20).

So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons” who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons.

Infants and mentally disabled adults—are still persons.

You, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our personhood would depend not on our current functional abilities (or what we can do), but on our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are).

We can show that since it is wrong to kill us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as follows:

If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.
I am an organism.
Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.
Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.
Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.
What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.

Killing anything is wrong is because it deprives that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours.” You and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO, and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo and fetus because it has a FLO.

It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.
The unborn are persons with a right to life.
You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours.

A living, breathing woman is much more valuable than a fetus. Period.

An unborn baby is living, and breathes to strengthen their lungs in utero.

“Unborn baby” is an oxymoron. You aren’t a baby until you’re born. Otherwise, I should start adding 9 months to the birthday I go by.

Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those 650,000 aborted fetuses would have had a horrific quality of life.

Because women are child abusers? Women physically and emotionally abuse their own children?

A lot of women do. A lot of women are stuck with an abusive partner.

Why do you think kids end up in foster care?

[Anonymous]

All that matters is warm bodies. Quality of life be damned.

Also, women are not to be trusted, and can’t make their own decisions.

[Anonymous]

I don’t expect sheltered DCUMers to have any understanding of the conditions so many American women live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Boonin, author of A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: all are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development” (p. 20).

So it’s perfectly rational to believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent biological human being. And since the unborn are innocent biological human beings, it follows that it is wrong to kill them.

Pro-choice and pro-life advocates agree that there is a special class of beings called “persons” who have a right to life. We agree that we are persons.

Infants and mentally disabled adults—are still persons.

You, me, infants, and disabled humans would all be persons because our personhood would depend not on our current functional abilities (or what we can do), but on our innate capacity for certain functional abilities (or what we are).

We can show that since it is wrong to kill us now, it is always wrong to kill us, and since we used to exist in the womb, it was wrong to kill us in the womb. This kind of argument is based on personal identity and can be laid out as follows:

If an organism that once existed has never died, then this organism still exists.
I am an organism.
Therefore, I am the organism that once existed in my mother’s womb.
Generally speaking, it is always wrong to kill me.
Since I existed in my mother’s womb, it was wrong to kill me at that time.
What is true about killing me is true for everyone else.
Therefore, it is wrong to kill anyone else who lives or has lived in his mother’s womb.

Killing anything is wrong is because it deprives that thing of a valuable future, or a “future-like-ours.” You and I, infants, and nearly every embryo and fetus does have a FLO, and so if this is what makes killing wrong, then it is wrong to kill nearly every human embryo and fetus because it has a FLO.

It is wrong to kill biological human beings like the unborn.
The unborn are persons with a right to life.
You and I were once embryos, and it always wrong to kill us.
Abortion deprives the unborn of a future-like-ours.

A living, breathing woman is much more valuable than a fetus. Period.

An unborn baby is living, and breathes to strengthen their lungs in utero.

“Unborn baby” is an oxymoron. You aren’t a baby until you’re born. Otherwise, I should start adding 9 months to the birthday I go by.

Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.

So how would we scientifically date people?