Does abortion presuppose that parents have no moral obligations to their children?

If you DNA test a foetus:

- It's a collection of human cells
- It's living
- It's not part the mother
- It's not part the father
- Not part of any other human being

Therefore, it is a) unique, b) living c) human.

And a unique, living, small human, goes by another name: A Child.


I don't understand how this is difficult.

SS

x

*

I think you've misunderstood. We're not talking about "taking matters into your own hands" and deciding that you want your baby to die, and actively starving it to make sure it does.

Rather, we're talking about a situation similar to abortion in which a parent simply says "I do not permit this child to use my resources in order to survive". Similarly to how a woman may say "This is my womb, and the child can't live in it", we're talking about a parent who says "This is my house, and the child can't live in it", or "This is my, food and the child can't eat it".

Now of course, if a parent wanted to do that, they could. But they would have to first find someone else who's willing to feed and house and adopt the child before this would be allowed, so that it doesn't die. They owe a duty of care to the child they created, to prevent its death at all costs.*Similarly, if they wished to withdraw the use of their womb from the child, should they not also have to first find say, a surrogate mother who is willing to continue to allow the child to develop inside her womb so that it doesn't die?*

*
You say that the line is drawn between a potential baby and a human baby when the child begins to be able to survive outside the womb. However, even after it becomes able to survive outside the womb, it is still dependent upon its parents for survival in other ways.

So the analogy being drawn here is that, if "allowing it to die" by withdrawing food or shelter etc. is prohibited, then "allowing it to die" by withdrawing the womb environment also should be prohibited.

If you DNA test a foetus:

- It's a collection of human cells
- It's living
- It's growing
- It's not part the mother
- It's not part the father
- Not part of any other human being

Therefore, it is a) unique, b) living c) human.

And a unique, living, small human, goes by another name: A Child.


I don't understand how this is difficult.

SS

it's "living" in the same sense a plant cell is living though...so your argument is pretty worthless. you're not prepared to think that de-weeding your flower bed is genocide so your point falls flat.

Moral obligation for a birth parent to find a home for a child is based on the reality that other people can take that child and care for it. We currently can't transplant a foetus into another person and don't have artificial uterus'. You can't force birth parents to raise a child and you can't force a woman to carry a foetus to term. It's been tried before and women carried out illegal abortions.

You can try logic your way through it as much as you want, you can't make a person want something that they don't want. We live in reality, not in the vacuum of a philosophy debate.

Mental.


The argument isn't just that it's living...

It's the fact, it's human DNA so it's part of a human but it's not part of the mother because they have completely different DNA. It's unique.

Did you even read the argument?


We're not talking about plant DNA here.

I don't care if it's "human" via this argument, that's not the point - if you're saying it's a *living* human, you are basically saying that deweeding a garden is murder. if you're saying that a foetus is alive, then picking daisies is technically an act of slaughter. your argument is obviously very flawed and you're just ignoring this fact.

hm? an appeal to authority logical fallacy? nooope. try again champ.

h
also, wtf is up with your appeal to "uniqueness"? how is that important? why are you putting your chips on "uniqueness"?
also, once again, "living" in the human sense is more than a mere biological understanding - a trees "alive" in the same way a human is? no? then give it up.

Good God, you're not very smart are you?



Thank **** a sign of being human isn't intelligence or you'd be buggered.


SS

What?

I believe you're off your rocker.


Murder in UK law only applies to humans.


Let's break it down. A foetus is:

A) Unique (It's not the mother. It's not the father. It's unprecedented and its DNA is different to both.)

B) Part of the species known as "Human" (The cells have 46 chromosomes and all of the genetic material we have, thus identifying them as human cells)

C) Living (It grows, moves, respires.)


Which of these do you disagree with?

It's got 46 chromosomes. It has all the genetic material the rest of us have. It must be part of the human species in one way or another.
But it's not the mother and it's not the father. It's not part of anyone else. Therefore, it must be an individual.
So, it's unique, it's living and it's part of the human species (I.E. A person). (Which is these would you disagree with?)
(According to your definition of human, someone in a vegetative state is no longer human. Clearly, people in a vegetative state are human. Reductio Absurdum. Proposition false.)
SS

So a fertilised egg is living? Or does it only become living when it's a foetus?

So a fertilised egg is living? Or does it only become living when it's a foetus?

I personally wouldn't call it human in a different sense - that it has no capacity to experience the world, think, suffer, love, or any of the other special things that humans do that we use to distinguish ourselves from nonhuman entities. It has the capacity to eventually grow into an entity that can do those things, but I don't think that's enough to give us a moral responsibility for its welfare.

The same could be said of a person who has been temporarily knocked unconscious. They cannot experience the world, think, suffer, love or anything like that. However, we have a moral responsibility for its welfare because we assume that just because the person can't do those things at this particular moment in time, they most likely will be able to in future.