Should a mother be allowed to kill her baby?
Yes
Side Score: 17
|
 |
No
Side Score: 18
|
|
|
|
|
I find no logical reason why if a third trimester abortion is moral why it shouldn't be moral to kill a young baby. Actually once the baby is out of the womb we can aneathise it much more effectively to ensure it doesn't feel any pain. To me the age after which it should be illegal to kill a baby is when it has developed a sense of self beyond that of an animal. That is when a baby becomes human. Side: Yes
2
points
Well, you just showed why I ban people like you. You have no conscience, you have no humanity. You are how radical this extremist Democrat Party has become. There is no debatng a mentality that actually has no problem killing innocent viable human lives for any reason. Even the Democrat Party has no probem allowing Babies to die after being born alive from a botched abortion. They fought against Republican bills that would require emergency help for Babies born alive after botched late term abortions. Trump is the result of all the extremism in this new age Democrat Party. People said enough is enough. Side: No
I think the hangup you might run into is that moral justifications for third trimester abortions tend to be limited and heavily reliant upon risks to the mother discovered late term, which obviously wouldn't exist after birth. I'm inclined to agree, though, that if it's blanket permissible for third trimester abortions then people really should be able to articulate why they don't accept it for young infants. I honestly hadn't thought much about extending the permissibility out further, but I'm intrigued by your suggestion. I wonder if we might have to set the age at or slightly below the lower bounds of when that psychological ability develops, though, since that seems the only way to ensure that they have no developed sense of self. I'm also curious if you find it acceptable to kill other animals, and whether you think all animals have a fairly limited concept of self. Side: Yes
calling abortion killing a baby is misleading and its also a Straw Man argument. but if by killing her baby you ask if abortion should be legal, then my answer is yes, but only in the 1st trimester, and as a last resort after counseling and all options and offers for help have been exhausted. and so of course any sort of real murder, like the psycho lady who drowned her kids in a tub last month in Chelsea, needs to be punished to the full extent of law, just like any other murder. and a child's life is no more precious than a adult's either. Side: Yes
This isn't a question about abortion. It's about killing an actual baby that's been born and aged under a month. Asserting that it should be wrong isn't really an argument either. Why should this particular circumstance be treated the same as any other murder? Why isn't a child's life less precious? Side: No
1
point
I DISSagree to agree, to be honest it is wrong, if you abort him/her for no reason, but people shouldn't be so aggressive, maybe she's pregnant by the age of 13-14 because of rape, she's too young holding the baby of a monster, maybe she's not ready and can't afford to look after a child, clothe him, feed him, somewhere to live, we understand but if its simply because you didn't use a condom and you don't want a child, is what I find selfish. Maybe the child can make her ill and die during birth, theres so many reasons. Side: Yes
|
2
points
First of all I dont support second or third semester abortions. Second of all - abortion is about the right to choose what happens to your own body. Pregnancy is not without consequences, and you should be given a chance to terminate in the first trimester. When you are in the second or third trimester abortion is much more complicated and invasive so there is no point in having the abortion then when it is that dangerous and the consequences of pregnancy have already happened. Furthermore killing a born baby serves no purpose to the body of the woman from where it came, so I dont even get why people actually use this argument in serious debates. Side: No
2
points
If you vote for these radical pro abortion Democrats who support no restriction late term abortions of viable babies, you are no better than the people involved with killing those babies. You can't say you are pro life when it comes to late term abortions of viable babies for any reason, and then elect the people who keep it legal. Side: Yes
1
point
If you vote for these radical pro abortion Democrats who support no restriction late term abortions of viable babies, you are no better than the people involved with killing those babies. I didn't vote for any radical or moderate pro abortion or pro life democrat. You can't say you are pro life when it comes to late term abortions of viable babies for any reason, and then elect the people who keep it legal. I didn't say I'm pro life when it comes to late term abortions, I said I didn't support it. And never have I ever voted for anyone who wants to legalize late term abortion. Side: Yes
The value of choice, though, derives from the preference we give more generally to autonomy. Abortion has become very centered around choices about what happens to one's body because the issue is only relevant during pregnancy which involves a relationship to the body. This doesn't mean that other choices after birth necessarily have no proper value. Killing a born baby obviously cannot retroactively serve the body of the woman it came from, but it can serve other ends of the mother (or whomever would be guardian should the mother die in birth). Raising a child is a massive undertaking and a choice in its own right which affects subsequent choices down the road for most if not the rest of a parent's life. Although one could say they could give the child up for adoption instead, it is not difficult to raise independent ethical objections to the adoption and foster care systems most countries have (assuming they have them in the first place). If one does not believe it is unethical in the first place to kill a born baby for any reason, such as the non-existence of a self-concept as Atrag suggests, then that would be sufficient for killing the baby rather than placing them for adoption. I think you are too quick to dismiss this position, probably because it offends your moral sensibilities. Even if the conclusion is ultimately rejected, engaging the question can reveal interesting and significant ideas we have about things like choice and responsibility. Side: Yes
2
points
2
points
1
point
The only instance in which it is morally acceptable for a human being to end another's life is when the life of the former is legitimately and seriously threatened by the latter. Given the fact that an infant poses no threat to their mother's life, said mother killing their infant would be an act of murder, and thus unallowable. Side: No
|
