I guess if you're going to say something controversial you might as well go all in and talk about something relevant.
Abortion isn't a scientific issue. It's informed by science but it falls apart when scientism is brought into it.
Really, yes, a fetus is alive and human from the beginning. The discussion isn't about when the fetus is alive and human. If it were, the science without make heartbeat bills look ultra liberal presuming that we're all agreeing that is wrong to kill another human being outside of self-defense.
I'm not taking a conservative, anti-abortion stance with this observation. There have been ultra-pro-abortion arguments that argue for "after birth abortion." That's not based on science. It's based on philosophy concerning the boundaries of personhood.
This is a question of philosophy. Science can only get us so far and, for a lot of people, science is going to get you to a place where you don't wanna go.
This is precisely where we have to draw a line in the sand and allow philosophy to take over for science.
Abortion should not be an industry in a country like the US. 90% Or more of the abortions should not be happening. But the cases for which abortion is defensible are so compelling that the law almost has to be written for the two to five percent and not for the 95%,
There have to be exceptions for rape, incest, and genetic compromise and that last item is the real killer.
100 Years ago when four to seven or eight children was a normal family, a Down syndrome child was not the end of the world. In a world in which 1.8 children is normal family size, a Down synndrome child, especially as a first child, could mean the end of a family.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit