The science shows it is not morally wrong as you're not KILLING anything as there is nothing ALIVE

Science does not drive an agenda, you cannot make an abstract decision because science told you so. Science tells you *how* and *why* , what you do with that information is where morals come in

Science is just the proof to your own moral code

If you dont agree on morals any science present to argue the other side is invalid

Science shows they're not living in the first trimester

And that's why I tend not to argue about what is or is not alive, because in my mind ***that does not matter, what matters is the clearly defined potential for life***

That is a moral view, that I hold, which has nothing to do with the science behind whether or not a fetus is alive

science doesn't change your morals

Exactly, yes.

Science only proves morals

yeah

the inconsistency or not

Then I showed that the potential life being preserved damage the already existing life present

No, that was the weakest point you made during the entire discussion

your morals = killing a living being is wrong. science = fetuses aren't living. all that proves is killing fetuses is NOT immoral

there ^^

How so??

If, theoretically, potential life is enough, then harming somebody's social or economic status is not justification for ending it especially when this isn't even the case

oh so potential life is not life?

No? I never claimed it to be, the only reason I participated in the "is it life" discussion was to humor the conversation

science doesn't impact your morals, it impacts the actions and decisions you believe to be moral or immoral

Or are they synonymous under your definition. As in you hold potential life equal to life itself

I think whether scientifically or not a fetus is alive is not important because, morally, I view that potential as the deciding factor.

But earlier you said, "current life has precedent over potential life" so it does justify it

I specified medically

so you think that potential of life will lead to life and when its life we cant kill it?

Then you're limiting it to specific factors which can harm a life. You're ignoring the social and economic damages of having a kid prior to being able to sustain it

Which then ruin both lives

Does this mean you value potential life less or equal to actual life? @Billcat

I'm saying the social and economic factors are not relevant because carrying a baby does not equal raising a child

basically for billcat, he values morals over science. for us, we value science over morals, even though the science does fit our morals.

well thats how i interpret it anyways

yea but you carrying a baby and not aborting will lead to harming the mother

or other people

So then to not raise it you put it up for adoption which I showed is currently a shit place for a child to be

Not quite. I think that science and morals are two separate things that work in tandem, not aagainst each other

why dont we talk about outliers now

Is a shitty place better than dead? @Komrade Kam

you explained your views on the majority

No

depends