Message from @DanielKO
Discord ID: 409922709691039793
I personally think it is a baby, but, I think it should be up to the mother to decide.
Should mothers have the right to kill their babies?
Should the mother have the right to take drugs and drink alcohol, and cause permanent damage to the baby's development?
No, because a baby is certainly another human. As long as the mother is not yet in labor, the baby is part of the mother, as far as the government is concerned. If the mother says the 9 month old baby is not a baby, the state can't insist it is.
So if it's inside her vagina, it's not a different life that deserves protection?
Mothers are already (in practice) allowed to take drugs and such and fuck up their kids, is there any way to prevent that without imprisoning mothers and forcing them to do things against their will?
Well, in practice, you can't stop a mother from tripping over a set of stairs and kill the baby by an intentional accident.
What is your point?
Baby being in her uterus or in her arms.
My point is, we can still make a moral judgement regardless of how practical it is to enforce.
I'm talking about this from a legal perspective, not a moral perspective.
But the whole question is what moral values determine what the law should be.
Morals shouldn't be the sole thing that determines laws, you have to factor in whether enforcing the law is feasable or even possible.
"A human being should have the freedom to do with his/her body whatever he/she wishes" versus "no life should be sacrificed to save somebody a discomfort".
Moral principles are what give origin to laws.
Why should any life be saved?
Okay, okay, slow down a bit.
More specifically, why should the state have the obligation to save any life?
I mean, if a bridge collapses, and a bunch of people die, let their surviving family members sue whoever is responsible for the bridge's collapse. Why should the state get involved?
With abortion laws, it's pretty much you either legalize it or you make it illegal. If you legalize it, a small portion of women will kill babies because the pill is too difficult. However, making it illegal will cause a portion of women who were impregnated against their will to be forced to raise a child they didn't ask for.
One could also argue the state has a moral obligation to ensure everyone has the right to not have their lives ruined by forces outside of their control.
Only 1% of abortions are done as result of rape, mind you.
See: flood insurance
Do you really think that women are just going to start aborting babies for trivial reasons just because it's legal?
Less than 1% of abortions are done to save the mother's life.
If a woman is aborting a baby and going through all of that emotional trauma, there's likely a damn good reason for it.
They already *are* aborting for trivial reasons.
Define trivial.
I'm not talking about saving women's lives, I'm talking about saving their chance to have a life outside of poverty.
Okay, let me answer this question before you ask another.
Women are allowed to give their baby for adoption.
When I say trivial, I mean women should be allowed to abort a baby if it's going to screw over their life. The woman is the one who decides that.
Let's simplify this discussion; I'm making the same points as Crowder, it's easier to see where he went. Then you can decide if you have a better response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCSZYJywQPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd6Z_zyXZM
If you truly think a 9 month baby isn't worth saving because the mother doesn't want, then, like Crowder, we don't have much to discuss.
Then indeed you need to make the point of what life, if any, deserves protection.
I genuinely doubt I could change your mind, regardless of what sort of reason I use to explain it. You've done a great job explaining your point of view, but it isn't going to change my mind either. Good talk though, you really had me at a loss a few times. 👍
I strongly recommend you to watch those two videos. He's legitimately trying to find a common ground. He's not being sarcastic, dismissive, or anything. The point is, if you can't derive your politics from anything other than tribal instinct of "us vs them", you might be wrong and you don't know it. And by "wrong" I mean contradict a principle you yourself hold true. One of the big divisions between left and right is, one thing the government has the duty to guarantee comfort, the other thinks the government has the duty prevent death.
He didn't make any religious argument by the way.
holy tits thats like an hour and 40 minutes of video
It's various conversations.