Who has argued that, & in what context?There's people who will even argue that infants are not "persons". Says more about them than anything else, really.
(I'm skeptical.)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Texas Law Banning Abortion After About Six Weeks Takes Effect
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
(I'm skeptical.)
Ethicists and modern philosophers like Peter Singer. You can find all manner of nuttery and depravity endorsed by modern Western "intellectuals", such as sex with children, but that's a different topic.
Fetuses don't become "people"--as in sentient and able to survive outside the womb--before a certain point in pregnancy, and that's setting aside the issue that the new law makes no exception for pregnancies from rape or incest, thereby basically implying that a fetus should have more rights than a woman who got pregnant through rape or incest.
Astounding claims suggest providing links.
Sometimes personal inferences of meaning
& context don't closely align with quotes.
There's people who will even argue that infants are not "persons". Says more about them than anything else, really.
What do you think of the fact that the new law doesn't make exceptions for pregnancies from rape or incest? We don't disagree that arguing that infants aren't "persons" is unethical and dangerous, but in my opinion, so is denying women the right to bodily autonomy, especially when they're survivors of rape or incestuous abuse.
Then there's the tricky issue of one fetus having no right
to life (incest or rape), but another having that right. This
calls into question a fundamental premise of some
anti-abortion folk.
It does. Logically inconsistent positions often have a way of collapsing under their own weight when nuance comes into play.
Links for what? Singer? His views have been well-known for decades. It's hardly "astounding" at this point. He is hardly the only major intellectual with those views, however, as the link below talks about a number of them.
Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide | Christian Research Institute
Last edited:
I don't really know how I feel about that.
If anyone supports that law, I think it's crucial to consider all aspects of it, especially that one. The amount of suffering and abuse it can enable can't be dismissed, and it strikes me as an extremely dangerous belief to think that six-week-old fetuses have lives that need to be preserved but women who have gotten pregnant through rape or incest don't have critical health and social concerns around pregnancy that deserve consideration by the law.
ecco
Veteran Member
Easy foryou to say.
You did not have to go through the trauma of carrying a fetus for nine months that was put into you by a rapist.
You did not have to go through the trauma of childbirth of an infant that was put into you by a rapist.
You did not have to get saddled with the cost of supporting this kid for 20 years.
How many abandoned children have you adopted?
ecco
Veteran Member
Actually, it looks like the rights and freedoms in America depend upon the political/religious beliefs of five people.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
A cows womb grows baby calves. Peoples wombs grow baby people.
A cow is never a person and a baby is never not a person.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
are they squirrels? Frogs, maybe?Haven't you heard, unborn babies are not people
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Fetuses are never anything but people.
And the red herring rape issue is a silly excuse.
The baby is not to blame for how it's concieved.
ecco
Veteran Member
A fetus is not a person. Ten fetuses are not people. Is that something you do not know or is that something you just chose to ignore because it conflicts with your religious beliefs and agendas?
Who will argue that? Please name names.
Or is that just something you posted to get a rise?
ecco
Veteran Member
Then please write to the hypocrites in Texas and ask them why welfare benefits only cover children who are actually born. Ask them why fetuses are not eligible for welfare benefits?
Better yet, don't ask. Insist they start paying for embryos immediately after conception.
While you're at it, write to your Senators and insist that the IRS immediately give credit for every conceived fetus. Insist that the Government issue Social Security numbers immediately upon being notified of a pregnancy so that parents can get benefits for the year in which conception occurred.
ecco
Veteran Member
This is your opinion. What has the opinion been of your church for the past 2000 years? If you don't know, perhaps you should do some investigating.
Regiomontanus
Eastern Orthodox
Yes, anything but human.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Good luck if and when rights change.I'm pretty keen on living in a country where one's rights are the same, no matter which state they happen to be in at the time.
You will have no place to go to.