I believe abortion is moral. I believe people who disagree are morally monstrous. I can also understand that their beliefs on whether abortion is moral or not can be a product of their culture and upbringing. What am I missing? Why is this odd?
Your approach is an absolute approach. You see another culture doing something that’s monstrous and say hey that’s monstrous but I guess that’s how they were raised. In other words, your values are absolute.
When you say “abortion is moral,” do you mean that it is never immoral? As in, you literally can’t think of a situation where it would be wrong for a woman to get an abortion?
I’m someone else, but yeah, I believe the right to bodily autonomy trumps quite literally every other right.
If the world’s smartest person’s survival depended on compromising my bodily autonomy for 5 seconds, I would be in my right to let that person die. If you forced it on me, I would be in my right to kill the world’s smartest person for violating my bodily autonomy.
And not just that, but I think the vast majority of people hold this opinion, but they’re either too dumb to realize it, or commit non-stop special pleading to deny it. I think that very basically, because to think bodily autonomy is NOT the ultimate right, is to think it acceptable to farm human organs as long as it’s for a sufficiently good reason.
So mother is in the 12th hour of labor, she can just morally request an abortion? What if the baby is crowning? How about before the cord is clamped or cut? What about the day before a C-section?
The mother can, at any point in time, choose not to let someone else use her body. Doing so, practically, in all your examples would result in the birth of the child.
This isn’t some clever gotcha, the point of my argument is that the child has no right to use the mothers body to survive. If someone decides not to let someone else use their body, and that means the child dies, then so be it, because bodily autonomy supercedes life.
My argument isn’t that a mother should be able to kill a child just because she feels like it. It’s acceptable to kill someone to maintain bodily autonomy, that’s my argument.
Your “clever” examples all have options where both bodily autonomy are maintained AND life is maintained, which is a double win.
What about the last part: “viewing disagreement as moral monstrosity?”
I believe abortion is moral. I believe people who disagree are morally monstrous. I can also understand that their beliefs on whether abortion is moral or not can be a product of their culture and upbringing. What am I missing? Why is this odd?
Your approach is an absolute approach. You see another culture doing something that’s monstrous and say hey that’s monstrous but I guess that’s how they were raised. In other words, your values are absolute.
When you say “abortion is moral,” do you mean that it is never immoral? As in, you literally can’t think of a situation where it would be wrong for a woman to get an abortion?
The only situations I can imagine where abortion would be immoral are extremely contrived scenarios that don’t happen in reality.
That’s very nieve. You can believe in a woman’s absolute right to choose while also acknowledging that sometimes people do heinous things.
How is that naive and why do you believe you’re saying something different than me?
Not the person you responded to, but yes, that describes me.
I’m someone else, but yeah, I believe the right to bodily autonomy trumps quite literally every other right.
If the world’s smartest person’s survival depended on compromising my bodily autonomy for 5 seconds, I would be in my right to let that person die. If you forced it on me, I would be in my right to kill the world’s smartest person for violating my bodily autonomy.
And not just that, but I think the vast majority of people hold this opinion, but they’re either too dumb to realize it, or commit non-stop special pleading to deny it. I think that very basically, because to think bodily autonomy is NOT the ultimate right, is to think it acceptable to farm human organs as long as it’s for a sufficiently good reason.
So mother is in the 12th hour of labor, she can just morally request an abortion? What if the baby is crowning? How about before the cord is clamped or cut? What about the day before a C-section?
The mother can, at any point in time, choose not to let someone else use her body. Doing so, practically, in all your examples would result in the birth of the child.
This isn’t some clever gotcha, the point of my argument is that the child has no right to use the mothers body to survive. If someone decides not to let someone else use their body, and that means the child dies, then so be it, because bodily autonomy supercedes life.
My argument isn’t that a mother should be able to kill a child just because she feels like it. It’s acceptable to kill someone to maintain bodily autonomy, that’s my argument.
Your “clever” examples all have options where both bodily autonomy are maintained AND life is maintained, which is a double win.
It’s the kind of thing professors say when they want to go viral on some fascist platform.