Anonymous #1 13w

The mom was brain dead and instead of letting her die they’re keeping her own life support beyond her wishes for the baby. And the family is eating the cost.

4

Anonymous #1 13w

You know exactly what I’m talking about so search it up

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Thing is I’ve literally never heard of that. And again, what are they supposed to do, let the baby die? Do you think the baby isn’t alive bc it hasn’t been born yet?

1

Anonymous OP 13w

The family wants him and people donated

2

Anonymous #2 13w

objectively not true the kid died on birth and the family was begging to stop the whole procedure

1

Anonymous #3 13w

He’s still alive…

2

Anonymous #2 13w

okay you’re right i had my facts wrong. doesn’t change the fact that we kept a dead woman alive for months against family wishes like this is dystopian crazy shit

1

Anonymous #3 13w

It’s really not. Dystopian would’ve killed the baby because his chance of survival was low and not “worth it”

1

Anonymous #2 13w

ignoring the baseless nonsense of the so called “pro-life” argument, you’ll be okay when you go brain dead i can go ahead and hook you up to keep your body alive and use you as an incubator for the next generation ?

2

Anonymous #3 13w

If I was already pregnant I’d like for my baby to have a chance at living yes.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

i think that’s fucking wild. like mental asylum scary kind of thinking

1

Anonymous #3 13w

It’s really not. It’s I want my baby to live thinking. St. Gianna Molla had the same kind of thinking

1

Anonymous #2 13w

The baby is currently being held in ICU as it was 3 months early since the body was literally decaying.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

And where did you read that?

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Which part?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

That it was rotting? Because I can’t find that anywhere except people repeating it on the internet

2

Anonymous #2 13w

It’s actually just science, there are multiple reports of it, The brain prevents decay through a combination of structural features and active biological processes. This could include specialized protein structures that resist degradation, or a system for removing waste and toxins, and a process of self-repair that can restore damaged cells etc etc etc once you’re brain dead, medically speaking, most of this stops as well

1

Anonymous #4 13w

I’m not saying that her body couldn’t support him anymore and that’s why he had to be delivered earlier but it’s a gross oversimplification to say it was rotting.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

I didn’t say rotting. I said decaying. Which is true. His chances of developing issues relating to lack of hormonal balance and mental stability went up exponentially by being born to what’s defined legally as a corpse.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

The other person said rotting and so? What do potential health issues have to do with worth of life?

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Why are you arguing against a term I never used? People who have an increased risk of both have a higher risk of suicidal tendencies or depression. As well as substance abuse or incapacity to cope with stress. They’re more prone to health issues overall.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Kind of a side note. Since you are pro life and I am genuinely wondering, you seem smart. Are you in favor at all for gender affirming care?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

It’s been used in the conversation and again so? Hardship does not mean we should end people’s lives.

2

Anonymous #4 13w

That’s a completely separate topic

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Did I say that? Arguably you should want the child to be less likely to kill themselves no?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

I’m aware. Just answer for a second I’m going to explain why I asked in literally 2 seconds.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Everyone wants that but that doesn’t mean you kill them in the womb. And no I won’t it’s a separate topic and I have a feeling about what you’re going to say and I’m not interested in a completely separate topic of discussion.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Let me ask instead, since you’re aware of the logical corner I’ll put you in with the other question. Why is it inherently immoral to kill a fetus at let’s say 2 weeks of pregnancy?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

It’s not a logical corner it’s assumption

2

Anonymous #4 13w

Ending another’s life without proper cause is immoral. Proper cause is defense of another’s physical life and that’s about it.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

I mean it isn’t, you don’t feel comfortable answering it, and it would apply to your pro life stance. The point was to determine consistency in your belief system, and you’re aware of that but it would derail it if addressed. Who or what determines proper cause?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

No it would derail just that people don’t accept the consistency of belief. I’m not interested in someone operating under a false assumption trying to back me into a “logical corner” Physical life

2

Anonymous #2 13w

It’s only a corner if your pro life stance isn’t consistent past abortion policies. That’s why. What about physical life? That’s a non answer. There’s no objective morale that comes with being alive

1

Anonymous #4 13w

And they are 😂

2

Anonymous #4 13w

Being alive is the goal of the species it is the metric. If you can do something to keep someone alive without harming another person then you should. It’s why we amputate rather than just die

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Then substantiate it with an answer lol. It’s not going to be the main focus of the conversation. You also didn’t tell me. Physical life, what about it?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

No no that’s circular. Being alive is the goal of a species, but not all people abort. We “should” according to what? You saying we should without giving me that inherent objective moral response does not make it logical

1

Anonymous #4 13w

No. It will. You can say it won’t but it will and we both know it.

2

Anonymous #4 13w

What are you on about?

2

Anonymous #2 13w

It will not. I’m telling you explicitly that it won’t. I’m much more interested in the abortion thing, if you’re unable to accept that Im going to stick to my word you’re going out of your way to create a situation where my character is an issue for you; not my beliefs or arguments.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

“We should” according to what? That is my question You said physical life, what about physical life, that doesn’t answer. Why is it inherently immoral to kill a fetus?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Why is it inherently immoral to kill anyone?

2

Anonymous #4 13w

It will because it always does. Every single conversation about abortion always ends up at the altar of transgenderism when 99% both parties don’t care. But they find it easier to argue about that than the real topic at hand. You know my stance and I know your stance it’s not worth bringing up and hashing out.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

That’s not an answer. Let’s be civil here I will answer whatever in the order it was asked.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

That is an answer

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Okay so then I’ll assume you don’t support that; which means you aren’t consistent past abortion. That’s all I wanted to know. Now we can go back to my question.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Besides what’s your basis for morality?

2

Anonymous #4 13w

False assumption like I said or at least the effect is wrong

2

Anonymous #2 13w

You asking a question isn’t an answer to the inherent moral issue question.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

I will answer once you tell me the inherent etc etc questions answer

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Yes it is 😭 It’s inherently immoral to kill anyone…

2

Anonymous #2 13w

According to what? What makes it inherently immoral, that is my question. All you said was “physical life” but natural life existing does not come with morals or we would see animals instinctively adhere to what we consider to be immoral or moral.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Your pro life stance past birth is not consistent if you do not support gender affirming care. That’s the side thing. Not sure if you’re getting confused

1

Anonymous #4 13w

And you’re wrong about that

2

Anonymous #4 13w

Okay if it’s not inherently immoral then why is it immoral to kill anyone?

2

Anonymous #2 13w

So then you do support gender affirming care, got it

1

Anonymous #2 13w

That also isn’t an answer. What makes it inherently immoral. You didn’t answer the *what* in “what makes it inherently immoral”

1

Anonymous #4 13w

😂 see it becomes the entire conversation

2

Anonymous #4 13w

Ending a life is immoral.

2

Anonymous #4 13w

A baby is a life in the womb and out of the womb.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

I just concluded it by saying “got it” You’re not forced to respond to this comment. Now that I know you do support gender affirming care we can actually just drop it after this comment. I’m telling you, now that we’ve settled your position, you don’t have to respond to this

1

Anonymous #4 13w

If ending a life isn’t immoral in the womb then ending a life outside the womb isn’t immoral either. Therefore you can kill anyone you want to

2

Anonymous #2 13w

According to what? That’s my entire question. What makes it inherently immoral?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

🙄

2

Anonymous #2 13w

This isn’t an answer as to “what” either.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

God is the basis of all morals But it also seems like you’re arguing that killing people isn’t immoral. What’s the basis of your morality?

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Okay so that’s all you had to say. You believe in God and God sets morality. See how easy that was lol. My moral ethics come from biological, social, physical, and emotional experiences and rational thinking with the core understanding that I value harm reduction in beings capable of deploying agency/sentience. Now here’s my follow up —-

0

Anonymous #2 13w

Since God is the basis of your morality, and obviously he would need to exist in order for your morals to be true. What objective proof exists within nature that reflects the claim of your God existing?

0

Anonymous #4 13w

Don’t be condescending

2

Anonymous #4 13w

All you just said is that you have no real basis for morality. And that it’s okay to cause harm to things without agency.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

I already have. I’ve asked a question so I’m hoping there’s more than just that

1

Anonymous #2 13w

That’s not an answer. I didn’t just say that, if you’d like to strawman instead of actually addressing what I’ve claimed after you’ve answered then we can address that choice though.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

So you think it’s alright to be condescending? Then why should I engage with you?

2

Anonymous #2 13w

That’s not an answer. I’ve already told you I’m willing to answer questions after you’ve answered what I asked. Just to keep it simple

1

Anonymous #4 13w

We’re talking about abortion not God and not His existence. You think by rooting out my religious beliefs you can dismantle my pro-life position. You can’t because I don’t need to prove God to say that a baby deserves life. You value harm reduction? Then why do you think it’s okay to irreparably harm a child? There is no coming back from death.

2

Anonymous #4 13w

I’ve answered every question related to the topic at hand you continuously divert to other topics

2

Anonymous #4 13w

The topic at hand is abortion not your atheism

2

Anonymous #2 13w

You’re right, but in order to understand if it’s immoral, you need to substantiate why it’s immoral and if your morality has no objective basis. I have no reason to believe you I asked you a question, and unless I’m wrong you’ve given me no answer to it. So I’m going to hold on from answering until you’ve done that. Thanks

1

Anonymous #4 13w

What makes a baby more worthwhile a day out of the womb than any of the days in it? It’s agency or sentience? Babies don’t have agency plenty of people grown up don’t have the same level of agency or sentience. Should we be able to torture animals since their agency and sentience is less than ours? No why should we do the same to babies

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Abortion is a moral topic; morals are 100% relevant

1

Anonymous #2 13w

none of this is an answer to my question. I’ll answer every single thing that you’ve asked me in this after you’ve answered mine.

0

Anonymous #4 13w

I agree but God’s existence doesn’t matter here

2

Anonymous #4 13w

No I won’t try to prove God to you. You obviously don’t believe He exists and won’t accept any kind of answer I give you.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

It 100% does matter. If your claim is it’s immoral due to God. Then in order for you to be correct, God needs to also be able to be proven. Otherwise that’s equivalent to me saying “it’s okay cause Zeus” and that’s not very logical for you to accept

1

Anonymous #4 13w

You’re just avoiding the topic at hand.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Policy decision is dependent on morality. Your morality and its strength needs to be considered. Please answer

1

Anonymous #4 13w

I wasn’t even the one to bring up morality you were. It’s wrong to kill a life. A baby is a life. Unless killing lives isn’t wrong then we’re arguing over whether a baby is a life or not. Not God and not morals. But you think it’s okay to be condescending so lmk when you’re ready to actually discuss like adults and not like immature TAs

2

Anonymous #4 13w

If your stance is killing isn’t immoral then we can talk immorality

2

Anonymous #2 13w

why is it wrong to kill a fetus? Your God does not exist to me. I’m asking you to prove that he does so that I can accept your basis of morality you just refuse to do that. If you’re ending the conversation due to the same behavior you gave me and a single question. It only reflects the weakness of your argument and emotional state

1

Anonymous #2 13w

This is also unfortunately not an answer to the question that I asked you

1

Anonymous #4 13w

It’s wrong to kill a baby because it’s wrong to kill. Are you saying it’s not wrong to kill?

2

Anonymous #4 13w

God doesn’t need to exist to know it’s wrong to kill a baby. It doesn’t matter if it’s inside or outside of the mother. You shouldn’t murder a human being

3

Anonymous #4 13w

The existence of God doesn’t matter here what matters is life

2

Anonymous #1 13w

For his morality to work it needs to be rooted in something true. Thats my claim

1

Anonymous #2 13w

That’s a circular definition.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

And it is not an answer.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

That’s not the discussion.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Your morality and its basis is related to the topic of abortion and why it’s immoral/moral.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Not my initial one, just the one he refuses to address btw, I wanna be clear with that

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Who are you talking about when you say “his morality”

2

Anonymous #4 13w

Related tangentially but not necessary to discuss. There’s a simple question to be answered. Is killing wrong? If it is, then why would killing a baby be acceptable? None of those questions require a theological debate.

2

Anonymous #1 13w

#2

1

Anonymous #2 13w

It isn’t a debate about theology, it’s a discussion about why I should accept the claim that God is a valid and real foundation of morality when it refers to the abortion stance. Once you answer me; we can continue. You’re really the only one who’s been preventing us from engaging continuously.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

It’s not a discussion about that at all. It’s a discussion about whether a certain action is wrong. I hope we can all agree that God doesn’t need to come into that. It’s crazy that an atheist is trying to bring God into a conversation like this. I don’t need to bring God into this conversation to dismantle your argument, you apparently do. That discussion only needs to happen if you think killing is morally acceptable.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

When your moral reason for why it’s wrong is “because it is” that’s circular. I don’t think killing a fetus is inherently immoral. So let’s go back then if you refuse to substantiate the basis of your morality. Why is it wrong to kill a fetus at 2 weeks of pregnancy?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

It’s wrong to kill a baby is immoral because it’s killing a human being. The question is when do you think a “fetus” as you put becomes a human and at conception is the only right answer

3

Anonymous #1 13w

So killing a human being is inherently immoral? It’s not how *I* put it. It’s how we define it scientifically; the whole facts over feelings thing applies here. Changing the terminology doesn’t give it the respect of how we understand it to be in reality.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Do you think that killing a human being isn’t inherently immoral?

2

Anonymous #4 13w

It’s also scientifically a human being in the womb. Call it a fetus, whatever, it’s a human and it deserves life like the rest of us do. Are you saying it isn’t immoral or there are situations where killing someone would be good or moral.

3

Anonymous #2 13w

I asked you a question lol. If you’re going to refuse to answer the question that would question your moral basis, the least you could do to engage honestly is change the initial answer so I don’t have to bring up the God thing.

1

Anonymous #1 13w

You didn’t answer me either. Is it?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

You wouldn’t care about my answer bc my morality system is religion-based. I don’t think it’s our prerogative to kill someone.

3

Anonymous #1 13w

I do care, the fact that I’m asking says otherwise. Is it, that’s all I’m asking. Engage with the question and I’ll engage with yours.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

This is me engaging with your question it’s just not going the way you’d like

2

Anonymous #4 13w

You were talking earlier about how you don’t care about religion. It’s reasonable to think that you wouldn’t care, but okay. I answered the question. My personal opinion doesn’t matter, my religious beliefs do

2

Anonymous #2 13w

My question of why abortion is wrong has been answered with a non-God answer? Is what you’re saying?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Also you don’t have to bring up the “God thing”it’s basically a non factor in this discussion over whether killing is wrong and whether abortion classifies as that. God never needs to enter that conversation.

2

Anonymous #1 13w

I didn’t ask if it was your prerogative, I asked if it was inherently immoral to kill a person, because they’re a human being?

0

Anonymous #4 13w

Abortion is wrong because killing is wrong. So yes it has been answered

2

Anonymous #2 13w

I do because that was your answer. God entered when you brought him up as a reason for why you stand this way for policy decisions.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Alright killing is wrong, I’ll remember that going forward. Now what’s your question?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

No that’s not why 😂

2

Anonymous #4 13w

Why is killing a baby okay?

2

Anonymous #2 13w

What’s not why? Here let’s reset for a second I’m confused as to what you’re referencing To answer the other thing though. Babies are scientifically defined as having already been born. At least to my understanding, that’s not what a fetus is. So I don’t think killing a baby is okay. If killing is wrong, then you subscribe to the idea that self defense killing is also wrong, as well as masturbation.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Why is killing a human being wrong if the other human is trying to kill someone?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

think burglar and victim situation why is killing the burglar wrong?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Not you bringing up masturbation 😂 It’s huge cope to not recognize a baby in womb as such. What’s your line? 24 weeks? Heartbeat what? Someone threatening you is a very different scenario than a baby who only came to be because of your actions.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

pro life is made up nonsense let’s stop pretending like you have any moral high ground and call it for what it is: you just like to control women because you know it’ll never effect you

1

Anonymous #3 13w

Major assumptions going on here

-5

Anonymous #2 13w

You didn’t answer. You said killing another human being is wrong. So why is it wrong to kill a burglar, for example? that’s your moral stance.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

We’re gonna have to go through the same process of me asking and you being offended but refusing to answer. Let’s just skip it and both get passed that point

1

Anonymous #3 13w

His moral stance is actually based on something he refuses to prove exists so you’re sort of right on that actually lol

0

Anonymous #2 13w

I can’t believe calling someone out on their assumptions is what got downvoted here. 😂

1

Anonymous #4 13w

I answered this at the beginning.

2

Anonymous #4 13w

Though you really should try to avoid engaging with burglars unless they are threatening you physically

2

Anonymous #4 13w

Also it’s almost disingenuous to compare a baby who has done nothing but exist because of your own actions to someone rampaging in your home

2

Anonymous #4 13w

Also the major assumption you’re making is that I’m a man

2

Anonymous #2 13w

It’s disingenuous not to answer. You said (most recently) abortion is wrong because “killing is wrong” since your “proper cause” basis can’t be substantiated or you’re unable to provide further explanation as to who or what defines proper cause we have to go this route. One more time, why is killing a burglar wrong?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Okay good night. This isn’t a fruitful conversation. My answers aren’t sufficient for you but it doesn’t change the fact that they are actual answers. Btw the answer to your question is in the ss above.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

You couldn’t substantiate proper cause. When pushed on what defines proper cause you said “physical life” then pivoted to God once you couldn’t substantiate the physical life answer, then gave no actual answer to the rest of the questions following. I was happy to engage honestly but instead you chose to throw a few tantrums about my refusal to allow you to avoid questions. Goodnight. The avoidance of my questions says evening about the strength of your position. Happy to have educated you.

0

Anonymous #4 13w

🙄

2

Anonymous #4 13w

Condescending again

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Go ahead. You said goodnight. Stay gone, you’re not obligated to respond. It’s okay lol

1

Anonymous #2 13w

You couldn’t hold an adult conversation lol. “Holy cope” Go ahead. Stay gone. You’ve coped yourself out of a debate.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Neither are you nor are you obligated to be rude

2

Anonymous #2 13w

So you can’t even run away correctly. Got it.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

You refused to engage in the actual discussion and kept trying to bring unrelated topics into it 😂

1

Anonymous #2 13w

You’re still going? After saying you’re done and trying to run away? Lol

0

Anonymous #4 13w

Typical atheist being rude and morally arrogant

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Holy cope lol. You’re just crying at this point. You said goodnight, I’m allowing you to leave. Go ahead.

0

Anonymous #4 13w

I’m not offended. I believe it’s inherently wrong because people go through shit. It isn’t any of our jobs to judge people. Plus, you’re comparing an unborn child to a burglar. The most innocent a human being can get to a burglar or any other type of criminal. Obviously some people probably don’t deserve to live, but it isn’t my job to judge whether or not they do or not. If a burglar comes into my home they forfeit their life by choice. I believe in rehabilitation. The question isnt whether

3

Anonymous #4 13w

The question isn’t whether or not it’s moral to kill someone, it’s whether or not the person believes the baby is a human or not. The mother and the father chose to have sex, and they shouldn’t be able to murder another human because they don’t want to take care of it. Which, believe it or not, is the vast majority of the reason why people get abortions.

3

Anonymous #1 13w

I wasn’t talking to you don’t worry. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. It actually is exactly that because the ability to make a sound claim of why it’s immoral has to have some logical basis, otherwise there’s no reason I should care. Again, is it? Just a simple yes or no will do. Qualify it as much as you’d like to. But I didn’t ask if you thought it was wrong people went through shit or if it was any of our jobs or ask you to compare them to other situations.

0

Anonymous #4 13w

You’re not even reading what I’m saying. The first sentence I said was I believe it’s inherently wrong. Some people do some stupid ass shit and some people may deserve it, but I dont think it’s our job to judge. You’re making it black and white with no nuance

3

Anonymous #1 13w

Didn’t have them on at that point either lol. Gotta stop doing that to myself and you. Misread. Alright, so if killing a human is inherently wrong and your stance is abortion should not be allowed because of the moral implications, then what’s your stance on killing in self defense being legally allowed?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

I mentioned that earlier, I think its alright. Burglars forfeit their right to life when they go into someone’s house. Killing should be the last resort though

3

Anonymous #1 13w

Alright, and correct me if I’m wrong but that’s just because they’ve broken a moral or legal contract that would previously allow their life to be protected in the same way a fetus’ would be?

1

Anonymous #4 13w

I guess you could call it a “contract” but at the same time, like I said, we don’t know why people do it. If you’re on my property, with bad intentions as most burglars are, you’re gonna get shot.

3

Anonymous #1 13w

Okay and why does the moral decision of the other person matter in making the decision to end their life? I’m not arguing that it doesn’t I’m just curious

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Just get to the point if you’re not arguing it isn’t. You’re just trying to catch me in something.

2

Anonymous #1 13w

Not trying to catch you. Just seeing how you apply your logic/morality. But yeah I’ve been asking a lot so I will. I don’t view it inherently immoral to kill a being that doesn’t have the capacity to deploy agency or sentience, have legal rights to life per the constitution, and has no objective immoral reason why it cannot be killed.

0

Anonymous #1 13w

Unwanted children can end up abused, end up in orphanages, etc etc. Our adoption centers are overwhelmed and underfunded, our healthcare systems largely from the right, do not incentivize aiding the young and poor. And I think in terms of actual ethics. I don’t think any entity; whether that be a person or government should have the right to override the consent of non criminals when it comes to their bodies.

0

Anonymous #1 13w

And you can argue it’s not just “their” body but scientifically, the fetus largely depends on the life of another to exist in any capacity. For the first few weeks of its life it actually strictly is just the mother’s cells being used as sort of a battery function. Which doesn’t imply a moral wrongness of that fetus. I just value the life of the carrier more. Even if all of that was uncertain for me. In terms of how established my positions were on abortion specifically—

0

Anonymous #1 13w

The pro life candidate out of the two major options was someone who’s tariffs hurt farmers, which caused the deaths of many, not including his international affairs which killed people, his advocation for anti trust in medicines, overall, he didn’t fit the idea that “life” was being valued. Just a talking point to appease the right

0

Anonymous #1 13w

On an overall scale. I think that we only disenfranchise people by putting them in situations where a child (on avg can cost annually 23K) will not have sufficient support both financially, mentally, and physically. And burden them with the legitimate tangible stress of the rest of the ticket that comes with voting for an extreme right wing candidate. And so to avoid making assumptions about what every american is capable of. I allow them to make that choice for themselves.

1