[causi]

Is there an objective reason to find infanticide worse than abortion, besides cultural mores? It's worse for the performer, certainly, because you have to look at it before you kill it, but a newborn doesn't have any more personality than a fetus.

[Detrytus]

Well, I think abortion should be allowed until the child is 18. Basically, if parents think their child is a disappointment they should be allowed to cut their losses and start over. /s

[Eisenstein]

If an infant is able to survive outside of another person without being hooked up to modern medical equipment I would say there is a very big difference between it an something which cannot.

[causi]

If an infant is able to survive outside of another person without being hooked up to modern medical equipment I would say there is a very big difference between it an something which cannot.

What happens when we invent artificial wombs? It isn't that far away.

[Eisenstein]

Awesome, you should get on that.

[causi]

I'm saying the morality shouldn't depend on the convenience of technological limitations. A hundred years ago a six month fetus wasn't viable. Now they are. Would abortion still be moral if we could instantly and painlessly teleport a fetus into an artificial womb?

[Eisenstein]

Who cares? The question is 'what is the difference' and I gave one. Continue your crusade somewhere else.

[ChainOfFools]

or men having children, which would both be a highly desirable option for society as well as completely knocking the (specious) women's rights/controlling (specifically female) bodies argument out from the equation.

[ChainOfFools]

Would it be acceptable to you to surgically remove the arm of, say, a 10 week old fetus, on the grounds that it is not able to survive outside the womb and therefore is just a piece of the mother's body at that point?

[Eisenstein]

What would be the point of doing that? Let's go for something more relevant: would it be acceptable to you for me to force you to give a pint of blood every day to keep alive someone in a coma who could not live but for your blood?

[causi]

would it be acceptable to you for me to force you to give a pint of blood every day to keep alive someone in a coma who could not live but for your blood?

Apt if the creation of the fetus wasn't your choice, but inaccurate if it was. If someone loses their balance and you grab their hand to stop them falling off a cliff, is it murder to deliberately let go before they regain their balance? Why can a person be legally compelled to sustain the life of a child after birth but not before?

[Eisenstein]

None of this has anything to do with the difference between a unviable birth and an infant.

[ChainOfFools]

What point do you need, isn't it a private matter to be decided only by the person who is housing the fetus?

But let's say there was a medical reason to do so for the sake of a child who was already born perhaps extremely premature and lost an arm in the process of extraction. By the standards given above, the already born child outranks the one still in the womb, and should be entitled to the arm if the owner of the womb agrees to donate it.

Your example is so far from relevance as to be really just an attempt to change the subject. The existence of some random person in a coma, unless they are my own child, or perhaps a clone, is not contingent upon actions undertaken with the participation (willing or not) of my reproductive system.

[Eisenstein]

I mean, you have your mind made up, what is the point of you arguing with me?