The child would not die willingly, either. In an abortion, one is forcing the child to die.
Social grief is irrelevant to morality.
A feeling of guilt has nothing to do with the morality of the situation. It is far better to be alive and sad than to be dead.
The only killing is the killing of the child. It is not killing the mother to allow the child to remain alive, for there is a chance that the mother will survive. The child will always die in the case of an abortion.
There is no "watching her do her abortion." If the mother murders her own child, it is her fault, and she deserves the death penalty for her heinous disregard for morals. Thus, if she were to have died, she would die either way.
Social grief is not irrelevant to morality. The reason we even have morality is to improve the state of society. Even moral codes that focus on the individual (which you seem to be leaning towards) function with the implicit idea that everyone should be acting that same way, and hence society as a whole would improve. If you remove other people and their emotions from the equation, none of it really matters.
It's the feeling of guilt combined with social stigma, which could end with the child not wanting to be alive. In the worst case, he's literally not alive anymore. In a perfect world, the social stigma wouldn't exist, but the child would also never be told that he essentially killed his mother. That alone can be a breaking point.
There's a "chance" that the mother will survive? Okay, and then what if she dies? Was it justified? Was it suddenly not a murder just because the chance was there even though you forced her down?
If you're going to kill the mother regardless of whether or not she has the baby, she WILL attempt to abort the baby, only now she's running away as she does it. This isn't a utopia you're creating, it's a dystopia.
What is your complete view on pornography?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
The child would not die willingly, either. In an abortion, one is forcing the child to die.
Social grief is irrelevant to morality.
A feeling of guilt has nothing to do with the morality of the situation. It is far better to be alive and sad than to be dead.
The only killing is the killing of the child. It is not killing the mother to allow the child to remain alive, for there is a chance that the mother will survive. The child will always die in the case of an abortion.
There is no "watching her do her abortion." If the mother murders her own child, it is her fault, and she deserves the death penalty for her heinous disregard for morals. Thus, if she were to have died, she would die either way.
--
Anonnet
1 year ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
The child isn't willingly being born, either.
Social grief is not irrelevant to morality. The reason we even have morality is to improve the state of society. Even moral codes that focus on the individual (which you seem to be leaning towards) function with the implicit idea that everyone should be acting that same way, and hence society as a whole would improve. If you remove other people and their emotions from the equation, none of it really matters.
It's the feeling of guilt combined with social stigma, which could end with the child not wanting to be alive. In the worst case, he's literally not alive anymore. In a perfect world, the social stigma wouldn't exist, but the child would also never be told that he essentially killed his mother. That alone can be a breaking point.
There's a "chance" that the mother will survive? Okay, and then what if she dies? Was it justified? Was it suddenly not a murder just because the chance was there even though you forced her down?
If you're going to kill the mother regardless of whether or not she has the baby, she WILL attempt to abort the baby, only now she's running away as she does it. This isn't a utopia you're creating, it's a dystopia.