If Abortion is allowed, it makes it more difficult to stand against other social atrocities and injustices, if we are to be fully logically consistent about it. How can we say, for example, that the people have an obligation to those in need, or one person using violence to get what they want is wrong when Abortion is held up as perfectly normal and rational? Animal cruelty? What's so terrible about that when you can vacuum out your own offspring growing inside of you? If we are completely honest with ourselves we have to admit that, at the very least, from an ethical standpoint Abortion is somewhat problematic.
Uh, abortion IS allowed ....and since it ISN'T a "social atrocity" or an injustice you really don't have to worry. We stand up to real social atrocities and injustice just fine. Because they are three different distinct individual things having nothing to do with each other. Are you trying to justify being cruel to animals and using violence against others because abortion exists?! hilarious... Kick your dog because people can have tumor removed from their bodies, too ?!!! . No, it isn't if people simply realize women have a right to their own bodies....and then mind their own business....
Fallaciously equating abortion with violence and cruelty to animals is abnormal and irrational, not to mention unethical. Violence is nonconsensual. Cruelty to animals is nonconsensual. Abortion is consensual. That the OP doesn't understand the glaring difference is patently obvious.
Of course it’s problematic, that’s why there’s a constant debate surrounding it. It’d still be problematic if we (tried to) prevent it though. The problematic morality is irresolvable so what really matters is how we address the practical realities as a consequence.
Social Justice deals with humans. Logic then dictates that in order for your comparison to be valid you need to show that a human exists in the early stages of pregnancy - starting with the zygote - single human cell at conception. Animal cruelty is about suffering. The entity in the early stages of pregnancy can not feel pain. If we are to be completely honest - you have yet to make a valid argument in support of your claim.
Late term abortion is disgustingly immoral.. Those who agree with it, I don't even want to think of what other sick **** they are ok with..
Late term abortion falls within the 3rd trimester, when states can regulate abortion (per Roe v. Wade). TMK, late term abortions are rare, & only permitted in cases where the pregnant woman's life is @ risk - although it's still ultimately her choice to proceed with the pregnancy or not. The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is permissible, within the framework of Roe. I assume that that means that the Supreme Court also finds abortion to be moral, @ least in the first trimester.
I am sure you do think late term abortions are disgustingly immoral since they are done to save the life of the woman.
So according to you women DYING because they are denied a life saving medical procedure is the "moral" alternative?
The same can be said for allowing personal rights to be denied. Look at the history of human rights and animal cruelty in countries where abortion is illegal. What about countries that consider honor killings and death penalty for being gay normal and rational, but abortion is forbidden? If you are trying to make the slippery slope argument, you will find that it works against you. Those that are stoning women to death believe they are on moral high ground as well.
