Support NeoGAF

[A Fish Aficionado]

An infant is a developmental stage as well, not even smarter than a pig. The infant is just conscious at this stage, that's all. But consciousness ain't shit since most humans eat animals.

🤔
Surely, you can't be that obtuse?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

You can be pro-life without being anti-choice, you know.

I like this quote by John Fugelsang, “Only in America can you be pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-unmanned drone bombs, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-guns, pro-torture, pro-land mines, and still call yourself ‘pro-life." It could probably got a lot further, but it's a decent starting point.

So, we should stop calling them "pro-life" and figure out a more accurate term for these people.

 

[Aristion]

I believe the outcome is the same in both scenarios, though.

You truly have a Rumsfeld-esque way of handling this debate, though. You've got so many people digressing into these obtuse arguments about Siamese twins and pigs and blood transfusions that it's easy to forget that the fundamental crux of your argument is both historically false (banning abortion does not stop abortion) and reflective of a desire to punish women for having sex (unless you also believe that sex education and birth control access should be widespread and free?).

I think the central issue of the debate is whether the fetus is a person with moral rights, and no one in this thread has come close to offering a satisfactory account for how fetuses lack moral rights ("Muppet of a Man" has offered the best case, I think).

Also, whether or not banning abortion doesn't stop abortion is irrelevant to whether abortion is actually immoral. Bridal kidnapping is immoral and it would still be immoral even if banning it didn't reduce the practice in certain countries.

I'm also not interested in punishing women for having sex, that's absurd. Anyone in a free society should be allowed to distribute birth control for all who want it (I wouldn't want the government to force those morally opposed to the practice to pay for birth-control, though).

The reason we value the lives of human infants over that of the lives of other animals is relativism: the inherent drive for the survival of our own species at the expense of others we consume to maintain our survival. The same can be said of other animals with regard to their own infants. It's the most basic of animal drives/behaviors, reliance on the interdependent nature of the food chain. This is not contradictory to my qualifiers of both being viable outside of the mother's uterus (whether via an incubator, blood donations from others, or completely on its own medically speaking) and having the presence of a human consciousness/self awareness/mind.

But why the qualifier of viability in the first place? What about the example I gave of being connected to the guy?

 

[dallow_bg]

No, I'm talking about adult siamese twins, one of which is sick of having her bodily autonomy violated by her sister.

The example is relevant because we're talking about bodily autonomy, after all.

Laughed out loud at this.
What a build up.

 

[whitehawk]

Is being pro-life a terrible thing? I believe that a fetus has an absolute right to life in virtue of its being a human being.

I honestly don't see how that's an abhorrent position to hold.

It is because you're letting your emotion get in the way of thinking logically. No on likes abortion, it should be safe, accessible, but also rare. You ban it though, and now you have people who were raped who need to traumatically carry their attackers baby to term, people resorting to black market abortions which are super dangerous, and potentially more babies put up for adoption.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Yes, I am making that comparison. It's called an analogy. It's up to you to demarcate the moral differences between the analogy and the issue we're discussing.

It's not my job to try and decipher your inane analogies and try and make ridiculous counter points to match them.

 

[manakel]

These are the same people that will quickly tell women "get a job; you shouldn't have gotten pregnant if you can't care for the baby" etc. etc. as soon as the baby is born. They're so concerned about "saving babies and human life" while in the womb, but the second it's out they stop giving a fuck.

It's repulsive and it infuriates me.

 

[kmag]

Well, in this case I'm saying the burden is upon those who wish to argue for the Roe v. Wade decision.

But you're right that the debate revolves around the status of the fetus (whether it's a person).

So by use of the term fetus you're ok with termination pre 8 weeks (the standard delimination of a fertilized egg becoming a 'fetus' between 8-9 weeks). I assume not, and by fetus you mean from fertilization. And if you mean from fertilization then it becomes a bit tricky as it's very difficult to ascribe personhood throughout the entirety of the pregnancy. A person is commonly described as "a human being regarded as an individual."

To borrow a list of generally accepted possible threshold stages for personhood during pregnancy from wikipedia.

1. fertilization, the fusing of the gametes to form a zygote
2. implantation, occurring about a week after fertilization
3. segmentation, after twinning is no longer possible, roughly 14 days after fertilization.
4. when the heart begins to beat
5. neuromaturation, when the central nervous system of fetus is neurobiologically "mature"
6. "brain birth" concepts (compare with brain death):
7. at the first appearance of brain waves in lower brain (brain stem) - 6–8 weeks of gestation (paralleling "whole brain death")
8. at the first appearance of brain waves in higher brain (cerebral cortex) - 22–24 weeks of gestation (paralleling "higher brain death")[18][19]
9. the time of fetal movement, or "quickening"
10. when the fetus is first capable of feeling pain
11. when it can be established that the fetus is capable of cognition, or neonatal perception
12. fetal viability
13. birth
14. post-birth development stages

Fertilization is biologically a no no, unless you consider hydatidiform moles, choriocarcinomas, and blighted ovums persons as well. The zygote isn't actually genetically complete just after conception as the seperate genetic material from both parents isn't mixed until Meiosis occurs, and the first cell division doesn't complete for 24-36 hours after fertilization.

Implantation would be a no-no as well as fundamentally it's just a necessary process which now the bundle of cells formed by meiosis (now called blastocyst) attaching itself to the uterine wall. The genetic material of the individual is formed, but the blastocyst is not necessarily an individual as twinning can still occur typically resulting in a conjointment.

I can go on down the list if you like.

you kind of need to define when a collection of cells becomes a "person" it's pretty much certainly not at fertilization. Unless you're wanting to go down the viability route (i.e a collection of cells which retains the possibility of becoming an independent entity) which becomes very tricky.

Where it becomes problematic is that legally and morally almost everyone is ok with essentially killing through withholding treatment of people who do not possess lower brain function (in pregnancy terms we're now between six and eight weeks). Are living entities without lower brain function people? If so we sadly kill an pretty high amount of them. Of course these people are no longer capable of supporting life without external aid and there is little chance of them recovering to life unaided without external support. Yet we can sadly say the same for any number of unborn fetus with various developmental abnormalities. Should these be carried to term or aborted?

It's quickly becoming a morass of exceptions and moral quandaries isn't it.

 

[KimiNewt]

A fetus isn't a person. Not in science or medical terms. A chicken fetus looks identical to a human one. It's called evolution.

Has nothing to do with evolution, and it'll only look identical for a short while and it'll split afterwards, obviously. Saying things are scientific and then saying things you're unsure about only hurts your cause.

Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice, and a fetus to a point most certainly does not constitute a person.

 

[chriscake]

This is a good question, and it might depend on the circumstances. I tend to argue that you should, but I don't think the analogy fully captures the situation of abortion (since abortion involves actively dismembering the fetus and so you're not just letting it die; you're actively killing it).

Does that mean abortions are okay up until 10 weeks or so when a woman can just take medication to cause the uterus to shed its lining to terminate the pregnancy, thereby not decapating or dismembering the fetus? One is letting the fetus die by detaching/disconnecting it in that instance.

 

[Not]

I'm also not interested in punishing women for having sex, that's absurd.

Indeed, yet a great deal of the people who agree with you on this topic are. It's a matter of justifying your personal belief against the actual outcomes of the belief when its taken to the extreme and exploited by narcissists and bigots.

 

[Aristion]

��
Surely, you can't be that obtuse?

Can you explain why the consciousness of an infant is relevant to its moral status in a way that precludes the fetus from having a moral status? They have the same capacities.

The fetus has the capacity to be rational, conscious, moral, possess desires, etc. It's just that its capacities are not immediate (they're distant capacities) and require several more months or years to be realized. The infant has two of those capacities realized (conscious and possesses desires).

 

[Ac30]

I like this quote by John Fugelsang, “Only in America can you be pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-unmanned drone bombs, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-guns, pro-torture, pro-land mines, and still call yourself ‘pro-life." It could probably got a lot further, but it's a decent starting point.

So, we should stop calling them "pro-life" and figure out a more accurate term for these people.

Anti-women? And I write this as someone that would never want to abort their kid. Anyone wanting to legislate this is immoral, in my opinion.

 

[NullPointer]

You can be pro-life without being anti-choice, you know.

Truth. I'm pro-life but believe a woman's right to her own body and to make her own decisions takes precedence over the potential of the fetus.

I personally think the practice is horrible, but its a necessary one, and each person should be able to make that hard choice on their own, without government intervention and without harassment.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Can you explain why the consciousness of an infant is relevant to its moral status in a way that precludes the fetus from having a moral status? They have the same capacities.

The fetus has the capacity to be rational, conscious, moral, possess desires, etc. It's just that it's capacities are not immediate (they're distant capacities) and require several more months or years to be realized. The infant has two of those capacities realized (conscious and possesses desires).

A fetus isn't independently viable.

 

[Pyrokai]

Has nothing to do with evolution, and it'll only look identical for a short while and it'll split afterwards, obviously. Saying things are scientific and then saying things you're unsure about only hurts your cause.

Disclaimer: I'm pro-choice, and a fetus to a point most certainly does not constitute a person.

The way a fetus develops is indeed connected to evolution. Shared ancestry means that even mammals have gills at some point in development, if I'm not mistaken. Among other things, of course. I remember this in my human evolution class.

 

[Morts]

How long does Kasich have to make a decision?

 

[Jenov]

How long does Kasich have to make a decision?

10 days I think

 

[Ac30]

Truth. I'm pro-life but believe a woman's right to her own body and to make her own decisions takes precedence over the potential of the fetus.

I personally think the practice is horrible, but its a necessary one, and each person should be able to make that hard choice on their own, without government intervention and without harassment.

I don't think it's horrible per se but I'd never survive the emotional trauma. I'm impressed at the women that can go through with this, it's probably quite draining for some, and a relief for others - forcing 16 year olds/rape victims etc to carry babies is immoral and horrific. As it is for forcing any woman to carry an unwanted child to term.

 

[Blader]

I think the central issue of the debate is whether the fetus is a person with moral rights, and no one in this thread has come close to offering a satisfactory account for how fetuses lack moral rights ("Muppet of a Man" has offered the best case, I think).

Also, whether or not banning abortion doesn't stop abortion is irrelevant to whether abortion is actually immoral. Bridal kidnapping is immoral and it would still be immoral even if banning it didn't reduce the practice in certain countries.

I'm also not interested in punishing women for having sex, that's absurd. Anyone in a free society should be allowed to distribute birth control for all who want it (I wouldn't want the government to force those morally opposed to the practice to pay for birth-control, though).

I agree it's absurd. And yet, the national pro-life movement makes absolutely no effort to promote sex education and birth control access, and actively works in the opposite direction, making it harder and more expensive for women to get the education or contraception they need, in addition to promoting useless abstinence-only initiatives.

I strongly believe in a woman's right to choose, but also believe that the best solution to reducing abortions should be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Any person or organization that is seriously about eliminating abortion -- in whatever legal or moral lens you wish to view that through -- but is not serious about reducing unwanted pregnancies through education and contraception is clearly focused on just punishing women for having sex. If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear why.

 

[Red]

Truth. I'm pro-life but believe a woman's right to her own body and to make her own decisions takes precedence over the potential of the fetus.

I personally think the practice is horrible, but its a necessary one, and each person should be able to make that hard choice on their own, without government intervention and without harassment.

You've described the typical pro choicer. Do you recognize that? No one is pro-abortion in the sense that they want children to be aborted. But it is a necessary procedure for a multitude of reasons.

Can you explain why the consciousness of an infant is relevant to its moral status in a way that precludes the fetus from having a moral status? They have the same capacities.

The fetus has the capacity to be rational, conscious, moral, possess desires, etc. It's just that its capacities are not immediate (they're distant capacities) and require several more months or years to be realized. The infant has two of those capacities realized (conscious and possesses desires).

Each of the three million sperm I ejaculated last night in my sleep had the capacity to someday be rational, conscious, moral, and possess desire. Things didn't work out for them. You're being completely arbitrary about what constitutes value.

 

[SaganIsGOAT]

Why don't men and women just not have sex if they don't want a baby? Seems like a really simple solution to me!

Spoiler

/s

 

[JeTmAn81]

I'm not cosigning an equivalence between a human fetus and an internal organ. Anyone who can't see the fundamental difference there is nowhere near rational on this issue.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Why am I not surprised that a thread about the further erosion of women's rights gets twisted into yet another bullshit "debate" about whether or not abortion is murder?

Anti-choice assholes need to crawl back into their fucking caves.

 

[Aristion]

A fetus isn't independently viable.

Awesome, thanks for that clarification! (Not being facetious; I was just confused at what your objection was initially).

So is viability your main criteria for what it takes to possess moral value?

That seems problematic in that simply relying upon someone else's body doesn't make you lose any moral autonomy. We can think of several examples where adults are temporarily reliant upon the bodies of others to survive (earlier I gave an example of a man who needs you to continually circulate blood through his kidneys in order to survive, and you volunteer to do so). The man doesn't become a non-person once this happens, though.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

But why the qualifier of viability in the first place? What about the example I gave of being connected to the guy?

Because your example is not viability. It is life support. Viability infers the full development of the human animal, else even life support is of a fruitless pursuit.

Here is a rather silly analogy that will suffice to get my point across: A half baked cookie is not really a cookie. But a cookie that falls apart and that someone pieces back together on a plate is still a cookie.

 

[NullPointer]

You've described the typical pro choicer. Do you recognize that? No one is pro-abortion in the sense that they want children to be aborted. But it is a necessary procedure for a multitude of reasons.

I do. I just think somebody can be accurately described as pro-life (personal belief) and pro-choice (in a legal sense).

Terms get fuzzy and abused all the time though.

 

[Aristion]

You've described the typical pro choicer. Do you recognize that? No one is pro-abortion in the sense that they want children to be aborted. But it is a necessary procedure for a multitude of reasons.

Each of the three million sperm I ejaculated last night in my sleep had the capacity to someday be rational, conscious, moral, and possess desire. Things didn't work out for them. You're being completely arbitrary about what constitutes value.

Sperm aren't human beings, though (they don't possess the capacities that infants and fetuses do). They require an egg, and once the egg and sperm join, the sperm literally loses its identity.

And I know pro-choice folks don't like abortions, that was never my issue with them.

 

[Ryuuroden]

First of all stop calling republicans pro-life. The only way you can classify them is pro-birth and by extension due to all the other policies they pursue anti-child welfare rights. After the baby is born, they don't give a fucking shit about it or its future.

Also to those of you who want to ban abortion but you will provide exceptions for rape and incest you are declaring that a woman doesn't have a right to her body till she gets raped. So what she does with her body is criminalized till a violent crime is committed on her. That's also scummy

 

[Jenov]

I'm not cosigning an equivalence between a human fetus and an internal organ. Anyone who can't see the fundamental difference there is nowhere near rational on this issue.

The equivalence is in body autonomy, not actual fetus and organ. If you're going to deny body autonomy to women to quote "Save Lives" then you should be consistent in denying every person their bodily autonomy and force donations for that same "save lives" goal. Be consistent and equal. See through the position of removing people's control of their bodies to its absurd end.

But of course now it's not about savings lives, and just preventing brutal methods of dying... or some nonsense.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I do. I just think somebody can be accurately described as pro-life (personal belief) and pro-choice (in a legal sense).

Terms get fuzzy and abused all the time though.

Pro-life shouldn't be used. It makes what they're trying to accomplish sound far too moral.

 

[Aristion]

Because your example is not viability. It is life support. Viability infers the full development of the human animal, else even life support is of a fruitless pursuit.

Here is a rather silly analogy that will suffice to get my point across: A half baked cookie is not really a cookie. But a cookie that falls apart and that someone pieces back together on a plate is still a cookie.

I'd agree that they aren't identical, but I fail to see how these differences are morally relevant. In both cases they aid in the nutrition of the body, but in the viability case it also aids in developing the human's body (how is its developing the body relevant to whether it would be okay for the host to disconnect?).

Is your point that the fetus just isn't a complete human person? Born infants undergo a huge stage of cognitive development afterward, but they aren't connected to the body, though they are dependent upon a third-party to feed them.

 

[Morts]

I wonder if it would've passed if it was called the "I hope my 14 year old daughter can't keep a secret for six weeks" bill.

 

[Not]

Can you explain why the consciousness of an infant is relevant to its moral status in a way that precludes the fetus from having a moral status? They have the same capacities.

The fetus has the capacity to be rational, conscious, moral, possess desires, etc. It's just that it's capacities are not immediate (they're distant capacities) and require several more months or years to be realized. The infant has two of those capacities realized (conscious and possesses desires).

So it always comes down to the "potential." The DNA is in place. The human is ready to go. But it requires a woman's body to get there.

Take seeds. Because you have to put them in the ground and water them over time to make a plant, and sunflower seeds are easier to access than zygotes, and gardening is an elective action, and fetal development is an unconscious process, and plants don't have brains, we feel justified in eating them. Yet all the potential for a unique plant exists. If zygotes were planted in the ground like seeds instead of carried to term by a woman, would we still care how many of them were destroyed regularly?

In the end, it's also a matter of understanding who benefits most from tying the general rights of women in the mire of "what constitutes life." Dudes. Guys. Bros. Misogynists. Patriarchs. The people who benefit the most from giving fetuses more rights than foreign children in combat zones are guys. Guyyyyyyyyyys. For the reasons I said previously, that tying a woman's sexuality to her overall agency restricts her personal options and advancement in a way that most men will never experience.

 

[BackLogJoe]

How long can he sit on this? I imagine if he acts on this before December 19th, it would cause problems for the Democrat electors who might vote for him to stop Trump.

 

[Aristion]

Alright guys/gals, I won't be able to keep chatting for much longer, but thanks for the discussion, it was very interesting!

 

[Blader]

Sperm aren't human beings, though (they don't possess the capacities that infants and fetuses do). They require an egg, and once the egg and sperm join, the sperm literally loses its identity.

And I know pro-choice folks don't like abortions, that was never my issue with them.

Sperm have the capacity to fertilize an egg and produce a fetus, no? That is all they exist for, really. By ejaculating your sperm anywhere where they have no way of fertilizing an egg, you're denying them the opportunity to realize that capacity.

 

[Skatterd]

Classic misdirection

This won't pass

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131-SB-127
This will

 

[Jenov]

Alright guys/gals, I won't be able to keep chatting for much longer, but thanks for the discussion, it was very interesting!

I do hope you will rethink a little bit on your stance.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I'd agree that they aren't identical, but I fail to see how these differences are morally relevant. In both cases they aid in the nutrition of the body, but in the viability case it also aids in developing the human's body (how is its developing the body relevant to whether it would be okay for the host to disconnect?).

Because a developing human fetus is inherently less valuable than an actual fully functioning human animal and, at that stage of development, the fetus still does not have a mind (and never had one previously), which is really what sets it apart from any moral consideration.

Also consider that I believe it is morally bankrupt and selfish to keep people on life support who are brain dead.

 

[Earthstrike]

Abortions aren't like disconnecting yourself, but nice try.

Abortions usually involve intentionally decapitating the fetus, while disconnecting yourself is just an act of letting someone die (in most cases I assume the person disconnecting doesn't even intend to kill the other person).



Not donating an organ is just letting someone die, it isn't actively dismembering them.

Yeah, but you seem to be ignoring the next logical point that is being driven at. If there was an operation that simply disconnected a fetus from the mother, and placed it on a table, would that then be ok? The reason the decapitation occurs is because this is game theoretic moral solution to terminating a pregnancy. We know the fetus, which isn't viable outside the womb will die, so there's no real need to not immediately kill it instead of simply letting it die on a table.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Is being pro-life a terrible thing? I believe that a fetus has an absolute right to life in virtue of its being a human being.

I honestly don't see how that's an abhorrent position to hold.

Yes, being anti-women's rights (to control their own bodies and health) is a terrible thing.

 

[Steel]

Is being pro-life a terrible thing? I believe that a fetus has an absolute right to life in virtue of its being a human being.

I honestly don't see how that's an abhorrent position to hold.

No one's forcing you or your loved ones to get an abortion, yet pro-lifers are forcing women to bear a child regardless of their situation or beliefs. If you don't want people to have abortions for moral reasons, you can tell them not to have abortions and they can choose on their own whether they buy what you're selling.

 

[Ryuuroden]

I think the central issue of the debate is whether the fetus is a person with moral rights, and no one in this thread has come close to offering a satisfactory account for how fetuses lack moral rights ("Muppet of a Man" has offered the best case, I think).

Also, whether or not banning abortion doesn't stop abortion is irrelevant to whether abortion is actually immoral. Bridal kidnapping is immoral and it would still be immoral even if banning it didn't reduce the practice in certain countries.

I'm also not interested in punishing women for having sex, that's absurd. Anyone in a free society should be allowed to distribute birth control for all who want it (I wouldn't want the government to force those morally opposed to the practice to pay for birth-control, though).



But why the qualifier of viability in the first place? What about the example I gave of being connected to the guy?

The problem with anti abortion, pro lifers is if they really believed in the moral rights of fetuses and therefore babies, they would support free access to all education, living wages, government paid child care, guaranteed multi month paid leave, housing and food subsidies for those that need it. They would support anything and everything that guaranteed that every child born in this country has the opportunity to live to their full potential. Until you are willing to help pay for that, you have no right to think you can make decisions for others whose shoes you do not live in. To these people its just feelings for them, they don't really care about what happens to the child cause it's not their problem. Just make sure its born.

 

[The Faceless Master]

they're a person when they're born.

you know, when people have to fill out a birth certificate and shit like that.

if they can scoop out that 18 week fetus whole and safely without medical injury to the mother and carry it to term with machines and have the state raise it, sure, fine, let them do that if they feel it's so necessary to preserve 'human life' or whatever made up bible thumper term they want to use for a parasite.

 

[Jumplion]

I don't think women want to get abortions, but it doesn't change the fact that it ends human lives. Regardless of their intentions, it's still wrong. Intentions are not the only things that matter.

I ask because the way you characterize abortions as a moral issue presumes that abortions are performed due to morals rather than necessity. It warps the intentions of women who get abortions and mischaracterizes the gravity of the decision.

The intentional killing of another innocent human is never necessary. Never.

Ignoring that you just said that intentions do not matter, then you should equally be against preventing or refusing to service a woman in need of an abortion for a pregnancy that will kill her. Otherwise, you are contradicting yourself saying that it is okay to intentionally kill an innocent human (due to inaction) for the necessity of preventing abortion.

It might still happen (as I'm sure it will), but the state shouldn't publicly teach their citizens that it's something that should be permitted (passing laws has the effect of teaching citizens moral rules, regardless of whether or not we think that's the case).

I'm just making the point that the federal government intervening (as it did in Roe v. Wade) set a large percentage of the country on a trajectory toward believing that it was morally permissible to have abortions under certain circumstances.

Then you have to demonstrate why it's not, which you have not done so. It is something that is permitted, whether you like it or not, and not giving that information to people who need it . I will agree that passing laws can influence moral rules, but making that the primary focus of a law is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst.

Here's an example: If the government passed a law allowing the practice of bride kidnapping, and if the country was led to believe it was a harsh practice (but necessary to keep legal), doesn't the government have a responsibility to officially ban such a practice (or at least encourage its citizens to stop the practice) regardless of the utilitarian consequences?

The difference between bride-kidnapping and abortion is that one is far less common than the other and the other is a necessity of human biology. Women will get pregnant and there will be situations where their life will be at risk, to say nothing of bringing a child in an abusive, unprivileged, or dangerous situation. People want brides for social/financial reasons that can be addressed at a far more fundamental, societal level. You cannot stop women getting pregnant and needing abortions just as you cannot prevent people becoming diabetic and needing insulin (at least, not currently).

Ignoring that kidnapping is already illegal, a better metaphor IMO would be mail-order brides. Most mail-order bride services involve actual kidnapping of people, human trafficking, and other negative results. If we wanted to provide a mail-order bride service, it would behoove us to regulate it and make sure it is safe, and even better would be to address the system that makes mail-order brides desireable.

Similarly, illegal abortions involve human trafficking, preventable injuries and deaths, and it would behoove us to regulate it and make sure it is safe, especially since it's a much more necessary service than a mail-order bride. And as before, it would be even better to address the system that makes abortions more necessary than needed such as birth control access, sex education, and health-care access.

Go as fundamental as you can and address the system that would bring a need to the service in the first place. Murder will probably happen for the forseeable future. Framing murder as a moral issue obscures the more tangible causes like poverty, education, access to healthcare, etc...

I should mention that I'm actually not utilitarian, but I did mention utilitarian value just for the sake of argument (just to make the further point about there being no huge negative consequences).

But there are huge negative consequences, including but not limited to increased risk of injury, increase in preventable deaths, increase in poverty (kids are expensive), more orphans, domestic violence, etc...

 

[antibolo]

It's the "war on drugs" all over again. Criminalizing something we don't like will NOT make it go away, it will only cause further problems and destroy even more lives. Sadly no lessons are ever learned because humans are dumb like that.

 

[Sabotage]

Good, we need to end this barbaric practice altogether

 

[Impeccable]

Oh man, the US is in shambles. What a shadow of what the world once thought of it.

 

[whitehawk]

It's the "war on drugs" all over again. Criminalizing something we don't like will NOT make it go away, it will only cause further problems and destroy even more lives. Sadly no lessons are ever learned because humans are dumb like that.

.

This is really the bottom line.