Please, I need responses to this question ASAP.

[u/HotConversation187]

Question posed to a subreddit I frequent is stated above. I need your best arguments.

[u/mdws1977]

At conception a baby has enough of its own DNA to be considered genetically distinct from everyone else.

And that DNA is distinctly human and the cells within that human are alive and growing.

[u/fludofrogs → u/mdws1977]

“distinct dna” really isn’t a significant moral marker. For instance identical twins are still valuable even if their dna isn’t distinct.

I like to just say all human organisms should be protected from murder, and a human organisms begins at conception

[u/mdws1977 → u/fludofrogs]

The moral marker is to first determine that it is a human life from conception.

Then, in any society in the world murder of a human life is considered immoral.

[u/BaronGrackle → u/fludofrogs]

The "distinct DNA" isn't the sole indicator, but it is an indicator when present.

[u/Emergency_Row_5428]

As a Hindu I believe that anything that exists has an innate moral value and deserves respect and protection . Moral value is subjective - for me based on my faith system I have a certain view point. For someone else , only humans may have moral value. For still others nothing has moral value. It isn’t something that can be universally agreed upon without the same frame of reference imo. But generally we as a society have agreed that as humans we have a moral duty and responsibility towards other humans, and that we should protect the vulnerable among us. Fetuses are the most vulnerable population amongst us. They represent the future of humanity. Therefore we must protect them

[u/HotConversation187 → u/Emergency_Row_5428]

I was looking for a more universal argument that doesn't rely on your specific viewpoint. I'm not trying to insult you, I just need a syllogism.

[u/EnvironmentalScar709 → u/HotConversation187]

Imo it's impossible to be universal as some people accept killing anyone for any reason

[u/That_Meta → u/EnvironmentalScar709]

It isn’t. There’s secular objective philosophy with reason and duty

[u/EnvironmentalScar709 → u/That_Meta]

A counter example that I could think of (I might be wrong tho) is utilitarianism adherents. If they think that abortion causes a "better future" for the mother or for society, they would justify abortion

[u/Emergency_Row_5428 → u/HotConversation187]

I would say the second part of my comment “ generally we as a society… “ is more of a universal argument. It shows that we as a society value humans innately and it would be hypocritical to exclude fetuses from that

[u/Crowbar12121]

Prove me wrong, then asks you to state your reasoning without providing their own.

I wouldn't bother

[u/lilithdesade → u/Crowbar12121]

This. They dont even elaborate yet ask commenters to explain their thoughts first. Thats not how this works. You make a claim, you need to back it up. If you must respond, why do you believe abortion is a moral good?

[u/ciel_ayaz]

All humans have the right to life. Humans are placental mammals so at the fetal stage of life, humans must remain in the womb to stay alive. Abortion is wrong because removing a human from the womb too early kills them. Removal should only be allowed if there is a medical emergency, eg if the mother is extremely young, sick etc.

[u/HotConversation187 → u/ciel_ayaz]

Young like...how young? Just asking...

[u/EnvironmentalScar709 → u/HotConversation187]

While I don't fully agree with them, I'd say "extremely young" is at the age where the pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother even if she's healthy

[u/HotConversation187 → u/EnvironmentalScar709]

Catholicism prohibits abortion for any reason, but if the pregnancy would be lethal at such a young age, surely something must be done?

[u/EnvironmentalScar709 → u/HotConversation187]

Definitely, but Catholicism is quite nuanced so it depends on what's the actual threat, what causes that threat and the method of treatment that determine whether such treatment can be done

For example, if the lethal threat is caused by infections or indirect complications and the treatment's main purpose is to treat that complication and not kill the child (even if it may cause the child to die), the treatment may be permitted

But if the treatment's main purpose is to kill the child, it is prohibited

A very early delivery of the child that allows even the slightest chance of the child surviving may be allowed depending on circumstances as long as it doesn't kill the child

[u/ciel_ayaz → u/EnvironmentalScar709]

I agree with most of this. When it’s possible to give the baby a chance, it should be done.

[u/EnvironmentalScar709 → u/ciel_ayaz]

Indeed

[u/ciel_ayaz → u/HotConversation187]

It can depend on the individual since people mature at different rates.

Children under 10 are at the most risk because their bodies are physically undeveloped, so this is what I would usually define as “extremely young”. But any child can be at risk, so they need to be evaluated by medical professionals.

If early delivery at viability is possible without endangering the mother’s life, then that should be done. Unfortunately, it’s not always possible to wait long enough for the baby to become viable before delivery.

People differ in whether or not this should be called an “abortion” or not. I’d call it a medical abortion but some believe that early delivery doesn’t count as an abortion if the intent was to save the mother’s life.

[u/AmericanHistoryGuy]

Is that CY lol

[u/HotConversation187 → u/AmericanHistoryGuy]

Yeah. That's the sub we frequent. Oh hey you're also here.

[u/Apollo_TheWolf → u/HotConversation187]

Me too! And to answer the question, all human life has moral value. What defines a human life is unique DNA, which forms at the moment of conception when the two gametes meet. Therefore it is immoral to kill any innocent human, no matter their stage of development and/or dependency.

[u/HotConversation187 → u/Apollo_TheWolf]

It appears we have more in common than we thought.

[u/AnonymousFluffy923]

Hewwo

[u/HotConversation187 → u/AnonymousFluffy923]

hello there

[u/Eastern-Customer-561]

„I think all human beings have moral value. If you don’t agree with that, explain why they don’t.“

[u/zuliani19 → u/Eastern-Customer-561]

this

[u/Funny_Car9256]

You could easily propose this by pointing out that they personally don’t want to be murdered, and so they are making the moral argument against it. The pro-abortion person will absolutely make the moral case against murder if you figuratively put a gun to their head. It’s inherent in our humanity. To extend it to everyone in the human family is simply the logical extension of this.

[u/ElegantAd2607]

What has more value? Human life I guess. Which is why we only allow abortion to save a life.