Honestly, what it takes to do IVF such as freezing embryos kinda does change my mind...
If you artificially create 100 lives and 99 of those lives are doomed either because you succeeded and they're no longer required or because there's a massive failure rate and you're throwing these lives you created into a meatgrinder hoping one of them doesnt die in a deadly process, isnt that kinda morally reprehensible?
But I'm like one of those ex-smokers who can't handle smokers anymore. I used to want abortion to be as wide open as possible before a number of things made me realize how selfish and evil that desire was.
People will go on all day about a mother's right to choose to end a life without considering the baby's right to not have it's life ended. This moral calculus can be equally applied in many situations and once you can see the person you're killing it becomes clear it's not acceptable.
All that being said, reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who are against killing babies are willing to compromise. If you make it super early on when maybe it actually is just a clump of cells and you have cut-outs for life of the mother or reprehensible situations like rape or incest, you still get like 85% of the population willing to take that deal, even if they don't like it entirely.
Thing is, a big key to liberal values isn't just freedom; it's having a cognizance of the moral implications of your actions and acting accordingly. Pure liberty with no responsibility and no moral framework isn't liberty but nihilistic anarchy. In that sense, the most important moral point is when two people agree to take an action that has the likelihood of creating life. Just because it's fun doesn't mean it doesn't carry serious weight. If you're going to do that thing, are you ready, willing, and able to care for a life you create? If not, then it may be more just to not do that thing rather than beg for the liberty to take an inconvenient life while it's helpless and hopefully you won't have to hear it's feeble death rattle.
If you artificially create 100 lives and 99 of those lives are doomed either because you succeeded and they're no longer required or because there's a massive failure rate and you're throwing these lives you created into a meatgrinder hoping one of them doesnt die in a deadly process, isnt that kinda morally reprehensible?
But I'm like one of those ex-smokers who can't handle smokers anymore. I used to want abortion to be as wide open as possible before a number of things made me realize how selfish and evil that desire was.
People will go on all day about a mother's right to choose to end a life without considering the baby's right to not have it's life ended. This moral calculus can be equally applied in many situations and once you can see the person you're killing it becomes clear it's not acceptable.
All that being said, reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who are against killing babies are willing to compromise. If you make it super early on when maybe it actually is just a clump of cells and you have cut-outs for life of the mother or reprehensible situations like rape or incest, you still get like 85% of the population willing to take that deal, even if they don't like it entirely.
Thing is, a big key to liberal values isn't just freedom; it's having a cognizance of the moral implications of your actions and acting accordingly. Pure liberty with no responsibility and no moral framework isn't liberty but nihilistic anarchy. In that sense, the most important moral point is when two people agree to take an action that has the likelihood of creating life. Just because it's fun doesn't mean it doesn't carry serious weight. If you're going to do that thing, are you ready, willing, and able to care for a life you create? If not, then it may be more just to not do that thing rather than beg for the liberty to take an inconvenient life while it's helpless and hopefully you won't have to hear it's feeble death rattle.
- replies
- 2
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0