• Yes it is

    Last I checked killing babies is both immoral and definitely NOT a right. Not me or you or any human has any right to decide if someone else lives, it is not our place, so being for a person having the option to brutally murder an innocent baby is immoral in the fullest sense of the word.

  • There is no immorality to thinking that a babies life is worth more than a woman's convenience.

    Of course, there might be times when a mother must kill her child(if it is a risk to her life), the vast majority of the time, a baby must be protected and nurtured until birth. No human should have the power to kill someone they deem unworthy or unfit for life without an actual reason. Considering that a baby is innocent before and after birth, then there is no logical reason to kill the baby except for pure selfish desire not to have one. Not only that but if a woman happens to be pregnant and does not want a baby, she can give it up for adoption or have relatives take care of it.

  • Yes it is

    Killing babies is immoral and so it is immoral to support killing babies. Using a vacuum, forceps, saline or scissors to dismember an innocent baby is immoral. How could it not be? Supporting this barbaric procedure is disgusting and sickening. The right to life overrides any right to bodily autonomy.

  • Just like pro-choicers think it is immoral to be pro-life, i think it is immoral to be pro-choice.

    Yes I said it right there and then and I'm not ashamed of it. I think the pro-choice agenda is immoral. Period. It all just does not add up to me. What's the most common pro-choice statement, "my body my choice?" Well the thing is it it NOT your body. It's another person's body INSIDE yours that may be living off you but is by life force an independent human being that you do NOT have the right to kill. For those pro choicers out there who say "I don't believe in abortion, BUT I support a woman's right to choose," does not cut is. That is like saying you don't support rape but you support a man's (or woman's) right to commit it, or you don't support murder (well YOUR definition of it) but you support a person;s right to commit it. It just does not add up. By saying you don't support abortion, you are regarding that unborn child as human but by saying you support a woman's right to have an abortion if she wants to, you are saying it's okay for her to kill that human regardless because all that matters is a woman's "choice". Does that sound moral? Call me "anti-choice" all you want. I will call you "anti-baby" all I want. It is completely immoral to be pro-choice. Call the baby a "cluster of cells" if you wish. But I will choose to call it a "baby" ie HUMAN that deserved just as many rights as the mother. Call me anti woman all you want, but why would I be against my own gender? Call me insensitive if you want despite the fact I believe that women should be taken care of as much as possible during a pregnancy that she has decided not to terminate or a pregnancy that has be unplanned or resulted from rape/incest. Call me whatever you wish but my stance on an unborn child as being 100% human is NEVER going to change. You pro-choicers can believe whatever the hell you want. You can believe that a week old fetus is no more than a bunch of sells or a parasite. I choose to call it a LIVING HUMAN BEING.

  • Then what isn't wrong?

    Justice is often blurred with self interest. It would be scary to become pregnant accidentally, but no external circumstances can justify killing the child. If we are to believe in equality for human rights, we cannot rationally say that 8 pounds of a woman's bodily autonomy is more fundamental to another equal human being's right to life. Or any of the child's rights--liberty, pursuit of happiness, property--combined with the child's right to live. If abortion--violently ending another person's life--isn't wrong, then is anything?

  • If you believe in morality...

    The only way to think it is not mortally sinful to favor abortion is to believe there is no higher authority and, as a consequence, no right or wrong. This is unfortunately the direction America and most of the world is trending over the past several decades. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Why? Because every group of people must have rules in order to coexist. In those groups of people which do not supply rules from the heart, they will come from a powerful and cold government.

  • It is immoral to reproduce, period.

    Not a single sentient being has ever benefited from being born. Think about that for a moment. All the reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals, and everything else that has ever had feelings had no needs or desires satisfied by coming into existence. On the contrary, their needs and desires were born with them and their pointless cycles of avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure began.

    When you create a new person, you are doing something worse than rape or murder. You are gambling with a complete stranger's life in a cruel, chaotic universe. If kids didn't need their parents, I'd say that there should be a severe punishment for people who reproduce.

    That a fetus is human means nothing in terms of its rights. Beings deserve rights proportional to their needs, and a fetus has no emotional need to be protected from death. It doesn't know what life or death are, much less want either.

    If alien races are real, I'd consider them people even though they wouldn't have a drop of human DNA. Personhood is a social construct that helps societies run smoothly. Assigning personhood to human fetuses is arbitrary and ultimately results in more human suffering.

  • Safety is immoral?

    To begin with my point, may I first announce that a clump of cells is most definetley not defined has a baby, neither does it have conscience nor life. Just like you would take antibiotics to prevent illness you take medication to dissolve a cell structure, it's the same process. To say that a mother must have the child, even if it was an accidental pregnancy is preposterous, since it only is a simple blastocyst within her womb. I can't see that as a fair reason to compromise the welfare of the parent, child (as it grows in the womb), or even the life of the baby after being born. This can be seen in an example of a teenage girl who unintentionally was inpreganted or purposely pregnated but regrets her choices- not only would you potentially kill the bearer but leave that baby in a miserable pickle.

  • No. It's immoral to be fanatically pro-life.

    It's immoral to be fanatically pro-life. Fetuses and embryos are not human. A fetus has human DNA, but it doesn't have the developed organ systems (brain, central nervous system) to experience an articulated human-like consciousness 'til about 5 months after conception. (The central nervous system only begins to control organs in the developing fetus at 4 to 6 months; and it's around this time that scientists believe the fetus is capable of experiencing pain).

    Before this stage of fetal development, the fetus is simply a clump of developing, multiplying cells.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.