Bill Burr on abortion
(youtu.be)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
The argument did not make sense though. By definition, something that only "will be a cake" is not a cake right now. Same for a baby. If it's in the later stages, sure, it's a baby and killing it is murder.
But should I really get upset about an abortion at 6 weeks?
The real issue, at least to me, is when do you draw the line? For the record, up till a few years ago, I've been mostly pro choice, and a part of me still is. But the pro choice arguments don't really hold up, the more you look at it. It's always the taking of a life, and of potential life. Is there a point where that can be done more humanely than, for example, eight months in? Sure. Is there an argument that the good could outweigh the bad in that more humane option? Sure, the argument can be made, and I'm not even completely in disagreement. There is certainly...utility in abortion. But is it something we need in society? Is that utility good for society?
But the fact remains, you need a limiting principle. Why is six weeks alright, and when isn't it alright? Is eight weeks alright? Twelve? And why would one be alright, and the other not? Is it a heartbeat? Is it viability? If heartbeat, why? It's the same issues as to birth; it was about to get a heartbeat, why is it alright to kill it right before, but not after? As to viability, the issue there is that it's always changing based on medical access, and current technology. If you're drawing off any arbitrary criteria, you're failing to protect the rights of the baby.
Again, not even specifically saying it should 100% be off the table, but the discussion needs to be had, that limiting principle needs to be defined, and the rationale used to reach the conclusion needs to be crystal clear. Why is it alright to kill a six week old baby in the womb, if it's not alright to kill an X week old baby in the womb?
I agree, most of them seem to beg the question, while in no way addressing the objections that are made to it. Note that I am not making those stupid arguments. I'm not denying that even a fertilized egg is human (obviously, it's not a cat) and that you therefore cannot argue that it's "her own body".
I can only imagine what it would look like to have an average of 1+ million unwanted children deposited every year, to grow up in poverty and probably fatherlessness. You'll live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension.
With many things, you cannot specify an exact moment when something goes from being OK to not OK, or vice versa. For example, why is it OK for a 16-year-old to drive and not someone who is 15 years and 364 days old? Surely, that one day isn't going to break or make the thing.
Any standard that is humane is going to be, to some extent, arbitrary. You can say that it's at birth, and that's not arbitrary, but it'll enable butchery. Same for conception, which will enable great cruelty and terrible social effects.
I'd say quickening or thereabouts.
But you can take viability as a guideline and then restrict it a little further, just to be on the safe side. That's still allowing nearly all abortions, but forbidding the grotesque ones.
No answer that is reasonable and humane will be 'logically' satisfactory. Why did France allow abortion until 12 weeks, until it recently moved it to 14 weeks? Not because of logic. Laws are rarely based on logic. The question is coming up with something people can live with, not playing philosopher king and pretending, no offense, that you're deducing the form of the good from first principles.
There it is: kill the poor.
Tonio's liberalism raising it's head