But I don't think that you understand what I mean. As far as I can understand, you interpret it as a 'the ends justify the means', but I actually mean it as a deterrent strategy. Having a lot of abortions does not actually deter unwanted pregnancies, indeed, it might do less to deincentivize them. But if migrants know that they won't be picked up by human smuggler helpers when they traverse the Mediterranean on leaky boats, they will stop coming, and that will end the problem.
Whether abortions are justified to prevent future suffering depends on your view of the moral status of the embryo/fetus.
Shoot them on sight. Solves the problem.
Unironically, that would be the humane solution. That'd stop them coming and dying in decrepit vessels.
That's like defending abortion as humane because it avoids all the child's future sufferings.
Pretty sure babies don't come from another country and consciously choose to invade someone's womb.
You can't deter babies from existing by making examples of them, but societal leeches on the other hand...
Unborn babies aren't making a decision to invade someone else's land.
I do defend abortion with this logic though.
Upvoted for challenging a popular view.
But I don't think that you understand what I mean. As far as I can understand, you interpret it as a 'the ends justify the means', but I actually mean it as a deterrent strategy. Having a lot of abortions does not actually deter unwanted pregnancies, indeed, it might do less to deincentivize them. But if migrants know that they won't be picked up by human smuggler helpers when they traverse the Mediterranean on leaky boats, they will stop coming, and that will end the problem.
Whether abortions are justified to prevent future suffering depends on your view of the moral status of the embryo/fetus.
I'm just against calling murder humane.
You are purposely mixing things together.
That's the point of analogies.