red-state republicans: the left wants abortion on demand up to the moment of birth me: uh no, that's not what w- the AP: ACKCHUALLYhttps://twitter.com/AP/status/1170878517808128000 …
2:31
Show this thread
-
Could this be the one time in human history where the side that has a more restrictive definition of which humans have rights, is the correct side? Perhaps, but I’m not convinced it’s likely to be the case.
I think it's absolutely nuts — like, within the realm of delusion or psychosis — to truly believe that a day-3 embryo (~8 cells) is morally equivalent to a newborn baby. But I don't think there are many people who actually believe that; they're just drawing their own bright line.
-
-
I tend to view morality from the perspective of the actor, rather than the person/thing acted upon. So the question for me is, "under what circumstances is it acceptable to snuff out a human life?" Gestational age doesn't seem particularly relevant there.
-
(Notably, when I say "not relevant" I mean exactly that. There are cases of abortion-at-1-week I'd oppose, and cases of abortion-at-29-weeks I'd support. The circumstances and context matter, in this and all things.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Finally someone who gets it. The idea that a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a human being is an unscientific belief not based on facts. The idea that 7-month old fetus is the moral equivalent of a fertilized egg is just as unscientific and non-factual.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.