Or political. Abortion is not accessible in all parts of the country.

With all due respect, I never understood the prevailing attitude in the US to do everything it takes to make you keep that „sacred life“ if you get pregnant by accident – and then once it‘s there, drop it like a hot potato and do exactly zero to make it a tax-paying, happy and productive member of society. The hypocrisy of it all just blows my mind.

"Pro-birth"

Yeah, they wail and wail about murdering children and then are all too pleased to scorn and segregate the mothers (but not so much the fathers) of these children so they have the worst possible chances.

Right, political. I was including that in "ethical". But I see my error.

Or in all western countries.

At which point did we, as a society, settle the philosophical conundrum that is taking an unborn life? Cells, fetus or baby? What is it? Since when? Why? How should it be done?

I'm not religious at all but it seems to me that, at least tangentially, most religious believes are rooted in philosophical unknowns and feeling of uncertainty. Religious people then resort to their faith of choice as a way to find answers.

Then again, since, as you say, being against abortion for religious reasons is idiotic, do we have an all encompassing scientific and philosophical answer about when, why and how it is "not idiotic" to perform an abortion?

If we don't, because as far as I know we don't, then why is it idiotic to decide based on your inability to understand a situation for which other people do not have answers?

As I said, I'm not religious and agree that religion is certainly not the only compass some people should lead their lives by. Nevertheless, your remark rubbed me the wrong way. "Idiotic," how can you be so judgmental if you to don't have answers to all the questions I listed above?

The philosophical conundrum was settled when we as a society created the single definition for what life is. At that date we also defined good, evil, humane and inhuman.

That is to say, there is no single moment when those got a definitive definition. There is human rights and yet we have not a single definition of what human mean. I still recall reading discussions if a dead person has human rights or not, which implies some amount of uncertainty that goes beyond even life itself.

Calling people idiotic is never the right move and it does rub people in the wrong way, but I disagree to the claim that you need to have all the answers. I do not have a encompassing scientific and philosophical answer when human life start, what makes it human, and when it ends, but I still perceive human rights to be essential and those who object to human rights to be fundamentally wrong. If the discussion is to be moved forward I feel like demanding answers to those question will just lead into an impassable domain.

Yes, it's a cheap shot to just dismiss it all as religious and idiotic. Except in self-defense or war, societies generally aren't OK with killing people. But when do fetuses become people? Some cultures were OK with parents (or at least, fathers) killing children younger than eight years. Many have gone with birth as the cutoff.

There is an argument that conception is the cutoff. But on the other hand, the relationship of mother and fetus is rather unique. So arguably she can evict a fetus, whenever she wishes. After all, there is otherwise no obligation for one person to save the life of another.

So anyway, it's not just about religion.

> So anyway, it's not just about religion.

But religion played and still plays a large role in forming these discussions because of its supposedly unique position as a "moral compass" for many cultures over the course of history.

Imho this is especially evident if you take a look cloning and stem-cell research in general. While most of the West is still busy trying to figure out how to make it compatible with Christian ideals of life, China, in their usual pragmatism, just goes ahead and does it because they don't have a comparable lobby stopping them from doing it.

In that regard, it is pretty much religion that put a stop sign there and even tho this debate is anything but new, I'm not really sure we've actually progressed at all with said debate, it rather feels like decades of stalemate.

Yes, many religions undeniably provide standard answers for such ethical questions. But that doesn't make them religious questions.

> So arguably she can evict a fetus, whenever she wishes.

A mother 'evicting' a fetus at 24 weeks without the abortion would result in a very tiny, but likely healthy baby (at least in the US, where premature baby care is generally outstanding). Source - held one in my hands this fall when our friends adopted him.

Sure, she evicts, and gives it up for adoption. If it's viable, it gets adopted, or ends up in an orphanage. If it's not viable, it dies. But it's not her responsibility.

It's not that religions are idiotic. It's that trying to enact any moral framework homogenously across a global population is idiotic and completely unrealistic.

Religions are for slaves.

> "Because they got pregnant"

Really? In 2018, given the myriad of ways you can cost-effectively prevent pregnancy, I hardly accept "because it happened" as an answer.

Yes, birth control sometimes fails. That statistic alone cannot explain the quantity of individuals having children, who simply shouldn't be. People can down vote me all they want, but what I am saying is true: Having children when you cannot afford to take care of them is reckless and incredibly selfish.

People screw up, all the time.

But yes, sometimes people have kids, realizing that they have no clue how they'll afford them. Call it desperation, if you will. Or rebellion against an unjust society.

Or maybe they don't really think it through. Much of the time, I suspect.

Put it to adoption ?

Because the color of your skin matters. African American babies are cheaper to adopt but stay in the system longer because they are harder to place in adoptive homes.

Not really relevant to solving the problem of getting rid of the baby. Any parent who's OK with aborting that baby probably doesn't have any issue with how long the baby stays in the system.

Totally relevant. The original statement was (paraphrased) "Someone might have gotten pregnant even if they can't afford kids," to which someone replied "Put it to adoption."

First, this seems incredibly heartless -- poor people should just give their kids up to adoption -- and second, it only makes "logical" sense if you assume that adoption is a better outcome for the kids than growing up poor. But if, as stated, some kids are going to end up in "they system" for years or decades, instead of magically getting adopted into some rich family, then putting them up for adoption may well end up much worse.

What a fetus comprehends is different from what a toddler comprehends. Many people assume (whether correctly or incorrectly) that a fetus has the level of consciousness of an animal, or perhaps even less than a companion species like dogs.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it can actually cost money to put a child up for adoption in some places.

You're wrong in the US, which is where this story is. In fact adoptive moms get healthcare, and sometimes even room/board/food etc paid for them.