Translated material
They have the right to life
There's this photo going around on Facebook with the caption "12-week fetus. Look who they're allowed to kill." And a thousand angry comments in the spirit that a ban on abortion is the only civilized solution.
First, a 12-week embryo looks like this:
He is not human, he has no consciousness.
If we reason in the sense that “he has the possibility of the appearance of consciousness in the near future,” then why not judge young people who could conceive and give birth to a child, but did not do so (dennett’s argument in some old LJ -discussions).
However, the main thing, in my opinion, is not at all the solution to the question “where does biomass end and a person with an inalienable right to protect life begins.” The main question is: why is it that the same people who oppose abortion almost always oppose active social assistance to poor citizens or starving countries?
After all, it is clear that the vast majority of abortions are the result of poverty and lack of education.
The right to life includes not only the right not to be aborted when your brain is not yet formed, but also the right to receive an education when your brain is already formed.
The fetus does not feel pain until 24 weeks , but no one doubts that children starving around the world, deprived of medical care, feel pain.
Do these children have the right to be protected from suffering?
An increase in the birth rate and especially the birth of unexpected children will obviously lead to the fact that society will not be able to take care of children already born.
Therefore, opponents of abortion advocate not so much for preserving the lives of unborn children, but for the preservation and development of a certain social order. This way of life seems cruel and senseless to me.