Do we have any moral obligation to protect the lives of those people who haven't been born yet?
Why or why not?
- 7 years agoFavorite Answer
I feel that we as human beings do have a moral obligation 2 protect those who have not been born yet because of the fact the its still a baby just becuse it's forming doesn't change that fact me at least in my opinion. I was 20 when I had my first son and 22 when I had my 2ed. I was about 6 months pregnant when my own father told me it was stupid 2 have 2 kids as young as I was that close together he said I should have had an abortion. I still to this day never really forgave him for saying that. It was the only time I ever disrespected my father I started crying really bad I told him f u to his face asked him how he can play with his 1st grandson and tell him he loves him then tell me I should have murdered his second? it's been 3 1/2 years since that conversation took place in my home but I feel I was in the right 4 stick up 4 my unbon son.
- 7 years ago
To a certain extent - yes. We cant eg put 100 nuclear bombs set to blow after 100 years and similarly we shouldnt commit omissions that would help the future people.
The question should rather be about the LIMITS of the obligation - how much to sacrifice for the future people, not whether we have an obligation at all
- RickLv 67 years ago
Morality is a personal question and everyone sees morality differently. As a society we have no moral obligation but morals are typically considered when making law. Morals aren't the only consideration though. As a society, once the law is decided, that is our only obligation as a society. Without that system, disagreements would turn into assaults and murders much more often. Sometimes you feel strongly about something but still have to respect the law even though it doesn't agree with your morals. Of course, you have every right to get politically active and try to change the law.
- WhoIsJohnGaltComLv 57 years ago
I think government has a political obligation to protect lives wherever the moral obligation cannot be disproven. It's called erring on the side of caution.
Or do you propose to prove that we have no moral obligation?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous7 years ago
No!!! It is a woman's right to choose. She can loose her life giving birth or by aborting the child.
Forcing a female to carry a child against her will is not the answer. If you do that then the male should have a computer chip like you put in animals to spot their location to make them held responsible as well.
No one ever speaks of the males responsibility!
If a woman is raped or not it is her choice but it would be best to use the day after pill because the brain is not even developed and with out that it is just cells multiplying and incapable of being conscience of itself.
Have you even considered the fact that fetuses or zygotes naturally abort are in the remains of a blood clot and not noticed and flushed down a toilet. Do you want to save that to?
- RockHunterLv 77 years ago
We seem to think we have the obligation to protect baby eagles and dolphins, just not humans. Go figure.
- Think 1stLv 77 years ago
Yes, I agree, background checks on all firearm purchases.
Long jail time for straw purchases, and illegal possession of firearms.
Reinstate the ban on military style weapons.
Glad to see you ask this.
- Uncle JetLv 67 years ago
The lib will support a child born alive to have their spine cut by scissors.
- 7 years ago
I would say yes humans purpose on earth is to reproduce and thrive or basicly for any animal
- SargeLv 47 years ago
No. This is America, a country where eugenics is illegal, as is euthanasia. Why should abortion be ok?