71–80 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many don’t believe this is a human right, and you enforcing this on them is going against their will. This is authoritarian.
Against their will to do what? Legalizing abortion doesn't mean forced abortions.
Legalizing slavery doesn't mean you're forced to own slaves.
Some folks believe certain actions are intrinsically immoral and no one should be allowed to do them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mother decided to have unprotected sex. There’s a reason women get pregnant. This isn’t some magical thing that is forced on women. Cause and effect. The body inside her body is not hers. Unfortunately biology does not conform to our fantasyland. Forcing those who are against this to pay a fine is against their will.
This is such bulshit! First and foremost willing unprotected sex is not the only reason for getting pregnant! Contraceptive are not 100% effective and there is rape. Second the body inside her might not belong to her (although… debatable) but her body is still hers and therefore she is entitled to remove anything inside of her. Third sometimes there are medical reasons for abortions (Malta recently almost killed a mo…
I know, a different opinion on a left wing dominant forum. It’s pretty wild.
> First and foremost willing unprotected sex is not the only reason for getting pregnant! Contraceptive are not 100% effective and there is rape.
I address this in another comment below.
> Third sometimes there are medical reasons for abortions (Malta recently almost killed a mother that had a miscarriage… the child was 100% going to die but as long as the fetus’ heart was beating they could not remove it and therefore the mover risked sepsis)
You’re citing very rare events to support the main issue which is the majority of abortions are out of convenience, which is where the main issue is.
For these rare events there can be middle ground found here.
> Second the body inside her might not belong to her (although… debatable) but her body is still hers and therefore she is entitled to remove anything inside of her. > A twisted example based on your comment: should be allowed to remove tumours? They have a slightly different DNA from the host therefore they are not “property” of the sick and therefore should be left there!
This is arguing the same point in my opinion. The tumor does not grow into a human. The tumor is not able to survive outside of the womb in a NICU as a human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not her body since conception. It's another human's body inside her body. I personally don't think we should have governments protecting lives or rights or anyone - therefore if abortion happens that's unfortunate but I wouldn't spend resources chasing that. That said abortion is obviously murder and immoral, no matter how convenient it can be.
An embryo is not a human (and I say so as a father and former embryo myself) so it is not murder!
"It seems obvious to me that planetary problems demand planetary government." That does not seem obvious to me at all. And I can't imagine a common set of governing principles acceptable to Iceland, China, Russia and the Taliban. For example, looking at what is currently rocking the U.S., what would be the global policy on abortion?
what would be the global policy on abortion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many don’t believe this is a human right, and you enforcing this on them is going against their will. This is authoritarian.
Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! If you force your opinion on something that should be exclusively her concern then you are the “authoritarian”
And many pro-life folks say that you're killing a child. It's his/her body.
We don't allow parents to to kill 'inconvenient' child post-birth† so according to their argument neither should we pre-birth.
† Well:
* https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-n...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-birth_abortion
* https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2017/07/13/should-one-be-allo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such bulshit! First and foremost willing unprotected sex is not the only reason for getting pregnant! Contraceptive are not 100% effective and there is rape. Second the body inside her might not belong to her (although… debatable) but her body is still hers and therefore she is entitled to remove anything inside of her. Third sometimes there are medical reasons for abortions (Malta recently almost killed a mo…
> This is such bulshit! I know, a different opinion on a left wing dominant forum. It’s pretty wild. > First and foremost willing unprotected sex is not the only reason for getting pregnant! Contraceptive are not 100% effective and there is rape. I address this in another comment below. > Third sometimes there are medical reasons for abortions (Malta recently almost killed a mother that had a miscarriage… the child w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! If you force your opinion on something that should be exclusively her concern then you are the “authoritarian”
> Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! And many pro-life folks say that you're killing a child. It's his/her body. We don't allow parents to to kill 'inconvenient' child post-birth† so according to their argument neither should we pre-birth. † Well: * https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-n... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-birth_abortion * htt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what about the childs body?
An embryo is not a human
So a human female and a human male copulate and they conceive something not-human? What species is it if it is not Homo sapiens? If it is not Homo sapiens, why does it apparently have human DNA (distinct from either the female and male that were involved)?
Why is it that when two humans copulate, they produce something not-human, but when every other mammal pairs copulate they produce something of the same species?
In your opinion when does it go from being not-human to being human? Is is gradual, on a spectrum? Or is it binary: at a certain point in development there is some characteristic that becomes present
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An embryo is not a human (and I say so as a father and former embryo myself) so it is not murder!
An embryo is a stage of being a human. As you say, you were an embryo yourself. It's only because we can't see it that we feel it's not human enough and can be killed. The thought of not being "human enough" doesn't bode well in our history, especially around the 1940s timeframe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! And many pro-life folks say that you're killing a child. It's his/her body. We don't allow parents to to kill 'inconvenient' child post-birth† so according to their argument neither should we pre-birth. † Well: * https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-n... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-birth_abortion * htt…
It’s not yet a child when you perform an abortion!
Just to be clear: are we talking about the pre-birth situation or the post-birth situation (as practice in the Netherlands)?