421–430 of 448 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So a fetus only deserves protection if someone wants it?
That’s one of many sufficient conditions. Another is fetal viability, which is exactly why Roe allowed states to enact restrictions on late-term abortions. Overall, we’re only having these conversations because a fetus has two simultaneous qualities: it bears visual resemblance to a human being, and it has the future potential to be a human being. We don’t concern ourselves nearly as much with sperm (no visual resemb…
The logic fails, it literally the exact same life you’re ending. The difference is only the location and whether someone wants it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s one of many sufficient conditions. Another is fetal viability, which is exactly why Roe allowed states to enact restrictions on late-term abortions. Overall, we’re only having these conversations because a fetus has two simultaneous qualities: it bears visual resemblance to a human being, and it has the future potential to be a human being. We don’t concern ourselves nearly as much with sperm (no visual resemb…
But if I give birth to a 26 week premature baby, then kill it. That’s murder, but if I do while still in the womb I didn’t kill anything because the mother didn’t want it? The logic fails, it literally the exact same life you’re ending. The difference is only the location and whether someone wants it.
They’re not the same life, because they’re two different things: one is a premature newborn that we know can survive outside of a continuing pregnancy, and the other is a fetus that might survive. Unless you propose that we make all pregnant people deliver the moment their doctor believes that the fetus is viable (that seems like a bad state of affairs?), the two will remain different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monkeys also engage in cannibalism, sometimes even of their own dead young, and lions regularly commit infanticide. Appeals to nature are not compelling in the slightest when it comes to morality.
My inference from nature supported a non-moral point, namely "[abortion is] going to be with us until the end of time, regardless of law." As for my moral argument, I invite you to read about the history of abortion, the history of abolition, and/or the history of America's war on drugs. I expect you will find abolition the easiest example to grok, since it's no longer a political issue. Note the moral arguments for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if I give birth to a 26 week premature baby, then kill it. That’s murder, but if I do while still in the womb I didn’t kill anything because the mother didn’t want it? The logic fails, it literally the exact same life you’re ending. The difference is only the location and whether someone wants it.
What you’re identifying falls under viability as mentioned above, as well as basic independent self-regulation. They’re not the same life, because they’re two different things: one is a premature newborn that we know can survive outside of a continuing pregnancy, and the other is a fetus that might survive. Unless you propose that we make all pregnant people deliver the moment their doctor believes that the fetus is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literally talking to you and trying to get you convinced that things are at stake is doing something. I'm also active in my local community trying to change things. Why can't I do both? It's not one or the other. That's another problem y'all folks have beyond goalposts, you think we can't both talk and do. We have to raise awareness, and do. Especially with how stacked the legislative is in our country to favor minor…
I'm not a person you need to convince. I'm already on your side that abortion should be safe and legal. The way to do that is to enact laws that guarantee the right to abortion. People on the right are not a monolith. There may be a handful of lunatics who are raving about IVF or contraception, but that is not most of them. The pro-life people I've talked to online and in real life think abortion is just about irresp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That feels like a distinction without a difference. If he and 4 others rule that the court overstepped its bounds, states will determine those behaviors to be illegal. So if you admit he's willing to overthrow the precedent, and you agree that some states would then make those behaviors illegal, then how can you square that circle in your brain to claim it's scaremongering?
Well if we look at everything we do in this way there's no way to make a decision on principle, we must always consider outcomes only. I don't think there's a state that would outlaw regular birth control. Maybe 40 years ago, but today, probably not. And really, why is it that we can vote at the federal government based on the policies we want, but saying that you should do that for certain issues in your state is un…
If you do not have bodily autonomy due to the enforcement of religious stupidity by the state, you are not considered a full human being by the state.
Acting like women, and men who care about women should just accept this shit because it's "the will of the people" is not logical, and I might add is not going to happen.
The states that banned this medical procedure are gerrymandered and at least in Texas I have witnessed first hand the extreme measures they are taking to prevent people from voting out the unpopular and corrupt leaders who are endorsing these measures no one wants, except the religious minority. So please tell me more about how this democratic process is what's happening. They rigged the game and now women are going to die and suffer because of it, and nothing is going to change. They will still pay for their mistresses abortions in "free" states and the poors get ground into the dirt even further. Same song different day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a question of who's right or wrong. I'm specifically asking about your claim that abortions are driving "hookup culture." This implies that people are having more sex because of availability of abortions. Why do you think this? For that matter, what makes you think people are having more sex, period?
It's hard to find hard data on it, but in my personal life 10 years ago I experienced women having sex with me only after they felt that they know enough about me and trust me in having a long term relationship, and after the first sex I didn't feel that I still have to prove myself and court, but rather I can focus on having a great time and great relationship with the woman I am with. Nowdays women have sex with me…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem like you've considered the possibility that a fetus with no consciousness being terminated may be more humane than forcing it into the hell of being raised by parents that don't want it or can't provide for it. More people should accept that what's going on inside someone else's body is none of their business.
The person you're responding to specifically said "one day before birth", I don't think you can find someone who credibly argues that a fetus at that stage is not a conscious human being. Whoever you're disagreeing with you're not responding to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The supreme court doesn't write laws, they only interpret them. Laws are very specifically written and often include enumerated exceptions and specific scenarios. They don't just say "Life begins at conception and that's that".
> The supreme court doesn't write laws, they only interpret them. That is a technical fiction. The Supreme Court rewrites laws all the time. They are the line-item veto a President is not allowed to have.