Texas has that law that allows private individuals to sue anyone who assists someone get an abortion for $10,000. Nutjobs will be coming out of the woodwork to take advantage of it, I’m sure.
2 Likes
No human has the right to end the life of another under any circumstances. There is no justification, no circumstance which makes this ok. To relegate a human life to "the right of a woman to decide her body’s medical status"implies that her baby is her property (her slave) which is also illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, abortion as a right was an illegal, politically motivated decision which removes the rights of one human being to satisfy the rights of another.
1 Like
So by your reasoning a cancer growth has the same rights as a blastocyst. It consists of an aggregation of multiplying cells.
Exactly when, in your view does this cell aggregation become “human” and not part of the host’s system?
6 Likes
Not even in extreme cases of self defense? Kill or be killed. Kill or let your entire family be killed. Will it be justified to kill a plane hijacker that otherwise would end the lives of hundreds or thousands of people, if that’s the only way to stop him/her? And then you have the trolley problem, where you are being exposed to hard problems like minimising the number of people killed, and other moral issues? If you think about it, that kind of categorical and dogmatic thinking can be problematic.
6 Likes
I don’t agree, it a subjective idea for a start, as are all morals, and it is of course relative.
No it doesn’t and no it isn’t, abortions are legal in many states, and an insentient blastocyst or foetus has no autonomy to take away, since it is topologically connected to, and part of, a woman’s body.
It’s also facile reasoning to call a blastocyst a human being, since it is an insentient clump of cells. Claiming a sentient woman should have less rights than an insentient blastocyst is preposterous.
Nope, you want it to be illegal, it demonstrably was not in many places, and what’s wrong with something being politically motivated?
If you don’t like abortions, then don’t have one, but leave others to decide how their own bodies are used.
7 Likes
Your position seems to be that everyone is obligated to try and save someone else, even if the attempt means they themselves can be harmed, or die, and even if the chances of the other person surviving even if momentarily saved are slight? You’d run into a burning building to save someone who you know for a fact isn’t going to live even if you get them out and there’s no way you can do it without hurting yourself? If you haven’t donated a kidney then you don’t think you yourself are obligated to put yourself out to save another person to any where the extent you’re demanding of women.
4 Likes
As a medical person (former paramedic and future nurse, as I just got my ADN), I am actually sympathetic toward your view while still believing that you are wrong.
Abortion is always an uncomfortable topic (as it should be) that makes us question where “personhood” begins . . . and the idea that there are few cut and dried, black or white answers makes abortion even more concerning.
My position is that it simply is not a perfect world, and the world does not function by absolute rules that are black or white with no grey areas.
Sometimes abortion is a bad solution to an utterly awful problem . . . as this recent case in Texas demonstrates.
The medical field is about grey areas, and the politicians and religious leaders who tie a doctor’s hands need to stay in their lane, as most aren’t medically trained.
Please . . . before you see abortion in the absolutes of the slippery-slope fallacy, please see below:
Added later after further thought:
Please guys, don’t condemn me as “pro-life” because I said I was sympathetic to his position . . . which isn’t the same as agreeing with him, which I don’t. As a new nursing school graduate, I should try to be empathetic, . . . and I am.
Well, overall, I think that’s utter horseshit.
As to abortion, demonstrate that a blastocyst is a person.
5 Likes
Tell us you hate woman without telling us you hate woman. I enjoy how people give their voice and opinions to inanimate or undeveloped things that can’t speak for themselves as if you know for certain what “it” wants or deserves.
I truly hope if you think life is that sacred you have currently chained yourself to the doors of the US capital screaming bloody murder against all war. Otherwise you’re just another pearl clutcher giving me the vapors.
6 Likes
I can only concur.
Demonstrate why it should have more rights than the woman whose body it is a part of, and to quote Matt Dillahunty, I couldn’t give a fuck if it’s in there writing poetry, it’s still part of, and using, a woman’s body, and how long that continues is the woman’s choice and no one else’s.
3 Likes
Not that I think your slavery comparison is meaningful, but for what it is worth: the US Constitution specifically allows for slavery.
4 Likes
Originally, yes, but the 13th Amendment explicitly states:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
1 Like
See the exception. Slavery is still legal and widely practiced in the US.
2 Likes
To quote Baretta: “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”, although lots of things in this country shouldn’t be crimes that currently are.
2 Likes
Interesting.
What constitutes life?
What do you say of baby parts that are found to be sold for Lamborghinis?
1 Like
That’s a false equivalency fallacy, a clump of insentient cells may be alive, but to suggest it should have rights to use a woman’s body against her will is asinine. Slugs are alive, have you ever killed a slug? I’m guessing you’d not object, hence alive is not really relevant.
Will I get a Lamborghini?
Abortions don’t involve babies!!!
2 Likes
Odd.
Why would you blame the life in the woman’s womb for being in the womb? I am sure there is at least one person who is responsible over what they have done with their bodies and that does not include the life in the womb.
Why do you equate a slug with a life in the womb?
1 Like
Not odd, irrational, you were using a false equivalence fallacy. I explained it to you. Just because something is alive does not mean they are the same, or get the same rights afforded them.
That one is called a straw man fallacy, since I made no such claim. I’m being polite, as it is also a rather dishonest lie.
That’s a second straw man fallacy, since again I never claimed otherwise, and yes a woman is responsible for what happens to her own body, and not a blastocyst, or religious zealots, that’s entirely the point.
I didn’t you did, your objection to Kelli’s post about a woman’s life being endangered by refusing her an abortion was “what constitutes life”
Are you saying a slug is not alive? Or just that being alive does not make things equal? I suspect the second, hence it is a false equivalence, and being alive is not on it’s own a relevant objection to aborting a pregnancy. The woman is alive after all, and the decision Kelli highlighted may well kill her, refusing abortions will absolutely kill someone at some point, and it will be a fully sentient human being, and not a clump of insentient cells.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Wow, he was being serious?