• qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Well, one of those involves killing a baby/something that will become a baby, so that’s probably the differentiating factor in legislators’ eyes.

    • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      We can’t “kill something that will become a baby”?

      Whelp, time to start legislating male ejaculations. Each one has millions of sperm that could each become a baby, so men are murderers on a scale that could never be matched by women.

        • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          I know, right? Almost like the pregnant person should be in charge of if they WILL carry it to term or rather if they only COULD carry it to term, but won’t. Glad you agree!

    • AItoothbrush
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Ahh you spilt the beans, you shouldnt have. Something that would become a child. Isnt.

    • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      That slash you used implies that the things before and after it are somehow equivalent when they absolutely aren’t.

      • qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I put it there because people have different opinions on when a human life begins, some think it begins at conception, some after 1st trimester, some at birth… However you define the “thing” growing in the womb as, abortion involves killing it and that’s probably(obviously) why it’s treated differently than adoption.

        • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          15 hours ago

          We can agree on that (that this is the legislators’ reasoning). Whether it’s good or even valid reasoning remains to be seen. For one thing, the alternative to an adoption is one more parentless orphan - which is often also the alternative to an abortion. Oversimplifying the issue helps nobody. I’m not accusing you specifically of oversimplifying, as you made it clear that you were pointing out an oversimplification made by others.

        • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          That depends on how you define a human, and there’s the entirely separate issue of whether it being human or not should be the deciding factor. For example, a braindead human is still human but killing them is quite different from killing a healthy human. Oversimplifying the issue helps nobody.

          • just_the_ticket@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I agree with your view, I’m not trying to simplify, I think most pro choice people don’t want to think of the moral dilemma that abortion is, whether you’re in favor or against its legalization it is a complex matter and pretending the other side of this debate is evil or dumb helps no one, each side has it’s points and both opinions are completely logical and acceptable imo.

    • SamboT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Um no we dont downvote straight up logical clarification you idiots

      Helps up and dusts off qwerty*