Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.

  • Shikadi@wirebase.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I mean literally. I don’t know how you can sit here and say ‘okay, well someone might believe that it’s a human life in the womb, but absolutely no way in hell could they argue that a woman ending it’s life could be wrong!!’ - if you can’t grasp a basic concept that ending a human life could be considered immoral, we shouldn’t continue this conversation.

    I don’t believe a woman aborting a fetus is ending it’s life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street. Maybe you could debate that, but it’s so cut and dry to me that it’s just so hard to see the other arguments as compelling.

    It actually is. the vast vast vast majority of adults know that if they have sex, there’s a risk of pregnancy. You know this, right? That’s like me walking up at softball and swinging, hitting the ball and getting pissed because I didn’t know that swinging could end in the possibility of me hitting the ball.

    Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball. The intention in sex is to follow your human instinct and desire towards pleasure.

    99.9% effective for some, and combining contraceptives makes the rates extremely small.

    There are 175,000,000+ women in this country. 0.1% of that is 175,000. That’s a lot of women you’re saying intentionally got pregnant.

    Did I say that?

    You say you believe in having exceptions for specific cases like rape. I’m guessing you would put nonviable pregnancies in there too. The thing is, almost every single abortion performed fits into an exception category. So by arguing in favor of more restrictions, you are indeed saying that.

    There’s an argument that abortions don’t respect the babies lives, male or female.

    Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more. The baby or the woman carrying. If I truly believed a fetus was a human, I would still say the government doesn’t get to choose who’s rights are more important. Also, as a matter of opinion I would still say the woman who is actually alive and has an actual brain and memories and experience should actually have more rights than the fetus.

    If you have 1 year old baby and you don’t feed him and in result they die, do you not think there’s a policy that punishes you for this? Actually good counterpoint I hadn’t thought of. In my opinion it’s still different and a very special case because you’re the legal guardian in that case. If someone drops a baby off at your doorstep and you don’t feed it and it dies, there aren’t legal protections there.

    They didn’t force women to have sex. They didn’t force women to get pregnant. They are simply saying that if a human life is created, that it has inherent value and with such there’s a moral question on whether ending a human life without their consent is wrong.

    Then why aren’t republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support? Every day thousands of people who can’t consent are taken off life support because they’re brain dead or because their insurance won’t pay for it any more. Yes, that moral question is valid to ask. What’s not valid is forcing the choice on others based on your own personal beliefs, especially if you acknowledge that the topic is debatable.

    I’ve already mentioned multiple times about exceptions. If you want to keep bringing this up, you can. My answer has stayed consistent.

    I thought you had, but I couldn’t find it for some reason so I went under the assumption you thought otherwise. Here’s the thing about this though, we already have term limits and restrictions pretty much everywhere. Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle. There are so many other issues, the very fact that people care so much about this one particular issue is sexist on its own. No republican is talking about water supply quality, about domestic terrorism, about the atrocities being committed at our borders, homelessness, police brutality, school shootings, veterans being denied healthcare they were promised, companies extorting people with things like insulin prices or healthcare costs in general, climate change, asbestos, literal slavery in our prisons, actual Nazis rallying, the fact that the people died in the insurrection. They’re focused on ruining the lives of women over clumps of cells that don’t even have brains.

    • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t believe a woman aborting a fetus is ending it’s life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street.

      Wouldn’t it be more akin to feeding your own 2 month old? Do you think parents have an obligation to feed their child?

      Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball.

      In my scenario, I clearly didn’t.

      here are 175,000,000+ women in this country. 0.1% of that is 175,000. That’s a lot of women you’re saying intentionally got pregnant.

      The way the %'s work with contraceptives is if someone is consistently sexually active and reasonable pregnancy age. Simply taking a % of total women in the united states is a huge misstep in your calculation. Woman past the age of 40 have 1/6 of the chance of pregnancy as a 30 YO, is it fair to represent the 175m woman as prime pregnancy age? only 65m are between age 15-44. 30% of people haven’t had sex in the last year. So right off the bat, you drop 175m women to some 40m. It would reduce further if you included women who don’t have consistent sexual activity.

      If you have a good argument, you don’t need to misrepresent facts.

      You say you believe in having exceptions for specific cases like rape. I’m guessing you would put nonviable pregnancies in there too. The thing is, almost every single abortion performed fits into an exception category.

      According to some quick sources I googled, only 12% of abortions are because of health complications.

      Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more.

      Once again, the vast majority of abortions are ‘choosing between the life of the mother and kid’ - it’s simply that the baby is ‘undesirable’ to the mother. I don’t think killing my twin brother simply because I don’t desire him is a morally acceptable situation.

      Then why aren’t republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support?

      Because of medical POA’s, or other legally recognizable authority given by the person on life support, to another individual. I’ve given my parents the right to decide what happens to me in such an event. A baby doesn’t given that consent, to my knowledge.

      Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle.

      It’s clearly not. In some states, women can get abortions freely until birth. To some that matters, to me I see it as a states rights issue and they can have that if they’d like.

      No republican is talking about…

      I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think they’re too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesn’t change the fact that me being pro-life doesn’t mean i simply want to enslave women.

      • Shikadi@wirebase.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Damn it Lemmy deleted my reply.

        I had a whole lot to say, but I’ll just reply to the last point, at this point we’re disagreeing on the same things on repeat anyway.

        I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think they’re too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesn’t change the fact that me being pro-life doesn’t mean i simply want to enslave women.

        I wouldn’t go as far as saying slavery, especially since we do have forced prison labor protected by the constitution. But it is stripping women of many of their rights. I don’t think holding pro-life beliefs is a bad thing, or makes you a bad person. I do think holding the belief that the government should enforce your religious beliefs on others is pretty awful though. I’m making the assumption that it’s religious, because I have never heard of someone thinking a fetus is a human before it has a brain who wasn’t also religious. Apologies if I’m wrong on that. But I firmly, strongly, without a doubt believe that a woman should have the right to make the choice for herself, and that your beliefs shouldn’t prevent her from having her own beliefs, or her doctors from having their own beliefs.

        I realized something recently, too. Conservatives aren’t anti-government like they claim they are. They’re anti “not-their-government”. Conservatives don’t care if state governments stomp all over the constitution, they only care if the Federal government does. As a leftist, I don’t want any government stepping on anyone’s rights, state or Federal, and I believe the rights guaranteed by the constitution are above state law.

        • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Dang I’ve had that a few times, it sucks. I thought we actually were getting a bit closer.

          I responded to a lot of your points with statistics, and other solid arguments, I don’t thinbk it’s fair to continue a convo at this point where my criticisms to your points are all ignored now (due to a deleted comment, not blaming you), and instead reducing the conversation to that very last subjective point.