The abortion isn't gonna unrape the girl, just saying
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)
WTF
831 readers
10 users here now
The average c/WTF enjoyer
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This gets somehow worse the more carefully I read it.
So, checking my notes, what I've got is that...
He wants to stop 30k+ abortions (I assume all abortions, more or less) And for that he's fine with having the "occasional" rape-incest baby.
Rape because there's no way for a 10 year old to mentally grasp the responsibility and weight of consent, so even if they said the right words that they consented, which they almost certainly did not, they wouldn't be properly informed of what they're consenting to, making the consent completely devoid of any meaning, aka, making it rape.
He values the lives of unwanted potential people, who are little more than parasites sucking life from the mother until they can sustain themselves without the need to leech another lifeform for existence.... Above all women, and even child mothers that are victims of incest and rape.
And they see this as the moral choice?
Can we let Luigi go? His job isn't finished. There's still a lot of bottom feeding scum around that need to be... Ahem dealt with.
See I like that you acknowledge that they're possibly people because the entire debate on that is a smokescreen to distract from the fact that people or not they don't have a right to use the mothers body as life support.
This is a good point. In every other context, nobody is forced to help anyone else.
You're not forced to give up your kidney because Jimmy over there needs it and you're the only match. You get to choose whether to help Jimmy.
This is the only context where someone is forced into giving aide to another living thing whether they want to or not.
We have laws against being cruel to animals, and harming our fellow humans, but there are no laws against not helping except for this. That's an incredibly powerful argument. Thanks.
At some point I wrote an ode to "A Modest Proposal" where I suggest that men be required to provide anatomical gifts to their progeny (blood, skin, and any duplicate organ including eyes) to even out the cost to the mother in the creation of a child. The increased gravity of the gift is evened out by the decreased likelihood- giving a kidney would be harder on the body, but is less likely to be needed.
Well, they're saying that they're okay with a child giving birth, which is just as bad.
they're fine with child rape. that enough right there disqualifies whatever other opinions they hold. they're wrong.
We have to embrace false dichotomies because the only alternative is cannibalism.
I mean the concept is not difficult to grasp. They are comparing one horrific thing to a group of thirty thousand horrific things and choosing the lesser evil. They are not "okay" with ten-year olds being raped... Claiming so is a reading comprehension error.
The issue here is that we don't agree with them that those 30k other "horrific" events are all that horrific.
This is very well said. So many people make this out to be a men vs. women power struggle when it is really focused on whether a fetus is human or not. That's why well-informed women can be pro-life, and well-informed men can be pro-choice.
It isn't about whether or not a fetus is human. It's about bodily autonomy. Making it a question about a fetus's humanity misses the point. It's a question about whether or not a person has control over their own body.
In reality it is a question of getting the votes. The entire anti abortion agenda was started by the right because they needed a new topic after being pro segregation was not getting many votes anymore.
Exactly. It's a fundamental difference of opinion, nothing else. We don't know much about what a fetus can feel or sense prior to a certain number of weeks, in the normal case, I'm guessing. So opinions and assumptions, and straw men, take over the discourse and debates. It's all set up to fail, and to keep your focus on something that can't be resolved. Mission accomplished.
We don't know much about what a fetus can feel or sense prior to a certain number of weeks, in the normal case, I'm guessing.
I'm pretty sure your guess is wrong. We really do have an excellent idea of progression of human progression from gametes to single cell all the way through to death from age.
There's no accident in what stage of gestation abortions are allowed until in places where abortion is legal and regulated, medical professionals are interested in doing the least harm
Restricting abortion more than the medical profession recommends will do more harm than meeting their recommendations.
Anyone pushing greater or less restriction than recommended is not working toward the optimal solution
That's what I was thinking, that beyond a certain number of weeks we should have a good idea whether or not a fetus can feel pain, emotion, whatever. That would be measurable. But prior? Can we know for sure that they can't prior to that? Sure, two cells can't feel pain (probably). But surely around some time or other there'd be a gray zone, I'm thinking. Or is it prior to the gray zone where the line is drawn, perhaps?
Looking to learn more here, BTW. Not arguing against you, in any way. 😁
There's no pain before there are nerves to carry it or a complex enough brain to listen to it
There's no sense before sensory cells are developed
And for the Catholics there's no clean soul until baptism
(I got that you're not arguing, and I also treat people who are like maybe they just need a little more information. It never works)
Ed to add they have examined foetuses of all stages of development and know when these structures are developed. Except the soul, no one has ever detected that.
2nd edit: I'm not a relevant expert and don't know what stage of development the foetus is at at whatever the recommended number of weeks is
It is not about the fetus. It's about the person carrying the fetus.
I mean, yes, for us who believe the fetus isn't very "alive" before a certain age. I agree.
But not for everyone, sadly.
I disagree that the difference is the perception of alive
It's possible to both hold on to the inherent value of human life and make space to grieve abortions, AND prioritize the physical and mental wellbeing of the women who (for whatever reason) can't or won't go through a pregnancy, adoption and/or being a parent
Even with the assumption that a fetus is human and alive, it is important to acknowledge how horrific and traumatic it can be to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term
The realities of pregnancy is still quite taboo, so many aren't aware of the medical risks, physical strain, bodily changes and risk of death that can be involved with pregnancy and birth.
Reminder that marginalized people also experience higher maternal and newborn mortality, and childbirth and pregnancy has higher risks if you're for example poor, black or both
It's one thing to choose to go through nine months of bodily changes, an invasive medical precedure like birth, and recovery willingly. It's another to go through it against your will.
Abortion rights very much comes down to the discussion of who's rights, wellbeing and bodily autonomy comes first. The unborn child or the woman and the body carrying the child. As well as who has more right to a future of their choosing.
On top of that, there's the important conversations of the future lives for both the unwanted child and parents, and the socioeconomic issues. Both in terms of the rich always having access to abortions, regardless of laws and general accessibility, so that poor and disenfranchised people overwhelmingly are the ones affected when pregnancies are forced to be carried to term. As well as how our system is set up so many unwanted kids grow up in poverty. And just.. The questions about what qualifies well or badly suited parents, and what kind of life an unwanted child is gonna have.
Reducing abortion rights to the dehumanization of fetuses is missing the crux of the problem. Additionally, that reduction is part of the reason too many men who are careless, bordering on callus, when it comes to safe sex, cause they view the "removal of a bunch of non-alive cells" to be "no big deal", ignorant to the impact both pregnancy, abortion and birth can have on women's body and mind. As well as a potential child, of course, and not having to battle with the moral dilemma if human life and giving side for what could have been
There are people in my life who've had abortions, and people who chose to carry to term. It cannot be overrated how undeniably life-changing a child is - good and bad. It's a massive, life long responsibility, that should not be taken lightly. For people who aren't ready for that... I don't wish that for anyone.
Tl;Dr Even with the presumption that life begins at conception, access to abortion is vital
It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the fetus is alive. If a 30-year-old man could only survive by being attached to my body, I should still have the right to say whether or not he can remain attached to me, even if it kills him.
Listen, I'm on your side! Read my words here now, friend. I hear ya.
But for the people who think the fetus is a person at the moment of the sperm making contact with the egg, it's all about the fetus. You get what I'm saying? One side is prioritizing the "wrong" thing, according to the other side. That's the way she goes.
It's important to not let the other side frame the debate. You shouldn't debate to convince them. That's practically impossible. How many times have you seen a zealot (religious or otherwise) change their mind due to argument? For me, I would say "absolutely never".
Instead, you should argue for third parties watching the debate. Don't let them set the ground rules as "Is a fetus a human life? Yes or no?" Let them argue "the right to life of a fetus" vs. "the right to control your own body". That's what the debate is really about, after all. Let people make an informed decision based upon the merits of the two positions.
I never enter into debate regarding opinion topics with anyone, as a rule, because it is indeed fruitless, every time. 😄👍
But yes, I agree with what you said here as well.
I'm not in disagreement, but in my mind anyone you would call a zealot on any given issue is definitively someone whose mind can't be changed.
If it's murder, it's a genocide. If it isn't, it's infringing women's rights. Sadly this makes the problem unignorable, and idiots tend to be the loudest.
What that person meant was basically the difference between left and right or pro and anti abortion:
There right wants to ban abortion for everyone in fear of even 1 abortion that would have been a perfectly fine baby. (Which they would perceive as murder)
The left wants to allow abortions for everyone in fear of even one forced birth leading to a death. A death that was preventable by a abortion.
The right of a baby to live DOES NOT "TRUMP" THE RIGHT OF THE WOMAN TO CHOOSE. End of debate.
They are incredibly different perspectives.
view more: next ›