“The child cannot live, it is a grave danger to your health and will never be able to survive more than an hour once you’ve destroyed your body carrying it to term and bringing it into this world”
“So… we need to abort the pregnancy?!
!What? Nooo, you are far to alive for that. We need to let you suffer for a while, so you are close to death enough. Then, we will be able to abort the pregnancy. No worries, you might die but it’s not guaranteed and it will only leave you and your partner scarred for life since you didn’t only loose your child, you suffered immensely as well”
“but… why do you make me go through this?”
“Because a bunch of bitter, balding white republican gnomes decided that this was ‘a safe place for little babies’”The lack of humanity in Republican politicians is so frustrating.
Might need to catch up with John Oliver’s segments after a long while.
Leftists aren’t pro choice, but pro abortion. Most people don’t want abortions up to 9 months. See the stats here under “public opinion”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
I’m pro choice. You, Mr. Killing-viable-baby-at-9-months, are just bat shit crazy.
Stop lying to people and telling them you’re pro choice when you’re pro abortion.
EDIT: I love the responses that have no arguments and are all ad-hominem. Cry more! I love watching you boil from the inside!
Lol this is a pretty severe case of Fox News brain rot.
Let me guess, he doesn’t think its murder?
Yes, that’s correct. Because he’s not an idiot.
Oh, here comes the clown who thinks fertilized eggs are babies!
Yeah, I don’t see how they can see it so black and white if they don’t consider a firtilized egg to be a full living human.
I think anything else would necessitate conceding that it’s a complicated issue, with lots of grey area, which I don’t think any forced-birther I’ve talked to has conceded.
Don’t kill the fertilized eggs! Unless the brown person carrying them doesn’t believe the way you want them to believe. Then go nuts.
They definitely are beyond a “fertilized egg” multiple months into a pregnancy. And yes, they are humans, just at the early stage. You think a baby magically becomes human when it leaves the womb?
Have you actually looked at a fetus in different stages of growth? Because they’re not sentient, and not all that human-looking even. Just a parasite that may, one day, be a human.
If you mean super-late-stage, then at that point the abortion is a health issue, and you and your uninformed opinions getting in the way only cause more risk of death for the mother.
And what about ectopic pregnancy? Please don’t tell me you’re dumb enough to believe those are salvageable. If that happens, and an abortion isn’t carried out ASAP, they’re fatal.
Nope, after birth it is no longer dependant on the direct use of another person’s body in order to live.
Is your belief that life begins at conception religiously founded?
The Bible prescribes an abortion (which would be murdering an innocent bystander, if the fetus was a person) as the punishment for adultery (Numbers 5).
Oddly, before 1980, there was no majority Christian consensus on when life began. When Roe v Wade dropped, the largest evangelical denomination called it, “a distinctly Catholic issue”.
For the vast majority of Christian history it was generally held that life began at the quickening, the first time the mother felt the baby kick. This was considered the moment of ensoulment, literally when the soul entered the body.
Unfortunately, due to the antisemitic influence of Rome hijacking Christianity, that’s a very Greek and neo-platonic view of when life began.
In Hebrew, spirit (ruach) means wind; the invisible force that brings life, the breath of God. Soul (naphesh) just means throat, it is the channel by which we breath in the life of God. So as many ancient and modern Jews believe, as would the early christians, life begins at first breath.
Of course, we’re not bound to ancient views, which is why Roe v Wade determined viability outside the womb would be the standard point of protection, which is makes a lot of sense.
You are free to believe that life begins at conception. This is an issue people have discussed and debated for as long as we’ve been alive.
You can’t believe that your view is explicitly taught by the Bible or is even the view of the majority of Christians for most of history.
The evangelical view of life beginning at conception began in the late 70’s as a political wedge issue that tested incredibly well with audiences so people like Jerry Falwell began beating the drum in order to build political clout.
I’m agnostic. I believe that a fetus has a right to life, same as anyone else. The situation is a bit complicated, sure, but the right to life is pretty basic.
Then viability seems an eminently reasonable threshold. If you’re agnostic, there’s no intrinsic value to a clump of cells. If the fetus is capable of surviving on its own but can’t by virtue of being stuck in place it deserves protection.
Of course, when it’s threatening the life of the mother then even though there’s no malice or intent, it is legally justifiable to treat it as we would anyone else who would threaten a woman’s life.
It has no life to have a right to until it’s born.
Go ahead and tell me about all the experiences you had in your mother’s womb. About the goals and aspirations you had before you came out. Tell me about your experiences, your emotional fortitude, hell, tell me anything at all about the time before you were born, from your perspective.
A fetus does not have a right to life, but the mother does.
Your views are getting real people with all their dreams, aspirations, goals, hopes, etc. killed, just so you can feel a warped sense of false moral superiority for a few minutes on the Internet.
Go ahead and tell me about all the experiences you had in your mother’s womb. About the goals and aspirations you had before you came out. Tell me about your experiences, your emotional fortitude, hell, tell me anything at all about the time before you were born, from your perspective.
This does not really prove any point. Should people with memory issues be killed too? They don’t remember any of their goals/aspirations/experiences, so they aren’t alive according to you. There is evidence that babies in the womb are affected by their experience in the womb.
A fetus does not have a right to life
Why not? You just make that claim without really backing it up.
Your views are getting real people with all their dreams, aspirations, goals, hopes, etc. killed, just so you can feel a warped sense of false moral superiority for a few minutes on the Internet.
People are allowed to give their opinions on a topic. Maybe you argue online for a feeling of superiority but that doesn’t mean everyone does.
Is a person with memory issues entirely dependant for survival upon the use of another person’s body without their consent? If yes, then that person gets to decide to withdraw all care at any time.
The next time some lemmy user says no one is wanting 3rd trimester abortions, Im going to link your comment. Its not going to do anything but waste time, but its going to be funny.
No one who carries a fetus to the third trimester wants an abortion. Almost all third trimester abortions are health emergencies for women who are trying to be mothers.
The idea that anyone would carry a pregnancy to the point your body is undergoing irrevocable changes just because they couldn’t be bothered to get around to it is absurd.
A third trimester abortion is painful, traumatic and difficult compared to a drug-induced first trimester abortion.
This isn’t the winning strategy you think it is.
I’d explain it, but I don’t have the time or crayons for you.
Oh I know full-well its not a winning strategy.
Everyone also has the fundamental right to bodily autonomy. You can’t even force someone to do something as harmless as donate their blood, but somehow some people feel it’s just fine to hold a woman hostage and force her to host another living being, even if that might cause them terrible health issues or even their deaths… even if the “woman” in question is a child victim of sexual abuse… even if they don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to that child after birth, and will just being another child to be abused and left to die.
If you cared about the right to life, you would support the right to women and their doctors to make the best choices for their lives, and the lives of the children that will still need to be cared AFTER being born. Sorry, but you don’t care about fetuses, you care about controlling women.
Should women who are raped be forced to bring a resulting pregnancy to term?
no one thinks it’s murder. not even you. you’re just lying to troll people (or because you hate women)
I’m for small government and personal rights. So I’m pro choice, because I don’t think big government should be forcing their people to do things they don’t want.
Im also for small government and personal rights. But I firmly believe murder should be a crime.
That’s not what murder is, and you know it.
Stop it with this weak rhetoric.
Why is it not murder? You are killing a living human
Can you think of reasons to kill another human that is not murder?
Of course. But in almost all instances the person being killed did something to deserve it. A child in the womb did nothing to deserve it.
Completely irrelevant. Their very existence, location, and demand for resources makes them a threat. Women historically die from pregnancy more than any other factors.
There’s no such thing as a child in the womb. A child, by definition, has been born.
No they’re not
why not
“small government” meaning “I decide what is murder, your opinions and beliefs don’t matter, and I’m not willing to hear your arguments against it”.
Me too but we are talking about abortion here
Abortion is murder.
YOU are a murderer.
My sister was bleeding to death from an incomplete miscarriage of a very much wanted pregnancy in Ohio ten years ago. You know how they fix that problem? The exact same medical procedure that is used for elective abortion.
You would have preferred that my sister bleed to death or die of sepsis for no reason. You are trying to murder my sister.
In case you think that doesn’t really happen:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
“On 21 October 2012, Halappanavar, then 17 weeks pregnant, was examined at University Hospital Galway after complaining of back pain, but was soon discharged without a diagnosis. She returned to the hospital later that day, this time complaining of lower pressure, a sensation she described as feeling “something coming down”, and a subsequent examination found that the gestational sac was protruding from her body. She was admitted to hospital, as it was determined that miscarriage was unavoidable, and several hours later, just after midnight on 22 October, her water broke but did not expel the fetus.[8]: 22–26 [8]: 29 [9] The following day, on 23 October, Halappanavar discussed abortion with her consulting physician but her request was promptly refused, as Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a fetal heartbeat was still present.[8]: 33 [10] Afterwards, Halappanavar developed sepsis and, despite doctors’ efforts to treat her, had a cardiac arrest at 1:09 AM on 28 October, and died, aged 31”
I’m ok with abortion if there is a complication that can kill the mother. I still don’t think killing babies because you don’t want them is moral.
How graceful for you to let women make their own medical decisions as long as you think they have sufficient reason.
I think men should have their balls tied off with rubber bands unless I think their health is in danger; that way they can’t create babies to “murder.”
Better get that application in now, there’s a hell of a backlog.
No person has the right to use another person’s body without their consent. Abortion is always self defense.
Fuck off guy. You aren’t changing anyone’s minds on Lemmy.
Abortion is self defense, never murder.
If there was a chick inside there, it certainly would be a chicken, no?
people should be allowed to murder whatever is growing inside them.
This is one of those interesting things. If we accept OP’s premise for the sake of argument… then what does that really change? Society accepts that people can be lawfully killed on purpose given the “right” circumstances (e.g.: criminal punishment, war combat, equivocal self-defense). We generally don’t like it, but we do fundamentally accept that human life is on the negotiating table when justified.
That’s what irks me about the murder label. We already willfully choose to end human lives, irrevocably destroying a vast collection of lived experiences and social connections in the process. What is destroyed when an unborn child dies? A life which knows nobody, understands nothing, and thinks/feels at best at a level no more complex than animals which we routinely slaughter without a second thought. One might argue that the life itself contains some unknowable potential for these things, but that theoretical future potential comes at the price of the mother’s current potential and freedoms.
The way I see it, the position is inherently precious. It fears the label of murder without caring to consider why the label exists. A philosophy so myopically focused on keeping one’s own moral hands clean that the term “second order consequence” may as well be written in hieroglyphics.
In that same line of thinking, anti-abortionists are likely staunch supporters of the military, the death penalty, and gun rights for murder as self defense.
So which is it: is life precious or isn’t it? When is a life undeserving of protection? From birth? 5 years? 18 years?
The rights of the unborn shouldn’t precede the rights of the life being lived by the mother.
A life which knows nobody, understands nothing, and thinks/feels at best at a level no more complex than animals which we routinely slaughter without a second thought. One might argue that the life itself contains some unknowable potential for these things, but that theoretical future potential comes at the price of the mother’s current potential and freedoms.
This can all be true while it still being true that you are killing a baby.
Self defense is never murder.
Agreed.
Whenever a woman has her period it should be considered murder and her IMPRISONED!
Same when a man jacks off.
When a man does it, it’s genocide. Trial would have to take place at The Hague first.
A bunch of cells in rapid development with the potential to become a human being. Murder is a strong term, but in a broad sense I don’t think your insinuation is wrong per se.
This might be getting a bit controversial, but for the sake of discussion:
The important thing here is, do you mind if that potential for life is taken away. In this case we place priority on the human being that eventually has to dedicate her life to that potential. Or is that new potential more important than that already existing, conscious human being (especially when there are physical / mental problems involved)?
It comes down to why we live, and why must we live? Personally I believe trying to avoid (potential of) suffering is a more reasonable concept.
If one gives life to a baby, you give it a potential for suffering which it otherwise does not. I’d say the ways one can suffer is of a greater weight than the ways one can be happy. So if you go the route of creating life, you better be damn confident that you are in a good position to do that.
In that philosophy ‘murdering’ a potential with a large chance of creating more suffering for the collective is not that bad. One might view this differently when the being is conscious and might actively not want to die, as we bring the complexity of individual human choice to the table and what worth that has; but I think we can agree that is not applicable on the unborn potential human being discussed in this topic.
I committed so many murders today when I cummed into a paper towel earlier.
In fact, I’ve probably racked up enough murders to qualify for a genocide.
And I LOVED it.
Hail Pazuzu
“We have to protect all life!” he said and throws another piece of former cow on the barbecue.
