37 ms·
Two classes of human beings, slaves and fetuses, each deprived of human rights, for valid reasons in the eyes of the supporters of the respective practice.
by barking 8y ago
Two classes of human beings, slaves and fetuses, each deprived of human rights, for valid reasons in the eyes of the supporters of the respective practice.
- cinquemb 8y agoWell, at least with slavery, slave owners to some degree or another had to at least mitigate against the risk of revolt or uprising throughout history. I suspect fetuses might be held in higher regard if they could exert their sovereignty inside their parents womb to any sufficient degree before/during/after an abortion.
- barking 8y agoThey're hidden away and disposed of in secret. It got so bad in the recent referendum campaign in Ireland that even to show an ultrasound image of a normal in-utero fetus was regarded as hurtful and offensive.
- kaybe 8y agoWhen a fetus does not need somebody to spend their time and pain hosting them and risk their health and life doing it, then we can talk about this. Even if it was not a fetus but an adult with a fully formed conciousness and personality, this would be a hard demand to make, and our laws reflect that.
- barking 8y agoEuthanasia for dependent adults is legal now?
- kaybe 8y agoYou are required to help people in need, but not at the expense of your own safety. Calling 112 is enough. Abortion is not about killing, it's about not having a being in your body, potentially wrecking it and killing you. In the same vein, you can stop supporting dependent adults, as an individual (doing that as a society is a different matter). You can just stop. It won't kill them in that case, but that is not what this is about. If pregnancy was nothing for your body, no stress at all, then carrying to term and giving it up for adoption would be a lot more common. This dimension is often overlooked by people, especially men, I feel. Pregnancy can be insanely hard and dangerous.
- yostrovs 8y agoSeems like your view of fetuses is that of parasites, not even subhuman as slaveowners had of their slaves. It's an odd, counterproductive defense of abortion.
- kaybe 8y agoWhat would a productive defense be?
- yostrovs 8y agoI'm not in the business of defending abortion, actually very much agnostic on this topic and don't think it should receive the attention that it does. But man-oh-man, calling fetuses parasites is simply wrong and makes one look heartless. Parasites are of a different species, invade rather than being seeded by the host, and create misery for the host. Fetuses, on the other hand, are usually awaited with excitement, welcomed by the family, and bring joy and happiness to parents. To call them parasites really is Orwellian. The only thing they have in common with parasites is that they live inside another's body. Even our gut bacteria is not parasitic.
- AlexandrB 8y agoNow replace abortion with anti-abortion and I could equally say: Two classes of human beings, slaves and women, each deprived of human rights, for valid reasons in the eyes of the supporters of the respective practice. Unless you wish to argue that bodily integrity [1] is not a human right. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity
- patrickg_zill 8y agoIs the DNA of the fetus, exactly the same as the woman's? If not then why not?
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoSo you maintain "1 dna code = 1 person" ? That is easily disproven. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-that-already-exist/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-... It can also lead to someone being of 2 blood types - so that they are compatible with both.
- patrickg_zill 8y agoThat's not the exact question I asked.
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoYou're right it's not the "question [you] asked". It's the underlying implication that question has loaded in it. The implication, stated roughly is the following: "A person can do what they want to their own body. And their body is defined by the DNA signature. Whereas a fetus has a different DNA structure than the body it is in, and therefore harming it is depriving it of human rights, because it has different DNA." I proved this implication wrong. If you feel that this implied statement is not indicative of your intent, please post your implication as a statement rather than engage in obfuscated writings.
- Frondo 8y agoFetuses are not human. They don't look human, they don't act human, absolutely none of them can survive as independent creatures (as most humans can). If anything, they're kinda weird little monsters that invade women's bodies that could potentially become human, but human they are not. Rather than call them human (which they're not), or a class of people (which they're not), call them fetuses and then the sophistry around controlling women's access to health care wears away a little.