4 ms·

The “this is a womens issue” argument is invalid on its face. Everyone is born, and this everyone is impacted by the right to kill the unborn. Every human bein

by zionic 4y ago

The “this is a womens issue” argument is invalid on its face. Everyone is born, and this everyone is impacted by the right to kill the unborn. Every human being has a stake in this.

anonporridge 4y ago
No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent. You and I only get to be here debating because our mothers chose to give that gift to us. It is not within our rights to force others to do the same for their own fetuses.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent. This clearly does not hold up for children after birth. I can't deposit my infant in the desert and withdraw my consent to provide for it. This would be murder.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    Infanticide has been and still is an incredibly common and accepted practice in human society, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide. It is only in the privilege of modern society where we have such an abundance of resources that we have collectively consented to allocate a percentage of our commonwealth to the care of unwanted infants and children through orphanages and foster care, that we can treat infanticide as barbaric murder. You can sever your responsibility to you child by surrendering them to the state, so severing your responsibility by leaving them to die of exposure is indeed unnecessary and barbaric. I personally believe that in the future, when we develop artificial wombs, we may revisit the question of abortion and require that women "abort" by having the fetus extracted alive and transplanted into an artificial womb. Preemie care is effectively the state of the art for "artificial wombs" and the current record survival is 21 weeks of age, which is just shy of the third trimester. This would also then require us to collectively allocate money and resources to caring for and raising these unwanted infants in an expensive medical setting. However, I suspect we'll develop near perfect, side effect free, and reversible birth control before this happens, so the issue of abortion may mostly resolve itself on its own. That is, unless the religious extremists get their way and ban birth control too, which the current leaked court decision seems like it's paving the way for.
    - aaomidi 4y ago
      This is an extremely good point, if you care a lot about no more abortions then start working and investing in the ability to create children without depending on a person with a uterus. Until then, keep your moral outrage out of people's bodies.
  - LadyCailin 4y ago
    The equivalent argument is forcing everyone to become a living organ donor. It would unquestionably save lives, so from a pro-life perspective, it’s a no brainer.

by zionic 4y ago

The “this is a womens issue” argument is invalid on its face. Everyone is born, and this everyone is impacted by the right to kill the unborn. Every human being has a stake in this.

anonporridge 4y ago

No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent. You and I only get to be here debating because our mothers chose to give that gift to us. It is not within our rights to force others to do the same for their own fetuses.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 4y ago
>No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent. This clearly does not hold up for children after birth. I can't deposit my infant in the desert and withdraw my consent to provide for it. This would be murder.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Infanticide has been and still is an incredibly common and accepted practice in human society, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide. It is only in the privilege of modern society where we have such an abundance of resources that we have collectively consented to allocate a percentage of our commonwealth to the care of unwanted infants and children through orphanages and foster care, that we can treat infanticide as barbaric murder. You can sever your responsibility to you child by surrendering them to the state, so severing your responsibility by leaving them to die of exposure is indeed unnecessary and barbaric. I personally believe that in the future, when we develop artificial wombs, we may revisit the question of abortion and require that women "abort" by having the fetus extracted alive and transplanted into an artificial womb. Preemie care is effectively the state of the art for "artificial wombs" and the current record survival is 21 weeks of age, which is just shy of the third trimester. This would also then require us to collectively allocate money and resources to caring for and raising these unwanted infants in an expensive medical setting. However, I suspect we'll develop near perfect, side effect free, and reversible birth control before this happens, so the issue of abortion may mostly resolve itself on its own. That is, unless the religious extremists get their way and ban birth control too, which the current leaked court decision seems like it's paving the way for.
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    This is an extremely good point, if you care a lot about no more abortions then start working and investing in the ability to create children without depending on a person with a uterus. Until then, keep your moral outrage out of people's bodies.
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  The equivalent argument is forcing everyone to become a living organ donor. It would unquestionably save lives, so from a pro-life perspective, it’s a no brainer.