5 ms·

And yet it still happens, and it continues to be one of many reasons why someone might need an abortion. Notably, the politicians I mentioned in my original rep

And yet it still happens, and it continues to be one of many reasons why someone might need an abortion. Notably, the politicians I mentioned in my original reply all have professed their intent to force women to give birth in cases of rape.

User23 4y ago
It's wrong to put an innocent human being to death. One or both of that innocent person's parents being a criminal is morally irrelevant. Civilized societies don't hold children guilty for parental acts. Put in simple terms: two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody needs to intentionally kill an innocent human being, ever. Full stop. Bear in mind that unintentionally killing an innocent human being can be morally acceptable, such as in the case of a medical intervention to save the mother's life. The intent is to save the mother, and if the necessary treatment unfortunately ends the innocent baby's life that is a tragedy, but not immoral. One might say the outcome is the same, but in ethics intent is very important.
- escapedmoose 4y ago
  It’s also wrong to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their will. Civilized societies don’t coerce living people (or even cadavers for that matter) to give up their body parts to save the life of another. Edit: And returning to my original point from the earlier comment, the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law.
  - User23 4y ago
    > It’s also wrong to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their will. I suppose then that you oppose vaccine mandates? > Civilized societies don’t coerce living people (or even cadavers for that matter) to give up their body parts to save the life of another. It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts. > the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law. By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure. How does intentionally killing the innocent child in itself save the life of the mother? A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion. For example an ectopic pregnancy will kill the mother if not treated and all effective treatments unfortunately kill the child. That doesn't make it an abortion. Furthermore, medical technology has come a long way. It's often an option to induce a premature delivery rather than just kill an innocent human being. And the odds are better than they've ever been that the baby will even survive and be healthy.
    - escapedmoose 4y ago
      > I suppose then that you oppose vaccine mandates? Yes, it is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will. > It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts. This is, simply, factually incorrect. > By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure. Also factually incorrect. > A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion. Dude, it takes a 3-second Google search to determine that this is false
      - User23 4y ago
        > This is, simply, factually incorrect I know many mothers and not one is missing any body parts as a direct result of childbirth. > Also factually incorrect. You’ll have to be more specific if you don’t want this to parse as nonsense. > Dude, it takes a 3-second Google search to determine that this is false I don’t consider SEO garbage an authority on anything.
        escapedmoose 4y ago
        > I know many mothers and not one is missing any body parts as a direct result of childbirth. Blood and uterine tissue are not body parts? > I don’t consider SEO garbage an authority on anything. The websites for the NIH, CDC, and WHO can be found on Google.
        User23 4y ago
        > Blood and uterine tissue are not body parts? Not in any accepted usage of the term. With your tortured definition a woman is maimed every time she has a period. Please at least try to be serious. We’re talking about killing human beings, not fooling about what the best editor is.
        escapedmoose 4y ago
        I would not wish to live in a country where the government can force people to give blood and tissue against their will. No matter the reason.

User23 4y ago

It's wrong to put an innocent human being to death. One or both of that innocent person's parents being a criminal is morally irrelevant. Civilized societies don't hold children guilty for parental acts. Put in simple terms: two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody needs to intentionally kill an innocent human being, ever. Full stop. Bear in mind that unintentionally killing an innocent human being can be morally acceptable, such as in the case of a medical intervention to save the mother's life. The intent is to save the mother, and if the necessary treatment unfortunately ends the innocent baby's life that is a tragedy, but not immoral. One might say the outcome is the same, but in ethics intent is very important.

escapedmoose 4y ago
It’s also wrong to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their will. Civilized societies don’t coerce living people (or even cadavers for that matter) to give up their body parts to save the life of another. Edit: And returning to my original point from the earlier comment, the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law.
- User23 4y ago
  > It’s also wrong to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their will. I suppose then that you oppose vaccine mandates? > Civilized societies don’t coerce living people (or even cadavers for that matter) to give up their body parts to save the life of another. It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts. > the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law. By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure. How does intentionally killing the innocent child in itself save the life of the mother? A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion. For example an ectopic pregnancy will kill the mother if not treated and all effective treatments unfortunately kill the child. That doesn't make it an abortion. Furthermore, medical technology has come a long way. It's often an option to induce a premature delivery rather than just kill an innocent human being. And the odds are better than they've ever been that the baby will even survive and be healthy.
  - escapedmoose 4y ago
    > I suppose then that you oppose vaccine mandates? Yes, it is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will. > It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts. This is, simply, factually incorrect. > By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure. Also factually incorrect. > A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion. Dude, it takes a 3-second Google search to determine that this is false
    - User23 4y ago
      > This is, simply, factually incorrect I know many mothers and not one is missing any body parts as a direct result of childbirth. > Also factually incorrect. You’ll have to be more specific if you don’t want this to parse as nonsense. > Dude, it takes a 3-second Google search to determine that this is false I don’t consider SEO garbage an authority on anything.
      - escapedmoose 4y ago
        > I know many mothers and not one is missing any body parts as a direct result of childbirth. Blood and uterine tissue are not body parts? > I don’t consider SEO garbage an authority on anything. The websites for the NIH, CDC, and WHO can be found on Google.
        User23 4y ago
        > Blood and uterine tissue are not body parts? Not in any accepted usage of the term. With your tortured definition a woman is maimed every time she has a period. Please at least try to be serious. We’re talking about killing human beings, not fooling about what the best editor is.
        escapedmoose 4y ago
        I would not wish to live in a country where the government can force people to give blood and tissue against their will. No matter the reason.