4 ms·

Why do you care what some random women you've never met and will never meet do? Why is it important to you?

by na85 4y ago

alfor 4y ago
- na85 4y ago
  >Do you care if a random woman kill her newborn? I honestly don't care. 20 murders happened on the other side of the planet while I typed this comment. I think it's sad, but it doesn't affect my life in any material way.
  - alfor 4y ago
    But you care about laws against abortions?
    - na85 4y ago
      Yes because it directly affects both my wife and my daughter. If either one chose to get an abortion I'd be very sad, but that's not a good reason to make something illegal.
      - alfor 4y ago
        Ok, so if they get killed then it’s fine, you don’t care? But if they want an abortion and can’t get one it’s a problem? I don’t follow your train of thought
refurb 4y ago
- alfor 4y ago
  So you think it’s ok, we shouldn’t have laws against that. It’s her choice. To be fair it was the case in primitive societies, they could dispose of the kids or the elderly at any time. I think a prefer a society where we protect the vulnerable, those who cannot defend themselves.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I think the person you’re replying to agrees with you; they were trying to intentionally be absurd. The only problem: a fetus is not a child, and this entire rhetorical strategy requires us to ignore that fact.
    - refurb 4y ago
      A fetus not a child, but concluding that it deserves no protection isn’t a foregone conclusion. I mean people who injure a pregnant woman and it results in fetal death are criminally charged. So in that case we do consider it worthy of protection under the law.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        Fetal death in those cases corresponds (or ought to correspond) to a projection of the actual victim’s wishes: harm to the fetus is exactly coextensive with harm to the pregnant person’s future plans for it.
        refurb 4y ago
        So a fetus only deserves protection if someone wants it?
        woodruffw 4y ago
        That’s one of many sufficient conditions. Another is fetal viability, which is exactly why Roe allowed states to enact restrictions on late-term abortions. Overall, we’re only having these conversations because a fetus has two simultaneous qualities: it bears visual resemblance to a human being, and it has the future potential to be a human being. We don’t concern ourselves nearly as much with sperm (no visual resemblance) or cakes shaped like babies (no future potential). Together, they deserve concern, but not overriding concern; that is reserved for the sole person in the equation.
betwixthewires 4y ago
You've got to understand, anti abortion people believe it is murder. This is akin to asking them "why do you care if some random person gets shot in south side Chicago?" It just isn't a line of discussion that makes any sense.
- alfor 4y ago
  I am not 100% anti abortion, but I think it’s a bad thing. The law said that at one day after birth if you kill a baby it’s murder but one day before it’s fine, do as you please it’s ’her choice’. I think we are too far gone in that direction, a fetus still something, a human life in formation, damn you would face legal consequence if you mistreated a dog.
  - hamburglar 4y ago
    It doesn't seem like you've considered the possibility that a fetus with no consciousness being terminated may be more humane than forcing it into the hell of being raised by parents that don't want it or can't provide for it. More people should accept that what's going on inside someone else's body is none of their business.
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      The person you're responding to specifically said "one day before birth", I don't think you can find someone who credibly argues that a fetus at that stage is not a conscious human being. Whoever you're disagreeing with you're not responding to them.
      - hamburglar 4y ago
        Ok, well if he's only considering "one day before birth" scenarios he's gone reductio ad absurdum on the whole issue and he's also fighting a roughly nonexistent boogeyman. His own personal strawman, if you will.
        4y ago

Why do you care what some random women you've never met and will never meet do? Why is it important to you?

by na85 4y ago

Why do you care what some random women you've never met and will never meet do? Why is it important to you?

alfor 4y ago

na85 4y ago
>Do you care if a random woman kill her newborn? I honestly don't care. 20 murders happened on the other side of the planet while I typed this comment. I think it's sad, but it doesn't affect my life in any material way.
- alfor 4y ago
  But you care about laws against abortions?
  - na85 4y ago
    Yes because it directly affects both my wife and my daughter. If either one chose to get an abortion I'd be very sad, but that's not a good reason to make something illegal.
    - alfor 4y ago
      Ok, so if they get killed then it’s fine, you don’t care? But if they want an abortion and can’t get one it’s a problem? I don’t follow your train of thought

refurb 4y ago

alfor 4y ago
So you think it’s ok, we shouldn’t have laws against that. It’s her choice. To be fair it was the case in primitive societies, they could dispose of the kids or the elderly at any time. I think a prefer a society where we protect the vulnerable, those who cannot defend themselves.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I think the person you’re replying to agrees with you; they were trying to intentionally be absurd. The only problem: a fetus is not a child, and this entire rhetorical strategy requires us to ignore that fact.
  - refurb 4y ago
    A fetus not a child, but concluding that it deserves no protection isn’t a foregone conclusion. I mean people who injure a pregnant woman and it results in fetal death are criminally charged. So in that case we do consider it worthy of protection under the law.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      Fetal death in those cases corresponds (or ought to correspond) to a projection of the actual victim’s wishes: harm to the fetus is exactly coextensive with harm to the pregnant person’s future plans for it.
      - refurb 4y ago
        So a fetus only deserves protection if someone wants it?
        woodruffw 4y ago
        That’s one of many sufficient conditions. Another is fetal viability, which is exactly why Roe allowed states to enact restrictions on late-term abortions. Overall, we’re only having these conversations because a fetus has two simultaneous qualities: it bears visual resemblance to a human being, and it has the future potential to be a human being. We don’t concern ourselves nearly as much with sperm (no visual resemblance) or cakes shaped like babies (no future potential). Together, they deserve concern, but not overriding concern; that is reserved for the sole person in the equation.

betwixthewires 4y ago

You've got to understand, anti abortion people believe it is murder. This is akin to asking them "why do you care if some random person gets shot in south side Chicago?" It just isn't a line of discussion that makes any sense.

alfor 4y ago
I am not 100% anti abortion, but I think it’s a bad thing. The law said that at one day after birth if you kill a baby it’s murder but one day before it’s fine, do as you please it’s ’her choice’. I think we are too far gone in that direction, a fetus still something, a human life in formation, damn you would face legal consequence if you mistreated a dog.
- hamburglar 4y ago
  It doesn't seem like you've considered the possibility that a fetus with no consciousness being terminated may be more humane than forcing it into the hell of being raised by parents that don't want it or can't provide for it. More people should accept that what's going on inside someone else's body is none of their business.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    The person you're responding to specifically said "one day before birth", I don't think you can find someone who credibly argues that a fetus at that stage is not a conscious human being. Whoever you're disagreeing with you're not responding to them.
    - hamburglar 4y ago
      Ok, well if he's only considering "one day before birth" scenarios he's gone reductio ad absurdum on the whole issue and he's also fighting a roughly nonexistent boogeyman. His own personal strawman, if you will.
      - 4y ago