6 ms·

People need to realize that “woman who might need an abortion” is not necessarily a healthy 16-18 year old with poor impulse control but is also likely to be a

People need to realize that “woman who might need an abortion” is not necessarily a healthy 16-18 year old with poor impulse control but is also likely to be a married, working mother of 3 barely keeping up with mortgage payments who wasn’t told that the antibiotic for her sinus infection could make her birth control pills ineffective, or a woman with a dearly wanted pregnancy that is now causing her to bleed and have a weird pain on one side, or a 12-year-old girl who didn’t understand what her big brother’s buddy was doing to her. Happy to see the country I live in overturning that Nazi law that aimed to produce more Aryan babies in favor of acknowledging that women are rational beings. The counseling restriction is still infantilizing, but at least you have a lot of discretion in which organization you get it from - ProFamilia allows that you have better knowledge of your life than they do and have made your own decision, and will just help you implement it. I am angry and hurt by the place I'm from and still have most of my family, because a situation that was handled rationally and kindly in Germany (an ectopic pregnancy - no “counseling session” aside from a doctor at the hospital factually advising me of my medical options) would make me hesitant to even go to the emergency room in Texas. No one really knows that they have an ectopic pregnancy until an actual doctor examines them, and the only treatment option is which manner of termination you and the doctor choose. Otherwise, it’s probably a normal miscarriage, which is treated with painkillers and encouragement to try again in a few months in reasonable places, but looks to be a legal risk in Texas.

paxcoder 4y ago
- dymk 4y ago
  What child?
  - paxcoder 4y ago
- trasz 4y ago
  Thing is, the “child” here is purely imaginary. It’s a fringe theory, proven to be wrong not only by secular ethicists and most religions, but even Acquinas himself. It’s not any different from anti vax or flat earth.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    Are you suggesting a fetus that is 20 weeks is not a child? It has brain waves, a heartbeat, different DNA from the mother, perhaps different chromosomes than the mother, legs, arms, etc.
    - trasz 4y ago
      I’m suggesting it doesn’t matter, because even if it was an adult human, it still wouldn’t override other persons right to decide about their own body. Starting this discussion with an argument that attempts to derail it is very telling. Also, honestly, the "life from conception" is fringe even from Christian theology point of view. It was debunked by Acquinas himself, most of Christianity believes it's bullshit, which also used to be the opinion shared by Catholic Church until XIX century.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Providing sustenance to a fetus is the necessities. This is up to debate, but is not as simple as you are making it out to be. Second, Aquinas was wrong on multiple things according to the Catholic Church. No Catholic believes Aquinas was infallible. Thirdly, you are also (intentionally?) misinterpreting Aquinas. He did not believe ensoulment happened until later in the pregnancy, but was opposed to abortion at any stage because it violated natural law. Fourth, most of Christianity does not believe it is bullshit since the majority of Christians are Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, etc and appear to be in line with their Churches teachings. Maybe you mean the majority of American Christians? If that is what you mean, who cares? It doesn't even matter if it is the majority of Christians in the world. Christianity (well the denominations most Christians are in) are not democracies. Fifth, it doesn't really matter if Christians agree or disagree with abortion. You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments. Funny how proabortion people are always the first to bring up religion.
- verall 4y ago
  If you're bent on arguing this from first principals, rather than a nuanced discussion about the quality of life of an unwanted child, remember that parents are not obligated at any other point to give up parts of their own body for their "child". It is only during a pregnancy where a woman is obligated to provide nutrients directly from her bloodstream. This is a "right" that the child, once born, no longer has - even if the child needs it to survive, the parents are under no obligation to donate blood or organs.
  - paxcoder 4y ago
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    Doesn't it logically have to go to first principals? If we're talking about quality of life of unwanted children, why not allow people to abort their children post birth, say 3 or even 12 years into its life?
    - majewsky 4y ago
      No, because in that case there are other options. A 3-year old child can be put up for adoption if the parents are unable to provide adequate care for it. At our current medical level of progress, doing the same for a 3-week-old embryo is impossible. If it were possible to transplant embryos instead of aborting the pregnancy, the moral argument around abortions would look very different. Edit note: I initially mistyped "put up for adoption" as "put up for abortion". This has since been fixed.
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        Why do other options have anything to do with it? So far as I've observed, policy makers in the US are pushing for abortion up until birth. We will soon have the tech to grow children in artifical wombs from conception. Why does self sufficiency define the cutoff for murder when it is time variant, and the child will necessarily grow the ability to live untethered?
bobthechef 4y ago

paxcoder 4y ago

dymk 4y ago
What child?
- paxcoder 4y ago
trasz 4y ago
Thing is, the “child” here is purely imaginary. It’s a fringe theory, proven to be wrong not only by secular ethicists and most religions, but even Acquinas himself. It’s not any different from anti vax or flat earth.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  Are you suggesting a fetus that is 20 weeks is not a child? It has brain waves, a heartbeat, different DNA from the mother, perhaps different chromosomes than the mother, legs, arms, etc.
  - trasz 4y ago
    I’m suggesting it doesn’t matter, because even if it was an adult human, it still wouldn’t override other persons right to decide about their own body. Starting this discussion with an argument that attempts to derail it is very telling. Also, honestly, the "life from conception" is fringe even from Christian theology point of view. It was debunked by Acquinas himself, most of Christianity believes it's bullshit, which also used to be the opinion shared by Catholic Church until XIX century.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      First, it may override another person's right but it may not. In general there is a belief we are obligated to provide the necessities. Providing sustenance to a fetus is the necessities. This is up to debate, but is not as simple as you are making it out to be. Second, Aquinas was wrong on multiple things according to the Catholic Church. No Catholic believes Aquinas was infallible. Thirdly, you are also (intentionally?) misinterpreting Aquinas. He did not believe ensoulment happened until later in the pregnancy, but was opposed to abortion at any stage because it violated natural law. Fourth, most of Christianity does not believe it is bullshit since the majority of Christians are Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, etc and appear to be in line with their Churches teachings. Maybe you mean the majority of American Christians? If that is what you mean, who cares? It doesn't even matter if it is the majority of Christians in the world. Christianity (well the denominations most Christians are in) are not democracies. Fifth, it doesn't really matter if Christians agree or disagree with abortion. You can easily argue against abortion through purely secular arguments. Funny how proabortion people are always the first to bring up religion.
verall 4y ago
If you're bent on arguing this from first principals, rather than a nuanced discussion about the quality of life of an unwanted child, remember that parents are not obligated at any other point to give up parts of their own body for their "child". It is only during a pregnancy where a woman is obligated to provide nutrients directly from her bloodstream. This is a "right" that the child, once born, no longer has - even if the child needs it to survive, the parents are under no obligation to donate blood or organs.
- paxcoder 4y ago
- hellojesus 4y ago
  Doesn't it logically have to go to first principals? If we're talking about quality of life of unwanted children, why not allow people to abort their children post birth, say 3 or even 12 years into its life?
  - majewsky 4y ago
    No, because in that case there are other options. A 3-year old child can be put up for adoption if the parents are unable to provide adequate care for it. At our current medical level of progress, doing the same for a 3-week-old embryo is impossible. If it were possible to transplant embryos instead of aborting the pregnancy, the moral argument around abortions would look very different. Edit note: I initially mistyped "put up for adoption" as "put up for abortion". This has since been fixed.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      Why do other options have anything to do with it? So far as I've observed, policy makers in the US are pushing for abortion up until birth. We will soon have the tech to grow children in artifical wombs from conception. Why does self sufficiency define the cutoff for murder when it is time variant, and the child will necessarily grow the ability to live untethered?

bobthechef 4y ago