5 ms·

Many don’t believe this is a human right, and you enforcing this on them is going against their will. This is authoritarian.

lifeformed 4y ago
Against their will to do what? Legalizing abortion doesn't mean forced abortions.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > Legalizing abortion doesn't mean forced abortions. Legalizing slavery doesn't mean you're forced to own slaves. Some folks believe certain actions are intrinsically immoral and no one should be allowed to do them.
freedom2099 4y ago
Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! If you force your opinion on something that should be exclusively her concern then you are the “authoritarian”
- mpfundstein 4y ago
  what about the childs body?
  - freedom2099 4y ago
    An embryo is not a human
    - throw0101a 4y ago
      > An embryo is not a human So a human female and a human male copulate and they conceive something not-human? What species is it if it is not Homo sapiens? If it is not Homo sapiens, why does it apparently have human DNA (distinct from either the female and male that were involved)? Why is it that when two humans copulate, they produce something not-human, but when every other mammal pairs copulate they produce something of the same species? In your opinion when does it go from being not-human to being human? Is is gradual, on a spectrum? Or is it binary: at a certain point in development there is some characteristic that becomes present
      - freedom2099 4y ago
        En embryo might eventually become a human but is not one yet! You need a decently developer brain at least… being a small agglomeration of cells with human dna doesn’t make you a human! A tumor is an agglomeration of cells with human dna but is not treated as a person! On general is a gradual process… but like with every fuzzy system it is easy in some case to say if something belongs ta a category or not but when you reach the overlap of categories to becomes harder. Just set the threshold when it is still clear
      - timbit42 4y ago
        Judaism, as an example, does not consider the embryo to be human, but instead to be 'potential human', and doesn't consider it human or ensouled until it is birthed. A large number of people who believe abortion is murder do so because they are Christian, a religion that spawned from Judaism, yet they don't even understand their Old Testament as well as the Jews do.
- zthrowaway 4y ago
  The mother decided to have unprotected sex. There’s a reason women get pregnant. This isn’t some magical thing that is forced on women. Cause and effect. The body inside her body is not hers. Unfortunately biology does not conform to our fantasyland. Forcing those who are against this to pay a fine is against their will.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > The mother decided to have unprotected sex Or she was raped, or nobody taught her anything but religious abstinence bullshit and she didn't even know the ramifications. > The body inside her body is not hers So if you take that "body" inside her out of her, what happens to it? It dies unless it's the late stages (what, 6 months in?) It's entirely dependent on her to grow to become a human being.
    - zthrowaway 4y ago
      Rape is less than 2% of abortions. Even then, because my father was a horrible person I shouldn’t have to die for it. We don’t need to use rare edge cases to validate the 98% of abortions which are out of convenience. I’m not talking about abstinence, plenty of birth control options are available. Men need to take more responsibility and wear a condom. > So if you take that "body" inside her out of her, what happens to it? It dies unless it's the late stages (what, 6 months in?) It's entirely dependent on her to grow to become a human being. Yes this is biology, and? If you ever had to visit a NICU you’ll see plenty of 20 some week old pre-mature babies (or “bodies” in your case) that are just as human as you and I. They are just in a different stage in life. They need food to survive, just like you and I. I have a 1 year old, he is dependent on me to grow and survive.
      - kaba0 4y ago
        No method is 100% safe - and we are talking about something that happens multiple times for most people, it will fail due to pure statistics.
    - thiht 4y ago
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  It's not her body since conception. It's another human's body inside her body. I personally don't think we should have governments protecting lives or rights or anyone - therefore if abortion happens that's unfortunate but I wouldn't spend resources chasing that. That said abortion is obviously murder and immoral, no matter how convenient it can be.
  - freedom2099 4y ago
    An embryo is not a human (and I say so as a father and former embryo myself) so it is not murder!
    - zthrowaway 4y ago
      An embryo is a stage of being a human. As you say, you were an embryo yourself. It's only because we can't see it that we feel it's not human enough and can be killed. The thought of not being "human enough" doesn't bode well in our history, especially around the 1940s timeframe.
      - freedom2099 4y ago
        A spermatozoon is a stage of being human… so is an “egg cell” but nobody is forcing people to allow them all to develop into humans! And no… the nazi example has nothing to do with it (and I say it as a person whom all grandparents got sent to concentration camps by nazis)
        zthrowaway 4y ago
        This argument at its core is trying to justify at what stage of development this is considered human enough to protect. I think it’s a similar line of thinking as eugenics.
        freedom2099 4y ago
        It is not… is actually a completely different thing! Check the dictionary!
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! And many pro-life folks say that you're killing a child. It's his/her body. We don't allow parents to to kill 'inconvenient' child post-birth† so according to their argument neither should we pre-birth. † Well: * https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-newborn-infants https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-n... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-birth_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-birth_abortion * https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2017/07/13/should-one-be-allowed-to-euthanize-severely-deformed-or-doomed-newborns/ https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2017/07/13/should-one-be-allo...
  - freedom2099 4y ago
    It’s not yet a child when you perform an abortion!
    - throw0101a 4y ago
      > It’s not yet a child when you perform an abortion! Just to be clear: are we talking about the pre-birth situation or the post-birth situation (as practice in the Netherlands)?
      - freedom2099 4y ago
        If they are born it’s not an abortion anymore! Although I do support euthanasia… had I had some serious defect I wish my parents had the decency to kill me early on or have an abortion.
    - tasuki 4y ago
      When does the fetus become a child?
- yucky 4y ago
  I think the argument is that there is effectively zero difference in a 39 week old fetus and a newborn baby, so that argument only works if you're willing to extend the logic to getting rid of a newborn to...OR we acknowledge that there has to be a cutoff somewhere in the pregnancy where abortions are no longer acceptable. Otherwise, we're pretending sentience is magically conveyed as the baby passes through the birth canal, which is silly.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > Otherwise, we're pretending sentience is magically conveyed as the baby passes through the birth canal, which is silly. You're right, that is silly. It is a silly, misleading straw-man argument. Sentience isn't and never was the test. People in long-term comas still have rights. Also, it's hard to define precisely, harder to test in new-born infants, who are not all that "wired up" anyway at the time of birth.
    - yucky 4y ago
      So at what point should we no longer be ok with ending the life of the developing human? 39 weeks? 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Somewhere else?
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        At what point do you stop reducing issues to misleading "trick questions"?
        yucky 4y ago
        It's not a trick question, it's a recognition that abortion support is rarely binary. The majority of people (even pro-choice) believe there is a point in the pregnancy where an elective abortion would be grotesque and shouldn't be allowed. What drives the divide in the debate is where we should draw that line. Conception? Viability? Birth? It's the fundamental point in the debate, so it's far from a trick question?
hutzlibu 4y ago
It is authoritarian to tell people, it is authoritarian to tell women, they do not own their body? But yes, the basic problem remains, humanity remains divided on very basic things. And enforcing unity would be ugly.

lifeformed 4y ago

Against their will to do what? Legalizing abortion doesn't mean forced abortions.

throw0101a 4y ago
> Legalizing abortion doesn't mean forced abortions. Legalizing slavery doesn't mean you're forced to own slaves. Some folks believe certain actions are intrinsically immoral and no one should be allowed to do them.

freedom2099 4y ago

Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! If you force your opinion on something that should be exclusively her concern then you are the “authoritarian”

mpfundstein 4y ago
what about the childs body?
- freedom2099 4y ago
  An embryo is not a human
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > An embryo is not a human So a human female and a human male copulate and they conceive something not-human? What species is it if it is not Homo sapiens? If it is not Homo sapiens, why does it apparently have human DNA (distinct from either the female and male that were involved)? Why is it that when two humans copulate, they produce something not-human, but when every other mammal pairs copulate they produce something of the same species? In your opinion when does it go from being not-human to being human? Is is gradual, on a spectrum? Or is it binary: at a certain point in development there is some characteristic that becomes present
    - freedom2099 4y ago
      En embryo might eventually become a human but is not one yet! You need a decently developer brain at least… being a small agglomeration of cells with human dna doesn’t make you a human! A tumor is an agglomeration of cells with human dna but is not treated as a person! On general is a gradual process… but like with every fuzzy system it is easy in some case to say if something belongs ta a category or not but when you reach the overlap of categories to becomes harder. Just set the threshold when it is still clear
    - timbit42 4y ago
      Judaism, as an example, does not consider the embryo to be human, but instead to be 'potential human', and doesn't consider it human or ensouled until it is birthed. A large number of people who believe abortion is murder do so because they are Christian, a religion that spawned from Judaism, yet they don't even understand their Old Testament as well as the Jews do.
zthrowaway 4y ago
The mother decided to have unprotected sex. There’s a reason women get pregnant. This isn’t some magical thing that is forced on women. Cause and effect. The body inside her body is not hers. Unfortunately biology does not conform to our fantasyland. Forcing those who are against this to pay a fine is against their will.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > The mother decided to have unprotected sex Or she was raped, or nobody taught her anything but religious abstinence bullshit and she didn't even know the ramifications. > The body inside her body is not hers So if you take that "body" inside her out of her, what happens to it? It dies unless it's the late stages (what, 6 months in?) It's entirely dependent on her to grow to become a human being.
  - zthrowaway 4y ago
    Rape is less than 2% of abortions. Even then, because my father was a horrible person I shouldn’t have to die for it. We don’t need to use rare edge cases to validate the 98% of abortions which are out of convenience. I’m not talking about abstinence, plenty of birth control options are available. Men need to take more responsibility and wear a condom. > So if you take that "body" inside her out of her, what happens to it? It dies unless it's the late stages (what, 6 months in?) It's entirely dependent on her to grow to become a human being. Yes this is biology, and? If you ever had to visit a NICU you’ll see plenty of 20 some week old pre-mature babies (or “bodies” in your case) that are just as human as you and I. They are just in a different stage in life. They need food to survive, just like you and I. I have a 1 year old, he is dependent on me to grow and survive.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      No method is 100% safe - and we are talking about something that happens multiple times for most people, it will fail due to pure statistics.
  - thiht 4y ago
jokethrowaway 4y ago
It's not her body since conception. It's another human's body inside her body. I personally don't think we should have governments protecting lives or rights or anyone - therefore if abortion happens that's unfortunate but I wouldn't spend resources chasing that. That said abortion is obviously murder and immoral, no matter how convenient it can be.
- freedom2099 4y ago
  An embryo is not a human (and I say so as a father and former embryo myself) so it is not murder!
  - zthrowaway 4y ago
    An embryo is a stage of being a human. As you say, you were an embryo yourself. It's only because we can't see it that we feel it's not human enough and can be killed. The thought of not being "human enough" doesn't bode well in our history, especially around the 1940s timeframe.
    - freedom2099 4y ago
      A spermatozoon is a stage of being human… so is an “egg cell” but nobody is forcing people to allow them all to develop into humans! And no… the nazi example has nothing to do with it (and I say it as a person whom all grandparents got sent to concentration camps by nazis)
      - zthrowaway 4y ago
        This argument at its core is trying to justify at what stage of development this is considered human enough to protect. I think it’s a similar line of thinking as eugenics.
        freedom2099 4y ago
        It is not… is actually a completely different thing! Check the dictionary!
throw0101a 4y ago
> Authoritarian is forcing a mother to have a child she doesn’t want! It’s her body! And many pro-life folks say that you're killing a child. It's his/her body. We don't allow parents to to kill 'inconvenient' child post-birth† so according to their argument neither should we pre-birth. † Well: * https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-newborn-infants https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-n... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-birth_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-birth_abortion * https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2017/07/13/should-one-be-allowed-to-euthanize-severely-deformed-or-doomed-newborns/ https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2017/07/13/should-one-be-allo...
- freedom2099 4y ago
  It’s not yet a child when you perform an abortion!
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > It’s not yet a child when you perform an abortion! Just to be clear: are we talking about the pre-birth situation or the post-birth situation (as practice in the Netherlands)?
    - freedom2099 4y ago
      If they are born it’s not an abortion anymore! Although I do support euthanasia… had I had some serious defect I wish my parents had the decency to kill me early on or have an abortion.
  - tasuki 4y ago
    When does the fetus become a child?
yucky 4y ago
I think the argument is that there is effectively zero difference in a 39 week old fetus and a newborn baby, so that argument only works if you're willing to extend the logic to getting rid of a newborn to...OR we acknowledge that there has to be a cutoff somewhere in the pregnancy where abortions are no longer acceptable. Otherwise, we're pretending sentience is magically conveyed as the baby passes through the birth canal, which is silly.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > Otherwise, we're pretending sentience is magically conveyed as the baby passes through the birth canal, which is silly. You're right, that is silly. It is a silly, misleading straw-man argument. Sentience isn't and never was the test. People in long-term comas still have rights. Also, it's hard to define precisely, harder to test in new-born infants, who are not all that "wired up" anyway at the time of birth.
  - yucky 4y ago
    So at what point should we no longer be ok with ending the life of the developing human? 39 weeks? 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Somewhere else?
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      At what point do you stop reducing issues to misleading "trick questions"?
      - yucky 4y ago
        It's not a trick question, it's a recognition that abortion support is rarely binary. The majority of people (even pro-choice) believe there is a point in the pregnancy where an elective abortion would be grotesque and shouldn't be allowed. What drives the divide in the debate is where we should draw that line. Conception? Viability? Birth? It's the fundamental point in the debate, so it's far from a trick question?

hutzlibu 4y ago

It is authoritarian to tell people, it is authoritarian to tell women, they do not own their body? But yes, the basic problem remains, humanity remains divided on very basic things. And enforcing unity would be ugly.