5 ms·

Sounds like nonsense. Can you explain how it was ‘imposing a regime’, when nobody was forced to do anything? If you didn’t want an abortion you just…didn’t have

Sounds like nonsense. Can you explain how it was ‘imposing a regime’, when nobody was forced to do anything? If you didn’t want an abortion you just…didn’t have one. Kinda sounds like religious people are the ones actually trying to impose a regime to me. Because I couldn’t possibly care less what anyones preferred god thinks, yet religious beliefs are being used to drive political changes that affect everyone.

esyir 4y ago
From their perspective, it's more analogous to murder. Not exactly something you just live and let be.
- triceratops 4y ago
  Then why didn't they ever try for a federal abortion ban when they had control of Congress and the presidency? "Murder" isn't suddenly ok just because it happens in another state, right?
  - somehnguy 4y ago
    Yup. We all know it’s just a cover to push their religious beliefs on people.
  - esyir 4y ago
    I said analogous, not identical. Clearly they see it as bad, but not nearly as bad as murder. If it was literally mass murder to them, I'd expect more bombs and riots, and less "campaign against it for 50 years to repeal it".
    - triceratops 4y ago
      If it's "somewhat less than murder" all these states with anti-abortion laws would have carve outs when the mother's life is in danger. You'd definitely allow someone else to commit an evil act that's "less than murder" to save a person's life, wouldn't you?
- somehnguy 4y ago
  Only while they’re in the womb though, once they’re out they’re on their own. I would argue that denying a woman with pregnancy complications a lifesaving procedure is *way* more analogous to murder than abortion.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
Religious people in the US get very uncomfortable when other people violate their religious tenets. It's this feeling of discomfort that religious people feel the need to eliminate.
- somehnguy 4y ago
  Middle schoolers already solved this a long time ago - “Sounds like a personal problem”.
jonhohle 4y ago
Imagine you are in a people group that the court decided are free to be killed at someone else’s discretion and you have no legal recourse or advocate. Would you accept that for minority groups, groups of any other association? If you are not the one killing or being killed does that mean it affects no one?
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  There already are that group - recipients of organ donations. If you or I decide to sign up on a match list, are tested for compatibility, and are selected, we have no legal obligation to proceed with the donation. You or I could be in the operating room side by side with the recipient and object moments before being anesthesized. Again, no legal obligation. Even if it should mean the recipient dies. It doesn't mean you are an asshole, or that it violates your ethical code, but still no legal obligation. So yes, we already have the concept, it's simply not evenly distributed.
  - jonhohle 4y ago
    In that situation medical professionals are doing everything they can to keep that person alive. If there is another option besides the one donor found it will be used. Fetuses aren’t granted the right to “pursue happiness”. Abortion doesn’t absolve a mother of obligations while giving the child a chance to part ways amicably. As the potential organ donor you cannot choose to actively terminate the life of the recipient, they are free to continue on until they can no longer.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Those have no bearing on the autonomy of the donor. The ethicalness of declining to donate isn't contingent on support of medical professionals nor the concept of active or passive action. What does supervene on the ethicalness of the action is autonomy. Bodily autonomy gives a donor the right to back away at the last minute, not the concept of passive action or medical support. I'm not disagreeing that those exist, but they don't lay the foundation for the ethicalness of the action - bodily autonomy does. No one, not even the government, has more say over one's body than oneself.

esyir 4y ago

From their perspective, it's more analogous to murder. Not exactly something you just live and let be.

triceratops 4y ago
Then why didn't they ever try for a federal abortion ban when they had control of Congress and the presidency? "Murder" isn't suddenly ok just because it happens in another state, right?
- somehnguy 4y ago
  Yup. We all know it’s just a cover to push their religious beliefs on people.
- esyir 4y ago
  I said analogous, not identical. Clearly they see it as bad, but not nearly as bad as murder. If it was literally mass murder to them, I'd expect more bombs and riots, and less "campaign against it for 50 years to repeal it".
  - triceratops 4y ago
    If it's "somewhat less than murder" all these states with anti-abortion laws would have carve outs when the mother's life is in danger. You'd definitely allow someone else to commit an evil act that's "less than murder" to save a person's life, wouldn't you?
somehnguy 4y ago
Only while they’re in the womb though, once they’re out they’re on their own. I would argue that denying a woman with pregnancy complications a lifesaving procedure is *way* more analogous to murder than abortion.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

Religious people in the US get very uncomfortable when other people violate their religious tenets. It's this feeling of discomfort that religious people feel the need to eliminate.

somehnguy 4y ago
Middle schoolers already solved this a long time ago - “Sounds like a personal problem”.

jonhohle 4y ago

Imagine you are in a people group that the court decided are free to be killed at someone else’s discretion and you have no legal recourse or advocate. Would you accept that for minority groups, groups of any other association? If you are not the one killing or being killed does that mean it affects no one?

kelseyfrog 4y ago
There already are that group - recipients of organ donations. If you or I decide to sign up on a match list, are tested for compatibility, and are selected, we have no legal obligation to proceed with the donation. You or I could be in the operating room side by side with the recipient and object moments before being anesthesized. Again, no legal obligation. Even if it should mean the recipient dies. It doesn't mean you are an asshole, or that it violates your ethical code, but still no legal obligation. So yes, we already have the concept, it's simply not evenly distributed.
- jonhohle 4y ago
  In that situation medical professionals are doing everything they can to keep that person alive. If there is another option besides the one donor found it will be used. Fetuses aren’t granted the right to “pursue happiness”. Abortion doesn’t absolve a mother of obligations while giving the child a chance to part ways amicably. As the potential organ donor you cannot choose to actively terminate the life of the recipient, they are free to continue on until they can no longer.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Those have no bearing on the autonomy of the donor. The ethicalness of declining to donate isn't contingent on support of medical professionals nor the concept of active or passive action. What does supervene on the ethicalness of the action is autonomy. Bodily autonomy gives a donor the right to back away at the last minute, not the concept of passive action or medical support. I'm not disagreeing that those exist, but they don't lay the foundation for the ethicalness of the action - bodily autonomy does. No one, not even the government, has more say over one's body than oneself.