4 ms·

I’m not religious and I support the rights of the unborn. It’s more complicated than religion vs atheism.

by zionic 4y ago

randomhodler84 4y ago
I support the rights of the undead myself. Vampire and Zombie rights are more important.
- zionic 4y ago
anonporridge 4y ago
I also support the rights of unborn persons, but I don't support giving them extra special rights that born people don't have. I do not have the right to force you to give me your kidney, even if I need it to stay alive. Even if you intentionally poisoned me and that's the reason I need a new kidney, I still don't have the right to violate your bodily autonomy to take it. Why do you believe fetuses have the special right to violate a person's bodily autonomy?
- josephcsible 4y ago
  You can't be forced to donate your kidney, but if you previously decided to do so (or even if it were harvested from you without your permission), you can't later kill the recipient to take it back.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    A better analogy is if you need continuous blood donations. Even if I consent to give you some now, I'm not obligated to continue to give it to you every day, even if you'll die without it and it's only for 9 months. Moral reprehensible? Maybe. Legally enforceable. No. That's a rabid hole of allowing the government to violate people's bodily autonomy and privacy that you really don't want to go down.
- zionic 4y ago
  >why give the fetus special rights Because of the unique circumstances /temporary biological dependence. Murder is a permanent solution to a temporary problem (dependence). The right of the fetus to life outweighs the right of the mother to not be inconvenienced. I also support things like mandatory maternal leave, better access to healthcare, etc. I just don’t support the termination of otherwise-viable pregnancies for convenience, which is the VAST majority of cases.
  - randomhodler84 4y ago
    You keep using that word “inconvenience”. It is a shibboleth.
  - anonporridge 4y ago
    At what point in pregnancy do you believe that an embryo/fetus becomes a person deserving of the same protection under the law as you and me?
    - zionic 4y ago
      There is no productive conversation to be had on HN about this. I literally can’t answer your question without a ban. Consider other platforms if you want to really have discussions.
  - salawat 4y ago
    >The right of the fetus to life outweighs the right of the mother to not be inconvenienced. A fetus that cannot survive in the abscence of the mother is not a human being. It is a clump of cells, little more than an unusually organized tumor. I find your rhetoric less than persuasive. Are you going to accept responsibility for the inevitable consequence of the unavailibility of abortion? Not in the executive's airy sense of "I'm willing to accept that risk" but tangibly, on the dotted line, in the "every unplanned pregnancy taken to completion is your problem now" sense? Are you going to accept the responsibility for their rearing in a loving, stable household? Are you going to commit to the lifelong sacrifice that is parenting those children? Are you willing to pay, in time and taxes for the State to be able to fund and hire proxy parents, and to administer the higher number of wards of the State? Unless you are, I believe you have no place trying to push the things you are on other people. As abortions often short-circuit lifetimes worth of suffering that would be on the horizon for the unborn, because existence in the world without that is surely thus; you are the one condemning them. If you aren't already taking in babies, your pontifications about the relative virtue of someone else's exercise of bodily autonomy don't ring to me as the basis for reasonable State enforced policy. I don't shortchange my countrymens' liberties, and I'm willing to be convinced to see your view if your group is willing to prove to me they have skin in the game. If you're just trying to push policy out of some misguided sense of "it's the popular thing to do", begone. If you're ready to talk orphanages and more spending on social workers which includes a living wage, and sufficient funding to hire, retain, and train sufficient numbers of them to make a reasonable dent in the increased case load this will inevitably create, and real penalties and teeth to things like abusive treatment in facilities for wards of the State. Then we can talk. No guarantees on being convinced, but I can entertain hearing it out.

I’m not religious and I support the rights of the unborn. It’s more complicated than religion vs atheism.

by zionic 4y ago

I’m not religious and I support the rights of the unborn. It’s more complicated than religion vs atheism.

randomhodler84 4y ago

I support the rights of the undead myself. Vampire and Zombie rights are more important.

zionic 4y ago

anonporridge 4y ago

I also support the rights of unborn persons, but I don't support giving them extra special rights that born people don't have. I do not have the right to force you to give me your kidney, even if I need it to stay alive. Even if you intentionally poisoned me and that's the reason I need a new kidney, I still don't have the right to violate your bodily autonomy to take it. Why do you believe fetuses have the special right to violate a person's bodily autonomy?

josephcsible 4y ago
You can't be forced to donate your kidney, but if you previously decided to do so (or even if it were harvested from you without your permission), you can't later kill the recipient to take it back.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  A better analogy is if you need continuous blood donations. Even if I consent to give you some now, I'm not obligated to continue to give it to you every day, even if you'll die without it and it's only for 9 months. Moral reprehensible? Maybe. Legally enforceable. No. That's a rabid hole of allowing the government to violate people's bodily autonomy and privacy that you really don't want to go down.
zionic 4y ago
>why give the fetus special rights Because of the unique circumstances /temporary biological dependence. Murder is a permanent solution to a temporary problem (dependence). The right of the fetus to life outweighs the right of the mother to not be inconvenienced. I also support things like mandatory maternal leave, better access to healthcare, etc. I just don’t support the termination of otherwise-viable pregnancies for convenience, which is the VAST majority of cases.
- randomhodler84 4y ago
  You keep using that word “inconvenience”. It is a shibboleth.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  At what point in pregnancy do you believe that an embryo/fetus becomes a person deserving of the same protection under the law as you and me?
  - zionic 4y ago
    There is no productive conversation to be had on HN about this. I literally can’t answer your question without a ban. Consider other platforms if you want to really have discussions.
- salawat 4y ago
  >The right of the fetus to life outweighs the right of the mother to not be inconvenienced. A fetus that cannot survive in the abscence of the mother is not a human being. It is a clump of cells, little more than an unusually organized tumor. I find your rhetoric less than persuasive. Are you going to accept responsibility for the inevitable consequence of the unavailibility of abortion? Not in the executive's airy sense of "I'm willing to accept that risk" but tangibly, on the dotted line, in the "every unplanned pregnancy taken to completion is your problem now" sense? Are you going to accept the responsibility for their rearing in a loving, stable household? Are you going to commit to the lifelong sacrifice that is parenting those children? Are you willing to pay, in time and taxes for the State to be able to fund and hire proxy parents, and to administer the higher number of wards of the State? Unless you are, I believe you have no place trying to push the things you are on other people. As abortions often short-circuit lifetimes worth of suffering that would be on the horizon for the unborn, because existence in the world without that is surely thus; you are the one condemning them. If you aren't already taking in babies, your pontifications about the relative virtue of someone else's exercise of bodily autonomy don't ring to me as the basis for reasonable State enforced policy. I don't shortchange my countrymens' liberties, and I'm willing to be convinced to see your view if your group is willing to prove to me they have skin in the game. If you're just trying to push policy out of some misguided sense of "it's the popular thing to do", begone. If you're ready to talk orphanages and more spending on social workers which includes a living wage, and sufficient funding to hire, retain, and train sufficient numbers of them to make a reasonable dent in the increased case load this will inevitably create, and real penalties and teeth to things like abusive treatment in facilities for wards of the State. Then we can talk. No guarantees on being convinced, but I can entertain hearing it out.