5 ms·

>This facts are all scientifically indisputable: They are also all irrelevant. We don’t force parents to donate organs for life-saving transplants; why would

by trasz 4y ago

>This facts are all scientifically indisputable: They are also all irrelevant. We don’t force parents to donate organs for life-saving transplants; why would we have a different rule specifically for uterus? Worth pointing out you’re comparing the idea of bodily autonomy, one of basic human rights, with eugenics, because it opposes a certain religious superstition.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
swat535 4y ago
I'm curious, do you not agree that the life in the womb is valid, or is it that you don't even agree it's a life? In other words, is it that you acknowledge what is inside _is_ a life but you reject the validity of its right to be alive ? or do you _not_ agree that it is a life in the first place, therefore it couldn't possibly have a right to be alive?
- trasz 4y ago
  Neither - that alternative only makes sense if you assume at most high school level of knowledge of biology. If you knew anything more, you’d see how absurd it is - for example you’d know what a mole pregnancy is and how it demolishes that assumption you’ve made above. This, btw, is a common element of Catholic ideology - a lot of it is literal bullshit written in a way to make it hard to parse; one cornerstone of it is abusing the language, but another is exploiting people’s ignorance.
bhupy 4y ago
I’m pro-choice, but this is a bad argument. In the case of abortion, the default (inaction) means the baby lives, whereas having an abortion is an active action which ends the “life” (I don’t entirely believe it’s a life up to a certain point, but just conceding it for the sake of argument). In the case of forced organ donation, not donating unfortunately results in the death of the other person, but that’s the default state (inaction). For those with agency, we place greater moral weight on active actions than on the absence of action.

by trasz 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

swat535 4y ago

I'm curious, do you not agree that the life in the womb is valid, or is it that you don't even agree it's a life? In other words, is it that you acknowledge what is inside _is_ a life but you reject the validity of its right to be alive ? or do you _not_ agree that it is a life in the first place, therefore it couldn't possibly have a right to be alive?

trasz 4y ago
Neither - that alternative only makes sense if you assume at most high school level of knowledge of biology. If you knew anything more, you’d see how absurd it is - for example you’d know what a mole pregnancy is and how it demolishes that assumption you’ve made above. This, btw, is a common element of Catholic ideology - a lot of it is literal bullshit written in a way to make it hard to parse; one cornerstone of it is abusing the language, but another is exploiting people’s ignorance.

bhupy 4y ago

I’m pro-choice, but this is a bad argument. In the case of abortion, the default (inaction) means the baby lives, whereas having an abortion is an active action which ends the “life” (I don’t entirely believe it’s a life up to a certain point, but just conceding it for the sake of argument). In the case of forced organ donation, not donating unfortunately results in the death of the other person, but that’s the default state (inaction). For those with agency, we place greater moral weight on active actions than on the absence of action.