Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

moneyforsoy t1_jdiou11 wrote

Reply to comment by vexingsilence in NH House passes abortion-rights protections by IBlazeMyOwnPath

You should look up the case of McFall v Shimp. Even if a fetus is a person from the moment of conception, no person is entitled to the use of someone else’s body to maintain their own life. Based on your last line, the court should have ordered Shimp to go through with the bone marrow donation to save McFall.

Edit: not to mention that while a bone marrow donation is an uncomfortable procedure, it is not even close to the permanent physical trauma caused by pregnancy.

11

vexingsilence t1_jdir5tg wrote

>no person is entitled to the use of someone else’s body to maintain their own life.

You also aren't entitled to end someone else's life for the sake of your own convenience. This isn't a case of taking an organ or marrow or anything like that. Those are medical procedures. The reproductive process is not a medical procedure, it's a natural process.

>permanent physical trauma caused by pregnancy

Pales in comparison to having your life terminated.

−16

moneyforsoy t1_jditckz wrote

But the main point you’re missing is that in the eye of the law, a fetus is not a person. If it were, give them a social security number, let them get insurance, count them as a dependent. And when life begins/when a fetus becomes a person is a personally held belief that differs between people and religions. Catholicism says it’s at conception, Judaism says it’s at the first breath. And nobody is right or wrong because such a belief is so deeply rooted in spirituality that the government has no business deciding what is “true.”

And people aren’t getting abortions out of “convenience.” Often it is a matter or life or death because pregnancy literally puts a mothers life at risk. High blood pressure, blood clots, and homicide kill pregnant people all the time.

As far as your last comment goes, a fetus has no capacity to feel pain until 24 weeks, let alone have sentience to understand life or death or anything like that.

19

Cantide756 t1_jdlouz7 wrote

>in the eye of the law, a fetus is not a person.

If you kill a pregnant woman, don't you get charged for both murders?

2

vexingsilence t1_jdiwo5w wrote

>But the main point you’re missing is that in the eye of the law, a fetus is not a person.

The law used to regard certain people as not being people. The law is not infallible. That's why we have the ability to change it.

>And people aren’t getting abortions out of “convenience.” Often it is a matter or life or death because pregnancy literally puts a mothers life at risk.

Not easy to dig up data on this one, but I did find this with their sources linked at the bottom:

https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

The vast majority are due to lifestyle decisions (convenience).

>As far as your last comment goes, a fetus has no capacity to feel pain until 24 weeks

There are grown adults with conditions that prevent them from feeling pain. Can we terminate them?

−15

moneyforsoy t1_jdixcso wrote

Nice strawmans you got there. And, hey man, if you’re so against abortions, don’t get one. But why are you so deadset on making sure nobody else gets one? I don’t believe that a fetus is a person, you do. There’s no way to determine who’s right and who’s wrong and for that reason alone, we cannot codify laws preventing people from getting abortions. I’ll leave you with this quote:

>The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

Pastor David Barnhart

12

vexingsilence t1_jdiz16f wrote

>But why are you so deadset on making sure nobody else gets one?

I'm generally anti-murder. I'm weird like that.

>There’s no way to determine who’s right and who’s wrong and for that reason alone, we cannot codify laws preventing people from getting abortions.

Given an unknown, the ethical choice is to do the least harm. Ending a life is clearly more harmful than allowing the reproductive process to continue.

I love it when pro-abortion folks suddenly become religious in a debate. Now that's a sign of an argument that has no logical defense. Suddenly one must act on faith! Sorry, no sale there. Tell God I said hi if you see Him.

−3

moneyforsoy t1_jdizfvh wrote

I’m not religious, and it’s not murder. Cope.

10

vexingsilence t1_jdj7ske wrote

>I’m not religious

Ahh, so you're just using religion as an appeal. Nice.

1

moneyforsoy t1_jdj8gms wrote

wtf are you talking about? I can be agnostic and still agree with aspects of a religion or even just the sentiment of a pastor. you should take your username to heart and shut up for once lmao

5

vexingsilence t1_jdj9lfc wrote

By replying, I see that as you wanting to have a discussion. Otherwise, why would you? Feel free to fuck off at anytime.

1

moneyforsoy t1_jdji1fa wrote

I do want to have a discussion, but clearly we aren’t going to get anywhere meaningful. I hope you have a nice weekend.

6

pinetreesgreen t1_jdj12bm wrote

So you don't think a woman should get one to save her life? That is pretty pro manslaughter.

9

vexingsilence t1_jdj8qok wrote

Like I linked elsewhere in here, convenience/lifestyle-choice is the vast majority of abortions. You're referring to the extremely small percentage of cases. I'm not.

1

pinetreesgreen t1_jdjeuxg wrote

I'm not even sure you can describe a definition of a convenience abortion. What is that? Is having an abortion so you can take care of your other kids a lifestyle abortion? Probably by your definition. But not to the woman caring for 2 kids and already struggling.

If you approve of one kind of abortion when the womans life is in danger, you don't actually think it's murder. It would still be murder. You just want to control a woman's body based on some outdated notion of morality, but understand her dying without an abortion is really messed up and unpopular.

7

vexingsilence t1_jdjj6kq wrote

>If you approve of one kind of abortion when the womans life is in danger, you don't actually think it's murder.

Didn't say I approved of it, did I? You were using a very weak debating tactic. It's like people that bring up disabled people or children in a discussion that isn't about them, just to try to divert the flow.

1

pinetreesgreen t1_jdjk6no wrote

You said before women should be able to get abortions if their life is in danger.

So now we are just debating if You get to control them in all other situations or not based on arbitrary personal morality. The murder thing clearly isn't real, just an excuse for control. It can't be murder only in one situation, but not in another, correct?

6

moneyforsoy t1_jdkmi09 wrote

>It’s like people that bring up disabled people or children in a discussion that isn’t about them, just to try to divert the flow.

this guy a few comments ago:

>There are grown adults with conditions that prevent them from feeling pain. Can we terminate them?

I tried, too. You’re better off saving your energy for someone more receptive and capable of thinking critically.

1

vexingsilence t1_jdlgc97 wrote

Context matters. Saying it's okay because they don't feel pain, a rare disorder involving not feeling paid is relevant despite being rare since it's directly on point.

Like I said in the first quote, bringing up a thing that isn't about it.. that's a situation where something isn't on point.

One of these things is not like the other.

0

vexingsilence t1_jdlgg4l wrote

>It can't be murder only in one situation, but not in another, correct?

If you kill someone in self defense, is that murder? You have the thinking skills of a rock.

0

Cantide756 t1_jdlrfyh wrote

Logic won't change their minds, in their hearts, they know its wrong because they use pro choice instead of pro abortion. They want it as birth control, so they don't have to worry about being responsible for remembering to take a pill or use a condom. The purpose of sex throughout the history of life is to procreate, but no one wants the responsibility, just the pleasure. If they put into law that the father could "abort" the financial responsibility, you would hear them saying all this stuff about a baby is a natural consequence of sex and they agreed to the risk when they agreed to sex. Double standards are rife when it comes to being pro abortion. And the reasoning they use to try and justify it are smoke screens, try and compromise by saying "to save the mothers life" or "for instances of rape and/or incest" doesn't satisfy them because they know that's only a token amount of the numbers. Vast majority are for selfish reasons, even the word convenience shouldn't be accepted. If you are in a situation where you can't afford or handle or want a baby and you don't want to use, can't afford, or can't use the myriad of other forms of birth control, you should abstain. Oh, they want to protect women from getting back alley abortions because they are going to find a way, even if image and illegal? That's their choice, they don't make a robbery legal to protect the life of a criminal do they? And you can't forget the racial component, I think the count reached 20 million black children being aborted? FFS, planned parenthood was started by a eugenics enthusiast.

At the end of the day, pro abortionists are selfish narcissists, using the same faulty logic they used during slavery to dehumanize a class of people to make it ok to murder them. They will spin whatever they can to make a "right" out of not having to take responsibility for their actions.

0

pinetreesgreen t1_jdit6ut wrote

There is simply no guarantee the fetus will be born alive. So the only real person in this situation is the women who is growing the fetus. Her decision should be the only one relevant. it is her body/energy/nourishment being used, and in a not very pleasant manner, either.

12

vexingsilence t1_jdiv741 wrote

>There is simply no guarantee the fetus will be born alive. So the only real person in this situation is the women who is growing the fetus.

That's absurd. This is some "Schrodinger's cat" type of logic. We do know that abortion will end the life. Without any unethical medical intervention, a live birth is the likely outcome.

> Her decision should be the only one relevant.

Not if you're going to argue bodily autonomy. There are two bodies. You can't dismiss one simply because they can't consent.

−6

pinetreesgreen t1_jdiw7oy wrote

I mean, its likely, but not 100%. Is the woman who is being made to donate to the potential person live? Certainly. So it should be her decision.

You think people should be forced to share blood or undergo the reorganization or organs, tissue, risk permanent death or disability for something they don't want? Thats dystopian.

5

vexingsilence t1_jdixwgz wrote

>I mean, its likely, but not 100%. Is the woman who is being made to donate to the potential person live? Certainly. So it should be her decision.

By your logic, the chances of the woman surviving the abortion are not 100%, therefore we shouldn't allow her to have one.

>You think people should be forced to share blood or undergo the reorganization or organs, tissue, risk permanent death or disability for something they don't want?

What force is occurring? Reproduction is a natural process. Giving blood, donating or receiving organs and such are not natural processes. Those are medical procedures. Two very different things. It's the opposite of force, it's doing nothing.

1

pinetreesgreen t1_jdizc2w wrote

It is hard to discuss this with men, bc they will never understand that being pregnant is not fun for most women. It is painful and wretched and does not feel natural whatsoever. We do it bc we want kids. To make someone go through that without wanting one for a million different, individual reasons is inhumane. You can dispute it all you want, but that is what it is. Just accept you will never understand being pregnant, so you can never understand vehemently not wanting to be pregnant.

We lose women at less than one per year due to abortions. It is infinitely safer than giving birth. Your logic fails to hold up anyway since you are arguing in essence women should not get abortions even if it kills her, giving birth.

10

SuperD00perGuyd00d t1_jdjppmc wrote

>What force is occuring?

Not everybody lives by tradition, and there are some horrible people in the world that cause a force...especially for women.

3

skigirl180 t1_jdjy6ut wrote

If you don't want an abortion then don't fucking get one. Period.

3

vexingsilence t1_jdlfyfr wrote

Don't want to be murdered? Then don't get murdered. Period.

Amazing insight.

0

skigirl180 t1_jdjy0qj wrote

Who is more important. Living breathing person or clump or cells that is unable to survive on it's own?

8

vexingsilence t1_jdlfw92 wrote

You'll never convince anyone by using language like "clump of cells", which you didn't even spell correctly. Why waste people time posting replies that? Desperate for karma or something?

1

skigirl180 t1_jdm4ndl wrote

Ahhh your right, spell check changing of to or is a real waste of your time.

Are you trying to score extra karma points with your god by stopping people you don't know, will never know, have no idea about, from having a medical procedure or something?

0