MasterOBee Master/King @ MasterObee @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

514

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm fine discussing viability, but don't be rude when that wasn't the topic in the comment you're responding to.

Funny how you only care about the dead unborn child

The comment you're responding to, I even said that I'm not arguing about the article, I'm saying more in general. My response was to someone saying I want to enslave women, because I'm pro-life.

In the specific case of the article, I agree with you, and this is an good scenario which many pro-lifers see an exception for.

If you'd like to converse, all I ask is that you're not hostile. You can state your case and I can state mine, without being a dick.

I did and came across this definition: 'of or for a particular person.'

My niece, Amber, is a particular person, whether she was just birthed, or it was 20 minute earlier when she was in the womb and the doctors were telling my sister to push.

also valid, thanks for revisiting. I agree, I should be working right now too, haha

to have individual rights one must first be an individual.

Exactly. And some people truly believe it's an individual.

See you're almost there, you just lack the ability to empathize that one may think differently than you.

Dang I've had that a few times, it sucks. I thought we actually were getting a bit closer.

I responded to a lot of your points with statistics, and other solid arguments, I don't thinbk it's fair to continue a convo at this point where my criticisms to your points are all ignored now (due to a deleted comment, not blaming you), and instead reducing the conversation to that very last subjective point.

lab leak theory is saying some sort of human alteration of a virus.

I don’t believe a woman aborting a fetus is ending it’s life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street.

Wouldn't it be more akin to feeding your own 2 month old? Do you think parents have an obligation to feed their child?

Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball.

In my scenario, I clearly didn't.

here are 175,000,000+ women in this country. 0.1% of that is 175,000. That’s a lot of women you’re saying intentionally got pregnant.

The way the %'s work with contraceptives is if someone is consistently sexually active and reasonable pregnancy age. Simply taking a % of total women in the united states is a huge misstep in your calculation. Woman past the age of 40 have 1/6 of the chance of pregnancy as a 30 YO, is it fair to represent the 175m woman as prime pregnancy age? only 65m are between age 15-44. 30% of people haven't had sex in the last year. So right off the bat, you drop 175m women to some 40m. It would reduce further if you included women who don't have consistent sexual activity.

If you have a good argument, you don't need to misrepresent facts.

You say you believe in having exceptions for specific cases like rape. I’m guessing you would put nonviable pregnancies in there too. The thing is, almost every single abortion performed fits into an exception category.

According to some quick sources I googled, only 12% of abortions are because of health complications.

Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more.

Once again, the vast majority of abortions are 'choosing between the life of the mother and kid' - it's simply that the baby is 'undesirable' to the mother. I don't think killing my twin brother simply because I don't desire him is a morally acceptable situation.

Then why aren’t republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support?

Because of medical POA's, or other legally recognizable authority given by the person on life support, to another individual. I've given my parents the right to decide what happens to me in such an event. A baby doesn't given that consent, to my knowledge.

Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle.

It's clearly not. In some states, women can get abortions freely until birth. To some that matters, to me I see it as a states rights issue and they can have that if they'd like.

No republican is talking about...

I agree. there are a billion issues we can talk about and I think they're too stuck on stuff like abortion and would like them to focus on other problems too. That doesn't change the fact that me being pro-life doesn't mean i simply want to enslave women.

In this specific case, I agree, it's a hard moral question with the twin involved which makes it harder.

I'm not speaking on this specific case, and most pro-lifers are open to exceptions, this being a prime example of where I think there should be. but the more broad statement that simply because I'm pro-life, means that I want to enslave woman, is absurdly wrong and simply perverting and strawmanning a fairly reasonable argument that a human life in the womb has inherent human life value.

I'm asking you, we don't need to get into the sticks, just say the day of viability is at the 6 month mark. That's the exact point you would say "okay, no more killing this being"?

No, not really.

I mean literally. I don't know how you can sit here and say 'okay, well someone might believe that it's a human life in the womb, but absolutely no way in hell could they argue that a woman ending it's life could be wrong!!' - if you can't grasp a basic concept that ending a human life could be considered immoral, we shouldn't continue this conversation.

I don’t believe a fetus is a human.

Once again - you're the one that said 'even if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protected' - so I don't care if you actually believe it or not, you set that up to be the basis of your argument.

because if your argument is that this unborn human’s life should be protected above a woman’s, you’re still taking away that woman’s rights.

My argument is they are equals, and ending either life is something that is a moral question, not an objective answer like you portray it to be.

The fetus can not live on its own. Saying an abortion is ending the life of the fetus is like saying taking someone off life support is ending their life. While technically true, are you the type of person that would also argue the government should disallow the removal of life support?

No, but I think that there should be some sort of consent (generally a medical POA would suffice) necessary to have someone make the decision to remove life support. If you can get a medical POA from the fetus, then I would buy into this argument.

I’m sorry, but if you honestly think it’s up to a woman whether or not she gets pregnant, you’re incredibly out of touch with reality.

It actually is. the vast vast vast majority of adults know that if they have sex, there's a risk of pregnancy. You know this, right? That's like me walking up at softball and swinging, hitting the ball and getting pissed because I didn't know that swinging could end in the possibility of me hitting the ball.

Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective.

99.9% effective for some, and combining contraceptives makes the rates extremely small.

Rape is a thing.

I'm for exceptions in the case of rape.

Hell, humans make mistakes sometimes.

Sure, but that doesn't give one the right to end another's life.

Women don’t just go around getting abortions because they felt like it, it’s not a fun procedure and it’s not without risk.

Did I say that?

The biggest factor that makes this an irrelevant argument is there is literally no other example of a policy you would support that would infringe on someone’s rights in the same way. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of examples where people put other people’s lives in danger but they still have rights. Why focus on this one specific issue when there are so many others? The only answer is sexism. Not respecting Women’s rights.

There's an argument that abortions don't respect the babies lives, male or female.

There are zero implemented policies that would force someone to feed someone else who’s dying,

If you have 1 year old baby and you don't feed him and in result they die, do you not think there's a policy that punishes you for this?

This is fine, but what’s not fine is supporting government policies that force the decision on women.

They didn't force women to have sex. They didn't force women to get pregnant. They are simply saying that if a human life is created, that it has inherent value and with such there's a moral question on whether ending a human life without their consent is wrong.

Especially blanket ones with no exceptions.

I've already mentioned multiple times about exceptions. If you want to keep bringing this up, you can. My answer has stayed consistent.

Limited in scope as in limited capacity. All public therapists are. The Queue to be put onto an NHS therapist’s list is years long.

Okay, so instead of spending 30% more per full time student than our peer countries and forcing teachers to take on the responsibilities of therapists, maybe get some more therapists?

I also know I was in a title 1 school and we had a school counselor, which would be more appropriate to discuss than with the average teacher.

The whole point of what I said is that I think the teachers and school system are competent enough to assess whether revealing this information could endanger a child

And what I've said is I think government employees shouldn't keep secrets about someones kid from the parents, when the parents are hiring the teachers to educate, not raise the kids.

First off, I was never on about arresting anybody.

Okay, CPS can't take away kids because they think one day the kid might say something that the parents may not like and CPS considers that the parent may one day dislike it enough to not deal with it how government agents see fit. Does that make the hoops easier to jump through for you? The issue is the same - teachers should be transparent with parents of the kids. If they suspect abuse, there are legal processes for that. I don't think it's wise to encourage teachers to unilaterally decide they will by pass all that.

You’re willing to let it get to the point of abuse before you help out, I’m not.

You're willing to let adults hired by the government, outside of parents unilaterally decide what's best for the other kids. I'm not.

I’ll put it this way, I’d rather have false positives in the face of defending children, than assume every parent is good and turn the other cheek to the abuse that could and would cause.

I'll ask you a straight up question, I hope you respond to - if your kid was showing signs of gender dysphoria at school, which has an incredibly high suicide attempt rate, and a teacher withheld that information from you, and your kid commits suicide, is there any blame on the teacher?

In my eyes, the teacher shares probably the most responsibility of any adult, for seeing the signs and not reporting it.

The fact that this law undermines that safeguarding duty by potentially putting teachers into a situation

Where teachers have to be consistent and can't unilaterally decide to withhold information from parents?

But teachers are there to encourage students to pursue their passions, and also to create a safe environment where that can be done.

No they aren't. They are supposed to teach our youth the basics of our worlds understanding through objective studies like math, science, history, english. They are not meant to push the kids in any which way. And they are failing at their basic duties to the parents and kids. We spend 30% more per student than our peer countries, and getting terrible results. Once that happens, I'd be more willing to talk about teachers and kids having secret gender dysphoria sessions.

The government protecting a fetus is the government taking away a woman’s right to her own life and body.

One could easily argue that the government letting the woman end the fetus' life is ruining the fetus' right to his/her own life and body.

If you want the government to force women to literally risk their lives for 9 months you’re putting a pile of cells’s rights above a woman’s.

1. the likelihood of a life risking event is fairly rare, and I'm for exceptions to that
2. Your first sentence says that even if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protected, your reply would be the same, so why'd you switch your terminology back? You should have said "You're putting a human life that should be protected above a woman's" - once again, you try and pull this emotional terminology rather than being consistent.

Either you see women as humans with equal rights and value as yourself, or you believe a fetus has more rights than a woman.

I think all 3 have equal rights, and that none of us should be able to end the life of the others.

The only other possibility is you are the type who actually does want the government to force people to donate blood and organs

I agree, it's a tough moral dilemma, which makes it hard to have honest conversations about this. That's the biggest argument on the pro-choices corner, in my opinion. But the fact that it's the mothers intentional actions that brought the life to the world makes me lean towards the pro-life side. Contraceptives are easily accessible, I'm for policies that make them available freely to all women. I'm for policies that increase sexual education on pregnancies. I'm for increased funding to the adoptive care system along with foster care systems. I'm for policies ensuring proper healthcare for pregnant women.

I wish more republicans will say this - if we want to be pro life - reduce unwanted pregnancies, provide care to pregnant women and fund options for the baby if they want to provide that baby to a more willing family.

You believe that.

Many don't.

Does that make them enslavers to women?

Say they can survive outside the womb at 6 months. That's the point that you say 'okay, no more killing this being'?

Doesn’t mean that Jews engineered it in collaboration with the Chinese government.

Nobody said jews and chinese engineered it.

The whole point of the convo is there is a reasonable likeliness it was a lab leak, and you deny it straight up 100%. You're being anti-science.

Let’s play out this example - your 2 year old niece is sick, and so are you.

My actions didn't bring her into this world. That's a huge difference.

But in your current state, the transplant is very risky

I agree there should always be exceptions for cases like these.

I don’t agree with your belief that a potential life is the same as a life, but let’s set that aside - I can respect that as a belief

You see it as a potential life, I see it as a whole life. I thank you for understanding that it's reasonable one might have this believe.

Should you be able to force someone to risk their own for someone else?

See my response above.

There’s always at least some risk of pregnancy turning fatal for the mother. How much danger do you have to be in for the math to check out?

In law there's a lot of 'reasonable' language - would a reasonable person think this is a likely event. In general, pregnancies aren't life risking to mothers.

And also, to what point should politicians with little understanding of medicine be able to deny you care?

If I brought in my twin brother to a doctors office and said 'hey, this guy is really making me sick, can you kill him for me?' I think a reasonable law maker can determine whether that's right or wrong. To some people, there's no difference between the life of you and I, and a fetus.

In this case there absolutely was another human life involved- the twin that’s life was at risk because doctors couldn’t abort the fetus that was going to die within hours of birth anyway. You don’t seem to care about that life.

Agreed! There were 3 lives. I wasn't really talking about this case, more in general.

That user said simply because someones pro-life, that I want to enslave women. That's not true at all, and I'm just saying that's strawmanning our argument, that if you understand it, you would think that morally there could be a question.

Once again, and I'm downvoted to shit because people strawman the argument, I understand your side - do you understand my side?

Interesting, didn't really add anything to the convo.

Reasonable likeliness, homie. Once again, you're just showing how anti-science you are.

Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. First, your two month old niece isn’t about to risk killing you and then die. Second, if she was going to die without you giving her an organ transplant, do you think it’s okay for the government to force you to do that surgery against your will? What about if it wasn’t your niece? What if you’re 10?

I'm not arguing in the case that this post is of.

I was simply saying that no, it's not my goal to enslave women. I just think the fetus is a human life that should be protected.

There is no other human life involved.

I believe there is which is why we're having this debate.

the intention is to result directly in grievous bodily harm and inevitable death of women and girls.

And I believe that what's in their belly is a whole other person to consider their lives.

There is no moral reason for these laws.

If someone believes that a fetus is essentially the same as my 2 month old niece, wouldn't there be a moral reason to not want to them?

I understand your argument despite the hostility, I think if you calmly thought about it, you would think that there could be some moral backing, not that you would believe it or anything, simply that you can see how it could be a moral dilemma.