the_toast_is_gone @ the_toast_is_gone @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

357

Joined

2 yr. ago

Your eagerness to condemn others for not wanting millions of innocent people to die without being able to articulate why killing everyone else is wrong is really quite telling. As is your use of political labels used by dictators to justify killing innocent people​.

So not answering a meaningless and irrelevant question about ethics is less cowardly than not being able to explain why murder is wrong or why some human beings are not people? If I brought up a question about using magic to kill gnomes, would you take it seriously?

In political science, a reactionary or a reactionist is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante—the previous political state of society—which the person believes possessed positive characteristics that are absent from contemporary society.

Roe v. Wade was the status quo for decades, and it sounds like you want to return to it. Therefore, if I'm a reactionary, you're a reactionary too.

Oh, and how did Mao feel about alleged "reactionaries"?

All were publicly humiliated and detained for varying periods, sometimes under very harsh conditions; many were beaten and tortured, and not a few were killed or driven to suicide.

Oh... I certainly don't want that for anyone.

I should think it's more cowardly to insult people without explaining why they're wrong. Are you so deep in you own pro-genocide propaganda that you can't even articulate why murder is wrong? And if it's so cowardly to not respond, then why are you not responding to my questions? Are you calling yourself a coward? If so, I mean, you said it, not me.

I have just as much ground to call you a reactionary over your reframing of genocide as "healthcare," which is apparently such an obvious position that you don't know how to defend it.

So if they're not people, then what are they? Can you define what a person is without it being completely arbitrary?

Projection, as usual

Says the guy calling me a Nazi because I hate genocide.

It's a good thing we have dialysis machines so this entire argument is moot, along with organ donations. If the entire premise of the argument is nonsensical, then so would any response to it. Millions of people dying every year is a thing that really happens. I take it you won't deny they're people, but somehow it's okay to kill them?

Also. "reactionary" was a title used by people like Mao Zedong to justify persecuting and killing innocent people, so that's a little clue about how you really feel on the topic of murder.

Tell me, how is killing innocent people healthcare? If a human being isn't a person, then what is? If killing innocent people isn't wrong, then why do we outlaw murder?

So born babies aren't people either? They're not very autonomous. Nor are comatose people.

You're reframing the issue to justify killing millions of people every year. Why? It's not like those lives magically appear in a faraway land on earth once they're ended in the United States.

The article says what would have saved her life, so I didn't think that was at issue here. But alright. It was good talking to you, and I hope you have a good day.

How is killing millions of innocent people every year not genocide? If they're not people, then can you define "person"? Dehumanizing people to justify killing them was a tactic the Nazis used, too. It's a favorite of people who protest in favor of abortion.

Yes. If someone is going to die soon after the problem is discovered, it's an emergency. I don't think this is a controversial claim. If someone gets hit by a car or has a stroke and has days to live, that doesn't mean we hold off on providing healthcare so they survive the incident.

The lawyers/judges would want to throw physicians in prison? And as of 2023, no doctors had actually been arrested for doing this. Actually, at least one got a case dismissed after the fact.

I wouldn't "want" that, and besides, the law would have allowed that in this case. This is a simple medical mistake, the likes of which was the third leading cause of death in 2018.

And far more human beings die when abortions are legal. You can "reframe" that however you want it, but that's a fact. Unless you'd like to argue that fetuses/babies aren't human? Or are you going to apply an arbitrary standard of "personhood" to protect your genocidal ideas?

I'm not a medical expert either, but I rely very heavily on physicians to remain alive. You and I both have a vested interest in our doctors treating us well. This looks like a tragic case of a medical error. This was, in 2018, the leading cause of death in America. It's not a huge stretch of the imagination. Even given the requirement to document it, with over a dozen people saying it would have been correct, it seems like it would be a very simple matter to prove in before a judge that it was necessary. The law also seems more geared towards collecting anonymous statistics as well.

They're relying on a lot of external support that could be given to other people. They're often given organ transplants (for which there can be years-long waiting list), blood, etc. that might all be used on someone else. Difficult decisions often have to be made about their viability. Regardless of that, we respect their right to life until it's absolutely clear that they won't survive.

But we have "over a dozen" medical experts who say it would have been the correct decision, and the law explicitly allows it. If it's so obvious that over a dozen experts who never spoke to the patient could know it was the right decision, then how does a competent doctor actually interacting with the patient not know that?

I am interrogating what happened. The law allows abortions in cases of medical emergency. Lots of people die because of medical errors every year. It's not hard to connect the dots.

Do comatose people have bodily autonomy?

From the article:

At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.

This would mean it was legal to perform an abortion. They should have known about this risk.

Alright, since you want me to say what it was, it sounds like a medical error to me.

The physician believed that a medical emergency had taken place, and therefore it would have been legal. And would you rather face legal consequences, or watch someone die in front of you because you could help them but didn't?

Or you could save your patient's life. The laws state if the physician believes there's a medical emergency.

How is allowing abortions during medical emergencies intimidating? That should be reassuring.

To your second point, what about the fetus/baby's bodily autonomy? Surely that should be respected as well if it's likely to survive.