• NightAuthor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I don’t see how they can see it so black and white if they don’t consider a firtilized egg to be a full living human.

        I think anything else would necessitate conceding that it’s a complicated issue, with lots of grey area, which I don’t think any forced-birther I’ve talked to has conceded.

      • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t kill the fertilized eggs! Unless the brown person carrying them doesn’t believe the way you want them to believe. Then go nuts.

    • Toastypickle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let me guess, you didn’t watch the clip where he explains it’s a complex issue that should be viewed from all angles and not just life and death. If you’re so worried about death then consider the women who’s lives are in danger because they have to endure a non viable pregnancy to term because a bunch of politicians have no concept of medical care.

    • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Is your belief that life begins at conception religiously founded?

      The Bible prescribes an abortion (which would be murdering an innocent bystander, if the fetus was a person) as the punishment for adultery (Numbers 5).

      Oddly, before 1980, there was no majority Christian consensus on when life began. When Roe v Wade dropped, the largest evangelical denomination called it, “a distinctly Catholic issue”.

      For the vast majority of Christian history it was generally held that life began at the quickening, the first time the mother felt the baby kick. This was considered the moment of ensoulment, literally when the soul entered the body.

      Unfortunately, due to the antisemitic influence of Rome hijacking Christianity, that’s a very Greek and neo-platonic view of when life began.

      In Hebrew, spirit (ruach) means wind; the invisible force that brings life, the breath of God. Soul (naphesh) just means throat, it is the channel by which we breath in the life of God. So as many ancient and modern Jews believe, as would the early christians, life begins at first breath.

      Of course, we’re not bound to ancient views, which is why Roe v Wade determined viability outside the womb would be the standard point of protection, which is makes a lot of sense.

      You are free to believe that life begins at conception. This is an issue people have discussed and debated for as long as we’ve been alive.

      You can’t believe that your view is explicitly taught by the Bible or is even the view of the majority of Christians for most of history.

      The evangelical view of life beginning at conception began in the late 70’s as a political wedge issue that tested incredibly well with audiences so people like Jerry Falwell began beating the drum in order to build political clout.

      • Throwaway@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        61
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m agnostic. I believe that a fetus has a right to life, same as anyone else. The situation is a bit complicated, sure, but the right to life is pretty basic.

        • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then viability seems an eminently reasonable threshold. If you’re agnostic, there’s no intrinsic value to a clump of cells. If the fetus is capable of surviving on its own but can’t by virtue of being stuck in place it deserves protection.

          Of course, when it’s threatening the life of the mother then even though there’s no malice or intent, it is legally justifiable to treat it as we would anyone else who would threaten a woman’s life.

        • Tyfud@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It has no life to have a right to until it’s born.

          Go ahead and tell me about all the experiences you had in your mother’s womb. About the goals and aspirations you had before you came out. Tell me about your experiences, your emotional fortitude, hell, tell me anything at all about the time before you were born, from your perspective.

          A fetus does not have a right to life, but the mother does.

          Your views are getting real people with all their dreams, aspirations, goals, hopes, etc. killed, just so you can feel a warped sense of false moral superiority for a few minutes on the Internet.

          • Throwaway@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            44
            ·
            1 year ago

            The next time some lemmy user says no one is wanting 3rd trimester abortions, Im going to link your comment. Its not going to do anything but waste time, but its going to be funny.

            • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No one who carries a fetus to the third trimester wants an abortion. Almost all third trimester abortions are health emergencies for women who are trying to be mothers.

              The idea that anyone would carry a pregnancy to the point your body is undergoing irrevocable changes just because they couldn’t be bothered to get around to it is absurd.

              A third trimester abortion is painful, traumatic and difficult compared to a drug-induced first trimester abortion.

            • Tyfud@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              This isn’t the winning strategy you think it is.

              I’d explain it, but I don’t have the time or crayons for you.

        • Kemwer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          Everyone also has the fundamental right to bodily autonomy. You can’t even force someone to do something as harmless as donate their blood, but somehow some people feel it’s just fine to hold a woman hostage and force her to host another living being, even if that might cause them terrible health issues or even their deaths… even if the “woman” in question is a child victim of sexual abuse… even if they don’t give a rat’s ass what happens to that child after birth, and will just being another child to be abused and left to die.

          If you cared about the right to life, you would support the right to women and their doctors to make the best choices for their lives, and the lives of the children that will still need to be cared AFTER being born. Sorry, but you don’t care about fetuses, you care about controlling women.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m for small government and personal rights. So I’m pro choice, because I don’t think big government should be forcing their people to do things they don’t want.

      • Throwaway@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        70
        ·
        1 year ago

        Im also for small government and personal rights. But I firmly believe murder should be a crime.

            • M137@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Try to use your brain like a grown person and not have strong opinions on things that you clearly know very little about. Anyone that knows what abortion really is, when and why it’s done doesn’t think it’s murder. You also completely ignore the life quality of the children that are forced to be born with physical and/or mental problems, parents that can’t afford to give them even the basics, the mental and physical strain that can kill both child and mother etc.

              You are a deeply shitty and stupid person and you would do everyone a favor by learning even the basics of things you have opinions about, or shutting the hell up.

        • Tyfud@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not what murder is, and you know it.

          Stop it with this weak rhetoric.

            • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              YOU are a murderer.

              My sister was bleeding to death from an incomplete miscarriage of a very much wanted pregnancy in Ohio ten years ago. You know how they fix that problem? The exact same medical procedure that is used for elective abortion.

              You would have preferred that my sister bleed to death or die of sepsis for no reason. You are trying to murder my sister.

              In case you think that doesn’t really happen:

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

              “On 21 October 2012, Halappanavar, then 17 weeks pregnant, was examined at University Hospital Galway after complaining of back pain, but was soon discharged without a diagnosis. She returned to the hospital later that day, this time complaining of lower pressure, a sensation she described as feeling “something coming down”, and a subsequent examination found that the gestational sac was protruding from her body. She was admitted to hospital, as it was determined that miscarriage was unavoidable, and several hours later, just after midnight on 22 October, her water broke but did not expel the fetus.[8]: 22–26 [8]: 29 [9] The following day, on 23 October, Halappanavar discussed abortion with her consulting physician but her request was promptly refused, as Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a fetal heartbeat was still present.[8]: 33 [10] Afterwards, Halappanavar developed sepsis and, despite doctors’ efforts to treat her, had a cardiac arrest at 1:09 AM on 28 October, and died, aged 31”

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          “small government” meaning “I decide what is murder, your opinions and beliefs don’t matter, and I’m not willing to hear your arguments against it”.

    • sederx
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      people should be allowed to murder whatever is growing inside them.

      • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is one of those interesting things. If we accept OP’s premise for the sake of argument… then what does that really change? Society accepts that people can be lawfully killed on purpose given the “right” circumstances (e.g.: criminal punishment, war combat, equivocal self-defense). We generally don’t like it, but we do fundamentally accept that human life is on the negotiating table when justified.

        That’s what irks me about the murder label. We already willfully choose to end human lives, irrevocably destroying a vast collection of lived experiences and social connections in the process. What is destroyed when an unborn child dies? A life which knows nobody, understands nothing, and thinks/feels at best at a level no more complex than animals which we routinely slaughter without a second thought. One might argue that the life itself contains some unknowable potential for these things, but that theoretical future potential comes at the price of the mother’s current potential and freedoms.

        The way I see it, the position is inherently precious. It fears the label of murder without caring to consider why the label exists. A philosophy so myopically focused on keeping one’s own moral hands clean that the term “second order consequence” may as well be written in hieroglyphics.

        • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In that same line of thinking, anti-abortionists are likely staunch supporters of the military, the death penalty, and gun rights for murder as self defense.

          So which is it: is life precious or isn’t it? When is a life undeserving of protection? From birth? 5 years? 18 years?

          The rights of the unborn shouldn’t precede the rights of the life being lived by the mother.

    • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whenever a woman has her period it should be considered murder and her IMPRISONED!

        • JackOfAllTraits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          As an actual father-in-waiting - no it is not. That little thing is going to be a human, maybe. Not a human yet.

        • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you consider it mass murder when you ejaculate? All that sperm can be considered people by your logic. Is a woman having her period or a miscarriage murder? After all, all of those cells or dead fetuses she’s purging are clearly people. If a fetus, which is a parasitic clump of cells that isn’t conscious and depends on the host to survive, is considered a person, then by your logic, so is sperm, eggs, miscarried fetuses, and even cancer.

          • Throwaway@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            28
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why do leftists keep asking that? At first, I thought it was just a one-off dumbass, but now its way past that point.

            And sperm are not fetuses.

            • Statick
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              My mother has three children but had four pregnancies. She unfortunately can’t give birth naturally and needed C-sections. The complications that come with C-sections get greater each time and doctors (at least at the time) heavily recommended against more than three C-sections.

              She had to terminate her third pregnancy because the fetus didn’t develop properly and the babies spine wasn’t connected. He would have lived for maybe 30 seconds before dying an incredibly painful death if brought to term. My youngest sibling wouldn’t be here if she needed to bring that baby to full term.

              Overturning Roe v Wade is already putting thousands in similar situations or worse, like the examples brought up in John Oliver’s segment.

              You don’t oppose murder. You support suffering.

            • Kekzkrieger@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              idk what it is with you americans but why does everything have to be about politics.

              Don’t need to put a label to everything that is bad in your opinion. Its your opinion, great, good for you. You don’t have to get an abortion if you don’t like it.

              What is the land of the free where everyone is living their way. Other people are just as American as you are and can do whatever they want to, whether you like it or not.

              Just because drinking is bad and is killing parts of your brain and i dont like it doesnt mean i get to decide if people can get drunk or not.

    • tweeks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A bunch of cells in rapid development with the potential to become a human being. Murder is a strong term, but in a broad sense I don’t think your insinuation is wrong per se.

      This might be getting a bit controversial, but for the sake of discussion:

      The important thing here is, do you mind if that potential for life is taken away. In this case we place priority on the human being that eventually has to dedicate her life to that potential. Or is that new potential more important than that already existing, conscious human being (especially when there are physical / mental problems involved)?

      It comes down to why we live, and why must we live? Personally I believe trying to avoid (potential of) suffering is a more reasonable concept.

      If one gives life to a baby, you give it a potential for suffering which it otherwise does not. I’d say the ways one can suffer is of a greater weight than the ways one can be happy. So if you go the route of creating life, you better be damn confident that you are in a good position to do that.

      In that philosophy ‘murdering’ a potential with a large chance of creating more suffering for the collective is not that bad. One might view this differently when the being is conscious and might actively not want to die, as we bring the complexity of individual human choice to the table and what worth that has; but I think we can agree that is not applicable on the unborn potential human being discussed in this topic.

    • Varixable@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I committed so many murders today when I cummed into a paper towel earlier.

      In fact, I’ve probably racked up enough murders to qualify for a genocide.

      And I LOVED it.

      Hail Pazuzu