Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    81 year ago

    If you think “The fetus is a human life that should be protected” by the government, my reply would be exactly the same. It’s no different. The government protecting a fetus is the government taking away a woman’s right to her own life and body. Whatever grey areas exist in the debates that have gone on over the decades, this is not grey area. It’s black and white.

    If I told you I wanted the government to protect homeless people’s right to live by forcing you to donate blood, I’m putting the homeless person’s rights above yours. 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. There is no fallacy here, there is no “but what about”, it’s plain and simple. Either you see women as humans with equal rights and value as yourself, or you believe a fetus has more rights than a woman. The only other possibility is you are the type who actually does want the government to force people to donate blood and organs. I met one once, quite the lunatic.

    • MasterOBee Master/King
      link
      -41 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        No, not really. Unless you’re going to argue some stranger on the street who needs an organ donated to live is having their rights infringed by the government not forcing you to give them your organs to save them. The only difference is the location of the “human”. Also, regardless, if you are making this argument, then either you’re still saying the fetus has more rights than the woman, or the government shouldn’t intervene because both have equal rights.

        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.

        I don’t believe a fetus is a human. But sure, put the word human there instead, 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.

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

        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?

        But the fact that it’s the mothers intentional actions that brought the life to the world

        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. Contraceptives aren’t 100% effective. Rape is a thing. Hell, humans make mistakes sometimes. 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. 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 are zero implemented policies that would force someone to feed someone else who’s dying, shelter them, donate blood to them, or do anything that would keep them alive. And I doubt you would argue for them if there were.

        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.

        This is fine, but what’s not fine is supporting government policies that force the decision on women. Especially blanket ones with no exceptions.

        • MasterOBee Master/King
          link
          -11 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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 woman aborting a fetus is ending it’s life any more than refusing to feed someone starving on the street. Maybe you could debate that, but it’s so cut and dry to me that it’s just so hard to see the other arguments as compelling.

            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.

            Awful analogy. Your intention in softball is to hit the ball. The intention in sex is to follow your human instinct and desire towards pleasure.

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

            There 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.

            Did I say that?

            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. So by arguing in favor of more restrictions, you are indeed saying that.

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

            Okay, but that argument isn’t in a vacuum. By forcing the decision, you’re choosing which life you respect more. The baby or the woman carrying. If I truly believed a fetus was a human, I would still say the government doesn’t get to choose who’s rights are more important. Also, as a matter of opinion I would still say the woman who is actually alive and has an actual brain and memories and experience should actually have more rights than the fetus.

            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? Actually good counterpoint I hadn’t thought of. In my opinion it’s still different and a very special case because you’re the legal guardian in that case. If someone drops a baby off at your doorstep and you don’t feed it and it dies, there aren’t legal protections there.

            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.

            Then why aren’t republicans fighting to stop people pulling the plug on life support? Every day thousands of people who can’t consent are taken off life support because they’re brain dead or because their insurance won’t pay for it any more. Yes, that moral question is valid to ask. What’s not valid is forcing the choice on others based on your own personal beliefs, especially if you acknowledge that the topic is debatable.

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

            I thought you had, but I couldn’t find it for some reason so I went under the assumption you thought otherwise. Here’s the thing about this though, we already have term limits and restrictions pretty much everywhere. Banning abortions with exceptions is already a won battle. There are so many other issues, the very fact that people care so much about this one particular issue is sexist on its own. No republican is talking about water supply quality, about domestic terrorism, about the atrocities being committed at our borders, homelessness, police brutality, school shootings, veterans being denied healthcare they were promised, companies extorting people with things like insulin prices or healthcare costs in general, climate change, asbestos, literal slavery in our prisons, actual Nazis rallying, the fact that the people died in the insurrection. They’re focused on ruining the lives of women over clumps of cells that don’t even have brains.

            • MasterOBee Master/King
              link
              -11 year ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                41 year ago

                Damn it Lemmy deleted my reply.

                I had a whole lot to say, but I’ll just reply to the last point, at this point we’re disagreeing on the same things on repeat anyway.

                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.

                I wouldn’t go as far as saying slavery, especially since we do have forced prison labor protected by the constitution. But it is stripping women of many of their rights. I don’t think holding pro-life beliefs is a bad thing, or makes you a bad person. I do think holding the belief that the government should enforce your religious beliefs on others is pretty awful though. I’m making the assumption that it’s religious, because I have never heard of someone thinking a fetus is a human before it has a brain who wasn’t also religious. Apologies if I’m wrong on that. But I firmly, strongly, without a doubt believe that a woman should have the right to make the choice for herself, and that your beliefs shouldn’t prevent her from having her own beliefs, or her doctors from having their own beliefs.

                I realized something recently, too. Conservatives aren’t anti-government like they claim they are. They’re anti “not-their-government”. Conservatives don’t care if state governments stomp all over the constitution, they only care if the Federal government does. As a leftist, I don’t want any government stepping on anyone’s rights, state or Federal, and I believe the rights guaranteed by the constitution are above state law.

                • MasterOBee Master/King
                  link
                  -1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

          • @dragonflyteaparty
            link
            11 year ago

            That’s the thing with exceptions. They’re very hard to legislate.

            Rape exceptions might as well not exist. Laws I’ve heard on this require the rape to be proven in the court of law. Even putting aside the fact that most rape cases are never processed and prosecuted, there’s a very low likelihood that the case will conclude before the pregnancy does, thus rendering the exception useless.

            Exceptions for medical complications are also very hard to legislate because you have to decide when is the woman dying enough to be able to save her life. Is it when we are losing her now? When she’ll die tomorrow? Next week? Dying now means risking that she won’t survive the treatment or if she does, that she’ll lose her fertility in the process. Is that acceptable? The much higher chance of, in your view, losing two lives rather than one? I would argue no. This is exactly what led to these situations: women forced to endure trauma because doctors are terrified of life in jail if someone decides that the woman wasn’t in “enough danger” or “in danger at all”. I don’t see any way around this outcome.

            Third, I’ve only seen one state that allowed an exception for nonviability of a fetus. In all the other states I’ve seen, women have to carry doomed fetuses who will die shortly after birth. I can’t imagine the trauma of that. Isn’t it more merciful to allow those women to abort?

            • MasterOBee Master/King
              link
              11 year ago

              Rape exceptions might as well not exist.

              I think you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater then.

              Laws I’ve heard on this require the rape to be proven in the court of law.

              I’m not too knowledgeable about the language of rape exceptions in many states. My state is pretty liberal, so that’s not something I have in my state. I, along with others, think a good alternative could be that any woman who had a rape kit, or reported a rape (which I believe is the law in some states?). I’d even go 1 step further, I’d say that any woman that claims the baby is a result of rape, is allowed to have an abortion (up to some, fairly liberal point in the pregnancy, say 20 weeks for examples).

              Exceptions for medical complications are also very hard to legislate because you have to decide when is the woman dying enough to be able to save her life.

              I agree, it’s a tough line! if there’s a 1% chance, is that high enough? 2%? 20%?

              A lot of law says ‘reasonable persons’ - I think if a reasonable person would think there would be a high enough threshold of risk to the mothers health, that’s fine. It’s up to a jury of her peers, and court precedence. Many items in our law have these as gauges of what’s ‘reasonable.’

              Third, I’ve only seen one state that allowed an exception for nonviability of a fetus. In all the other states I’ve seen, women have to carry doomed fetuses who will die shortly after birth. I can’t imagine the trauma of that. Isn’t it more merciful to allow those women to abort?

              I don’t know enough about the states laws, that sounds wrong to me, but maybe it’s right. I disagree with that, if the baby is already dead, there’s no reason for a woman to endure the pregnancy further.

              • @dragonflyteaparty
                link
                01 year ago

                I appreciate your reply, but I was talking about his things actually played out. But the idealized version where every exception case is allowed. This is how it’s played out. This article forcing people into traumatic experiences. I was talking about how it’s really hard to legislate for, not the most idealized version. Please, recognize that banning abortion unduly hurts people rather than actually saves people. Exceptions aren’t really exceptions with the real, current requirements to take advantage of them. They are just lip service and a shield to hide behind.

      • @Cabrio
        link
        31 year ago

        To have individual rights, one must first be individual. If you don’t know the definition of individual, pick up a dictionary.

        • MasterOBee Master/King
          link
          -21 year ago

          You act like just because a couple words are related it’s a ‘gotcha’ I can run with individual rights or human rights, or I can argue that definitions of words have no meaning besides conveying information, and they are actually fluid (see how the definition of ‘woman’ has changed).

          Which would you like me to argue?

          • @Cabrio
            link
            31 year ago

            Congratulations, add context and nuance to the list of words you have no comprehension of. Your words have no meaning so I have interpreted them to say that you agree that you stance is inviable.