• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    10
    edit-2
    1 year ago
    1. who better aside from a doctor and a patient to decide something so critical? A government council created by religious legislation? Haha. Ok.

    And

    1. if it’s murder to abort an embryo sometimes, how can it not be murder other times? That masked zero sense. The entire argument that it is murder falls apart once you allow exceptions.
    • @average650
      link
      -61 year ago

      I would allow exceptions for when the human would die. It is sad then, but more like taking a person off life support. Not allowing these exceptions would be absolutely horrible.

      For exceptions like rape… I am much more conflicted but I am for allowing them. I do not know the right thing here and would be easily swayed. I would allow it not because I think it isn’t killing an innocent, but because I do not understand the trauma a person in that position has gone through and it’s really f’d up. I don’t know … Fortunately, these are very rare cases.

      For something like the mother has cancer and the treatment would kill the child, that’s a tragedy, but I’m not going to blame someone for valuing their own life over someone they haven’t met.

      For other exceptions, I would be half to discuss them.

      I admit that I don’t like the idea of politicians parsing out what is and isn’t allowed. But, we do that already for murder and self defense and manslaughter. This is no different than that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        It’s possible to be against abortion for personal beliefs, and understand that your personal beliefs aren’t the arbiter of the personal health decisions of others, and the laws shouldn’t favor one particular religious idea of life beginning at conception. For most people, including in the works of science life doesn’t begin at conception.

        • @average650
          link
          01 year ago

          It’s possible to be against abortion for personal beliefs, and understand that your personal beliefs aren’t the arbiter of the personal health decisions of others

          Very true, and on other points my political beliefs reflect that. But if I view abortion as killing an innocent person, then it makes sense to seek to outlaw that as it obliterates the safety and rights of another human. For other views, like say that of drugs, the situation is different. I am personally against most drugs. But, that doesn’t mean I support criminalizing the use of all of them.

          For most people, including in the works of science life doesn’t begin at conception.

          But, the beginning of life in this sense isn’t a scientific question. Science can tell be when an embryo could live separately from it’s mother, or when it’s heart starts beating. But, when does it become a living thing? That question isn’t a scientific question at all.

          I agree that there isn’t a consensus on the answer to that question though. But, how do we deal with that? How do we decide what to do when we disagree? Well, that’s what our voting system is for, and I would push for stopping abortion within that framework. When the majority vote against it, it won’t happen, because that’s how the system works. That’s how we decide when we don’t agree. I don’t want to circumvent the system to get what I want (and this is a point on which I think republicans have f’d up. They make laws in bad faith and try to take power in illegitimate ways). I don’t want my opinion to obliterate the opinions of others. But I will vote according to my opinion. This framework is true of every issue.

          Sadly, the choices are so limited, I can not vote for a party that isn’t horrible and wants to stop abortion. The system is very bad. And for the record, I have voted completely for Democrats the last few elections. I would rather vote for third party candidates, but there’s basically no choice there.