Texas v abortion
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
Yes, it is.
I notice you didn't answer.
Correct. Now, if you were TheMysteriousGX, I would ask you if not cutting out a fetus is morally equivalent to strapping someone down and harvesting their bodily fluids, since that's the arguement I've been given here like 8 times.
I honestly could argue in good faith forever and never give a more compelling reason to ban abortion than you personally saying this.
If a cancer can survive getting cut out of its host's body, more power to it. It doesn't have the right to stick around it's host's body without consent
Given that a fertilized embryo can and will attach itself to any available surface without regard for its own or its hosts well-being, safety, and survival, there's a lot of times that "cancer" is a more apt analogy than you realize. And yet, conservative politicians are more than happy to force people to carry non-viable pregnancies to term, regardless of the well-being of the pregnant person, seemingly on the hope that a literal miracle happens.
I mean, the fetus develops a heart at some point and that heart begins to beat at some point. Presumably that heartbeat can be measured at some point, at which time you would have a detectable fetal heartbeat. It's just not at 6 weeks.
If you want to argue you have a right to do things without someone calling you bad things, you're going to have a bad time. If you want, tell me when you're having the cancer removed and we can get on Discord or something so I can personally call you a murderer and a whore for having it done. I'm not a "protester outside", but that's really just a matter of logistics - I'm working form home on this one.
We make them labor for a couple of decades to benefit their perpetrator all the damn time (in case you're wondering, I'm referring to child support where the child having been conceived through sexual assault or statutory rape is not considered an excuse for why you shouldn't be made to pay the perpetrator).
its can start a 14 weeks but usually a bit later
If there is a perpetrator, I hope they are in jail thus may not be capable of paying
I find this cancer/abortion debate points weird. It doesn't solve the issue of wanting the government wanting to be involved in determining if people should have (safe) healthy care. That seems abhorrent to me, like who would want the government to ban putting a cast on someone's leg for arbitrary reasons.
Safe and available abortions are extremely useful for people. Arguing for pro-life on the Internet is arguing against abortions being "fine" to do. Maybe you get people to agree that it's a necessary evil that we wish was never done. That's not too far from being against it on principle.
As a personal anecdote it goes to the pile of impossible discussions to have irl (for fun), because people in general are absolutely fine with convenient hypocricy.
Different levels of development are quite important though. If you destroy a thousand acorns, no-one takes you to task for deforestation.
I mean, there's a good chance that they should. When adult trees die off in a place where people trample all the acorns and saplings to death, you're left with just as barren a field as if you cut down the trees in the first place. I don't think any of this applies to the analogy, but your comment is genuinely ignorant of environmental preservation.
Adding ecology and dendrology to the list of things you think you understand but don't.
You have never made a case for me being wrong on anything, no matter how many times you say so as fact.
Hold on, let me clear cut a forest
www.livestrong.com
How to Cook Acorns So That They're Safe to Eat | Livestrong.com
Find out how to cook acorns so that they're safe to eat. Raw acorns contain bitter tannins, which are toxic to humans as well as to dogs, horses and cattle.
That's because instead of changing your views in light of contradictory evidence, you change the contradictory evidence until it fits your existing views. It's not something to be proud of...
I'm not just saying Buyetyen has never succeeded in changing my mind, they've never made a case. I may not agree with Agema's argument's against me, but Agema makes cases all the time. Buyetyen doesn't do that. They don't provide contradictory evidence. They just pop in to say "hahaha, you so wrong, ppphhhtphpttt".
That's just about one of the most feeble attempts to manufacture a criticism I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. (Not least because 1000 acorns is a small fraction of the annual production of a single mature oak tree). I am genuinely quite embarrassed on your behalf.
The point, however, remains unanswered. Development matters.
The real distinction between life and death really relates to "personhood". And personhood in large part relates to what we could maybe call sapience. You can legally stomp an ant to death but not a dog: the difference is essentially that of the mental capabilities of dogs and ants; and humans with greater cognitive capability merit more protection than dogs. What has minimal capacity to think, (feel), etc. merits relatively little inherent protection, because by being extinguished it has so little to suffer or comphrehend as loss. It is similar logic by which we switch off the life support of the brain dead.
A fetus under 24 weeks cannot think or feel. It literally does not have the nervous system development to do either. It is a bundle of cells that cannot comprehend its own existence, destruction or loss of potential, nor can it suffer. In this sense it is lesser than an ant, never mind a dog. It has no interaction with society: no achievements, no legacy, no personal bonds, and so society has no compelling justification to interfere in the decisions and autonomy of the one person a fetus does affect considerably: the host mother.