The future does not require violating people's rights for "the unborn".
Texas v abortion
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
It is when pregnant people are literally the only people forced by the government to donate blood and tissue to another. The dead cannot be forced into that
But hey, you're equating pregnancy with punishment for violent crime, so...
My stance has been "completely morally heinous" to people that consider pregnancy a punishment for impropriety for over a hundred years now, so...Mr Time Traveler, when can we expect those autonomous wombs?
I also eat meat, prefer paper books, like leather goods, think that cats should be indoor cats only, want to tax churches, like pineapple on pizza, and only object to capitalism insofar as it's gone completely off the rails. If future peoples don't find me reprehensible for something or another, then future peoples do not exist
Last edited:
I never claimed to want to stop abortions. I just said that to me they are morally wrong, not they should be banned. I can understand why some people would want to ban them though because of the morals. It's too much in the personal belief realm for me to consider imposing said belief on others. I don't get what you are really arguing to me personally as I'm not really for the Texas law, it's just that I understand why such things come up and if it's not completely against federal law, then it's lawful.
IIRC, my analogy was based on Trunkage's argument of saving a kid from an unloved, abusive home (any kind of high chance for a bad life basically) and my point is if that's the outcome you want to avoid, then how is it any different if the kid is a 5 month old fetus vs 1 year old baby? The use of one's body for another is a different debate, but like I said previously, I doubt anyone would find a 9 month abortion moral unless it was some very specific and odd circumstance. I doubt anyone would find a woman just not wanting to poop in front of someone reason to abort their baby. I find the "you must be able to live on your own" argument rather poor as a 1 year old can't live on their own either, though it doesn't require another body directly. Should the emergency button thing for old people when they fall be banned because they need another body to help them to continue living? Euthanasia is still a debate and illegal in places so comparing abortion to euthanasia to say abortion should be legal isn't really a sound argument.
That's not a uniqueness in law. That's a uniqueness in circumstance. With the fringe possibility of conjoined twins that are interdependent, pregnancy is the only natural scenario where one person is dependent on a bodily connection to another. Expecting the laws in a wholly unique circumstance to all others to compare cleanly to all other laws is unreasonable. The laws around pregnancy will always by certain arguments be the only situation where something is the case, because no other situation matches pregnancy.
Again, you cannot compel a corpse to give up its blood, tissue, or organs without permission, but you are more than willing force a living person to do so in this narrow instance. You are willing to force an actual living person who has committed no crime or fault to do something you would claim is a human rights violation if we did it to violent criminals.
You cannot ethically force somebody to give up some bone marrow to save somebody else's life, and that's an order of magnitude less painful, damaging, permanently altering, and dangerous than forcing somebody to go through pregnancy to save somebody's life.
And *that's* if I even humor the idea that a fetus is a full fledged person to begin with.
:watermark(cdn.texastribune.org/media/watermarks/2021.png,-0,30,0)/static.texastribune.org/media/files/8216ec909b8ada05ff0cc929dacfd1b3/Womens%20Health%20Clinic%20%20SS%20TT%2009.jpg)
U.S. Justice Department sues Texas over new abortion law that Attorney General Merrick Garland calls unconstitutional
Garland called the law a "scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States." It prohibits the procedure before many people know that they are pregnant.
www.texastribune.org
Justice department is suing Texas over the law.
I get Texas is some backwards 3rd world state and hate almost everyone, and that this law was passed specifically to get the supreme court to rule on it, but I still don't get how the laws regarding laws being passed allow for a law that is expressing unenforceable and openly, specifically unconstitutional. Like I dunno, it would seem one of the rules regarding passage of laws would be "law must be in keeping with other US law and enforceable"U.S. Justice Department sues Texas over new abortion law that Attorney General Merrick Garland calls unconstitutional
Garland called the law a "scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States." It prohibits the procedure before many people know that they are pregnant.
Justice department is suing Texas over the law.
Like can any state just pass any law they want? Ohio declares rape no longer illegal, and just expects all other states to respect it? Or Kansas outlaws the name James, and asks all states to turn over everyone named James for at best forced name change, and then gives its own citizens permission to go across state lines and round up all the Jameses? Like I don't get how there aren't rules and laws in place to prevent a law this blatantly...illegal from being passed.
Ahh, but if the Supreme Court rules their way, their blatantly unconstitutional law is no longer unconstitutional
Don't worry, don't even need to go that far, as I find your position reprehensible right now...
...goddamn pizza ruiner...
Arguably, there's not a problem there - at least as long as the rape occurs in Ohio, in which in case it goes unpunished. And presumably Ohio will become a very popular place with sex attackers.
The sweet goes with pork and the acid cuts through the gumminess of the cheese and grease, it's the perfect combination.
Then again, I'm culturally disconnected from anybody who actually cares about the proper noun of Pizza, leaving me free to enjoy atrocities. The Polynesian is Canadian bacon, pineapple, toasted almonds, and mandarin oranges
To be fair though, I go to a pizza place nearby and almost always get a slice that's white pizza with an entire chicken caesar salad on top, so I wouldn't call me a traditionalist on pizza.
To be fair though, I go to a pizza place nearby and almost always get a slice that's white pizza with an entire chicken caesar salad on top, so I wouldn't call me a traditionalist on pizza.
MacKenzie River | Pizza, Grill & Pub
www.mackenzieriverpizza.com
So, I really hate the term "pro-life".
These people aren't pro-life in any recognizable form. They're at best selectively and contingently pro-metabolism. The only form of life they are capable of valuing is life that is as worthless and empty their own, the mindless automatic process of cellular metabolism. All other forms of life they truly, truly despise. They are bitter, envious little creatures who rail against and deny life at every turn, because life in all its numinous wonder and horror continuously challenges their fundamental commitment to mediocrity.
People like to think of abortion as 'killing' a foetus, but it's not. The abortionist doesn't kill the foetus, once you remove the foetus from the womb it simply dies on its own. There is currently no alternative environment we could provide that could support the life of a foetus outside the womb. When there is, that will be a whole other bioethical dimension to abortion, and it's dependence becomes a bit more comparable to the situation of a young child. But regardless, comparing the natural death of a pre-viable foetus to the deliberate murder of a healthy human being is disingenuous. You don't need to kill the former, it isn't capable of living.
They need someone else's help. That is different. We all have a legal responsibility sometimes to help vulnerable people in specific, contingent situations. But those vulnerable people do not have a right to ownership or control over our bodies just because we are obligated to provide them with help.
There is an epidermal line at which rights become absolute. Sure, you might be legally obligated to call an ambulance for a person who has collapsed with kidney failure, but they don't also have the ability to force you to give up one of your kidneys, even if you could live with one and even if they would die without it. You may have an obligation to try and prevent a person killing themselves, but you don't have an obligation to let them have sex with you to make them feel better. Of all the things that exist on this planet, your body belongs to you and only to you, violating that is violating a fundamental ethical principle of the society we all live in.
And again, I should stress that this is taking the position that a 5 month old foetus is a person. That position is at best questionable and at worst complete nonsense.
Seriously, I'm here for it.
These people aren't pro-life in any recognizable form. They're at best selectively and contingently pro-metabolism. The only form of life they are capable of valuing is life that is as worthless and empty their own, the mindless automatic process of cellular metabolism. All other forms of life they truly, truly despise. They are bitter, envious little creatures who rail against and deny life at every turn, because life in all its numinous wonder and horror continuously challenges their fundamental commitment to mediocrity.
My point was that these aren't really comparable situations.
People like to think of abortion as 'killing' a foetus, but it's not. The abortionist doesn't kill the foetus, once you remove the foetus from the womb it simply dies on its own. There is currently no alternative environment we could provide that could support the life of a foetus outside the womb. When there is, that will be a whole other bioethical dimension to abortion, and it's dependence becomes a bit more comparable to the situation of a young child. But regardless, comparing the natural death of a pre-viable foetus to the deliberate murder of a healthy human being is disingenuous. You don't need to kill the former, it isn't capable of living.
They don't though.
They need someone else's help. That is different. We all have a legal responsibility sometimes to help vulnerable people in specific, contingent situations. But those vulnerable people do not have a right to ownership or control over our bodies just because we are obligated to provide them with help.
There is an epidermal line at which rights become absolute. Sure, you might be legally obligated to call an ambulance for a person who has collapsed with kidney failure, but they don't also have the ability to force you to give up one of your kidneys, even if you could live with one and even if they would die without it. You may have an obligation to try and prevent a person killing themselves, but you don't have an obligation to let them have sex with you to make them feel better. Of all the things that exist on this planet, your body belongs to you and only to you, violating that is violating a fundamental ethical principle of the society we all live in.
And again, I should stress that this is taking the position that a 5 month old foetus is a person. That position is at best questionable and at worst complete nonsense.
That sounds like some fucking cuisine right there.
Seriously, I'm here for it.
Last edited:
Your point that with today's science we cannot bring to term a foetus early in pregnancy using exogenesis I'd think correct, but I doubt even most such foetuses are removed intact. And you've likely heard of later abortions where the fetus is larger, it is cut to pieces and removed part by part. We've read of cases where the fetus is alive when leaving the body and the abortionist kills it. Today we have "born alive" laws in some US jurisdictions.
Yeah, they're born alive, put on life support, then horrifically die of whatever congenital condition they were performing an abortion for in the first place, dramatically increasing the already high cost of childbirth.