Roe V Wade overturned!

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

China Joe wrote:

Thanks for proving the point I made in my second paragraph. You are claiming that people are only deserving of life if elicit sympathy from you. Your morality judgements are based on your emotions at the time. Probably also tops the comment about there being too many people as the most psychopathic thing somebody has said on this tread.

So I’m a psychopath who bases my morality judgements on my emotions at the time. Inherently contradictory. If you thought zygotes were tiny humans, you would be baffled by how many die of natural causes. It’s basically a plague of miscarriages. The fact that we don’t talk about that at all or dedicate large amounts of resources to fixing that problems shows you what humanity thinks of zygotes. It’s really no different to me than the sperm or egg on its own.

Side note, humanity should be having more sex, not less. Sex is overwhelmingly a good thing. Brings people together. Birth control should be free and available to teenagers. I’m tired of pretending sex is bad because god said so.

China Joe wrote:

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

So I’m a psychopath who bases my morality judgements on my emotions at the time. Inherently contradictory. If you thought zygotes were tiny humans, you would be baffled by how many die of natural causes. It’s basically a plague of miscarriages. The fact that we don’t talk about that at all or dedicate large amounts of resources to fixing that problems shows you what humanity thinks of zygotes. It’s really no different to me than the sperm or egg on its own.

Side note, humanity should be having more sex, not less. Sex is overwhelmingly a good thing. Brings people together. Birth control should be free and available to teenagers. I’m tired of pretending sex is bad because god said so.

Dying of natural causes is not the same as being killed. I don't know why that's so hard to figure out.

consistentthinking wrote:

For years, people have been saying that pro-life people are attacking women's rights. I think this whole argument is unfair and essentially gaslighting. Pro-life people say "I believe life begins at conception. Since taking a life is murder, abortion is murder." This is what essentially they believe. Now, most of them ( in fact, literally all of the ones I know) believe abortion is okay and necessary when the mother's life is in danger or something went wrong and the baby isn't going to live, would be brain dead, die immediately after birth, etc.

It's a very simply position to understand given there's more or less a universal consensus that murder is wrong. BUT, there's no universal consensus on when life begins and there never will be. So we have to think about what's reasonable. I don't think its reasonable for one to say that birth control should be illegal because it's essentially killing life that may happen. Yes, if you didn't use birth control, then the sperm could have reached the egg, and life could have developed. But you're also admitting there's no creature that's been created with 46 chromosomes so it's not "murdering a human" to use birth control- it's "preventing a human".

But I think it's reasonable for someone to say that life begins at conception. I mean, its biologically a human. It has 46 chromosomes, DNA, everything. You can literally see the baby moving around in the ultrasound and hear the heartbeat. Of course, people may disagree, and that's fine. Personally, I can understand how someone could define life as "being viable" or even "exiting the womb".

But, pro-choice people tend to tell pro-life people "No! You don't believe the baby is a human life, you simply want to control women's bodies." Pro-choice people continue to repeatedly say that pro-life people don't actually believe the fetus is a human life, or that pro-life people only believe that because they've deluded themselves to fit their narrative and fulfill their core desire for power and controlling women. Pro-choice people essentially try to make pro-life people feel evil for their beliefs, and feel bad for fighting for the protection of life or that is their fault people have unwanted pregnancies because they didn't do enough to support sex education, pregnancy support programs, supporting poor, single mothers, supporting adoption clinics and foster-care systems, etc.. This is pretty much textbook gaslighting. In addition, most of the time, you don't even know that person so how the heck do you know what they support. And 2nd, even if all that's true, murder would still be wrong- so it wouldn't change their opinion. (Hopefully the person would care about all the other stuff, but it doesn't address where life begins).

This doesn't mean you have to agree with pro-life people. But stop with the gaslighting and actually argue their main concern. Prove to them that defining life is difficult and that since there's no consensus, you believe people should be able decide for themselves. If you acknowledge that you actually understand they are trying to protect life, you may actually get somewhere. (And with the same logic, pro-life people have to understand that pro-choice people don't view it as murder and are instead just making sure everyone has the ability to make the decisions they feel are best for them.. if the pro-life person feels inclined, they can try to persuade them why life actually begins at conception. Simply holding a sign calling someone a murderer outside an abortion clinic isn't going to do it and honestly just discredits pro-life people).

China Joe wrote:

Wise Old Man wrote:

I’d like to ask those with an anti abortion stance whether:

1) Should couples who have created fertilized embryos be able to discard them or must they be frozen indefinitely if not used, or do these embryos have a right to be implanted in somebody’s uterus?

2) Should it be illegal for a potential living organ donor, be it kidney, liver or even bone marrow, to refuse donation that would save somebody’s life?

1) Interesting question, but depending on how they were discarded, I don't think that would be equivalent to intentionally terminating a growing person. I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could create a system to minimize this from occurring.

2) Again, what we're talking about when it comes to abortion is intentionally ending a life. If you choose not to give someone medical care, while not morally ideal, is not the same as intentionally killing them. If you don't do the transplant and the person dies of natural causes, that is a natural failure of their own body and not the fault of another person.

China Joe wrote:

Wise Old Man wrote:

I’d like to ask those with an anti abortion stance whether:

1) Should couples who have created fertilized embryos be able to discard them or must they be frozen indefinitely if not used, or do these embryos have a right to be implanted in somebody’s uterus?

2) Should it be illegal for a potential living organ donor, be it kidney, liver or even bone marrow, to refuse donation that would save somebody’s life?

1) Interesting question, but depending on how they were discarded, I don't think that would be equivalent to intentionally terminating a growing person. I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could create a system to minimize this from occurring.

2) Again, what we're talking about when it comes to abortion is intentionally ending a life. If you choose not to give someone medical care, while not morally ideal, is not the same as intentionally killing them. If you don't do the transplant and the person dies of natural causes, that is a natural failure of their own body and not the fault of another person.