Alternative take: People should be able to undertake one of the hardest personal decisions/actions of their life without the chilling effect of others.
If you deny women access to abortion related healthcare, they die. Abortion bans ruin lives, and if you really have to protest abortions (which you shouldn’t), direct your attention towards politicians, instead of harassing women who need healthcare and are already having a horrible time.
The article you posted showed how a woman and her unborn children tragically died from a botched abortion. Her death had little to do with the abortion ban. In fact, if abortion was banned nationally, her life would have been saved.
As for politicians- they don’t listen. So being able to convince these distressed women that there’s other options and help available is our best method.
The great thing is though, it’s completely up to you to choose: If you want to carry a child to term, and have the requisite equipment, you can do so.
If someone else doesn’t want to, that’s their decision too.
Carrying a child to term is the natural outcome most of the time, except from tragic miscarriages. If Abortion was truly autonomy, it wouldn’t require clinics
Because it’s not yet a child. It has the potential to become one, but it isn’t yet. Seriously, you can’t be daft enough not to understand the difference.
That’s exactly the answer given to you above - the line is murky and grey, there is no clear point that everyone agrees is the right point.
In such a circumstance, the right answer is open to interpretation, and the right solution for a society is to accept that the best person to make that decision is the person involved.
If you want my answer, it’s when brain cells develop enough to start looking like a functioning brain (somewhere around 16-20 weeks). Before that it’s just a brain dead mass of cells regardless of how it looks.
Clearly you have a different moment, and that’s fine, but you don’t get to ignore that the issue is open to interpretation. Otoh, I admit that both sides are guilty of trying to railroad a “simple” interpretation as the only right answer, it’s always tempting to force a simple answer and declare the problem solved, it’s harder to let people decide for themselves what the right answer is, but that’s the right thing to do when we as a society cannot reach a consensus, and we certainly don’t seem to have a consensus on this one.
I think the best thing to do is actually making the climate desirable to have children. A lot of abortions happen because “I can’t afford it” “I can’t do it because of education”, better access to contraception, etc. I think childcare should be free if you’re not like- middle-middle class and pregnant women should get child benefit. However, crisis pregnancy centres are also weirdly called out which is strange considering they are wanting to help care for the child.
This still doesn’t change the fact that I cannot see how abortion is moral at all. And it’s the same reason why I don’t think we should let people harm their children. The “my body my choice” thing won’t work with me because I do not consider a foetus part of the woman’s body. I saw an ultrasound of an abortion as well and it was shocking, the foetus actively seemed to be trying to escape it. If you asked a child “do you want to die” the answer would obviously be “no”. I absolutely abhor how people dehumanise foetus as “mass of cells” or even worse “parasite” and make abortion seem like a normal thing. I abhor people who use abortion as a contraceptive method. I abhor people who are calling for “death penalties” for people who get abortions, as most of the time, they aren’t in a good state when they get it.
It is a scientific fact that foetus are human lives - they react to things, have a heartbeat, can feel pain, etc. The anti-science ones are the ones trying to make science say something that agrees with their worldview so people don’t have to face the outcome of their actions.
Just say you were convinced that foetus are human lives - would you still be in favour of abortion?
When we see any evidence that conciseness can even exist at the speed of light. Then the potential of someone’s cells may be argued to outweigh the current desires of a living, independent being.
Until time travel, you are likely to continue to fail to change the law to consider a collection of cells an independent life form before 24 weeks. The rights of the mother, it requires living, currently outweigh those of something unable to survive alone.
Just like my need for a new kidney in no way gives me or the law the right to force you to donate yours against your will.
As for it looking like a human. So does any ape fetus at that time. It has little to do with its total development. Just like when you build the frame of a boat that frame looks boat like. Because all the bits that require a boat to float and run require a frame to be placed in.
Its shape is ion no way a valid argument for its completeness. This is science and law, not art.
More specifically, this is law. And ever since, the ban on abortion was lost. (due to the real death of living humans able to make choices). People of your (no more than religiously defined) opinion have been fighting to change the law. You have failed.
And while you have the right to protest that and feel this way. As I said right at the beginning. You do not have the right to intimidate others following the law rather than protest at parliament to change it.
The value of the law. And your non-scientific definitions of when a human is indeed human. Have no actual relation to the topic of this thread. The history of intimidation of people following the law who do not agree with your views is all that dose.
And if you think they can change people’s mind on those actions by quoting your unfounded ideas.
Honestly, you’re as daft as I am thinking my opinions matter to you. But when you call them scientific. Go fuck off, you are at best uninformed of what the word means and how the scientific process works. And more likely miss informed about the difference between individual facts and proof of a hypothesis being evaluated, challenged and accepted as a theory.
Alternative take: People should be able to undertake one of the hardest personal decisions/actions of their life without the chilling effect of others.
What I don’t understand is why it’s legal to kill your child before it’s born but not after. It doesn’t make sense.
If you deny women access to abortion related healthcare, they die. Abortion bans ruin lives, and if you really have to protest abortions (which you shouldn’t), direct your attention towards politicians, instead of harassing women who need healthcare and are already having a horrible time.
The article you posted showed how a woman and her unborn children tragically died from a botched abortion. Her death had little to do with the abortion ban. In fact, if abortion was banned nationally, her life would have been saved.
As for politicians- they don’t listen. So being able to convince these distressed women that there’s other options and help available is our best method.
The great thing is though, it’s completely up to you to choose: If you want to carry a child to term, and have the requisite equipment, you can do so.
If someone else doesn’t want to, that’s their decision too.
Carrying a child to term is the natural outcome most of the time, except from tragic miscarriages. If Abortion was truly autonomy, it wouldn’t require clinics
Because it’s not yet a child. It has the potential to become one, but it isn’t yet. Seriously, you can’t be daft enough not to understand the difference.
So where is the line drawn? Because it looks like a child to me.
That’s exactly the answer given to you above - the line is murky and grey, there is no clear point that everyone agrees is the right point.
In such a circumstance, the right answer is open to interpretation, and the right solution for a society is to accept that the best person to make that decision is the person involved.
If you want my answer, it’s when brain cells develop enough to start looking like a functioning brain (somewhere around 16-20 weeks). Before that it’s just a brain dead mass of cells regardless of how it looks.
Clearly you have a different moment, and that’s fine, but you don’t get to ignore that the issue is open to interpretation. Otoh, I admit that both sides are guilty of trying to railroad a “simple” interpretation as the only right answer, it’s always tempting to force a simple answer and declare the problem solved, it’s harder to let people decide for themselves what the right answer is, but that’s the right thing to do when we as a society cannot reach a consensus, and we certainly don’t seem to have a consensus on this one.
I think the best thing to do is actually making the climate desirable to have children. A lot of abortions happen because “I can’t afford it” “I can’t do it because of education”, better access to contraception, etc. I think childcare should be free if you’re not like- middle-middle class and pregnant women should get child benefit. However, crisis pregnancy centres are also weirdly called out which is strange considering they are wanting to help care for the child.
This still doesn’t change the fact that I cannot see how abortion is moral at all. And it’s the same reason why I don’t think we should let people harm their children. The “my body my choice” thing won’t work with me because I do not consider a foetus part of the woman’s body. I saw an ultrasound of an abortion as well and it was shocking, the foetus actively seemed to be trying to escape it. If you asked a child “do you want to die” the answer would obviously be “no”. I absolutely abhor how people dehumanise foetus as “mass of cells” or even worse “parasite” and make abortion seem like a normal thing. I abhor people who use abortion as a contraceptive method. I abhor people who are calling for “death penalties” for people who get abortions, as most of the time, they aren’t in a good state when they get it.
Cool. Your welcome to feel that way.
But when you intimidate people who disagree with your flawed non scientific ideal of the start of life.
You face restrictions on you right to gather near them.
It is a scientific fact that foetus are human lives - they react to things, have a heartbeat, can feel pain, etc. The anti-science ones are the ones trying to make science say something that agrees with their worldview so people don’t have to face the outcome of their actions.
Just say you were convinced that foetus are human lives - would you still be in favour of abortion?
Cells react to things. Dose not mean it is an independent console being.
If you can proove your cancer moles meet the same standards. Would you still agree with removal.
Cancer moles aren’t human lives. This is disingenuous.
Nor are cells in a womb. Sorta the point,
Then why do they look human and given enough time, able to graduate university with a master’s degree in sociology?
When we see any evidence that conciseness can even exist at the speed of light. Then the potential of someone’s cells may be argued to outweigh the current desires of a living, independent being.
Until time travel, you are likely to continue to fail to change the law to consider a collection of cells an independent life form before 24 weeks. The rights of the mother, it requires living, currently outweigh those of something unable to survive alone.
Just like my need for a new kidney in no way gives me or the law the right to force you to donate yours against your will.
As for it looking like a human. So does any ape fetus at that time. It has little to do with its total development. Just like when you build the frame of a boat that frame looks boat like. Because all the bits that require a boat to float and run require a frame to be placed in.
Its shape is ion no way a valid argument for its completeness. This is science and law, not art.
More specifically, this is law. And ever since, the ban on abortion was lost. (due to the real death of living humans able to make choices). People of your (no more than religiously defined) opinion have been fighting to change the law. You have failed.
And while you have the right to protest that and feel this way. As I said right at the beginning. You do not have the right to intimidate others following the law rather than protest at parliament to change it.
The value of the law. And your non-scientific definitions of when a human is indeed human. Have no actual relation to the topic of this thread. The history of intimidation of people following the law who do not agree with your views is all that dose.
And if you think they can change people’s mind on those actions by quoting your unfounded ideas.
Honestly, you’re as daft as I am thinking my opinions matter to you. But when you call them scientific. Go fuck off, you are at best uninformed of what the word means and how the scientific process works. And more likely miss informed about the difference between individual facts and proof of a hypothesis being evaluated, challenged and accepted as a theory.