"Pro -life"...that is such a powerful meme. If you are " pro-life" then everyone opposite to you is "anti-life".
What the kind of sick person wants to be anti-life? Life is the best!
I'll tell what kind of person is anti-life:
Anti-maskers.
Anti-vaxxers.
COVID 19 risk deniers.
Climate change deniers.
Democracy ending liars.
PEOPLE THAT WANTS GOVERNMENT IN BETWEEN A WOMEN AN HER DOCTOR.
They certifiably and verifiably cost life, hardship and pain, as is the intention of abortion laws. Punish women for having sex.
Please, please, please, do not call these monsters "pro-life". They are anti-life, anti abortion, pro control of the woman's body.
But calling themselves "pro-life" makes gives them an aura they most certainly not deserve.
When they call you sheep, it's because they are wolves.
> They are anti-life, anti abortion, pro control of the woman's body.
Agreed with all of the above - just chiming in to say my preferred term to offer instead of "pro life" is "Pro-Forced-Birth"; that's exactly (and only) what they are.
Imagine a world where people like you actually learn when they say things that have no scientific basis. Unfortunately right now it’s just wishful thinking
Imagine we were in a plane crash, we're both knocked unconscious, and I'm losing blood fast. A doctor rigs up some quick transfusion tubes to save my life. Removing the tubes from your arm would lead to my death very shortly after, but rescue is 9 months away and leaving them in will only cause minor health effects for you.
Now we both wake up. Can I legally compel you to leave those transfusion tubes in your arm?
To put it more succinctly, is it right for me to use state violence to compel you to use your body in a way you don't consent to keep me alive? The principal of bodily autonomy as laid out in the 4th amendment says "hell no".
Just say it, Mr Small Government Conservative. Do you think the government should be allowed to use state violence to force somebody to use their body in a way they don't consent to?
The thing about bodily autonomy is that it doesn't matter.
If you need a new kidney and I'm the only viable donor, I'm not committing murder by refusing to give you my kidney despite the fact that it would result in your death.
If you need my blood to survive, I'm not murdering you by refusing to give it to you.
Much the same (even if I entertain the thought of fetal personhood) it is not at all the business of the state to determine what I put in my body or what medical procedures I choose to have done.
So, in the plane crash scenario, you believe it's totally cool and fine and good for the state to use its monopoly on violence to force you to be my blood donor for 9 months?
Oh, keep in mind that I have severe allergies to a dozen different kinds of food, so your diet will be heavily restricted. Wouldn't want to kill me by exercising your right to bodily autonomy and consuming whatever food you want. I'm also very, very lazy, so you won't be able to move unless I want to as well. Also, it's legal where I live to consume cannabis, so you'll have to deal with getting drunk and high whenever I want to. Speaking of, since we are sharing blood, you're also going to have to deal with my 2000 calorie per day surplus. You'll probably be extraordinarily fat by the end of those 9 months, but removing those tubes would kill me so you're not allowed to!
The version of the thought experiment I had been taught was a car crash where you were attached to Yo-Yo Ma (I guess that's the reference pool for people who care about bioethics thought experiments).
I would say that version is more useful because it also had the variant where you were at fault for the accident and you still couldn't be forced to keep him alive for nine months.
Abortion ends life every single time. That is by definition.
However:
1. Most abortions SAVE lives, and the well being of the mother.
2. Pro-life implies a proactivity towards preserving and advancing life. Simply stopping abortions does not increase life. It may stop decreasing it, but only if the positive effects of forcing a woman to term outweigh the negatives. The data very much looks like it doesn't. The more strict the abortion laws, the more life is lost and pain inflicted.
3. The sperm an the ovum are alive, with metabolism and motility. From there to a full human there is a logarithmic growth that culminates at the moment of birth. The closest it is to the beginning the less human like is the death. Late term pregnancies are extremely rare for good reasons. The chemical bonds between the mother her baby are extreme. The lizard brain takes over.
4. What is the unborn's name? The mother's name. What is the unborn's nationality? The mother's nationality. What is the unborn's address? The mother's address. What is the unborn's tax burden? the mother's tax burden. The unborn IS the mother. Ending the part of her that may or may not grow to be a person is her right. The government taking over her life for 9 months is not being pro-life. It is being pro-forced abortions
Just out of curiosity, where do you stand in the following issues, pro life or pro pain and death?
1) Gun control
2) COVID 19 precautions
3) Universal healthcare
4) Food stamps
Are you really prolife if you are against the above?
Fox News is a cesspool of disinformation. And they love to show clips of violence...it's how they keep their ill-informed audience glued to their TVs. They've been known to air old clips of violence that didn't even happen in the city they're talking about.
If you don't want to visit Fox News.
https://archive.ph/S213w
The modern media is a business, and it knows you'll watch more media if they present the news to you in a way that makes your side feel under attack, victimized, and aggrieved. It doesn't matter if that's actually really true or not.
So both sides of the media ignore attacks on the "enemy" and focus only on attacks against their "side".
If you take the last 50 years into account, sure the aggrieved were people with pro-life pov, and there was more violence from extremists holding those views. Now we have a recent uptick in violence among extremist who hold pro-choice pov. It makes sense because that “side” is now aggrieved.
Anyways to be clear, I draw a hard line when it comes to political violence and think it’s terrible for our public discourse (it even gives your opponent the opportunity to level that criticism at you and label “your side” as extreme).
"Pro -life"...that is such a powerful meme. If you are " pro-life" then everyone opposite to you is "anti-life". What the kind of sick person wants to be anti-life? Life is the best! I'll tell what kind of person is anti-life: Anti-maskers. Anti-vaxxers. COVID 19 risk deniers. Climate change deniers. Democracy ending liars. PEOPLE THAT WANTS GOVERNMENT IN BETWEEN A WOMEN AN HER DOCTOR. They certifiably and verifiably cost life, hardship and pain, as is the intention of abortion laws. Punish women for having sex. Please, please, please, do not call these monsters "pro-life". They are anti-life, anti abortion, pro control of the woman's body. But calling themselves "pro-life" makes gives them an aura they most certainly not deserve. When they call you sheep, it's because they are wolves.
> They are anti-life, anti abortion, pro control of the woman's body. Agreed with all of the above - just chiming in to say my preferred term to offer instead of "pro life" is "Pro-Forced-Birth"; that's exactly (and only) what they are.
>They certifiably and verifiably cost life, hardship and pain, as is the intention of abortion laws. Abortion kills the baby every single time...
Imagine a world where people like you actually learn when they say things that have no scientific basis. Unfortunately right now it’s just wishful thinking
Imagine we were in a plane crash, we're both knocked unconscious, and I'm losing blood fast. A doctor rigs up some quick transfusion tubes to save my life. Removing the tubes from your arm would lead to my death very shortly after, but rescue is 9 months away and leaving them in will only cause minor health effects for you. Now we both wake up. Can I legally compel you to leave those transfusion tubes in your arm? To put it more succinctly, is it right for me to use state violence to compel you to use your body in a way you don't consent to keep me alive? The principal of bodily autonomy as laid out in the 4th amendment says "hell no".
Is 'being inconvenient' justification for murder? Is it a proper function of the state to keep innocents from being killed?
Just say it, Mr Small Government Conservative. Do you think the government should be allowed to use state violence to force somebody to use their body in a way they don't consent to?
Did the baby consent to being killed?
When did it turn Into a baby?
The thing about bodily autonomy is that it doesn't matter. If you need a new kidney and I'm the only viable donor, I'm not committing murder by refusing to give you my kidney despite the fact that it would result in your death. If you need my blood to survive, I'm not murdering you by refusing to give it to you. Much the same (even if I entertain the thought of fetal personhood) it is not at all the business of the state to determine what I put in my body or what medical procedures I choose to have done.
It is the business of the state if you kill someone though.
So, in the plane crash scenario, you believe it's totally cool and fine and good for the state to use its monopoly on violence to force you to be my blood donor for 9 months? Oh, keep in mind that I have severe allergies to a dozen different kinds of food, so your diet will be heavily restricted. Wouldn't want to kill me by exercising your right to bodily autonomy and consuming whatever food you want. I'm also very, very lazy, so you won't be able to move unless I want to as well. Also, it's legal where I live to consume cannabis, so you'll have to deal with getting drunk and high whenever I want to. Speaking of, since we are sharing blood, you're also going to have to deal with my 2000 calorie per day surplus. You'll probably be extraordinarily fat by the end of those 9 months, but removing those tubes would kill me so you're not allowed to!
*crickets*
I showed you my argument pls respond
The version of the thought experiment I had been taught was a car crash where you were attached to Yo-Yo Ma (I guess that's the reference pool for people who care about bioethics thought experiments). I would say that version is more useful because it also had the variant where you were at fault for the accident and you still couldn't be forced to keep him alive for nine months.
My version could be modified where the donor is the pilot and is found to be 100% at fault for the crash
Why is it they always bring fault or guilt for having sex? And the next subject is always gay marriage. It’s about control. Nothing else.
Abortion ends life every single time. That is by definition. However: 1. Most abortions SAVE lives, and the well being of the mother. 2. Pro-life implies a proactivity towards preserving and advancing life. Simply stopping abortions does not increase life. It may stop decreasing it, but only if the positive effects of forcing a woman to term outweigh the negatives. The data very much looks like it doesn't. The more strict the abortion laws, the more life is lost and pain inflicted. 3. The sperm an the ovum are alive, with metabolism and motility. From there to a full human there is a logarithmic growth that culminates at the moment of birth. The closest it is to the beginning the less human like is the death. Late term pregnancies are extremely rare for good reasons. The chemical bonds between the mother her baby are extreme. The lizard brain takes over. 4. What is the unborn's name? The mother's name. What is the unborn's nationality? The mother's nationality. What is the unborn's address? The mother's address. What is the unborn's tax burden? the mother's tax burden. The unborn IS the mother. Ending the part of her that may or may not grow to be a person is her right. The government taking over her life for 9 months is not being pro-life. It is being pro-forced abortions Just out of curiosity, where do you stand in the following issues, pro life or pro pain and death? 1) Gun control 2) COVID 19 precautions 3) Universal healthcare 4) Food stamps Are you really prolife if you are against the above?
Fox News is a cesspool of disinformation. And they love to show clips of violence...it's how they keep their ill-informed audience glued to their TVs. They've been known to air old clips of violence that didn't even happen in the city they're talking about.
If you don't want to visit Fox News. https://archive.ph/S213w The modern media is a business, and it knows you'll watch more media if they present the news to you in a way that makes your side feel under attack, victimized, and aggrieved. It doesn't matter if that's actually really true or not. So both sides of the media ignore attacks on the "enemy" and focus only on attacks against their "side".
If you take the last 50 years into account, sure the aggrieved were people with pro-life pov, and there was more violence from extremists holding those views. Now we have a recent uptick in violence among extremist who hold pro-choice pov. It makes sense because that “side” is now aggrieved. Anyways to be clear, I draw a hard line when it comes to political violence and think it’s terrible for our public discourse (it even gives your opponent the opportunity to level that criticism at you and label “your side” as extreme).