But you keep making sure everybody has to live to your moral standard because you get to decide what everybody else gets to do with their f****** body and their f****** life
I'm not forcing anyone to have an abortion. I'm not forcing anyone to not have an abortion.
evangelical
you realize you're using that same argument by comparing unborn children to born children who have the right not to be abused cuz they're born people with rights protected by the Constitution
Rape is non-consensual sex, and thus the outcome of such an act cannot create a duty of care (I don't see a logical way of arguing from a non-consenting act to gaining responsibility for another), thus abortion becomes permissible in the case of rape. It would still be tragic, as it is the ending of an innocent life, but without a rational way of justifying the duty of care extending to the mother there is no way of justifying the violation of bodily autonomy. In consenting acts this is justifiable (as bodily autonomy can already be limited based on certain circumstances, neglect laws, and newborns), but not in cases of rape.
If the life of the mother is at risk then it becomes trickier. Usually in an accident when a paramedic needs to make a rapid decision to save a child or an adult the child is prioritized, which gives some weight to the idea that if only the mother's life is at risk that the child should still be saved, but I am not firm in that view. I tentatively take the view that abortion is permissible (because I do think that the nature of the unborn child is somewhat different than the born child), though an absolute tragedy, in those situations (though I am open to having my mind changed as it is a tentative position). I do want to note, however, that these types of situations are actually very rare.
Lastly, the idea that a fetus with certain development problems is somehow less worthy of life than a healthy one seems, to me, to use the same exact line of reasoning that one would use to argue that children with, for example, Down's Syndrome are lesser.
Thus, the hypocrisy of many of those who claim to be "pro-choice." If they truly maintained a "pro-choice" position, they would extend the principle at all times. But to do this would shed light on the arbitrarily selected division at which legal "life" begins.
You mean to tell me that if a woman that planned on carrying her child to term and ends up miscarrying the law should do a murder investigation on?
I'm thinking Republicans just lost 2022.
Does that sound like an ethical thing to do to a woman after she just lost her child?
If you really believe this and you want the GOP to lose in 2022, wouldn't you support repealing Roe V Wade to help the dems.
It's not just some little topic that you want to discuss these are people's f****** whole existence.
Praise be to the braindead one, for showing us that the entire existence of women is to have consequence free sex! Shall we extend this logic into viewing women as nothing but sex objects? Of course not, because we must embrace braindeath! Through braindeath we learn that fallacies are amazing and logic is sin! Praise be to the braindead one, may praises forever be sung!
How often must we concuss ourselves to believe irrelevancies are relevant!
If you really believe this and you want the GOP to lose in 2022, wouldn't you support repealing Roe V Wade to help the dems.
