@nyx @eris Rape makes up for a very tiny percentage of abortions. If you read the post I linked you’ll see that I’m fine with abortions within the first few weeks, and I’m also against bans with exemptions for rape (criminals often lie to get out of things, so it just opens up a can of worms of people going to jail because a woman doesn’t want a child).
But I also think people should be honest: you are killing something you don’t want to take care of. That’s fine, but fucking say it. It’s not a “choice” and it’s not women’s health. Drop the Orwellian doublespeak. It’s classic human sacrifice, just like the ancients. Own it.
@lanodan @eris @nyx Okay fine, but if you read my most, the vast majority of western countries don’t allow abortions past 12~14 weeks. The Mississippi law that went to the US Supreme Cort was at 15 weeks!
In that post I linked, there’s also a source that shows less than 2% of abortions happen after 21 weeks.
In most of America, women can still get an abortion in that first month if they were raped, without having to go to the cops or get a police report or anything. For some states, they have said the state’s interest in a person’s life begins before they are born, no matter how they were conceived.
Keep in mind, abortion is the weirdest fucking thing from a legal standing because you are talking about the interests of two parties (and the philosophical argument of what constitutes a human life .. when does party #2 actually become a party?). The great irony from the alphabet soup communities is how they continually talk about those who “Deny their existence” and the pro-lifers here can make the exact same argument over the existences of a human child
"Think of the children" is one of the most gaslighting thing ever and pro-fœtus people are drinking right at the source.
States don't care about children, nor their families.
When it comes to screwing up families and womens even more via just forcing them to keep something that's still a non-sentient thing, then there is a fuckton of people, and that just allows to keep them in debt, meaning profit for the elite.
Meanwhile the ones that write those laws and lobby about it don't need to care about it, they can travel elsewhere and fund foreign clinics on a whim.
And I don’t think there is many people wanting to go against that 12~14 weeks limit
Exactly, and most Americans support this. But the US and world media makes it seems like this isn’t the case. And the most vocal people who are getting all the attention do want abortion up to and including birth.
States don’t care about children, nor their families.
As you’ve stated, States care about you yes, as a resource; as a worker. But the pro-lifers care about people as people.
There is this big myth people on the right don’t care about kids after they’re born. I can give you a huge list of churches and women’s centers who do help women who decide to keep children; and help the with support and options. There is a ton of government support to (which those centers lobby for and help women sign up for). You can say the state doesn’t care outside of a window of resources, but I think you’re wrong. If you do have a government for the people, the peoples’ will to cherish life, combined with whatever state benefit reason, does come through.
My sister personally volunteered for a women’s for years and worked with mothers who chose to keep their children. There are so many resources today it’s really insane … and women can always give up a child for adoption if they don’t want to go that route.
> churches
Ah yes, the ones that will very likely throw you out if you're not a being that lives according to their rules.
As for things like women's centers… in my experience they horribly lack task force and funding and most politicians wants to basically shut them down by destroying their purpose if they have any bit of control over them and when they don't they try to replace them.
(btw on wikipedia you get almost entirely prisons when searching for "Women Center")
@lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
@lanodan @eris @xianc78 @nyx What are you talking about? Of course you can choose your local church. There are hundreds to choose from. If one kicks you out, you can go to others. If every single church turns you away … you might just be an extremely shitty person (the vast majority of people on the streets are not there due to falling through the cracks, they’re out there because they’ve fucked over entire networks for family and friends).
I left the Church over twelve years ago, and though I take issue with a lot of things about Christianity, I still understand that they truly believe in what they do. You can say it’s more pride than caring or whatever, but .. I think they try.
And I know people who’ve worked in centers for pregnant women and many of them do care, sincerely. That do a lot of work to help those who want it.
Let’s take a step back. There is a new born baby in front of you. Could you crush its face in with a boot? Would you stomp it into oblivion? Could you euthanize it with some chloroform and a lethal injection? If you were legally allowed to – if you were ordered to?
I don’t even like kids. I think babies look weird and ugly and I’d never want one. But I still don’t think I could kill a human baby.
In the womb, an abortion rips apart a fetus and sucks it through a tube. You can say it’s not aware, its pain is momentary, but how is it really any different than curb stomping the baby once it’s born?
That’s what I don’t get. What happened to abortions being a terrible thing that some women got due to circumstances? Why is it now an undeniable right? Why is it a thing to be celebrated?
If I would have a doctor degree or similar, I would definitely do abortions as long as it's not sentient.
I can also see myself supporting killing non-sentient life forms if needs be.
Also as your talking about killing new*borns*, which is grossly off-topic btw, I wouldn't.
Meanwhile that's being going on for absolute decades for animals, specially pets, because no one wants to suddenly end up having to take care of 5~10 more pets all at once.
Also do you never eat eggs?
@lanodan @eris @xianc78 @nyx Grossly off-topic? The entire question asks: what is the different between a baby in the woman vs a baby outside the woman? That is the fundamental question of the entire controversy. Why does that 1 ft difference make a difference?
The Stanley Milgram answer is obvious: it’s easier to dehumanize a human when you can’t see them; when there is a wall between you and the other human … or a womb.
A human baby isn’t sentient. Not yet. That takes years of training and learning. We are not born with sentience.
Also, holy fuck dude. Are you a psycho?! A human is not a fucking dog! A human being isn’t a chicken! We don’t grow babies in cattle farms to kill them and eat them! … WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK DUDE?!
The difference isn't between inside and outside.
It's between with how well the life form is developed and a fœtus basically doesn't have the required cells and organs to even feel and react to things, sentience or not, we don't even have to ask ourselves the question, it just physically can't.
Euthanasy of an already born child is a different thing but I wouldn't be surprised that in practice it just exists and of cases were we could somewhat rationalise it.
> Also, holy fuck dude. Are you a psycho?! A human is not a fucking dog! A human being isn’t a chicken!
You're the one taking it like this and saying what I didn't say at all, because I would go for the reverse of what you're implying.
Because I want the murder farms of animals to stop, and interestingly no pro-life® ever would.
Maybe go look at the horrible mental health of the workers afterwards because it's also garbage for humans.
That's the sociopath part, no fucking empathy.
Ah, I didn't realize you were a vegan.
A fetus has organs. At 11~12 weeks you can see a heart, lungs .. they're surprisingly developed. Have you looked at the newer 3d ultrasounds? The detail is quite incredible.
Wait wait wait .... so you're against killing animals on "murder farms" ... but killing human children is .. okay ... because they're not sentient.
And reminder, the heart works standalone…
I think you’re missing the entire point of the heart thing. The idea is that you recognize it has all the parts and pieces that grow into something parents find infinitely precious: a human being.
I still don’t understand how you justify that we shouldn’t kill animals, yet can kill unborn children. Your arguments don’t actually reduce fetuses to less than animals
> The idea is that you recognize it has all the parts and pieces that grow into something parents find infinitely precious: a human being.
Except there is no scientific or logical definition to any of this, parents can find it precious at whatever stage of development.
To me that's just nil.
was that murder? If so, at what point after conception does it become murder to kill someone?
in the end, what matters is simply how society has agreed to define personhood
>And before week 14 you get no reaction from it
i've seen a 3 month old fetus jerk away from an ultrasound beam before. it heats the tissue internally. ask an ob gyn to confirm this. i'm sure it's common
pain is one of the most rudimentary neurological responses so that develops very early on along with the peripheral nerves. even before 14 weeks.
i won't really debate how alive or human or conscious a 3 month fetus is, but what you're saying about "no response" is simply not correct
I personally see abortion as immortal but understandable in some cases most of the time it isn't though and easily avoidable
@meowski @eris @xianc78 @fugger @lanodan @nyx That’s getting into Brave New World territory … hatcheries with all the clones, separated by ability, trained rapidly within the facility, ready to be adults immediately, the few non-sterile ones used to create the next iteration … no real art, no real conflict, sanctuaries for the savages in the classic world, everyone belongs to everyone (the polyamory dream), orgy porgy!
… but all pretty unlikely. Biology is insane complex. I don’t think we’re within 50 years of an artificial womb or growing clones in a tank.
>inb4 artificial wombs exists
They're very simplistic in nature and their primary goal isn't to to replace wombs but to keep a fetus that have almost reached full growth still alive in case of danger to the parent.
Sorry but artificial wombs are in the realms of soyience fiction and you'll have to deal with what we have now.
The only debate would be about adoption demand etc which could be a issue if theirs too many babies and not enough people that want to adopt
And it's unknown it might happen sooner than we think while that's unlikely the reality is unlikely things happen sometimes
don't make unproven, unfounded, and fundamentally unprovable claims. can a tree feel? is it sentient?
also, I know plenty of LGBT friendly churches, you just seem hateful, you're making things up, like pretending christians will throw you out if you disagree, which shows you've never interacted with a single christian in your life, you're saying, for some odd reason, that euthanasia is common to make arguments supporting abortion,
> Except there is no scientific or logical definition to any of this
and herein lies the truth, you've drank the post-modern, post-human, post-society kool aid and waxed so much semantics that you don't have even the ability to recognize a human. this is repugnant and sad.
(by the way, yes the tree can feel, yes it's sentient, and yes an aborted baby feels pain)
