Apr 7, 2021·1 reply
blondedYes, according to what I have said my stance is.
That's arbitrary but okay.
- Apr 7, 2021·1 reply
RIP_ActavisYeah because the science is on your side, and clearly that's all that matters to you
To save me typing it all out this summarises it pretty effectively:
"Although just because the preborn directly depend temporarily on the mother’s body does not mean they are not valuable and worthy of protection. People outside the womb also depend on others for survival: the elderly, handicapped, those with special needs, newborns, and children. We all rely on someone and our dependence on others in no way strips us of our value and dignity as human beings."
Babies depend on their mothers for years after they've been born. Don't argue with these people its a waste of time.
- Apr 7, 2021·1 replycommonwrongdoer
That's arbitrary but okay.
It does not contradict my stance.
- Apr 7, 2021commonwrongdoer
Babies depend on their mothers for years after they've been born. Don't argue with these people its a waste of time.
This does not contradict my stance.
- Apr 7, 2021blonded
It does not contradict my stance.
Never said it did. You and i have just have two completely different moral values.
Apr 7, 2021While Im pro choice, abortion isnt some one and done deal.
When you read argumentation for it in the literature you see a lot of decent arguments against and for abortion.
But to answer your question, largely religion or people believe thatyou are destroying life worthy of consideration.
Dont think you can just harken to laws about whether people should or should not do things either
- Apr 7, 2021·edited·1 replyblonded
No, they are not by my logic "parasites".
Babies in the womb literally get nutrients from the mother, biologically, and depend on the mother to survive.
These are not the same situations.
See this for example is an argument that people already ran over in the literature.
You cant just say "Babies are parasites" and go.
You can argue a lot of individuals may be considered "parasites".
In fact, Id argue underagee children, vegetables, etc are "parasites" and if you want to be consistent you would just bite the bullet.
Especially because this arguments crux is all dependent on using the word parasite wrong for exaggerated effect. Your just loading the term to make things worse than it seems lol.
Its not even scientific to call fetuses parasites. They literally have utility as reproductive output.
- Apr 7, 2021·1 replyKuntaKinte· edited
See this for example is an argument that people already ran over in the literature.
You cant just say "Babies are parasites" and go.
You can argue a lot of individuals may be considered "parasites".
In fact, Id argue underagee children, vegetables, etc are "parasites" and if you want to be consistent you would just bite the bullet.
Especially because this arguments crux is all dependent on using the word parasite wrong for exaggerated effect. Your just loading the term to make things worse than it seems lol.
Its not even scientific to call fetuses parasites. They literally have utility as reproductive output.
I don't think you would have to bite the bullet on those to be consistent at all, whatsoever. I do recognize that using the word parasite is the wrong terminology.
I'll just make it simple.
I believe it to be immoral to force a woman to carry something that could kill her.
Cut-and-dry.
- Apr 7, 2021blonded
I don't think you would have to bite the bullet on those to be consistent at all, whatsoever. I do recognize that using the word parasite is the wrong terminology.
I'll just make it simple.
I believe it to be immoral to force a woman to carry something that could kill her.
Cut-and-dry.
So do I but abortion arguments are not simple arguments.
I support abortion because irl there are moments when you just cant avoid it if you value an individuals autonomy. And usually these result in better outcomes irl
I just think that people need to stop treating it as a one and done argumentative deal because Conservatives tend to often be brain dead pro lifers.