It's soo freaking weird!
How does a government or state even dares saying it's "illegal" to an abortion on your own body..
Hell, I would become a freaking cyborg and no one could stop me..😠
Woman should have the right to decide for themselfs!
F-off with your law🖕
@schratze But if they cannot even accept this i wonder how they lookup against my cyborg idea
I'll lazzz0rr the shit out of them pew pew
@stux these people are the same people that are saying " oh wait...don't tell me waer a mask (Covid19) , because you are restricting my freedom " ...they are fascists and hypocrites .
@Jorge_Irraizoz Totally agree..! They're eating our world raw with us on it..
We cannot stand for this shit right..? 😟
@stux @Jorge_Irraizoz America is a very strange and terrifying place currently. A friend of mine recently had a holiday out there, staying with family. He had for a long time had visions of moving to live out there. A couple of weeks in the "real" US (rather than tourist traps) & he's 100% abandoned that idea!
@wiredfire @stux the majority of the Supreme court that decided this fascist decision about legal abortions , had been hired from Donald lame duck Trumpf , the biggest putins puppet worldwide . Don't be confused my friend. USA has been polluted and divided by Putins puppet (not only collaborators ) the GOP, and especially Trumpists fascist that is the majority of Republicans. Q anons, fascists boys, ku klux Klang members.... all putins assets
@wiredfire @stux @Jorge_Irraizoz it's highly highly dependent on where you live, which is part of the problem. There's no middle ground because we're literally fragmenting into 2 different United States, politically and geographically. (Sort of like saying "spending 2 weeks in the real Europe, not the tourist traps", we might as well be multiple small countries at this point)
Second, there are people who look at a fetus and see a real human being. In their eyes, the rights of that human being needs protection. We protect kids from child labor. We scream when kids are forced to work in wheat fields. The State will come in and take your child if you beat them.
Not wanting to wear a mask is about personal freedom. Protecting the rights of an unborn child are also about someone else’s personal freedom .. someone who cannot defend themselves yet.
The view point is consistent in this way.
Now if you believe the parent should have 100% control of the child up to and after birth, then yes, abortion is morally justified .. even post birth. The hard-libertarian mindset says only a parent should be able to pull the lever on capital punishment. The hard-libertarian says you can abuse your kids, put them to child labor, or even have sex with them. They’re part of your biology and therefore your property.
There is always a balance in modern society when it comes to children: are they owned by you or the State (i.e. society). Is the child an individual deserving or rights? How much is a parent allow to influence a child?
The entire issue is massively complex, unless you reduce the fetus to not being a human at all until it leaves the mother. That’s an ideology: accepting an axiom absolutely as its own basis; believing without thinking.
@stux That’s not what’s happening in America! Stux, aren’t you European? Most EU nations don’t allow abortions after the first 3 months, right?
In America, Row v Wade allowed abortions up to and including birth in many States. Back during the Bill Clinton days, his wife was quoted as saying abortions should be “Safe, Legal and Rare”. Today people celebrate their abortions!
Most of America will not make abortions illegal. All this decision has the potential to do is return all power to the States. Some states will ban it entirely, but most will just put a first trimester limit on it.
America’s laws have been so out of whack with the rest of the world when it comes to this. I think a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if her birth control fails, and that’s when most of them happen. Waiting until 6 or 8 months means killing a tiny human; which is pretty disturbing.
I use to be in the total pro-choice camp until very recently. I think listening to an interview from this woman on Sam Harris really got me thinking:
If you are really trying to understand their logic I think I could argue their side.
But if you are just blowing off steam I won't.
@SnerkRabbledauber @stux I agree that one can argue both ways and I definitely do not pick a side here. I think the discussion is likely to be super complex and emotional. I however am curious about the rational argumentation.
On the one side it will likely be in the range of the fact that murder and suïcide are (already) illegal and when you stop a beating heart is just about that.
The other probably about rape, life expectancy and being in charge of your own body.
The key point that lets them build their argument is pointing out that the woman's body is not the only body involved. This is easiest to see at birth.
Everyone agrees that a newborn is its own person. So now back up to just before birth. It is the same organism, the only difference is that it is inside another organism and it gets oxygen and nutrients through the umbilical cord. It is hard to argue that that dependence makes it a...
part of the woman's body.
So scientifically we have to admit that it is a different human organism.
So does that mean it is a human BEING? This is really outside science and becomes a philosophical question and what exactly make a human being is still not settled. That is where the argument should be.
For me, I think that the autonomy of the woman is paramount and she must be able to make the decision. But that is not an easy position for me to take. Because in...
@stux The reason they say this is not because they think they can control your body. They know this is not possible. They want to enforce conservative values, which includes making women into mothers every chance possible, which is about controlling womens' socio/economic options more than their bodies per se.... and it's about them believing that the unborn child is being murdered, and that the mother does not have the right to kill that child in the name of controlling her body. ( again, i'm only telling you how conservatives see it )
@MorphicOne Totally! But "indirect" or maybe even direct in this case they "do" wanna control the body right? 😮 It's indeed with more reasons and a bigger agenda
@stux In my analysis, no. They won't stop a woman from using birth control. - or from having casual sex. They won't try to control whether a woman has tatoos, or whether she dyes her hair. So I don't really believe it's actually about controlling their 'bodies' ; it's about imposing a belief that the unborn baby has the same right to live as the born baby. This is how they view it. And they also feel that babies means having a new supply of exploitable workers, and it means future soldiers for the endless war. it also means women are less likely to be educated, and more likely to be exploitable workers and home makers who have to depend on a man. This is the natural order of things in their minds. It's about controlling womens' way of life more than their 'bodies'