Pregnancy is always a life threatening condition. A woman’s consent to the use of her body supercedes anyone else’s claim to life dependent upon her consent.
Comment on Abortion Rights: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
cricket98@lemmy.world 7 months agoWhat if the baby is not threatening the life of the mother at all? How is it okay to kill in self defense in that instance?
At least you admit you are killing a human. That’s nice that you have gotten that far.
Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 7 months ago
cricket98@lemmy.world 7 months ago
[deleted]Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Pregnancy has always been the most likely way for women to die.
cricket98@lemmy.world 7 months ago
That is much different than “pregnancy being inherently a life threatening condition”
CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Best way I’ve seen it put is this. If you’re (born) kid needs a kidney donation to live there is no law requiring you to give that kid a kidney. Why should there be a law requiring you to give an unborn kid use of a uterus? You’re not killing a person you’re simply denying them use of your own internal organs.
cricket98@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Ripping the child out of your womb is killing the baby by your own action. Letting someone else die due to inaction is quite different, and I think you know that.