Comment on gotdamn

MindTraveller@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I maintain that debating fetal personhood is a huge mistake because it goes down a philosophical road where you can’t clearly define things like when someone feels pain.

  There is a much simpler reason to make abortion legal- for the same reason it is not legal to harvest a corpse’s organs without the person’s consent before they die or the reason you can’t be forced to donate a kidney. Being forced to use your organs for someone else’s benefit against your will is illegal in every other situation. Even if it means a human will die without them. That doesn’t matter if it is something that will eventually develop into someone with full human rights or if it has them already. It’s just not relevant. It’s about the rights of the person whose body will be used.

  source

  • magnolia_mayhem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Most of these people would be okay with harvesting a dead person’s organs so long as they aren’t theirs.

    source

    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That’s always the issue. joycearthur.com/…/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-a…

      source
  • Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’d show the fundies a plucked chicken and assert its personhood but I don’t think they’d get the joke.

    source
  • BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It is mainly a religious argument from people who think I knew you in the womb means something but discard all the other verses in the Bible

    source

    • blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Which was entirely made up and pushed through a concerted effort back in the 70s. Goldwater even warned of it.

      source

      • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It was mostly just Catholics who were anti-abortion before the 70s. Then the Baptists discovered it was an issue they could latch onto and others followed.

        And it wasn’t just a political reason the Baptists latched on to it. They realized legal abortion meant less white babies because you’re a lot less likely to be able to get one if you’re poor.

        source
  • cows_are_underrated@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Thanks. I havent heard that argument yet.

    source
  • Bgugi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Tbf, I think organ donation should be opt-out, and you should be ineligible to receive any organ or tissue (including blood).

    source
• Lumisal@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I don’t think water touches water because it’s all water.

  Otherwise you touching a person would make you two people, because the skin is touching skin.

  source

  • blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Water is H2O. It absolutely touches other H20.

    Even then water is only wet sometimes. Extremely cold ice isn’t wet for example. It’s quite dry until you reduce its heat enough for it to become wet again.

    Most of water on earth is wet. It’s not a default property though.

    source

    • MenacingPerson@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Even then water is only wet sometimes. Extremely cold ice isn’t wet for example.

      Is that water or is it just made of water?

      It’s quite dry until you reduce its heat enough for it to become wet again. Don’t you mean increase?

      source

      • blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Yes, yes.

        Yes.

        source
    • uis@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Is second one H twenty? Hah!

      source
• Johanno@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Which opens the debate: when becomes an embryo a person?

  Difficult question. And research on that topic would be immoral at least.

  source

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s actually a pretty simple question, and has a simple, straightforward answer. The fetus does not become alive until its survival needs can be feasibly met by someone or something other than the mother. Until it is biologically capable of surviving the death of the mother, it is alive only as a part of the mother’s body.

    An infant does require considerable support. It will die if neglected. But, the support an infant requires can be provided by any caregiver. Dad, grandma, or an older sibling can feed an infant. Doctors can provide it with IV nutrition.

    Nobody but mom can “feed” an immature fetus.

    source

    • Johanno@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      To you it seems simple, but this is a philosophical question that hasn’t been answered for over a century. You can reason for any point in time to be the point it becomes a person.

      source
  • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Either way, the fetus of a woman who wants an abortion is up her vagina without consent and is therefore a rapist. Deadly force is permissible in the act of removing a rapist from their victim.

    source

    • some_random_nick@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      An unwanted/planned child is a rapist? You can’t be serious.

      source

      • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It’s not a child. A child is defined as having been born. It’s a fetus. A parasite.

        source
      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        If it is a person, then yes, it could be considered a rapist, and subject to forcible removal at the mother’s will. If it is not a person, it is merely an unexpected growth, and subject to forcible removal at the mother’s will.

        The ridiculousness of the former scenario tells us that the fetus is not a person, and is incapable of committing “rape”.

        source
      • S_204@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Come on. Have you seen what’s going on on college campuses right now? I’ve heard far less serious things being said with absolute sincerity.

        We’re reaching the point where victimhood is the only trait people aspire to achieve.

        source
    • Demdaru@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I love that bait, hahah. Rape aside, woman had to take into account possibility of a child when she had sex. Same with her partner. Sorry, but that’s the biological reason sex even exists, and denying it because we found good methods of contraception does nothing because even these methods are being advertised as not 100% effective.

      source

      • Senal@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        That “rape aside” is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn’t the “had sex, your fault” narrative you seem to be espousing here.

        Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.

        Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the “this book is the literal truth” christians i suppose.

        or you’re trolling, in which case, congratulations…i guess.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Ok. So she has been raped.

        Is she obligated to report that rape? Is she obligated to accuse someone? Is she obligated to prove she has been raped? Is she obligated to cooperate with an investigation into her rape? Is she obligated to even claim she had been raped?

        The answers are “No, No, No, No, and No”. Since she is not and should never be under any sort of obligation to do any of these things, you don’t know and can’t know that she was raped. Yet, by your argument, as a victim, she is entitled to an abortion.

        With your philosophy, you could presume that any particular woman seeking an abortion has been raped, and is simply not reporting it for whatever reason. She is entitled to her abortion.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• finley@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Wetness it as a property liquid can only give to another thing, not to itself. When water touches water, you simply have more water.

  source

  • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That’s not true

    source

    • finley@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      denying it doesn’t change the fact :(

      source