Submitted by IBlazeMyOwnPath t3_120n3kk in newhampshire
moneyforsoy t1_jdigvsq wrote
Reply to comment by ericools in NH House passes abortion-rights protections by IBlazeMyOwnPath
It’s a red herring. There’s no “scientific” answer for when life starts, it’s all people’s personal or religious beliefs.
Carteeg_Struve t1_jdij4vw wrote
But there is a scientific answer for when life starts. Life started 3.7 billion years ago. The sperm is alive, and the egg is alive. But they aren't a human being. There is a gradient process that changes those two things into a single human being. It's not an instantaneous process.
moneyforsoy t1_jdik4uo wrote
Exactly, the answer of when they become a human being isn't precise. It's not like at 12 weeks gestation they are suddenly a human. All these discussions around it just distract from the real issue of bodily autonomy. What a person decides to do with their body is between themselves, whatever god they do or don't believe in, and their medical provider. The government has no business in the doctor's office.
FruityRogelio t1_jdjvj00 wrote
Human life begins when it is breathing independently
moneyforsoy t1_jdjwrto wrote
That’s the belief of Judaism, but Catholicism believes it starts at conception. Your own belief of when it starts is what dictates your moral compass when making decisions regarding reproductive health. That’s the point I’m making. The government shouldn’t get to decide.
HangInTherePanda t1_jdkbbpc wrote
Even the Bible is up for debate as to when life begins.
According to Genesis 2 - The beginning of Adam's life in verse 7:
Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Clearly, life begins when you draw your first breath. That is when God places your soul in your body. Your soul enters your body with your first breath and it leaves with your last
I personally am very pro-choice and I wish the government would stay out of women's bodies.
moneyforsoy t1_jdkizbn wrote
Interesting!
HappyFarmWitch t1_jdkhx94 wrote
Great share 👍🏼
FruityRogelio t1_jdjz2q5 wrote
I agree that government should not get to decide, religion aside. Separation of church and state, etc.
warren_stupidity t1_jdjfccv wrote
So ultimately they agree and would like to criminalize birth control.
vexingsilence t1_jdio4ys wrote
>What a person decides to do with their body is between themselves, whatever god they do or don't believe in, and their medical provider.
The answer of they become a human being isn't precise. It's not like at 12 weeks gestation they aren't suddenly a human. Bodily autonomy should recognize that at some point, which will forever remain undecided, there are two bodies, one of which is unable to protest against their impending murder. The government absolutely has business in cases of criminality such as the taking of a human life.
moneyforsoy t1_jdiou11 wrote
You should look up the case of McFall v Shimp. Even if a fetus is a person from the moment of conception, no person is entitled to the use of someone else’s body to maintain their own life. Based on your last line, the court should have ordered Shimp to go through with the bone marrow donation to save McFall.
Edit: not to mention that while a bone marrow donation is an uncomfortable procedure, it is not even close to the permanent physical trauma caused by pregnancy.
vexingsilence t1_jdir5tg wrote
>no person is entitled to the use of someone else’s body to maintain their own life.
You also aren't entitled to end someone else's life for the sake of your own convenience. This isn't a case of taking an organ or marrow or anything like that. Those are medical procedures. The reproductive process is not a medical procedure, it's a natural process.
>permanent physical trauma caused by pregnancy
Pales in comparison to having your life terminated.
moneyforsoy t1_jditckz wrote
But the main point you’re missing is that in the eye of the law, a fetus is not a person. If it were, give them a social security number, let them get insurance, count them as a dependent. And when life begins/when a fetus becomes a person is a personally held belief that differs between people and religions. Catholicism says it’s at conception, Judaism says it’s at the first breath. And nobody is right or wrong because such a belief is so deeply rooted in spirituality that the government has no business deciding what is “true.”
And people aren’t getting abortions out of “convenience.” Often it is a matter or life or death because pregnancy literally puts a mothers life at risk. High blood pressure, blood clots, and homicide kill pregnant people all the time.
As far as your last comment goes, a fetus has no capacity to feel pain until 24 weeks, let alone have sentience to understand life or death or anything like that.
Cantide756 t1_jdlouz7 wrote
>in the eye of the law, a fetus is not a person.
If you kill a pregnant woman, don't you get charged for both murders?
vexingsilence t1_jdiwo5w wrote
>But the main point you’re missing is that in the eye of the law, a fetus is not a person.
The law used to regard certain people as not being people. The law is not infallible. That's why we have the ability to change it.
>And people aren’t getting abortions out of “convenience.” Often it is a matter or life or death because pregnancy literally puts a mothers life at risk.
Not easy to dig up data on this one, but I did find this with their sources linked at the bottom:
https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
The vast majority are due to lifestyle decisions (convenience).
>As far as your last comment goes, a fetus has no capacity to feel pain until 24 weeks
There are grown adults with conditions that prevent them from feeling pain. Can we terminate them?
moneyforsoy t1_jdixcso wrote
Nice strawmans you got there. And, hey man, if you’re so against abortions, don’t get one. But why are you so deadset on making sure nobody else gets one? I don’t believe that a fetus is a person, you do. There’s no way to determine who’s right and who’s wrong and for that reason alone, we cannot codify laws preventing people from getting abortions. I’ll leave you with this quote:
>The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
Pastor David Barnhart
vexingsilence t1_jdiz16f wrote
>But why are you so deadset on making sure nobody else gets one?
I'm generally anti-murder. I'm weird like that.
>There’s no way to determine who’s right and who’s wrong and for that reason alone, we cannot codify laws preventing people from getting abortions.
Given an unknown, the ethical choice is to do the least harm. Ending a life is clearly more harmful than allowing the reproductive process to continue.
I love it when pro-abortion folks suddenly become religious in a debate. Now that's a sign of an argument that has no logical defense. Suddenly one must act on faith! Sorry, no sale there. Tell God I said hi if you see Him.
moneyforsoy t1_jdizfvh wrote
I’m not religious, and it’s not murder. Cope.
vexingsilence t1_jdj7ske wrote
>I’m not religious
Ahh, so you're just using religion as an appeal. Nice.
moneyforsoy t1_jdj8gms wrote
wtf are you talking about? I can be agnostic and still agree with aspects of a religion or even just the sentiment of a pastor. you should take your username to heart and shut up for once lmao
vexingsilence t1_jdj9lfc wrote
By replying, I see that as you wanting to have a discussion. Otherwise, why would you? Feel free to fuck off at anytime.
moneyforsoy t1_jdji1fa wrote
I do want to have a discussion, but clearly we aren’t going to get anywhere meaningful. I hope you have a nice weekend.
pinetreesgreen t1_jdj12bm wrote
So you don't think a woman should get one to save her life? That is pretty pro manslaughter.
vexingsilence t1_jdj8qok wrote
Like I linked elsewhere in here, convenience/lifestyle-choice is the vast majority of abortions. You're referring to the extremely small percentage of cases. I'm not.
pinetreesgreen t1_jdjeuxg wrote
I'm not even sure you can describe a definition of a convenience abortion. What is that? Is having an abortion so you can take care of your other kids a lifestyle abortion? Probably by your definition. But not to the woman caring for 2 kids and already struggling.
If you approve of one kind of abortion when the womans life is in danger, you don't actually think it's murder. It would still be murder. You just want to control a woman's body based on some outdated notion of morality, but understand her dying without an abortion is really messed up and unpopular.
vexingsilence t1_jdjj6kq wrote
>If you approve of one kind of abortion when the womans life is in danger, you don't actually think it's murder.
Didn't say I approved of it, did I? You were using a very weak debating tactic. It's like people that bring up disabled people or children in a discussion that isn't about them, just to try to divert the flow.
pinetreesgreen t1_jdjk6no wrote
You said before women should be able to get abortions if their life is in danger.
So now we are just debating if You get to control them in all other situations or not based on arbitrary personal morality. The murder thing clearly isn't real, just an excuse for control. It can't be murder only in one situation, but not in another, correct?
moneyforsoy t1_jdkmi09 wrote
>It’s like people that bring up disabled people or children in a discussion that isn’t about them, just to try to divert the flow.
this guy a few comments ago:
>There are grown adults with conditions that prevent them from feeling pain. Can we terminate them?
I tried, too. You’re better off saving your energy for someone more receptive and capable of thinking critically.
vexingsilence t1_jdlgc97 wrote
Context matters. Saying it's okay because they don't feel pain, a rare disorder involving not feeling paid is relevant despite being rare since it's directly on point.
Like I said in the first quote, bringing up a thing that isn't about it.. that's a situation where something isn't on point.
One of these things is not like the other.
vexingsilence t1_jdlgg4l wrote
>It can't be murder only in one situation, but not in another, correct?
If you kill someone in self defense, is that murder? You have the thinking skills of a rock.
Cantide756 t1_jdlrfyh wrote
Logic won't change their minds, in their hearts, they know its wrong because they use pro choice instead of pro abortion. They want it as birth control, so they don't have to worry about being responsible for remembering to take a pill or use a condom. The purpose of sex throughout the history of life is to procreate, but no one wants the responsibility, just the pleasure. If they put into law that the father could "abort" the financial responsibility, you would hear them saying all this stuff about a baby is a natural consequence of sex and they agreed to the risk when they agreed to sex. Double standards are rife when it comes to being pro abortion. And the reasoning they use to try and justify it are smoke screens, try and compromise by saying "to save the mothers life" or "for instances of rape and/or incest" doesn't satisfy them because they know that's only a token amount of the numbers. Vast majority are for selfish reasons, even the word convenience shouldn't be accepted. If you are in a situation where you can't afford or handle or want a baby and you don't want to use, can't afford, or can't use the myriad of other forms of birth control, you should abstain. Oh, they want to protect women from getting back alley abortions because they are going to find a way, even if image and illegal? That's their choice, they don't make a robbery legal to protect the life of a criminal do they? And you can't forget the racial component, I think the count reached 20 million black children being aborted? FFS, planned parenthood was started by a eugenics enthusiast.
At the end of the day, pro abortionists are selfish narcissists, using the same faulty logic they used during slavery to dehumanize a class of people to make it ok to murder them. They will spin whatever they can to make a "right" out of not having to take responsibility for their actions.
[deleted] t1_jdkkk5i wrote
[deleted]
pinetreesgreen t1_jdit6ut wrote
There is simply no guarantee the fetus will be born alive. So the only real person in this situation is the women who is growing the fetus. Her decision should be the only one relevant. it is her body/energy/nourishment being used, and in a not very pleasant manner, either.
vexingsilence t1_jdiv741 wrote
>There is simply no guarantee the fetus will be born alive. So the only real person in this situation is the women who is growing the fetus.
That's absurd. This is some "Schrodinger's cat" type of logic. We do know that abortion will end the life. Without any unethical medical intervention, a live birth is the likely outcome.
> Her decision should be the only one relevant.
Not if you're going to argue bodily autonomy. There are two bodies. You can't dismiss one simply because they can't consent.
pinetreesgreen t1_jdiw7oy wrote
I mean, its likely, but not 100%. Is the woman who is being made to donate to the potential person live? Certainly. So it should be her decision.
You think people should be forced to share blood or undergo the reorganization or organs, tissue, risk permanent death or disability for something they don't want? Thats dystopian.
vexingsilence t1_jdixwgz wrote
>I mean, its likely, but not 100%. Is the woman who is being made to donate to the potential person live? Certainly. So it should be her decision.
By your logic, the chances of the woman surviving the abortion are not 100%, therefore we shouldn't allow her to have one.
>You think people should be forced to share blood or undergo the reorganization or organs, tissue, risk permanent death or disability for something they don't want?
What force is occurring? Reproduction is a natural process. Giving blood, donating or receiving organs and such are not natural processes. Those are medical procedures. Two very different things. It's the opposite of force, it's doing nothing.
pinetreesgreen t1_jdizc2w wrote
It is hard to discuss this with men, bc they will never understand that being pregnant is not fun for most women. It is painful and wretched and does not feel natural whatsoever. We do it bc we want kids. To make someone go through that without wanting one for a million different, individual reasons is inhumane. You can dispute it all you want, but that is what it is. Just accept you will never understand being pregnant, so you can never understand vehemently not wanting to be pregnant.
We lose women at less than one per year due to abortions. It is infinitely safer than giving birth. Your logic fails to hold up anyway since you are arguing in essence women should not get abortions even if it kills her, giving birth.
SuperD00perGuyd00d t1_jdjppmc wrote
>What force is occuring?
Not everybody lives by tradition, and there are some horrible people in the world that cause a force...especially for women.
vexingsilence t1_jdlg1qz wrote
That's not an answer.
skigirl180 t1_jdjy6ut wrote
If you don't want an abortion then don't fucking get one. Period.
vexingsilence t1_jdlfyfr wrote
Don't want to be murdered? Then don't get murdered. Period.
Amazing insight.
skigirl180 t1_jdm22vp wrote
Is that really your argument? Hahaha
skigirl180 t1_jdjy0qj wrote
Who is more important. Living breathing person or clump or cells that is unable to survive on it's own?
vexingsilence t1_jdlfw92 wrote
You'll never convince anyone by using language like "clump of cells", which you didn't even spell correctly. Why waste people time posting replies that? Desperate for karma or something?
skigirl180 t1_jdm4ndl wrote
Ahhh your right, spell check changing of to or is a real waste of your time.
Are you trying to score extra karma points with your god by stopping people you don't know, will never know, have no idea about, from having a medical procedure or something?
ericools t1_jdjl8t9 wrote
That's not really a scientific answer. It's a ball park guess made based on some evidence, that scientists generally sort of agree on, but there isn't really any way to know for sure, as nobody really knows how non living mater becomes living in the first place.
HappyFarmWitch t1_jdkhs0j wrote
I like this description— a gradient process.
largeb789 t1_jdinofl wrote
Could have been much earlier if life on earth originated outside our planet.
musicdude2202 t1_jdka91p wrote
There is a very scientific answer to this lol. Life begins at conception. When a sperm meets an egg and is implanted in the wall of the womb. Upon the completion of this process a new life has scientifically begun. The debate is when human rights to life should be conveyed upon a fetus/baby. Whether your beliefs stem from a religious, moral, or scientific point of view there is only one answer to when life begins, conception. Don’t kid yourself an abortion is the killing of a human life. How you choose to justify it or be against it, is of your own accord and there are many points of view on this. Personally I can see both sides as very compelling.
moneyforsoy t1_jdkf7bt wrote
When a sperm meets an egg and is implanted in the wall of the uterus, that is conception, the formation of an embryo. An embryo that will develop into a fetus, and so on. Technically you’re describing the start of a pregnancy. The idea of “life” is defined in many varying ways by many different belief systems. The concept of life, which people are using to dictate whether or not a fetus/pregnancy deserves human rights is based in spiritual beliefs about when “life” begins is amorphous. It’s an abstract idea that there’s no answer.
musicdude2202 t1_jdkhjfv wrote
Not exactly. I’m defining life not as a moral belief but in scientific terms. At conception a new life form is established with its own DNA sequence separate from that of the parents. The embryo is just one stage of the development of the fetus but is in fact a separate life form at that point. This is just basic biology. I specifically don’t define life in moral or religious terms because there are so many varying views and is nothing more than opinion.
Crazy_Hick_in_NH t1_jdkorht wrote
Not for nothing, but should we always “trust” the science? Better yet, the scientists conducting/completing such experiments…what if they have an agenda? Just sayin…anything’s possible. 😅
musicdude2202 t1_jdksefo wrote
One should always question science as that in itself is scientific. There are some things that are just not really disputable however. Life beginning at conception is a quantifiable and well established truth and having an abortion is in fact ending that life. The morality of it all is really the only thing up for debate.
Crazy_Hick_in_NH t1_jdktf7s wrote
“One should always question science as that in itself is scientific”
Where were you during COVID vaccination discussions? Err, I mean requirements. Just when I needed you most. LOL
musicdude2202 t1_jdkudhw wrote
Saying exactly the same thing lol
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments