Men don’t get to decide if women can get breast enhancement surgery, so the penis enhancement surgery isn’t a valid comparison. Once again the difference is that another life is involved. It’s a societal decision to some degree. A man has no say if he impregnates a woman yet if she decides to have it he’s on the hook for child support for 18 or more years. Now I’m not saying the man should have the ability to force a woman to have an abortion, she has all the power on a decision that affects him as well.
You don’t have any idea what I think about a fetuses rights as I have not expanded on this in specific detail. I’m purely trying to explain how some people think on the matter. I can see both sides of the issue. Sadly too many don’t want to even consider the opposition. The whole term “ make health decisions” is a focus group term to try to swap opinions by minimizing abortion. No different than calling a 16 week old fetus a baby. Consider this a kidney has no cognition, is not viable, and would not be confused as a human yet the Gov has made it illegal to sell one of your own kidneys. In that case the Gov has given more protection over your own kidney than a fetus…
Most Evangelical Christians, criminals and shitheads fit the bill for me. There is a lot of intersection between the 3 so say 35-40% of the population. Hillary was being kind in suggesting that 50% of Trump supporter were deplorables closer to 90%. .
When you argue a generic position I’m going to assume you would have some sympathy for it. I understand there is a complicating factor, the embryo/fetus and whatever value or rights we assign to it. But that doesn’t make the term “health decision”’invalid as carrying a pregnancy to term had highly consequential health impacts on the mother. The comparison to a kidney is ludicrous. The reason for such restrictions is for the health of the donor, not the kidney.
No the restrictions have nothing to do with the health of a donor. Most people can donate kidneys to strangers, they just can’t get paid for it. The majority of pregnancies have no “highly consequential” health impacts for the mother in this country, it’s not 1880 anymore.
No highly consequential health impacts? Are you serious? You gain a lot of weight, may get sick a lot early on, and have all kinds of other differences. A non trivial percent of women will have some permanent loss of bladder control, a nontrivial percent will have c sections, and a very small percent will die. The reason for disallowing selling organs is most people don’t feel comfortable with the morality of poor people selling organs to rich people to survive.
Fetus rights is hilarious! The taking of lives is kind of normal in a modern world. wars...good ol Christian folks applaud as the very favored US military bombs neighborhoods in Iraq. We all saw the live action! Please accept that nationalistic euphoria that preachers nationwide exalted. Mass murders and killings happen so often but yet good ol Americans justify why the dead are dead. So..are good ol Christian church going perfect people just can't feel why abortions are necessary because of their Jesus excuse. Let me tell you something..you are not all that. you hold no purity in life versus all others. If you hate abortions so much then hate your God because he is the director of billions of miscarriages, murders, wars and deaths through the existence of life. Greatness is not needing some to think they are safe from being murdered or dying im an earthquake etc because they carry a bible. The reality is abortion is a women's right! Abortion is not new. Abortion does NOT determine your personal fate in heaven. You need to check yourself because you pretty much suck as a person of value if you find yourself proclaiming a righteous stand while hating half of America and flying your flag of verification while others are killing for you. Get off your absolutely b.s high horse and join the rest of us in life.
Ok, so the government allows people to make their own decisions about their own bodies with regards to their kidneys. So what was your point again?
The main difference is the cause of death. A braindead person who goes off of their machine dies of natural causes. Abortion is more analogous to a "doctor" going into a patient's room with a chainsaw or some kind of poisonous concoction because a person won't die of natural causes. In the latter case the person does not die of natural causes. They die because they were murdered.
Funny you would use that hypothetical, because that’s exactly what we had in this country before women started gaining the right to vote, with many parts of America considering it legal for husbands to beat their wives. And wouldn’t you know, their votes started to change those laws when they gained suffrage. Also funny that, in a conversation centered around a minority of the country trying to exert control over women’s bodies and autonomy, your mind went to Taliban and beating women. Why do you think this topic led you to that thought conclusion on further violent oppression of women?
The fetus, like the brain dead person, is on life support. They won’t survive without external support (the mother).
Abortion is not the same thing as simply unplugging someone. If you had a high degree of certainty that your son or daughter was going to come off of that machine in 6 months and you unplugged it, then you are a heartless person. Almost every person would agree with the statement I just wrote. You don't unplug someone if you have great optimism that they are going to come back. But abortion goes a step further than that. It is not simply unplugging the machine. Abortions don't remove the baby from the machine and let it die. That would look like a delivery, but abortion clinics don't want to deliver the baby because a person would come into contact with their child. They would see their child. They would hold their child. That is too personal for a lot of people because the reality of what they have done would be too obvious if the baby was born and it was held in their hands and seen with their own eyes. Instead, most abortions kill the baby while it is still in the womb, which is more analogous to taking a chainsaw to someone while they are still hooked up the machine. One kind of abortion dismembers the baby while it is still alive, and then it crushes its skull. Then it takes an inventory of all of the body parts on a tray after it is done hacking the baby into pieces to make sure they did not leave any pieces behind. We don't do that to people on machines. Another type of abortion injects a chemical and the baby dies of chemical burns. It is like being set on fire, and babies are fully capable of feeling pain. We don't do that to people who are brain dead on machines either. And furthermore babies are not braindead. They are conscious while this is happening to them.
The braindead person died because you removed them from life support. The reason it isn't "murder" is because we decided it's not murder. This is like arguing that an infant dying of starvation isn't "murder" because they died of "natural causes" from their caregiver's neglect. In all of these cases, a person is responsible for ending the life. You're going to need to find a better argument for why it's okay to kill a braindead person.
I fully support assisted suicide, as long as there's informed consent. If it's good enough for a beloved pet, why not a loved one who is suffering? I think all of this stuff is relatively simple.
Machines prevent death, but the machine is not the cause of death when you unplug it. When a body shuts down and stops functioning, that is God taking the life of the person. We can't take life. Only God can. When it is someone's time, and they have no quality of life left then it is not murder to let God take someone. A baby has so much hope for a wonderful life. They could be a doctor. They could be an engineer. They could be a teacher. They could be a pastor. They could be so many people's friends. They could live a wonderful life with so many dreams and aspirations. They have not yet expressed their joyful personality. What makes abortion so heinous is God has created a precious innocent little person, and He's made the womb a perfect peaceful home for a baby while it is developing in its earliest stages. The womb should be the safest most joyful place on the planet. It is taking the life of someone with so much in front them, and it is counting all of that as nothing. It is counting all of that as trash that has no worth or value. No one should be treated like that. People know the difference between unplugging someone who is braindead and starving a child. I don't need to explain the difference between the two. It is quite obvious.
Removing a person from life support kills them. If you go walk into the hospital now and remove somebody else's loved one from life support without permission, they will die, and you will get charged for killing them. Good luck with your "God did it" affirmative defense. Every fetus aborted was going to become the next Hitler or Stalin. We've been saving the world. You're welcome. Remind me, how many times did The Bible mention the word "abortion"? And yet, both would die of "natural causes" from somebody choosing to let them die. So I'm not surprised you're unable to reckon with the flaws in your argument.
You are debating something few will disagree with you. Very few want to see a viable later term fetus aborted, unless it poses significant health dangers to the mother. Most of the discussion here is around embryos and early term fetuses that in most substantive ways don’t resemble a late term viable fetus. Most of these abortions are via medication and are essentially miscarriages by medication. Your example of a person on life support that recovers is by definition not brain dead. Of course nobody wants to pull the plug on somebody who has a reasonable chance of recovery. They have a history of consciousness, they currently are alive and have a chance at future consciousness. With an early fetus, they aren’t conscious, and have never been conscious. For all intents and purposes their life hasn’t started.
