Vote to comment and see the results
avatar
27 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 2 years ago

    For the fetus or the mother?

    • 2 years ago

      @gigi I hate these responses that are so short, they can be interpreted in more than one way...ambiguously. I can see an argument that abortion is a human rights violation for the fetus, but somehow I suspect you're saying it's a human rights violation for the mother. Explain.

    • 2 years ago

      @dorothy8532 It's a real question... Abortion involves an actual human being (mother) and a human being in progress (fetus-debatable when it starts having human rights). So I was actually wondering what the resolution refers to

  • 2 years ago

    Denying people their reproductive rights is a human rights violation. People who actually are people matter more than clumps of cells that could theoritically one day maybe become people under the right circumstances.

    • 2 years ago

      The truth of the matter is there are competing interests. Not rights really, but interests. A fetus is not recognized, for the most part, as a person under the law. Thus, rights, don't really come into play. But there is an interest in the fetus's life both for the fetus, and the state, and often the pregnant woman.

      The mother has actual legal rights, but abortion doesn't violate them unless it is performed against her will.

      My own view of a fetus's personhood is complicated. At the earliest stages, I say no, not a person, not a member of our society. It has no real identity, name, will, feelings, expression, etc... Other than DNA it lacks any aspect of what I consider to be a fellow human being and I don't make relations based on DNA.

      However, a fetus just prior to birth absolutely has a great many properties that I identify strongly with and feel a kinship with. So I find an abortion at this stage to be tantamount to murder unless the woman's life is in certain peril somehow, normally something you would have already resolved.

      So where is the line between, well it's a gradual one, varies life to life, and is hard to pin down. Many states do draw a line based on a kind of social consensus and I think that is an appropriate way to do it under the circumstances.

    • 2 years ago

      The most common type of abortion is most closely akin to drawing and quartering, a barbaric torture practice that is considered cruel, unusual, and a human rights violation by every civilized nation on earth.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom Citation needed.

      • 2 years ago

        @arkle Several physicians discuss the procedure here.

        https://www.liveaction.org/news/what-really-happens-during-a-dc-abortion/

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom So you don't have a reliable source then, just anti-choice propaganda. Got it.

        Gotta love how the "article": you linked to me to even uses the term "abortionist," as if that word has any actual meaning beyond dehumanizing the doctors who perform the safe and legal medical procuedure you want banned based on lies becuase you are a terrible human being.

        Your "source" traffics in the language anti-choice terrorists use before they kill ACTUAL LIVE HUMAN BEINGS like doctors and nurses.

      • 2 years ago

        @arkle Quite a leap from my providing an article with actual descriptions from doctors to your accusing me of promoting murder. Care to back that down and actually read the quotes? The quotes themselves are information; I had to use that particular source because pro-abortion websites don't tend to describe the actual procedures.

        Or is your objection that I provided descriptions of abortion but not of drawing and quartering? Plenty such sources exist of course, but they're fairly dated since that practice was outlawed in the mid-19th century.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom "Quite a leap from my providing an article with actual descriptions from doctors to your accusing me of promoting murder."

        A biased site pushing an agenda based on religious dogma, not fact.

        "Care to back that down and actually read the quotes? The quotes themselves are information; I had to use that particular source because pro-abortion websites don't tend to describe the actual procedures."

        In other words, you looked for a site that reinforced your narrative and posted it as truth. Typical of anti-choicers. I suppose you also buy into the myth that getting an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, and other lies sites like the one you quoted spread.

        "Or is your objection that I provided descriptions of abortion but not of drawing and quartering?"

        My objection is to how you try to pass off a site belonging to a movement that is famous for lying (including but not limited doctoring videos to slander Planned Parenthood) to push an agenda that seeks to strip most people but espeically women of basic freedom over their own bodies and medical choices.

      • 2 years ago

        @arkle "In other words, you looked for a site that reinforced your narrative and posted it as truth."

        No, I Googled "description of D and C abortion" and this was the first link that contained actual descriptions. If you'd prefer to provide a pro-abortion site that contains accurate descriptions, go for it.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom Here's the thing, it doesn't matter. You've already shown by your choice of source that you don't actually care about the facts surrounding abortions. So why should I waste my time?

        Also, since you are clearly not the bright, need I remind you that not everyone's Google searchs come up exactly the same? If you spend a lot of time on anti-choice sites, of coruse those are the kinds of things search results are going to prioritize for you.

        http://www.webpresencesolutions.net/7-reasons-google-search-results-vary-dramatically/

      • 2 years ago

        @arkle I'm fully aware how Google searches work. I spend no time on abortion-related sites and in fact I'm on a VPN so my traffic is anonymized. I didn't say this was THE top link. It was the top link featuring actual descriptions.

        What was the first link YOU got with the same search, that contained actual descriptions of the procedure?

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom Here's a vetter idea; a site that isn't a lying, anti-choice rag.

        See, even if your source was credible (it isn't), it wouldn't matter beucase your centrla thesis about it being barbaric presumably stems from the LIE that fetuses feel pain.

        https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19089-24-week-fetuses-cannot-feel-pain/

        https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

        http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain

        Note how I site SCIENCE sites, not anti-choice blogs. or as you'll probably call it "fake news."

        So even assuming the procedure happens the exact way your link says it does, so what? It's just removing an unwatned parasite. It's up to the person carrying said parasite to decide whether or not to let it grow into a potential human life. Not yours.

      • 2 years ago

        @arkle Please describe for me your knowledge of drawing and quartering.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom I do know that it often involved horses and was done to actual living people, and not to clumps of cells.

      • 2 years ago

        @arkle Then you don’t know about drawing and quartering. The quartering occurred AFTER the person was hanged. It was still considered such a barbaric thing to do to a CORPSE in Christendom that England only did it to high traitors, and even then they stopped doing it long before it was formally abolished.

        How would you them distinguish between a human body you say is not yet alive and one that is not alive anymore? Or are you fine with quartering a corpse, too?

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom "How would you them distinguish between a human body you say is not yet alive and one that is not alive anymore? Or are you fine with quartering a corpse, too?"

        If it's not what the deceased wanted done with their remians in their will, I would be bothered a liytle by that yes, but otherwise, as long as nobody's f***ing it, what business is it of mine? It's not my body, and I don't belong to any religion period, let alone one that has strict guidlines for what to do with the corpse after death. Myself, I'd like my body to be donated to a crime lab for aspiring coronors to practice on. :)

      • 2 years ago

        @arkle The deceased in question, when it comes to quartering, had lost their civil rights altogether after due process of law.

        Can you say the same for the fetus? What has a fetus done to deserve civil death?

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom "What has a fetus done to deserve civil death?"

        Your question is based on a false premise and thereofre undeserviing of an answer.

      • 2 years ago

        @arkle Nothing false about the premise. Your comment above was based on a concept of bodily autonomy that exists separately from life OR ability to feel pain. My response was that in the case of quartering as legal punishment, the desecrated person lost the right to raise the objection of bodily autonomy. Why, in your view, does the aborted fetus lose the same?

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom "Nothing false about the premise."

        You're comparing a safe, legal, medical procedure that harms no one to ancient barbaric execution and torture tactics. Your premise is not only false, it is laughably false.

        "Your comment above was based on a concept of bodily autonomy that exists separately from life OR ability to feel pain."

        I understand all the words you used, but that sentence was gibberish.

        "My response was that in the case of quartering as legal punishment, the desecrated person lost the right to raise the objection of bodily autonomy. Why, in your view, does the aborted fetus lose the same?"

        It didn't lose anything. Again, your question is based on the false premise that a fetus is a person. In fact, you show how vilely sexist you are with your premise; by opposing the safe, legal medical procedure known as abortion, you are arguing that your personal discomfort based on psuedoscience and relgious dogma trumps the bodily autonomy rights of MILLIONS of people all over the wolrd with uterusues. People you have never met. Will never meet. And most of them will be cis women. Erego, you are just another chauvinist POS who thinks that he has the right to control women.

      • 2 years ago

        @arkle " Again, your question is based on the false premise that a fetus is a person."

        Your argument is based on the false premise that a traitor is a legal person. Legally, both a fetus and a convicted traitor have no personhood rights--nor does the corpse of a traitor. They are legally equivalent. You continue to refuse to address this fact, while asserting that a corpse has superior personhood rights to a fetus.

        Interesting that you keep harping on "religion" when I have only mentioned it in the context of drawing and quartering--which was objected to by the Church from the beginning--but not abortion. Further interesting that the government eventually reverted to the Church's position on drawing and quartering after rejecting it for six centuries or so.

      • 2 years ago

        @citizenthom "Your argument is based on the false premise that a traitor is a legal person. Legally, both a fetus and a convicted traitor have no personhood rights--nor does the corpse of a traitor."

        This argument is ridiuclous. I refuse to acknowledge it any further. I've already given it more consideration than it deserves.

        "Interesting that you keep harping on "religion" when I have only mentioned it in the context of drawing and quartering--which was objected to by the Church from the beginning--but not abortion."

        Gee, could it have to do with the fact that the anti-choice agenda originates from religion, and is pushed by religous figures, and that Atheist anti-chociers are outliers and not the majority?

        Nah, that would make sense. And you've made it clear that you don't value sense when it comes to this discussion.

    • 2 years ago