_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
1359 points (98.5% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
5499 readers
1571 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except for the laws that punish people who seek medical aid. As exemplified by the post. Also flase equivalency.
It doesn't exist except it's on the law books. OK.
It is an entirely false equivalence. Because a fetus isn't a child until further in development.
Great who determines it's an "emergency"? With how poorly worded gop policies are it's too much of a grey area to risk for many people when the punishment is jailtime or worse. A fetus is a fetus is it's not an adolescent, more false equivalency. A fetus is a fetus, not a child.
No it's not irrelevant. If it was the laws should be removed. As it stands they exist and are therefore pertinent.
A fetus is a fetus, until it is a child it is a lump of cells and therefore no one should be forced to carry a fetus. It is not murder.
It's relevant because it is. And now you've moved onto strawman fallacies. Try to argue in good faith :)
I made my assertion with evidence (laws to punish abortions on the books) which you disregarded by saying no one has been charged (YET) so there was nothing to worry about. Then why will you not provide evidence (that we haven't already discussed and disproved) to back up your claims?
And again, as it's worded it's too fucking vague for people to gamble on. So no it's no untrue. The threat is real because it's in the books. Just because it hasn't come to pass doesn't mean it's not a threat. I do believe murder is wrong. Never said it wasn't. Abortion isn't murder.
People are gambling on it every day hence the preventable deaths. Because doctors are worried about the very real threat of jail time or major fines. Because the laws on the books are poorly worded, without clear descriptions. Why are mothers dying more now than they were before. It's pretty obvious that it coincided with the overturn of Roe, and the laws kicked back in.
Murder is wrong because our social morality says it is, in certain contexts, other times it's cheered on, and celebrated. I personally don't believe people should be killing other people at all, and fetuses aren't people, something that needs to be defined in a moral and legal context, see death. Many scientists agree that a fetus is incapable of survival on its own, and there has to be a boundary of what is acceptable. Do you agree that rape babies should be aborted?
Until you provide arguments that aren't strawman I won't continue to engage. If you want a proper debate, argue in good faith.
Also it's the mother that is punished for rape. Another shit take from you.
You have brought up some that yes we're not strawman, but when those were refuted, you continued to bring them up, just as I continued to bring up my points. No change would happen there. Then you strawman and strawman. So no I will not engage you anymore until you can argue what I said, not what you wanted me to say.
K byeeee