What on earth is going on in America??

[Nanny0gg]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48275795

How can a supposedly 'civilised' society pass such a retrograde law?

And other states following suit?

But if you believe a foetus is a life, it's a tad inconsistent to say that terminating a pregnancy is actually OK in some situations ?

@Marvelendgame

I don’t support the death penalty at all. It’s really hypocritical imo. Perhaps some would argue that a baby is an innocent life while someone who has committed a crime worthy of the DP is not ? I honestly don’t know.

@SaskiaRembrandt

I simply don’t understand the relevance of your question at all or what your even trying to get at. What rights does a foetus have that don’t apply to any other person?

Why are foetuses different to people who need blood transfusions, or kidney transplants? In fact, to compare what you may consider like with like: why are foetuses different to newborn babies who require blood transfusions or organ transplants? Why does that right end the moment someone is born?

What rights does a foetus have that don’t apply to any other person?

It's an incredibly relevant question. In your ideology, a foetus is a life, therefore abortion should be illegal. But that means a foetus has the right to overrule the bodily autonomy of another person in order for its life to be sustained. No person has that right once they are born. A newborn baby who needs an organ transplant - sadly, that is something that happens - does not have the legal right for another person to be compelled to provide them with an organ. Organs must be offered because people have a legal right to bodily autonomy. However, you are saying that prior to birth, a foetus does have the right to overrule another person's bodily autonomy, and I'm asking why this is? And why does that right stop the moment someone is born?

Necesito - even if you believe an embryo is a person and that therefore (all other things being equal) killing it or allowing it to die is as serious a matter as killing or allowing to die a human being who already exists, it still doesn't follow that abortion is murder, for the reasons Saskia points out

If we have a person attacking us in such a way that we genuinely fear for our lives and self defence reasonably involves lethal force, then we are not guilty of murder. The same argument applies, even if you believe an embryo is a person, to a pregnancy that kills the mother.

I might be the only tissue match for a bone marrow transplant to save my brother's life, and the bone marrow transplant might well be non lethal (though invasive and painful). The fact that he would die otherwise doesn't mean I should be compelled to undergo extraction of some of my bone marrow. Nor does it mean that I would be guilty of murder if I refused. Likewise the fact that the embryo would die if removed from my body does not make abortion murder even if one accepts that an embryo is a person, and no-one should have the legal power to compel me to undergo the risks of physical harm, hardship and possible death involved in pregnancy.

Even for a Christian, given that theologians have spilled gallons of ink defending the concept of the just war (in which innocent civilians, children and pregnant women among them, die as a "foreseen but unintended consequence" of the choice to go to war) you can't just assert "abortion is murder."

Not without an argument as to why it's different from self defence, why we don't compel kidney or liver or bone marrow transplants, not without an argument as to why it's morally different from a just war in which innocent people die.

For the record I don't think embryos are "persons" in the sense normally used in moral philosophy.

But even if they were, it's commonly accepted that not all killing is murder, so you have to do the work in demonstrating why you think it is in this instance.

@lisalocketlostherpocket that's a fucking HORRIBLE comment and I've reported it.

@SaskiaRembrandt
Ah okay. I actually understand where your coming from. Before a baby is born, if we emphasise the right to bodily autonomy over the right to life of the baby it results in a death/ the loss of life. If we emphasises the right to life of a baby over the right to bodily autonomy it results in a woman carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth to it and then being able to have her body back. If we contrast the two consequences, the loss of life is the greater loss than the loss of BA. Both consequences are bad. I don’t want women to have to be pregnant when they don’t want to. I don’t want someone to do something they don’t want to. But the loss of life is far greater imo. We should educate people on contraceptives, removing hook up culture.

If I give my kidney to someone, I will never get that kidney back. That is why it stops post birth.

necesitodormirahora thank you for answering!

I see what you are saying, but in both instances, the removal of the right to assistance/support from another person's body results in a death. Plus, while it's true if you give a kidney you won't get it back, a woman who has to give her body up for up to 40+ weeks doesn't necessarily get it back either. Birth injuries are common, she risks death herself by continuing with the pregnancy.

And it doesn't have to be something as permanent as an organ, if you donate blood or bone marrow you aren't permanently deprived of them, and the risks involved are lower than the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. But newborn babies don't have a legal right to have those taken from another person either, even if without them they will die.

As I said, I appreciate you answering and I do understand where you are coming from, it's just it's an inconsistent position when it means a foetus has more rights than a newborn baby.

If we emphasises the right to life of a baby over the right to bodily autonomy it results in a woman carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth to it and then being able to have her body back

What if it results in the woman's physical or mental health being irreparably damaged when that could have been avoided? Not much use to her having her body back in those circumstances.

I was going to say exactly what saskia has said about blood/bone marrow.

I had injuries as a result of giving birth resulting in permanent damage to my body. Some women have life changing injuries and even death during childbirth.

You are saying that is not as bad as ending the life of the fetus/baby.

But why should a fetus have more rights that a newborn baby?

@agnurse and @Gth1234

Are you saying that the only time adults should EVER have sexual intercourse is for the purpose of procreation?

What pro lifers are really saying is that the rights of the foetus actually come above the rights of the woman. There isn't any way to measure the damage that could potentially be done to a woman if she's forced to continue with a pregnancy. The damage to her physical and mental health is unforeseen, if she dies, she's collateral damage.

I know this isn’t a funny topic but I did chuckle when I heard the senators and their supporters described as ‘Y’all Queada!’

They are 100% crazy Christian fundamentalists.

What was the deleted message about?

lisalocket's post said something about babies born to rape victims having rapists' genes, as I recall.

Y’all Queada
That IS pretty funny

I find the possibility of women being investigated for miscarriages particularly horrifying

It's already happening.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-47487116

www.thenation.com/article/ecuador-abortion-miscarriage-prosecution/

And overwhelmingly, it will be poor women who suffer. Rich women will always have the opportunity to discreetly leave the country if necessary, to have terminations.

Let me give you a scenario

Sure while we're at it let me give you one ... you're in a fertility clinic (even if you believe they're a "bad thing"). A fire breaks out. There's a toddler there and a tray (probably many trays) of fertilised embryos. You can carry one of those out of the building and so save it. So which one do you take?

We instinctively know there is a difference between a baby and a foetus.

Obviously unborn children are more valuable than innocent adults or children. Because you can't abort the former, but can risk shooting the latter.

Fair enough if my comment breached MN guidelines but I would be very disturbed to find out that my father raped my mother, and I would not want to bear or bring up a rapist's child.

I genuinely don't think my comment was [expletive] awful as the reporting PP claimed - plenty of comments on here in other contexts that the apple often doesn't fall far from the tree.

But I will leave it there as I don't want to be banned.

I agree with you, lisa, and think deleting the post was an odd decision.

Lisalocket there may be very many women on here who are/have been in abusive marriages where they've been raped, and have children from those relationships/marriages.

It's actually not that uncommon.

I don't think you meant any malice but it is people's children possibly.

@agnurse and others are pushing a white supremacy philosopy. They believe the the white race is dying out after civil rights, and you must now FORCE (white) women to have more babies and do their duty to the -mother- fatherland. Rank hatred and coercion of women dressed up as "love" for embryos.

I know this isn’t a funny topic but I did chuckle when I heard the senators and their supporters described as ‘Y’all Queada!’

They are 100% crazy Christian fundamentalists.

Yes.
As in another post somewhere someone calling it Sharia Law, Christian version.

Let's not beat about the bush, fundamentalist Christians (and Catholics) are not copying Islam at all. Misogyny is rife.

Even recently, here in Portugal, the top Catholic brass posted an analysis of different political parties based pretty much solely on how they view abortion (oh, and prostitution). Never mind social policies... What matters is what women do with their bodies. [grr]

In any case, here abortion only became legal at all mid 80s and per women's choice (and only the first 10 weeks) 12 years ago.

No, that is untrue.

If anything, abortion is more racist than anything else. It disproportionately affects women of colour.

In 2016, per the statistics I have listed, almost as many black babies were aborted as were born alive, at least in New York state.

www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2016/table23.htm

Have you considered the reasons why that is the case? Women of colour are more likely to be poor, to not have adequate health provision, to not be able to afford to keep a child. Forcing people to keep babies that they cannot afford only worsens poverty and unequal opportunities in life. Removal of access to safe abortion in the US is absolutely a race issue, but not in the way you imply

@3timeslucky
I’ve seen this before,actually. Almost everybody including pro-lifers would realistically save the toddler.

They are 100% crazy Christian fundamentalists.

“Crazy” is a subjective word. They aren’t really fundamentalist and you do realise pretty much all world religions are anti-abortion. What does that tell you?