Yeah I find it odd when people say that.I understand what you are trying to say. But in no way is USA anywhere near what a 'third world' developing country is. Not even close
You're advocating taking fundamental human rights away from women.It bothers me greatly that any woman would be put in that positon to begin with. We desperately need to crack down on rape culture too.
Edit out>put
Its not progressives that are the problemWhen will progressives realise they are at war with Christian fundamentalists?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And you're advocating taking fundamental human rights away from children. There's an impasse here and we come down on different sides of it.You're advocating taking fundamental human rights away from women.
The same white men who voted for this law will also want to make sure mother and child get no kind of healthcare.
The house I can afford is not deemed big enough for a foster child in addition to my own two children. But in the meantime I have been donating to the appropriate charities, and using my vote, and voice, to support parties that don't demonise the poor, and that support families in difficult positon.Absolutely fecking yes they should. Also, talking about support, you been taking in foster kids lately? I’ll wait
...while tellng their mistresses to 'get rid of it' should they fall pregnant.You're advocating taking fundamental human rights away from women.
The same white men who voted for this law will also want to make sure mother and child get no kind of healthcare.
An early stage fetus is not yet a human being.And you're advocating taking fundamental human rights away from children. There's an impasse here and we come down on different sides of it.
But at least we're aligned in saying proper healthcare should be available.
I prefer Singer’s argument to this.An early stage fetus is not yet a human being.
Those who defend women's rights to abortion often refer to themselves as 'pro-choice' rather than as 'pro-abortion'. In this way they seek to bypass the issue of the moral status of the foetus, and instead make the right to abortion a question of individual liberty. But it cannot simply be assumed that a woman's right to have an abortion is a question of individual liberty, for it must first be established that the aborted foetus is not a being worthy of protection. If the foetus is worthy of protection, then laws against abortion do not create 'victimless crimes' as laws against homosexual relations between consenting adults do. So the question of the moral status of the foetus cannot be avoided.
The central argument against abortion may be put like this:
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human foetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.
Defenders of abortion usually deny the second premiss of this argument. The dispute about abortion then becomes a dispute about whether a foetus is a human being, or, in other words, when a human life begins. Opponents of abortion challenge others to point to any stage in the gradual process of human development that marks a morally significant dividing-line. Unless there is such a line, they say, we must either upgrade the status of the earliest embryo to that of the child, or downgrade the status of the child to that of the foetus; and no one advocates the latter course.
The most commonly suggested dividing-lines between the fertilized egg and the child are birth and viability. Both are open to objection. A prematurely born infant may well be less developed in these respects than a foetus nearing the end of its normal term, and it seems peculiar to hold that we may not kill the premature infant, but may kill the more developed foetus. The point of viability varies according to the state of medical technology, and, again, it is odd to hold that a foetus has a right to life if the pregnant woman lives in London, but not if she lives in New Guinea.
Those who wish to deny the foetus a right to life may be on stronger ground if they challenge the first, rather than the second, premiss of the argument set out above. To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being. If 'human' is taken as equivalent to 'person', the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious. If, on the other hand, 'human' is taken to mean no more than 'member of the species Homo sapiens', then it needs to be shown why mere membership of a given biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life. Rather, the defender of abortion may wish to argue, we should look at the foetus for what it is - the actual characteristics it possesses - and value its life accordingly.
Such compassion.It's a shitty position, but the lesser of two bad outcomes. I assure you I'll never punish you for your father's actions either.
While this may well be true, it's worth pointing out that part of the UK (Northern Ireland) already had abortion restrictions as bad or worse than the ones Alabama has just introduced. I don't think a lot of the people in the UK who are angered by Alabama's decision actually realise they have an example of the same problem much closer to home.The US is a broken country. It really cannot be overstated.
eughRepublican Senator Clyde Chambliss argued that the ban was still fair to victims of rape and incest because those women would still be allowed to get an abortion "until she knows she's pregnant," a statement that garnered a mixture of groans and cackles from the chamber's gallery.
Sure, I'm not British though.While this may well be true, it's worth pointing out that part of the UK (Northern Ireland) already had abortion restrictions as bad or worse than the ones Alabama has just introduced. I don't think a lot of the people in the UK who are angered by Alabama's decision actually realise they have an example of the same problem much closer to home.
According to your definition. And that's the impasse we're at.An early stage fetus is not yet a human being.
My sister is pro-life. And she's grateful that my wife is pro-life too, or her niece may not have been given a chance to live. Would you like to come mansplain feminism to them?Such compassion.
I assume you don't have a sister? I'd love you to tell her that and see her response if you did.
Imagine accepting that some people have a different opinion on the matter and allowing them the freedom to make their own decisions independent of your belief system.Imagine letting children live. Monsters.
if she thinks that being pro choice means your wife would be desperately going around getting pregnant so she can kill all the babies then she needs a lot more than feminism explained to herMy sister is pro-life. And she's grateful that my wife is pro-life too, or her niece may not have been given a chance to live. Would you like to come mansplain feminism to them?
Does "mansplain" work as your summoning or something?if she thinks that being pro choice means your wife would be desperately going around getting pregnant so she can kill all the babies then she needs a lot more than feminism explained to her
So you've actually discussed the scenario of her being raped and she'd still decide to keep the baby? Or are you assuming she would because shes pro-life? Honestly interested.My sister is pro-life. And she's grateful that my wife is pro-life too, or her niece may not have been given a chance to live. Would you like to come mansplain feminism to them?
Oh yeah I know you're not, it was more of a general point off the back of your post.Sure, I'm not British though.
And I'd argue that reinstating something like this is slightly different than having it leftover from the past.
I was thinking they've probably all raped someone.Let me tell you what it is
They’re all cnuts
Newly born babies are not rational either. For the record I fall on the pro-choice side but I'm not sure this is a convincing argument.I prefer Singer’s argument to this.
Those who wish to deny the foetus a right to life may be on stronger ground if they challenge the first, rather than the second, premiss of the argument set out above. To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being. If 'human' is taken as equivalent to 'person', the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious. If, on the other hand, 'human' is taken to mean no more than 'member of the species Homo sapiens', then it needs to be shown why mere membership of a given biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life. Rather, the defender of abortion may wish to argue, we should look at the foetus for what it is - the actual characteristics it possesses - and value its life accordingly.
My wife has looked me in the eye and told me that she could never abort. I didn't play 21 scenarios with her, but she stressed the "never". Before giving birth to our children, she also made me swear to prioritise them if a decision had to be made any point. Thankfully it never came to that.So you've actually discussed the scenario of her being raped and she'd still decide to keep the baby? Or are you assuming she would because shes pro-life? Honestly interested.
Interesting you didn't opt for the 12 week old aborted child. I've no interest in posting that either, but I'm not the one denying their humanity.
totally human
Are you all religious? Please understand i'm not being patronising here, but the UK seems so very different to America on this situation.My wife has looked me in the eye and told me that she could never abort. I didn't play 21 scenarios with her, but she stressed the "never". Before giving birth to our children, she also made me swear to prioritise them if a decision had to be made any point. Thankfully it never came to that.
Ah right, no disagreements there.Oh yeah I know you're not, it was more of a general point off the back of your post.
And while you're right that reinstating something is different, people in the UK/Ireland have a greater chance of effecting change in NI than they do in Alabama. It's a shame that NI's abortion laws don't come under more scrutiny from elsewhere within the UK.
Yes, he expanded on it in his Utilitarian paper, in which infanticide under some circumstances is desirableNewly born babies are not rational either. For the record I fall on the pro-choice side but I'm not sure this is a convincing argument.
. In Practical Ethics(1979), Singer explains that the value of a life should be based on traits such as rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness. ‘Defective infants lack these characteristics,’ he wrote. ‘Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings.’
It says we may kill a more developed fetus? Does any country allow abortion after 25 weeks @InfiniteBoredom?I prefer Singer’s argument to this.
Interesting you didn't opt for the 12 week old aborted child. I've no interest in posting that either, but I'm not the one denying their humanity.
We are to differing degrees. I can't speak for their motivations, but I am not a good enough Christian to take the religious view on this. I believe there is sufficient grounds for an atheist to be pro-life. I'm also pro-equal marriage so I don't let the church dictate my opinions.Are you all religious? Please understand i'm not being patronising here, but the UK seems so very different to America on this situation.
So still not a graphic image of the reality of an abortion? Just a random fake image that I didn't allude to?
picture of a resin doll painted and used as shameless propaganda which stupid people who think jizzy eggs are people believed was a real human being
At least he's logically consistent, I'll give him that.Yes, he expanded on it in his Utilitarian paper, in which infanticide under some circumstances is desirable
Like modern Mississippi next door? Hah...Excuse my ignorance, but will it be possible to cross the border to a less backwater state and then have the abortion?
Basically if you are not rational or self conscious, you shouldn’t be considered to have full personhood, ergo you have no rights.It says we may kill a more developed fetus? Does any country allow abortion after 25 weeks @InfiniteBoredom?
Good time to bring back the Underground Railroad. There's freedom on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line. Or Canada, if you're in Alabama (Ohio banned abortion too).Like modern Mississippi next door? Hah...
To get to a less backwater state you'd have to travel halfway across a very large country. They aim to make it all but impossible for anyone (except the well-off) .
Hence why every modern country has an abortion cut off before rationality and self consciousness develops.Basically if you are not rational or self conscious, you shouldn’t be considered to have full personhood, ergo you have no rights.
I haven’t looked into the specificities between countries.