YoBuckStopsHereA Growing Share Of Americans Think States Shouldn’t Be Able To Put Any Limits On Abortion
varothWell, yeah, it’s almost like the government shouldn’t get to control your body.
So 3 seconds before the head crowns, you should be able to kill the baby?
MegaUltraChickenclicks downvote
What if there’s 1mm of the baby’s toe still inside the mother, and she decides to shoot it in the head? Still legal?
edgarallenpwnThis is not how it works and I believe know this. Fuck off
Aw, lost your temper because you can’t force people to believe in your incoherent opinion?
We don’t live in hypothetical land. We live in the real world we’re what you are suggesting doesn’t really happen. Where a majority of abortions happen in the first trimester and are not done in a whim. Your hypothetical sounds smart but is mussing on reasons why the sky is green. We can talk all day about what is green but guess what, the sky is blue.
I’ve never killed anyone, and I almost certainly never will. Should we make it law to say I can, just because we’re sure I won’t?
You’re shitting on the very concept of a thought experiment and of a hypothetical. What you’re doing is like saying “The law should say you should be able to murder whoever you like so long as the sky is green, because the sky is never green”. This is a tactic to avoid addressing the issue. Namely, even if you don’t think something is going to happen, why would you allow it, if it absolutely musn’t?
They say it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, but if you absolutely refuse to entertain it for strategic reasons, change the date. A healthy fetus, a few days passed due date, maybe no more than week from labour, could easily be induced, mother decides “Actually nah”, takes a bunch of pills to kill it - you good with that?
You want to sound a lot smarter than you actually are and it shows.
Silly me, not trying to sound dumb. Guess you got me.
Flying SquidAn abortion ‘3 seconds before the head crowns’ is called a birth. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. If you can terminate the pregnancy without killing the fetus, go for it. The fact is, almost every abortion performed in the third trimester is due to the fetus being unviable or the health of the mother.
So you just absolutely refuse to engage in the thought experiment if the result of it proves you wrong.
If you can terminate the pregnancy without killing the fetus, go for it.
If you can end the pregnancy without killing the fetus, but you kill the fetus, should that be illegal?
It’s not a fetus once it’s born and killing it would be infanticide. Why don’t you know this?
What does “once it’s born” have to do with this conversation? And why are you dodging my question:
If you can end the pregnancy without killing the fetus, but you kill the fetus, should that be illegal?
Do you know how loudly dodging this question speaks? You’re basically admitting it.
I think you’re not thinking through the complications of the question. If you had to kill the fetus to save the life of the mother rather than allow it to be born, should that be legal? If the fetus is discovered to have a fatal flaw that will allow it to live only a few days in severe agony if it isn’t put out of its misery immediately, should that be legal?
Or should we allow all pregnancies that are viable in terms of a successful birth happen that way regardless of circumstance?
So what you’re saying is that it depends? Yeah, I agree. And we both therefore disagree “States Shouldn’t Be Able To Put Any Limits On Abortion”. We also therefore agree it’s fine for the government to have some control over your body.
What is you think we disagree on, and why?
Where did I say I disagreed with that? Are you putting words in my mouth? Otherwise, please quote me.
If you disagree with nothing I’m saying, what was you were hoping you’d added to the conversation?
Ah, so you are putting words in my mouth. If you wish to have a discussion with someone you imagine you’re talking to, I will be happy to leave you two to it.
How is asking you what you think putting words in your mouth? If there’s some point you want to make, just make it. If there’s some point you have made you think I have wrong, just clarify it.
You didn’t ask me what I thought. You declared that we both disagreed with something. Please, again, quote me. Because otherwise, it’s a lie.
I have invited you multiple times to tell me what you think. It’s not my job to help you find your tongue. Speak or don’t.
You also decided to tell me what I thought. Right here:
And we both therefore disagree “States Shouldn’t Be Able To Put Any Limits On Abortion”. We also therefore agree it’s fine for the government to have some control over your body.
I did not disagree that states shouldn’t be able to put any limits on abortion and I did not agree that it’s fine for the government to have control over your body. I made neither of those claims. You lied.
I think that’s about as many invitations to say something of substances I’m going to watch you reject before I decide you have nothing of substance to say at all.
Why should I say anything substantive to you when you’re going to lie about what I think? What’s the point? You’ll just lie again.
Do you have a crush on me? Because if so, I’m not interested. Otherwise there’s no reason for you to still be talking to me.
No, I would just like to know why you lied about what I think.
“Oh my god, a premise, I just have to accept it!” – your imaginary version me.
I showed very clearly that you lied. You claim I believe the exact opposite of what I believe. I quoted you. Are you trying to gaslight me now and still claim I agree with something I absolutely do not agree with? Do you really think that will work?