• cricket98@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    I genuinely do believe it is killing a human. The whole “its just a clump of cells!” is a reductionist argument that serves no purpose. We are all clumps of cells. I’m not religious either.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m afraid I dont believe you. Have you approached the FBI, your local DA, over these “murders”? Have you even called the police? Have you hired a private investigator? If I knew someone was murdered I’d do all of these things.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wow you really got me. By replying as if you were the original person I was replying to you really ruined my argument by correctly noting I did not go back and check which username I was replying to.

          Very well, s/murder/“unlawful killings” in my previous reply

          • cricket98@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I didn’t say unlawful killings. Things can be legal and can still be wrong. I shouldn’t have to explain that to you.

            • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              good one you sure showed me that you’re deeply invested in this, genuinely, and have completely changed my mind that you’re doing this to be a troll.

              • cricket98@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                maybe you should learn to read instead of shooting off questions that hold no relation to what we are talking about

                • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re the one trying to convince me that you absolutely believe abortion is the same as killing, which you have failed to do. So there’s absolutely no burden on me whatsoever to do anything at all.

                  I stated that I don’t believe the OP is being truthful in that they consider these truly murders, you jumped into say they were “killings” (and still haven’t given any further justification), and I don’t believe either of you.

                  You are still welcome to attempt to change my mind.

                  • cricket98@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I just think that killing a baby still in the womb is killing a human being. I do consider it murder from a personal ethics point of view, obviously under the law it is not.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, it’s not reductionist. It’s exactly what it is. What is reductionist is making it some kind of moral panic based on misinterpretation of religious text in order to force your perspective on others. The bible gives instructions on how to perform an abortion, and we know that abortion saves lives. Ectopic pregnancy, miscarriages, and other perfectly legitimate medical reasons are part of why abortion access is necessary and should be enshrined as female health care. If you are secular and still anti-choice, then you might not understand that your personal morality has no place in an operating room.

      • cricket98@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not religious at all. Even though I’m not religious, I think it’s still fine for me to speak out on things I view as wrong.

        Ectopic pregnancy, miscarriages, and other perfectly legitimate medical reasons are part of why abortion access is necessary

        I’m ok with abortion if the mothers life is directly at risk. I’m not ok with abortion being a backup birth control.

        • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nope, that’s exactly what abortion is, birth control. That is exactly what it was established as decades ago, and exactly what that partisan Supreme Court overturned against the will of the people.

          Abortion is nothing less than birth control.

    • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah but killing a human in self defense is never murder.

      Regardless, that clump of cells isn’t human, because it doesn’t have a brain, and that’s all that a human is. If it gets to the point where a brain is developing, it still remains a matter of self defense. Pregnancy is a life threatening condition, and no person has the right to use another person’s body without their consent.

      • cricket98@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        What if the baby is not threatening the life of the mother at all? How is it okay to kill in self defense in that instance?

        At least you admit you are killing a human. That’s nice that you have gotten that far.

        • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pregnancy is always a life threatening condition. A woman’s consent to the use of her body supercedes anyone else’s claim to life dependent upon her consent.

              • cricket98@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                That is much different than “pregnancy being inherently a life threatening condition”

                • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  There is not the slightest difference.

                  You need to face the fact that you don’t believe women should have rights. It’s got nothing to do with the fetus. It’s merely the vehicle for putting women back in the kitchen, barefoot and vulnerable to a man.

                  You ask when a fetus has rights? When a woman bestows human rights upon it by deciding to bring it to term. That’s when a person receives human rights. At birth, not conception. The rights bestowed upon us by The Creator? There are no gods. Women are our creators. By forcing them to create, you would desecrate that which you claim to hold so dear. You will make the creation of human life an ugly, hateful, disgraceful thing instead of a loving, intentional, consensual event.

                  You poisonous lot want to take away the most basic right a woman has: the freedom to decide to make life, and the right to say NO.

                  • cricket98@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s very strange to me how you interpret “Hey I don’t think killing babies in the womb is cool” into “you just hate woman and want them in the kitchen”. Very strange, I can tell you use a bit too overexposed to the politics of everything. It’s not crazy to think that some people might think killing a child, even if its unborn, is wrong.

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Best way I’ve seen it put is this. If you’re (born) kid needs a kidney donation to live there is no law requiring you to give that kid a kidney. Why should there be a law requiring you to give an unborn kid use of a uterus? You’re not killing a person you’re simply denying them use of your own internal organs.

          • cricket98@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ripping the child out of your womb is killing the baby by your own action. Letting someone else die due to inaction is quite different, and I think you know that.