A) You hope it will. In the meantime, we continue to see cases of people being in danger or even dying.
B) Good for you that you can hand-wave away other people’s lives and safety as just a temporary bump in the road.
Your callousness is disconcerting, to say the least, and I’m done with this conversation now because I can’t teach you to stop looking at people as statistics.
A) These kinds of calculations change all the time. That’s why we have other companies that hire and fire people constantly or make other seemingly absurd decisions - the cost and benefit calculations change. There’s more money to be made in providing early deliveries, like one doctor said they would, than there is in sending patients (customers) on their way with no treatment and getting sued for it. Based on the hundreds of abortions that have happened in Missouri since the ban clearly other doctors think this is true.
B) Allowing abortion in all cases would be a fallacious and nightmarish way to handwave human life as expendable in the name of bodily autonomy.
You don’t want to kill people unnecessarily, do you? That would make you so callous as to be inhumane.
I’ll come back for one last comment to make this clear:
It is never, EVER acceptable to force someone to use their body to save the life of another. Ever. CORPSES have more rights than that (you have to volunteer to be a donor before death).
You want women to have fewer rights than corpses?
And that’s without even arguing whether a clump of cells that can’t survive on its own is even considered a life.
You can think someone sucks for having an abortion, and we can discuss what happens when a fetus could possible be viable on its own. But bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. If someone says “disconnect me from the thing attached to my body” you fucking do it. End of story. Call them horrible, callous, a sinner, whatever you want. But you do not force people to use their body as an incubator against their will.
Your claim is wrong. Parents and guardians are forced to use their bodies to provide for children after they’re born. They may not be inside the mother any longer, but if the child is harmed or killed, they’re liable for child abuse, manslaughter, murder, etc.
The fetus has bodily autonomy as well. The woman’s body is made to accommodate the fetus, while no human being is made to accommodate organ harvesting. It is, by definition, a human organism, and thus a human being. A fetus is not a “thing.”
You obviously don’t understand the concept of bodily autonomy. Parental obligation is not the same as losing bodily autonomy. A parent is not required to give up a kidney or liver for their child. Accountability for a child’s behavior is not the same thing as losing bodily autonomy.
It’s no different than if you agree to a blood donor and decide in the middle of donation that you want to stop. They cannot force you to continue, even if someone’s life depends on it. The fetus’ bodily autonomy comes in the form of not having its organs harvested, and being allowed to survive outside the woman’s body if it can. There is no form of autonomy that involves another person. That is literally antithetical to the definition of autonomy
You are wrong, flat out, and I encourage you to learn more about ethics before making such patently erroneous statements
Nobody is obligated to give up any bodily organ for the child that wasn’t made for them. This is why the “hooked up to a guy with kidney disease” argument doesn’t work. However, the uterus was made for the child. It isn’t just accountability for the child’s behavior, it’s also accountability for the child’s very life.
It is quite different from deciding not to donate blood. First, donating blood is an extraordinary use of the human body. It isn’t made to accommodate blood donations. It is only through medical marvels that it’s possible. Pregnancy is a totally ordinary use of a mother’s body. The uterus is made to accommodate the fetus. Second, there are plenty of people who donate blood and thus there is no onus on you in particular to provide blood to a particular person. If one person doesn’t provide blood, they can get blood from someone else who volunteers. However, when an abortion is performed, there is no recourse for the baby - it dies. It cannot be relocated outside the mother to be grown elsewhere, like inside a different mother. Even if this were possible, it is not done in hundreds of thousands of cases, leaving those human beings to die.
I know plenty about ethics, and I encourage you to learn more yourself so you do not justify killing innocent people any longer.
Interesting that you catch on a single word in my argument and discard the rest. You’re the one who introduced God to this. I was speaking strictly biologically, and if you’re so blinded by your ideology that a single word is enough to set you off this badly, I don’t think you have any place in a discussion like this.
A) You hope it will. In the meantime, we continue to see cases of people being in danger or even dying.
B) Good for you that you can hand-wave away other people’s lives and safety as just a temporary bump in the road.
Your callousness is disconcerting, to say the least, and I’m done with this conversation now because I can’t teach you to stop looking at people as statistics.
A) These kinds of calculations change all the time. That’s why we have other companies that hire and fire people constantly or make other seemingly absurd decisions - the cost and benefit calculations change. There’s more money to be made in providing early deliveries, like one doctor said they would, than there is in sending patients (customers) on their way with no treatment and getting sued for it. Based on the hundreds of abortions that have happened in Missouri since the ban clearly other doctors think this is true.
B) Allowing abortion in all cases would be a fallacious and nightmarish way to handwave human life as expendable in the name of bodily autonomy.
You don’t want to kill people unnecessarily, do you? That would make you so callous as to be inhumane.
I’ll come back for one last comment to make this clear:
It is never, EVER acceptable to force someone to use their body to save the life of another. Ever. CORPSES have more rights than that (you have to volunteer to be a donor before death).
You want women to have fewer rights than corpses?
And that’s without even arguing whether a clump of cells that can’t survive on its own is even considered a life.
You can think someone sucks for having an abortion, and we can discuss what happens when a fetus could possible be viable on its own. But bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. If someone says “disconnect me from the thing attached to my body” you fucking do it. End of story. Call them horrible, callous, a sinner, whatever you want. But you do not force people to use their body as an incubator against their will.
Your claim is wrong. Parents and guardians are forced to use their bodies to provide for children after they’re born. They may not be inside the mother any longer, but if the child is harmed or killed, they’re liable for child abuse, manslaughter, murder, etc.
The fetus has bodily autonomy as well. The woman’s body is made to accommodate the fetus, while no human being is made to accommodate organ harvesting. It is, by definition, a human organism, and thus a human being. A fetus is not a “thing.”
You obviously don’t understand the concept of bodily autonomy. Parental obligation is not the same as losing bodily autonomy. A parent is not required to give up a kidney or liver for their child. Accountability for a child’s behavior is not the same thing as losing bodily autonomy.
It’s no different than if you agree to a blood donor and decide in the middle of donation that you want to stop. They cannot force you to continue, even if someone’s life depends on it. The fetus’ bodily autonomy comes in the form of not having its organs harvested, and being allowed to survive outside the woman’s body if it can. There is no form of autonomy that involves another person. That is literally antithetical to the definition of autonomy
You are wrong, flat out, and I encourage you to learn more about ethics before making such patently erroneous statements
Nobody is obligated to give up any bodily organ for the child that wasn’t made for them. This is why the “hooked up to a guy with kidney disease” argument doesn’t work. However, the uterus was made for the child. It isn’t just accountability for the child’s behavior, it’s also accountability for the child’s very life.
It is quite different from deciding not to donate blood. First, donating blood is an extraordinary use of the human body. It isn’t made to accommodate blood donations. It is only through medical marvels that it’s possible. Pregnancy is a totally ordinary use of a mother’s body. The uterus is made to accommodate the fetus. Second, there are plenty of people who donate blood and thus there is no onus on you in particular to provide blood to a particular person. If one person doesn’t provide blood, they can get blood from someone else who volunteers. However, when an abortion is performed, there is no recourse for the baby - it dies. It cannot be relocated outside the mother to be grown elsewhere, like inside a different mother. Even if this were possible, it is not done in hundreds of thousands of cases, leaving those human beings to die.
I know plenty about ethics, and I encourage you to learn more yourself so you do not justify killing innocent people any longer.
“Made for them”. I see you’ve resorted to the God argument. My wife’s uterus wasn’t made for anyone but her. Your theocratic fascism is disgusting.
Interesting that you catch on a single word in my argument and discard the rest. You’re the one who introduced God to this. I was speaking strictly biologically, and if you’re so blinded by your ideology that a single word is enough to set you off this badly, I don’t think you have any place in a discussion like this.