DJ - I respect you, but this might be one of the most ludicrous positions to take. Wanting to save a baby’s life is the literal opposite of promoting murder. You would have a point if I took the position that overturning abortion is great and that if some women choose to do something unsafe, we’ll that’s not as bad. But I clearly don’t take that position.
I want a pregnant women to have access to resources that help. Accusing me of supporting murder is simply nonsense.
If I support murder - good god - what do you support? Well, frankly, you support infanticide for convenience. In my view that is unacceptable.
Inaccessibility of quality abortion care risks violating a range of human rights of women and girls, including the right to life; the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the right to benefit from scientific progress and its realization; the right to decide freely and responsibly on the number, spacing and timing of children; and the right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment.
Each year, 4.7–13.2% of maternal deaths can be attributed to unsafe abortion (3). In developed regions, it is estimated that 30 women die for every 100 000 unsafe abortions. In developing regions, that number rises to 220 deaths per 100 000 unsafe abortions (2). Estimates from 2012 indicate that in developing countries alone, 7 million women per year were treated in hospital facilities for complications of unsafe abortion (4).
Historically, I have not been one to bestow plaudit on Djrion, but his argument in this thread is compelling. My own sentiment is that abortion is not a constitutional issue, and the Supreme Court erred in its decision on Roe v Wade and Samuel Alito is restoring constitutional fidelity.
As Djrion puts forth, proscribing abortion leads to botched abortions and numerous female deaths. Women deserve equality and they having been born have a superior right to that of the unborn. Religious morality must be stricken from legal interpretation. Religious morality is often conflicted from sect to sect. Under the Constitution, women have equal rights. For eons, women have been denied their equality. Their inequality is one of the salient themes in great literary works. In terms of philosophical universalism, we should applaud the human rights progress in the realm of women’s equality.
Yet, you were allowed to complete the process and become a human. You also think it’s perfectly ok to stop a process that you were allowed to complete. That’s hypocritical don’t you think. Even if I weren’t a person of faith, abortions would still be wrong in my eyes.
Be that as it may, I’ve often said that it is between the woman, her doctor and their God. It still doesn’t make it ok whether or not it’s anybody’s business. Paint the picture and frame it if you want, it still does not make abortions ok. They will have to give an account. They can exercise their free will, but they will have consequences to face one way or the other.
Terminating innocent human life for convenience is a problem in the US. The problem is that people want to 100% separate the act from the possibility of conception.
And then guys like DJ will tell you the humane thing is to just kill the baby because women die from unsafe abortions.
Let’s kill one for the possibility that we could save a moms life.
Tough decisions by all involved. But it absolutely is ok and shouldn’t be brandished otherwise. You are, of course, entitled to feel that way but others are not required to see it that way. Thankfully, the majority of rationale people are ok with it.
It is more complicated than that, but that’s part of it. I would place more value on a existing functioning human than the theoretical arguments on when life begins and then more importantly, when person good or consciousness begins.
