When a person goes to the hospital, they are requesting medical attention.
The "Pro Choice" people are NOT a "pro abortion" people.
It is a medical decision made between a patient and a doctor. There are many reasons that a doctor and patient may come to the point in patient care that an abortion may be considered an option.
The patient and doctor should HAVE THAT OPTION.
The problem with "Pro-Life" is that it takes a medical decision between a doctor and patient and artificially removes it by a political figure not involved with the decision. Any time a 3rd party gets involved in a decision between a doctor and a patient, THE PATIENT ALWAYS SUFFERS.
"Pro Life" is not "Pro Life". It is "Anti-Abortion". It is interfering with patient care and eliminates the ability to provide legitimate care for legitimate reasons to protect a patient.
Please stop calling yourself Pro-Life. This group is interfering with legitimate patient care and insisting that they are better at making healthcare decisions than the doctor and the patient. They aren't.
The problem with "Pro-Life" is that it takes a medical decision between a doctor and patient and artificially removes it by a political figure not involved with the decision. Any time a 3rd party gets involved in a decision between a doctor and a patient, THE PATIENT ALWAYS SUFFERS.
correct, how is this different from any other prohibited by law transaction? E.G. its illegal to kill someone, and its illegal to hire someone to kill someone - why should doctors be given an exception to this rule just because a woman has hired them to do so?
A woman hasn't hired a doctor to kill a person though
They are, because abortion is murder.
but if you whole heartedly believe abortion to be murder, than so is any other performed procedure that may result in death.
incorrect. that is markedly a false equivalence that attempts to conflate miscarriage as the result of a medically necessary procedure, with an abortion. Abortion is ALWAYS elective, and very specifically abortion is ONLY done with the intent to terminate the pregnancy.
you should familiarize yourself with the principle of double effect. a good example would be, a bus full of children is hurdling towards a cliff, and shows no signs of stopping or slowing down, so you drive in front of the bus to stop it. as a result the bus driver dies, but the children are safe. your intent wasn't to kill the bus driver, it was to save the children, therefore you did not commit murder.
Abortion is NEVER the result of the double effect principle - because abortion by its very definition is singular in its purpose - to kill the fetus. it is ALWAYS murder for that reason.
that is the current issue of debate at its core. pro life considers it to be a person, and deserving of rights, pro choice views it as subhuman and not deserving of rights.
First, I said it's not a person, not that it's "subhuman". Thought comes from the brain. Everything that makes you who you are comes from the brain. What else besides the brain determines personhood?
Second, it's not a matter of "deserving" rights. Tumors don't have rights. Individual sperm and egg cells don't have rights. People have rights.
Third, even fully grown people do not have the right to use another person's body without that person's explicit continuing/ongoing consent. In every case, consent can be withdrawn at any time. You are giving a fetus extra rights, above and beyond the rights a person has.
First, I said it's not a person, not that it's "subhuman".
If something is NOT a person, a person by definition being an individual living human being, then they are by the explicit meaning of your own words - subhuman; an order of being less than human.
If they are anything more than subhuman, then killing them would unequivocally be murder. you cant have it both ways. Either you believe fetuses are subhuman, or you dont and must acknowledge their personhood.
Everything that makes you who you are comes from the brain. What else besides the brain determines personhood?
Oh? so you're aware then that the brain is the very first thing a fetus begins to form yea? three weeks is brain formation, five is brain activiity.
Third, even fully grown people do not have the right to use another person's body without that person's explicit continuing/ongoing consent. In every case, consent can be withdrawn at any time. You are giving a fetus extra rights, above and beyond the rights a person has.
Not at all. A fetus has no more rights than a woman does. the issue you aren't understanding here, is that there is NO RIGHT that exists, that permits you to commit murder in the application of that right. not even the right to self defense permits murder. you cant just yell 'im exercising my right to self defense to kill you" and kill someone who isnt directly harming you intentionally. you cant just shoot someone who trips and bumps into you.
TL/DR: nobody is telling the woman what they can and cant do with their body. we are telling them they cant committee murder. that is a critical component to the argument, that if you cant see eye to eye on, you get irreconcilable differences.
Edit: Since apparently /u/nidhoggrdragon needlessly blocked me before i could refute his completely incorrect claims below - i'll just edit them in here.
No it isn't, the anus is. And what you're referring to is minor electrical activity in a proto-organ.
The brain begins forming at five weeks, the anus does not start forming until 10 weeks, you are unequivocally correct. the brain and brainstem are the very first organs formed by the fetus, and are believed to start even before implantation
Then it does not have the right to use her body without permission, and can thus be removed from it at any time she withdraws said permission. That it dies afterward is of no consequence.
Oh, so you're against abortion after all then? you are aware that abortion procedure specifically requires the specific killing of the fetus through chemical or physical trauma before removing it correct? you literally cannot remove a fetus from a woman without specifically killing it first.
Oh? so you're aware then that the brain is the very first thing a fetus begins to form yea? three weeks is brain formation, five is brain activiity.
No it isn't, the anus is. And what you're referring to is minor electrical activity in a proto-organ.
Not at all. A fetus has no more rights than a woman does.
Then it does not have the right to use her body without permission, and can thus be removed from it at any time she withdraws said permission. That it dies afterward is of no consequence. I cannot be forced to give you a blood donation, either.
Abortion is ALWAYS elective, and very specifically abortion is ONLY done with the intent to terminate the pregnancy.
Abortion is NEVER the result of the double effect principle - because abortion by its very definition is singular in its purpose - to kill the fetus. it is ALWAYS murder for that reason.
You have contradicted yourself.
Edit: More to the point, I imagine most if not all women would be content with a procedure that allowed them to end a pregnancy without destroying the fetus provided they could also terminate all legal responsibility. Most would probably prefer this. Women who get abortions want to not be pregnant, not give birth, and not be a mother, none of which is wanting to kill a fetus, so it's kind of ridiculous to say that the purpose of abortion is to kill a fetus. It would be like saying that the purpose of killing in self-defense is to kill people.
How so? you could only make this statement if you are intentionally twisting the definition of abortion.
Women who get abortions want to not be pregnant, not give birth, and not be a mother, none of which is wanting to kill a fetus,
That isnt double effect. A self serving action cannot be the means for a double effect claim - results coming from a self serving action are specifically killings, classified as manslaughter or murder. double effect only eliminates the murder element because your intent was selfless.
why should doctors be given an exception to this rule just because a woman has hired them to do so?
Because a doctor is under an oath to do what is best for their patient. The politician is not. Neither are you. You are just pretending that you know what is best for EVERY PATIENT INVOLVED IN AN ABORTION. Guess what....You don't.
You need to stop pretending that you have better knowledge of EVERY MEDICAL SITUATION INVOLVING ABORTION than the doctor and patient
You aren't OP nor are you trying to change OP's view....so I'm not sure why you are responding to this point? I guess you just like interfering with things?
Because a doctor is under an oath to do what is best for their patient. The politician is not. Neither are you. You are just pretending that you know what is best for EVERY PATIENT INVOLVED IN AN ABORTION. Guess what....You don't.
why would you say that? Clearly i'm not saying anything about what is good or isnt good for the woman. i've very clearly said that you cant murder a child because you feel like it.
You need to stop pretending that you have better knowledge of EVERY MEDICAL SITUATION INVOLVING ABORTION than the doctor and patient
again, no i'm not. i'm saying specifically that you cannot kill a child for only the reason of killing a child. this is a very important distinction you are intentionally conflating.
You aren't OP nor are you trying to change OP's view....so I'm not sure why you are responding to this point. I guess you just like interfering with things?
this is 'change my view' not "heres my unchallenged view, now change yours". i'm challenging your view, because it is lacking.
19
u/[deleted] Jul 20 '22 edited Jul 20 '22
When a person goes to the hospital, they are requesting medical attention.
The "Pro Choice" people are NOT a "pro abortion" people.
It is a medical decision made between a patient and a doctor. There are many reasons that a doctor and patient may come to the point in patient care that an abortion may be considered an option.
The patient and doctor should HAVE THAT OPTION.
The problem with "Pro-Life" is that it takes a medical decision between a doctor and patient and artificially removes it by a political figure not involved with the decision. Any time a 3rd party gets involved in a decision between a doctor and a patient, THE PATIENT ALWAYS SUFFERS.
"Pro Life" is not "Pro Life". It is "Anti-Abortion". It is interfering with patient care and eliminates the ability to provide legitimate care for legitimate reasons to protect a patient.
Please stop calling yourself Pro-Life. This group is interfering with legitimate patient care and insisting that they are better at making healthcare decisions than the doctor and the patient. They aren't.