Most people disagree it’s a baby. It’s still a fetus in the vast majority of cases. All laws agree with that since no laws grant fetuses rights, they merely restrict a woman’s choice.
I don’t know what most people believe - and I doubt you have data to verify your statement. However I do know that at minimum it is a very significant minority that disagrees with that fetus statement.
I’m trying to elevate the discussion to a different level. Instead of trying to defend your position can you instead step back and start understanding why some people think it is absurd? The world would be much better if people could do that more often.
In this case no, the other side is absurd. Not everything is actually a multi-faceted problem - some people think the Earth is flat and we can point and laugh at them
I understand. Some people think fetuses are babies, people, at that point. And they see abortion as murder. And if you think a fetus is a person, then it IS murder. It’s a completely valid position. Not one I think is correct, but it’s easy to see how they get there.
And if you believe that then you also believe in slavery for the mother. There’s no other precedent for someones literally supporting the life of another that can’t be transferred to another guardian. And if you think a fetus is a person you’d not excuse abortion for anything, even rape. Which then means you’d think raping someone can enslave them bodily.
Also most of those people have so little regard for actual babies and do so little to protect them that their stance rings hollow. And they also aren’t willing to extend legal benefits as if they were babies. So their actions contradict their stated values and they aren’t taken seriously.
“there is no other precedent for supporting the life of another that can’t be transferred to another”
Yes, there is. Even a legal precedent, it’s called abandonment, you cannot legally abandon a dependent (especially if it leads to imminent death) without transferring actual custody to another responsible party (e.g not a murderer).
If you are in a circumstance where you cannot transfer the custody to another party, you cannot leave the dependent to die.
The rest of your statement is irrelevant garbage, but I think it’s important to refute that point.
Most people disagree it’s a baby. It’s still a fetus in the vast majority of cases. All laws agree with that since no laws grant fetuses rights, they merely restrict a woman’s choice.
I don’t know what most people believe - and I doubt you have data to verify your statement. However I do know that at minimum it is a very significant minority that disagrees with that fetus statement.
I’m trying to elevate the discussion to a different level. Instead of trying to defend your position can you instead step back and start understanding why some people think it is absurd? The world would be much better if people could do that more often.
In this case no, the other side is absurd. Not everything is actually a multi-faceted problem - some people think the Earth is flat and we can point and laugh at them
Although if you do, human psychology is likely to make them believe in Even-Flatter-Earth or whatever.
Some people see blood transfusions as unholy, it doesn’t mean they get to decide the conduct of everyone else.
Turns out those same people don’t think the fetus counts as a person when it’s not in their interest
I understand. Some people think fetuses are babies, people, at that point. And they see abortion as murder. And if you think a fetus is a person, then it IS murder. It’s a completely valid position. Not one I think is correct, but it’s easy to see how they get there.
And if you believe that then you also believe in slavery for the mother. There’s no other precedent for someones literally supporting the life of another that can’t be transferred to another guardian. And if you think a fetus is a person you’d not excuse abortion for anything, even rape. Which then means you’d think raping someone can enslave them bodily.
Also most of those people have so little regard for actual babies and do so little to protect them that their stance rings hollow. And they also aren’t willing to extend legal benefits as if they were babies. So their actions contradict their stated values and they aren’t taken seriously.
“there is no other precedent for supporting the life of another that can’t be transferred to another”
Yes, there is. Even a legal precedent, it’s called abandonment, you cannot legally abandon a dependent (especially if it leads to imminent death) without transferring actual custody to another responsible party (e.g not a murderer).
If you are in a circumstance where you cannot transfer the custody to another party, you cannot leave the dependent to die.
The rest of your statement is irrelevant garbage, but I think it’s important to refute that point.
That you’re being strongly downvoted for properly analyzing an unpopular perspective is disappointing but not remotely surprising here.
It’s not an analysis in any sense of the word. “You have no data and neither do I”? What an intellectual giant.
The post is a joke.