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

    Fair, i mean to some extent right. But an abortion on a fetus that is 9 months along would be to late right? Or not? If there is no harm to the baby or mother, how far along in your opinion is to far for an abortion?

    I’m pro choice within reason. Pro lgbtq+ within reason. You enjoy your life just don’t touch my butt.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      But an abortion on a fetus that is 9 months along would be to late right? Or not? If there is no harm to the baby or mother, how far along in your opinion is to far for an abortion?

      “Do women have bodily autonomy?” is a yes or no question. Does the state have a right to forced organ donation? No. And that’s for fully formed people with experiences and relationships.

      I’m pro choice within reason. Pro lgbtq+ within reason. You enjoy your life just don’t touch my butt.

      This doesn’t really sound like you are as much those things as you’d like to believe. You don’t need to support a woman’s right to choose “but” or associate sexual assault with LGBTQ+ rights.

      We are a culture steeped in conservative influence campaigns with insufficient pushback from liberals so we develop these framings of topics that have intentionally twisted muich easier questions. Pro choice means pro choice and LGBTQ+ rights do not cause sexual assault.

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

        Do women have bodily autonomy? No. My mom should not be able to go and hurt herself too the point of being hospitalized/instatutionalized. So no blanket body autonomy. At some point people that know more about the subject than me should step in for the health of those involved.

        That is the same thing for abortion. As long as the health of everyone involved is taken into consideration that is all i care about. The tricky question is when is the fetus considered a person? I don’t have an answer to that.

        The “dont touch my butt” statement is a joke. You/they live their lives how they want. Just don’t infringe upon my life and my rights aka “dont touch my butt”. You want to go march at a gay parade? Sure. I’ve joined one in California. I’ve lived with lesbians, very good friends, fell out of touch recently thanks for reminding me to reach out.

        Edit: and if you read my comments, never once have i said she should not have gotten an abortion. I just asked questions and expressed my reservations

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do women have bodily autonomy? No. My mom should not be able to go and hurt herself too the point of being hospitalized/instatutionalized.

          This is an absurd dodge. Do women, in full possession of their faculties and well informed about their options, have bodily autonomy? Accepting that this case may not have involved well-informed medical decisions.

          As long as the health of everyone involved is taken into consideration that is all i care about. The tricky question is when is the fetus considered a person?

          This is a long way to say “no”. Do you support forced organ donation? You don’t have an answer for when fetuses are people, but people certainly are people.

          The “dont touch my butt” statement is a joke. You/they live their lives how they want. Just don’t infringe upon my life and my rights aka “dont touch my butt”.

          So then what is your “within reason” for LGBTQ+ rights then? Because you put your joke about sexual assault is in the same place you put your sincere belief about abortion. And what’s the actual joke, because “it’s just a joke” requires there to be humor involved. Explain the joke to me.

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

            It wasn’t a dodge it got my point across. “Do women, in full possession of their faculties and well informed about their options, have bodily autonomy?”

            Yes they do.

            You will have to excuse me, i do not understand your meaning behind “forced organ donation” in this context, could you explain that?

            I believe i already started my within reason for lgbtq+ rights. I support them until they infringe upon my rights. The same as how i support other religions/races/genders/little people i support their causes as long as they don’t infringe upon my rights.

            As for explain the joke, no, I’m not going to. You may not find it humerous and maybe it’s just not a great translation to text.

            You may believe i don’t support these causes, and that is your right, i do believe i support them and agree with them within reason and that is my right.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It wasn’t a dodge it got my point across. “Do women, in full possession of their faculties and well informed about their options, have bodily autonomy?”

              Then it shouldn’t matter how far along the pregnancy is, because any rule where you say “you can’t remove this from your body in the safest way possible” is infringing on that.

              You will have to excuse me, i do not understand your meaning behind “forced organ donation” in this context, could you explain that?

              If someone needs a kidney and you are match for them, would you support the government forcing you to donate one of yours?

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

                “you can’t remove this from your body in the safest way possible” is infringing on that.

                Ahh so in my opinion, that is the crux of our different stances. I have the belief that everyone has their rights until it infringes upon my rights or the rights of others. To me, in my opinion, at some point that fetus becomes a child/person and has rights of its own, now i don’t know when that is i would say 3rd trimester maybe? again in my opinion. So unless there is danger to the mother or child eventually at some point the mother should bring the child to term. I think if you hit that 7th month you should know if you want to keep the baby and bring it to term. Whether you give the child up for adoption or raise it yourself is another matter entirely.

                If someone needs a kidney and you are match for them, would you support the government forcing you to donate one of yours?

                No, now what does that have to do with this?

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So unless there is danger to the mother or child eventually at some point the mother should bring the child to term.

                  Proceeding to birth is both a physical hardship and a more dangerous method for removing the fetus. Why does the state get to tell the potential mother to spend the next two months pregnant (likely missing work at some point along the way) and then go through something with a risk to their life and with potential lifelong impacts on their body? Birth isn’t a costless physical act.

                  If someone needs a kidney and you are match for them, would you support the government forcing you to donate one of yours?

                  No, now what does that have to do with this?

                  The person in need of the kidney has a right to life and your refusal infringes on it. If you’re willing to tell women they must risk their health for a potential child, you should approve of the government forcing you to risk your health for a person who needs it. It’s just a balance of rights, is it not?

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

                    The person in need of the kidney has a right to life and your refusal infringes on it. If you’re willing to tell women they must risk their health for a potential child, you should approve of the government forcing you to risk your health for a person who needs it. It’s just a balance of rights, is it not?

                    I would disagree here. Their right to life cannot infringe upon my rights. In my opinion that is a different scenario. I can understand if you disagree.

                    You are saying that a woman in full control of her facilities and in no danger of medical complications one day before her due date should be able to abort the fetus? What about giving birth half way babies head is out of the mother, can abort the baby? What about still connected before they cut the umbilical cord? Still able to abort?