• Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah but killing a human in self defense is never murder.

    Regardless, that clump of cells isn’t human, because it doesn’t have a brain, and that’s all that a human is. If it gets to the point where a brain is developing, it still remains a matter of self defense. Pregnancy is a life threatening condition, and no person has the right to use another person’s body without their consent.

    • cricket98@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if the baby is not threatening the life of the mother at all? How is it okay to kill in self defense in that instance?

      At least you admit you are killing a human. That’s nice that you have gotten that far.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Best way I’ve seen it put is this. If you’re (born) kid needs a kidney donation to live there is no law requiring you to give that kid a kidney. Why should there be a law requiring you to give an unborn kid use of a uterus? You’re not killing a person you’re simply denying them use of your own internal organs.

        • cricket98@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ripping the child out of your womb is killing the baby by your own action. Letting someone else die due to inaction is quite different, and I think you know that.

      • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pregnancy is always a life threatening condition. A woman’s consent to the use of her body supercedes anyone else’s claim to life dependent upon her consent.

              • Olhonestjim@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                There is not the slightest difference.

                You need to face the fact that you don’t believe women should have rights. It’s got nothing to do with the fetus. It’s merely the vehicle for putting women back in the kitchen, barefoot and vulnerable to a man.

                You ask when a fetus has rights? When a woman bestows human rights upon it by deciding to bring it to term. That’s when a person receives human rights. At birth, not conception. The rights bestowed upon us by The Creator? There are no gods. Women are our creators. By forcing them to create, you would desecrate that which you claim to hold so dear. You will make the creation of human life an ugly, hateful, disgraceful thing instead of a loving, intentional, consensual event.

                You poisonous lot want to take away the most basic right a woman has: the freedom to decide to make life, and the right to say NO.

                • cricket98@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s very strange to me how you interpret “Hey I don’t think killing babies in the womb is cool” into “you just hate woman and want them in the kitchen”. Very strange, I can tell you use a bit too overexposed to the politics of everything. It’s not crazy to think that some people might think killing a child, even if its unborn, is wrong.

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

                    No I’m just aware that that is exactly what will happen. That is exactly the policies that The forced birth movement advocates for. Openly.