Leopards Ate My Face

3477 readers

243 users here now

Rules:

If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.

Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1272

"Pro-life" woman seeks abortion and gets denied (lemmy.ca)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

233 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

And you don't seem to be listening to people who are telling you that the law doesn't have to be draconian to cost people their lives.

If some number of hospitals conclude that the cost of letting people die and settling wrongful death cases is lower than the cost of defending patients' rights to an abortion under their specific circumstances, then those hospitals will set policy that prohibits providing those abortions. Because they are profit-driven, not charities (a separate but related problem)

I will say it again: if the cost is less than the profit, it's not a punishment, it's a business expense. Put another way, if actually breaking law A costs less than defending accusations of breaking law B, they will break law A every time.

I'm really tired of trying to explain to people that laws and politics do not exist in a bubble.

[+] [email protected] -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A) You hope it will. In the meantime, we continue to see cases of people being in danger or even dying.

B) Good for you that you can hand-wave away other people's lives and safety as just a temporary bump in the road.

Your callousness is disconcerting, to say the least, and I'm done with this conversation now because I can't teach you to stop looking at people as statistics.

[+] [email protected] -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'll come back for one last comment to make this clear:

It is never, EVER acceptable to force someone to use their body to save the life of another. Ever. CORPSES have more rights than that (you have to volunteer to be a donor before death).

You want women to have fewer rights than corpses?

And that's without even arguing whether a clump of cells that can't survive on its own is even considered a life.

You can think someone sucks for having an abortion, and we can discuss what happens when a fetus could possible be viable on its own. But bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. If someone says "disconnect me from the thing attached to my body" you fucking do it. End of story. Call them horrible, callous, a sinner, whatever you want. But you do not force people to use their body as an incubator against their will.

[+] [email protected] -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You obviously don't understand the concept of bodily autonomy. Parental obligation is not the same as losing bodily autonomy. A parent is not required to give up a kidney or liver for their child. Accountability for a child's behavior is not the same thing as losing bodily autonomy.

It's no different than if you agree to a blood donor and decide in the middle of donation that you want to stop. They cannot force you to continue, even if someone's life depends on it. The fetus' bodily autonomy comes in the form of not having its organs harvested, and being allowed to survive outside the woman's body if it can. There is no form of autonomy that involves another person. That is literally antithetical to the definition of autonomy

You are wrong, flat out, and I encourage you to learn more about ethics before making such patently erroneous statements