Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.

  • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In this specific case, I agree, it’s a hard moral question with the twin involved which makes it harder.

    I’m not speaking on this specific case, and most pro-lifers are open to exceptions, this being a prime example of where I think there should be. but the more broad statement that simply because I’m pro-life, means that I want to enslave woman, is absurdly wrong and simply perverting and strawmanning a fairly reasonable argument that a human life in the womb has inherent human life value.

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

      Nothing hard about it, to have individual rights one must first be an individual. If you don’t understand the word individual pick up a dictionary.

      • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        to have individual rights one must first be an individual.

        Exactly. And some people truly believe it’s an individual.

        See you’re almost there, you just lack the ability to empathize that one may think differently than you.

        • Cabrio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          You missed the bit about reading the dictionary. Something that has never been detached is not individual. Your problem is a literacy one.

          • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I did and came across this definition: ‘of or for a particular person.’

            My niece, Amber, is a particular person, whether she was just birthed, or it was 20 minute earlier when she was in the womb and the doctors were telling my sister to push.

            • Cabrio@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s called cherry picking. It’s intellectually disingenuous, not that you’d understand that concept given your displayed levels of reading comprehension, but ignoring the core definitions of the word to play gotcha games with a secondary definition of ‘person’ which you are also intentionally misrepresenting the definition of doesn’t make you right, it just reinforces that your intentionally malicious attempts to circumvent agreed upon language conventions and collective are necessary for you to even pretend like you have a leg to stand on in the conversation.

              You literally cannot hold or present your position without first bastardising any attempt to communicate in good faith by arbitrarily redefining words.

              In other words, you’ve proven yourself either disingenuous or stupid, which one comes down to your actual cognizance of your actions.

              • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s called cherry picking.

                Oh, so you can choose a definition and deny a fetus any rights because of it, but if I use a definition of the same word, it’s intellectually disingenuous? Be consistent man.

                If you want an honest discussion about the rights of women vs a fetus, I’ll be glad to have it. I just ask that you stop playing games and actually discuss.

                • Cabrio@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You’re doing it again, if you can’t foster understanding you fail at the basis of communication and the reasoning for using a set of agreed upon definitions for delivering and interpreting conceptual ideas. I get it, you can’t participate in good faith communication because you lack the education and comprehension of how to participate in good faith communication.

                  Maybe next time try to internalise the definition being presented to you instead of disingenuously and intentionally misrepresenting agreed upon primary definitions of words.

                  I don’t see any reason to repeat myself, if you can’t communicate in good faith then your ideas aren’t worth listening to.

                  • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    We can choose different definitions of ‘individuals’ or we can talk about the core of our arguments - you don’t think the babys life should be considered when weighing an abortion or not, and I do think it should be.

                    We can discuss and try to come to some common ground, or you can continue your inconsistency and rude behavior. I’d prefer the former, but if you can’t handle an honest discussion, I’m fine with the latter.

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can “truly believe” that the sky is falling too. Doesnt stop you from being wrong because you lack the basic understanding of the concepts.

          • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Doesnt stop you from being wrong because you lack the basic understanding of the concepts.

            So you think your argument is 100% factually correct, despite it clearly being an opinion.

            I can admit that pro-choices have a reasonable argument, even though I don’t subscribe to that opinion. If you refuse to see any other argument on a divided issue, I suggest you learn about the other sides argument, and it either strengthens your position or gives you more nuance on the division. Wanna know why politics is so divided? It’s because people 100% think they’re right and they won’t listen to the other argument to understand it. You share that quality with the MAGA folks, I hope you learn to not have that awful quality.

            • Cabrio@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wanna know why politics is so divided? It’s because people 100% think they’re right and they won’t listen to the other argument to understand it.

              If self-awareness was a disease you’d be the healthiest person alive.

              • MasterOBee Master/King@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If self-awareness was a disease you’d be the healthiest person alive.

                It’s funny you say this when the comment you responded to, I literally said “I can admit that pro-choices have a reasonable argument, even though I don’t subscribe to that opinion.”

                Can you say the same about the other ‘sides’ argument?

                  • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    This guy is a nutjob. I argued with him yesterday in a post about England forcing teachers to notify parents if a child mentions anything about their gender identity and they kept referring to teachers as “servants” who should do as they say because they had some tax money taken from their check, referred to kids attending school as “forced government institutionalization,” believe children are their property, and said a bunch of other right wing anti-government rants/conspiracy theories.

                    I wouldn’t bother replying to them any further because they will also do a complete 180 on their supposed beliefs if it suits their current comment.

                    They belong in whatever facility they use to deprogram ex cult members.