I think there is an aspect that is being overlooked. The people who are calling for the end of Ppanned Parenthood are tax paying citizens so they do have some say in its future. Where as the people calling for the NRA boycott have no stake in the company since it is a private company supported but its members. That’s the difference between the two and the reason her statement doesn’t really make sense.
Over fifty percent of women are against the murder of inconvenient fetuses, especially when it’s state funded. Of course, the original point was you can’t boycott an organization that you don’t belong to by continuing to not belong to it.
Hate to argue against you, but involuntary manslaughter requires provable recklessness or negligence, and many miscarriages are not any mother's fault.
On the other hand, abortion is the deliberate and premeditated act of terminating a fetus, which would count as first degree murder if fetuses were legally people.
In essence, false equivalency is false. Sorry.
Are you aware planned parenthood does more than just abortions? Also I don't think you're aware of what an abortion entails. It's not just a pill and then bank. it's gone. You take a pill and then have to physically pass the fetus. And sometimes that doesn't work in which case they have to surgically r3move it, which can lead to actual infertility. Not to mention the guilt and trauma that entails.
But you know what they also do? Birth control, testing for diseases, information on pregnancy and parenthood (note that it's called PLANNED PARENTHOOD for a reason meaning they have resources for parenthood in General) general health care stuff, men's health, resources for those in the lgbt community, and much much more. They aren't just a walk in abortion clinic. They are so so much more so maybe get educated and shut the fuck up mmkay
On a legal standpoint ones own body autonomy is extremely paramount. No one is ever required to do anything related to their body to allow someone else to live. Someone dying from blood lose and only one person within range that's got the compatible blood to save them? They aren't required to do anything. Their own body autonomy trumps any moral obligation to allow this person life. Even if it's their own fully born out of the womb child. This would fall under the same umbrella. The mother isn't required to give up her body autonomy to allow the child life. If you consider a fetus a person the same as a born child then the right to body autonomy would cover it the same way.
@diyrouge that is the most idiotic and contrived parallel I've ever heard. That's along the same lines as saying someone who had a stroke should be charged with attempted suicide. As @famousone said, miscarriages by definition are spontaneous and beyond control, in most cases. Comments like this do far more harm to your argument than any prolifer.
I'm trying to point out how it was idiotic. Of course miscarriages aren't involuntary manslaughter just like abortion isn't murder. It might not be the best parallel, but it was the only one I could think of in the moment.
But, if you call a fetus a baby and living thing, which biologically speaking it meets the criteria for life, then it is indeed murder. It is indeed ending the life of something else. You can’t parallel something that is actually idiotic to something that people believe to be true just because you don’t like it. Especially when there is some real debate about it. That just makes you an ass hole
Which I think I just figured it out...I think the issue is that you are comparing two different scenarios because of one is a child and one is not. There are certain laws in place for children not for adults. Example, there is no law requiring us to feed our offspring after they are 18 years old. However you are required to feed your offspring under that age. There are laws protecting them from neglect, malnutrition, etc. so in the aspect of a parent and a child there are certain aspects that are required. In my opinion, once the baby is conceived, it is considered under that aspect because biologically speaking it meets all criteria of life, so it must be kept alive the same as any child who is outside of the womb.
But as I said before no one is ever required to have something affect their own body to allow life for anyone else. Even their child. No mother loses their body autonomy. In the eyes of the law ones body autonomy trumps moral obligation in every case. If you consider a fetus to be people then the mother's body autonomy trumps her obligation to ensure its life. If you don't consider a fetus people then it has no personal rights and is legally nothing more than a clump of cells attached to the mother. Either way the law sees the mothers right to control her own body as higher than any obligation she has to the child.
4
deleted
· 5 years ago
As long as a fetus cannot survive outside a woman's body, it's not even a being, let alone a person, but a part of that said woman's body. That's the basic fallacy of all anti-choicers, most of which is based on religious beliefs. It's not a contradiction to charging for double homicide when someone kills a pregnant woman. Her body - her choice, easy as that. If it was up to me though, that double homicide charge should only apply AFTER the point to which a legal abortion can take place.
On the other hand, abortion is the deliberate and premeditated act of terminating a fetus, which would count as first degree murder if fetuses were legally people.
In essence, false equivalency is false. Sorry.
But you know what they also do? Birth control, testing for diseases, information on pregnancy and parenthood (note that it's called PLANNED PARENTHOOD for a reason meaning they have resources for parenthood in General) general health care stuff, men's health, resources for those in the lgbt community, and much much more. They aren't just a walk in abortion clinic. They are so so much more so maybe get educated and shut the fuck up mmkay