Abortion Rights: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
Abortion Rights: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
You're viewing a single thread.
Let me guess, he doesn't think its murder?
Yes, that's correct. Because he's not an idiot.
Oh, here comes the clown who thinks fertilized eggs are babies!
Yeah, I don’t see how they can see it so black and white if they don’t consider a firtilized egg to be a full living human.
I think anything else would necessitate conceding that it’s a complicated issue, with lots of grey area, which I don’t think any forced-birther I’ve talked to has conceded.
Don't kill the fertilized eggs! Unless the brown person carrying them doesn't believe the way you want them to believe. Then go nuts.
They definitely are beyond a "fertilized egg" multiple months into a pregnancy. And yes, they are humans, just at the early stage. You think a baby magically becomes human when it leaves the womb?
Have you actually looked at a fetus in different stages of growth? Because they’re not sentient, and not all that human-looking even. Just a parasite that may, one day, be a human.
If you mean super-late-stage, then at that point the abortion is a health issue, and you and your uninformed opinions getting in the way only cause more risk of death for the mother.
And what about ectopic pregnancy? Please don’t tell me you’re dumb enough to believe those are salvageable. If that happens, and an abortion isn’t carried out ASAP, they’re fatal.
So would you be okay outlawing abortion after 25 weeks (when it very much does look like a baby) assuming there are no health risk to the mother?
No, because health complications can always develop. Instead I’m going to leave it to the mother and her doctors to decide, since they’re the person who is putting their body at risk and professionals who know what they’re doing.
I said assuming no health risk. Sorry bud, I just think killing babies actually isn't a cool thing. I'm ok for doing it in desperate situations but killing a baby should not be a form of birth control.
Nope, after birth it is no longer dependant on the direct use of another person's body in order to live.
Let me guess, you didn't watch the clip where he explains it's a complex issue that should be viewed from all angles and not just life and death. If you're so worried about death then consider the women who's lives are in danger because they have to endure a non viable pregnancy to term because a bunch of politicians have no concept of medical care.
Whats the point of bringing this up when you know full well you are okay with abortions in situations where the mothers life is not threatened
The mother's life is not threatened if she is raped and a pregnancy results. Should she be forced to bring that fetus to term?
It's an uncomfortable situation but I wouldn't be opposed as long as there was a police report proving it and wasn't an excuse to get out of unwanted pregnancies.
So you'll force a woman to not only go through the trauma of a police rape investigation, but also expect the police to be honest about whether or not she wanted to get out of a pregnancy that happened due to consensual sex?
Sounds like a good way to take away a woman's freedom in the most traumatic way possible.
If you want to kill a child you should have justification for it other than "it doesn't feel right"
I'm pretty sure not wanting to carry the child of your rapist goes beyond "it doesn't feel right." The fact that you think the police should be trusted over the woman who was raped shows where you stand when it comes to women.
Is your belief that life begins at conception religiously founded?
The Bible prescribes an abortion (which would be murdering an innocent bystander, if the fetus was a person) as the punishment for adultery (Numbers 5).
Oddly, before 1980, there was no majority Christian consensus on when life began. When Roe v Wade dropped, the largest evangelical denomination called it, "a distinctly Catholic issue".
For the vast majority of Christian history it was generally held that life began at the quickening, the first time the mother felt the baby kick. This was considered the moment of ensoulment, literally when the soul entered the body.
Unfortunately, due to the antisemitic influence of Rome hijacking Christianity, that's a very Greek and neo-platonic view of when life began.
In Hebrew, spirit (ruach) means wind; the invisible force that brings life, the breath of God. Soul (naphesh) just means throat, it is the channel by which we breath in the life of God. So as many ancient and modern Jews believe, as would the early christians, life begins at first breath.
Of course, we're not bound to ancient views, which is why Roe v Wade determined viability outside the womb would be the standard point of protection, which is makes a lot of sense.
You are free to believe that life begins at conception. This is an issue people have discussed and debated for as long as we've been alive.
You can't believe that your view is explicitly taught by the Bible or is even the view of the majority of Christians for most of history.
The evangelical view of life beginning at conception began in the late 70's as a political wedge issue that tested incredibly well with audiences so people like Jerry Falwell began beating the drum in order to build political clout.
I'm agnostic. I believe that a fetus has a right to life, same as anyone else. The situation is a bit complicated, sure, but the right to life is pretty basic.
Then viability seems an eminently reasonable threshold. If you're agnostic, there's no intrinsic value to a clump of cells. If the fetus is capable of surviving on its own but can't by virtue of being stuck in place it deserves protection.
Of course, when it's threatening the life of the mother then even though there's no malice or intent, it is legally justifiable to treat it as we would anyone else who would threaten a woman's life.
It has no life to have a right to until it's born.
Go ahead and tell me about all the experiences you had in your mother's womb. About the goals and aspirations you had before you came out. Tell me about your experiences, your emotional fortitude, hell, tell me anything at all about the time before you were born, from your perspective.
A fetus does not have a right to life, but the mother does.
Your views are getting real people with all their dreams, aspirations, goals, hopes, etc. killed, just so you can feel a warped sense of false moral superiority for a few minutes on the Internet.
Go ahead and tell me about all the experiences you had in your mother’s womb. About the goals and aspirations you had before you came out. Tell me about your experiences, your emotional fortitude, hell, tell me anything at all about the time before you were born, from your perspective.
This does not really prove any point. Should people with memory issues be killed too? They don't remember any of their goals/aspirations/experiences, so they aren't alive according to you. There is evidence that babies in the womb are affected by their experience in the womb.
A fetus does not have a right to life
Why not? You just make that claim without really backing it up.
Your views are getting real people with all their dreams, aspirations, goals, hopes, etc. killed, just so you can feel a warped sense of false moral superiority for a few minutes on the Internet.
People are allowed to give their opinions on a topic. Maybe you argue online for a feeling of superiority but that doesn't mean everyone does.
Is a person with memory issues entirely dependant for survival upon the use of another person's body without their consent? If yes, then that person gets to decide to withdraw all care at any time.
Yes. Someone with intense mental issues cannot live without the body of another human serving them. That doesn't mean you are allowed to intentionally murder them. There are ways for babies to survive outside the womb.
No, a person with memory issues is not dependent on any single person's body for survival. They are dependent upon any person who offers to put in the work, and that person can quit the job at any time without penalty. Someone else will replace them quite easily.
We don't put slaves in charge of the care for the mentally handicapped. A woman who wants to be a mother does so voluntarily. But if you force a woman to keep a baby when she doesn't want to, you are forcing her to labor. You are making her a slave. And lethal force to escape slavery is always self defense.
That's why the example you gave is bad and irrelevant
The next time some lemmy user says no one is wanting 3rd trimester abortions, Im going to link your comment. Its not going to do anything but waste time, but its going to be funny.
No one who carries a fetus to the third trimester wants an abortion. Almost all third trimester abortions are health emergencies for women who are trying to be mothers.
The idea that anyone would carry a pregnancy to the point your body is undergoing irrevocable changes just because they couldn’t be bothered to get around to it is absurd.
A third trimester abortion is painful, traumatic and difficult compared to a drug-induced first trimester abortion.
This isn't the winning strategy you think it is.
I'd explain it, but I don't have the time or crayons for you.
Oh I know full-well its not a winning strategy.
funny how you tap out when he got you cornered
Nah, they won and you lost. And you'll keep losing all the way to a jail cell where you and the other fascists belong.
that wasn't me arguing you know
It's been you this whole time, and arguing quite poorly.
Everyone also has the fundamental right to bodily autonomy. You can't even force someone to do something as harmless as donate their blood, but somehow some people feel it's just fine to hold a woman hostage and force her to host another living being, even if that might cause them terrible health issues or even their deaths... even if the "woman" in question is a child victim of sexual abuse... even if they don't give a rat's ass what happens to that child after birth, and will just being another child to be abused and left to die.
If you cared about the right to life, you would support the right to women and their doctors to make the best choices for their lives, and the lives of the children that will still need to be cared AFTER being born. Sorry, but you don't care about fetuses, you care about controlling women.
Should women who are raped be forced to bring a resulting pregnancy to term?
I'm for small government and personal rights. So I'm pro choice, because I don't think big government should be forcing their people to do things they don't want.
Im also for small government and personal rights. But I firmly believe murder should be a crime.
Good thing abortion isn't murder.
Yes it is.
Try to use your brain like a grown person and not have strong opinions on things that you clearly know very little about. Anyone that knows what abortion really is, when and why it's done doesn't think it's murder. You also completely ignore the life quality of the children that are forced to be born with physical and/or mental problems, parents that can't afford to give them even the basics, the mental and physical strain that can kill both child and mother etc.
You are a deeply shitty and stupid person and you would do everyone a favor by learning even the basics of things you have opinions about, or shutting the hell up.
Have you seen a video of a late term abortion? They literally pull out arms and legs piece by piece. You can cope internally all you want but you are ending a human life when you abort a child. There isn't something that magically makes them become human when the leave the womb.
You also completely ignore the life quality of the children that are forced to be born with physical and/or mental problems, parents that can’t afford to give them even the basics, the mental and physical strain that can kill both child and mother etc.
This whole shpiel is completely detached from whether aborting a baby is murder or not. You are rambling while telling people to "learn the basics of things" despite you not really understanding them yourself.
Late term abortion is not a great argument. At some point it is too far along and then most would agree with your point. But to use that point to justify getting rid of all abortion, no matter how far along, is just a weak strawman argument.
At what point does it become a human? So would you be okay with banning abortion after the point where you consider it "life"? It seems you recognize that the fetus inside the woman is a human at some point, whereas many people argue it's not a human until its born.
Viability. If we can safely take care of it outside of the mother then we should do it. That's bare minimum 20.5 weeks, but realistically probably 23 or 24 weeks. I would like to see discussions about that range from medical professionals and lawmakers in charge of the budget since that early can be very expensive.
That's not what murder is, and you know it.
Stop it with this weak rhetoric.
Why is it not murder? You are killing a living human
No they're not
why not
Can you think of reasons to kill another human that is not murder?
Of course. But in almost all instances the person being killed did something to deserve it. A child in the womb did nothing to deserve it.
Completely irrelevant. Their very existence, location, and demand for resources makes them a threat. Women historically die from pregnancy more than any other factors.
There's no such thing as a child in the womb. A child, by definition, has been born.
What definition are you going by? Definition is: "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority." none of that excludes those who are yet to be born.
"small government" meaning "I decide what is murder, your opinions and beliefs don't matter, and I'm not willing to hear your arguments against it".
Me too but we are talking about abortion here
Abortion is murder.
YOU are a murderer.
My sister was bleeding to death from an incomplete miscarriage of a very much wanted pregnancy in Ohio ten years ago. You know how they fix that problem? The exact same medical procedure that is used for elective abortion.
You would have preferred that my sister bleed to death or die of sepsis for no reason. You are trying to murder my sister.
In case you think that doesn't really happen:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
"On 21 October 2012, Halappanavar, then 17 weeks pregnant, was examined at University Hospital Galway after complaining of back pain, but was soon discharged without a diagnosis. She returned to the hospital later that day, this time complaining of lower pressure, a sensation she described as feeling "something coming down", and a subsequent examination found that the gestational sac was protruding from her body. She was admitted to hospital, as it was determined that miscarriage was unavoidable, and several hours later, just after midnight on 22 October, her water broke but did not expel the fetus.[8]: 22–26 [8]: 29 [9] The following day, on 23 October, Halappanavar discussed abortion with her consulting physician but her request was promptly refused, as Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a fetal heartbeat was still present.[8]: 33 [10] Afterwards, Halappanavar developed sepsis and, despite doctors' efforts to treat her, had a cardiac arrest at 1:09 AM on 28 October, and died, aged 31"
I'm ok with abortion if there is a complication that can kill the mother. I still don't think killing babies because you don't want them is moral.
How graceful for you to let women make their own medical decisions as long as you think they have sufficient reason.
I think men should have their balls tied off with rubber bands unless I think their health is in danger; that way they can't create babies to "murder."
Better get that application in now, there's a hell of a backlog.
It's not a "womans medical decision" when they are killing another human being.
No person has the right to use another person's body without their consent. Abortion is always self defense.
Yeah lets defend against babies! Kill them! Rip them limb from limb!!
Pregnancy is always a life threatening condition. Ending it is always self defense.
Is it more moral to force a child into a life where they cant afford basic necessities, where the people who are supposed to watch over them dont want them, dont love them? Is that moral?
And don't you dare bring up adoption. With abortion legal 20,000 kids age out of foster care every year. that number is undoubtedly going to increase.
I don't think you should be able to murder someone because you predict they will live a hard life. We don't kill the mentally disabled for the same reason.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
We better arrest every woman who has a miscarriage under suspicion of murder.
Fuck off guy. You aren't changing anyone's minds on Lemmy.
Abortion is self defense, never murder.
no one thinks it's murder. not even you. you're just lying to troll people (or because you hate women)
I genuinely do believe it is killing a human. The whole "its just a clump of cells!" is a reductionist argument that serves no purpose. We are all clumps of cells. I'm not religious either.
No, it's not reductionist. It's exactly what it is. What is reductionist is making it some kind of moral panic based on misinterpretation of religious text in order to force your perspective on others. The bible gives instructions on how to perform an abortion, and we know that abortion saves lives. Ectopic pregnancy, miscarriages, and other perfectly legitimate medical reasons are part of why abortion access is necessary and should be enshrined as female health care. If you are secular and still anti-choice, then you might not understand that your personal morality has no place in an operating room.
I'm not religious at all. Even though I'm not religious, I think it's still fine for me to speak out on things I view as wrong.
Ectopic pregnancy, miscarriages, and other perfectly legitimate medical reasons are part of why abortion access is necessary
I'm ok with abortion if the mothers life is directly at risk. I'm not ok with abortion being a backup birth control.
Nope, that's exactly what abortion is, birth control. That is exactly what it was established as decades ago, and exactly what that partisan Supreme Court overturned against the will of the people.
Abortion is nothing less than birth control.
I'm glad you are admitting it. Many people try to hide this fact. I wonder why
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.
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.
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.
Pregnancy is not always a life threatening condition, what a retarded statement. If it doesn't threaten the life of a mother, how is it life threatening?
Pregnancy has always been the most likely way for women to die.
That is much different than "pregnancy being inherently a life threatening condition"
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm afraid I dont believe you. Have you approached the FBI, your local DA, over these "murders"? Have you even called the police? Have you hired a private investigator? If I knew someone was murdered I'd do all of these things.
I didn't call them murders. Maybe try reading a bit more carefully.
Wow you really got me. By replying as if you were the original person I was replying to you really ruined my argument by correctly noting I did not go back and check which username I was replying to.
Very well, s/murder/"unlawful killings" in my previous reply
I didn't say unlawful killings. Things can be legal and can still be wrong. I shouldn't have to explain that to you.
good one you sure showed me that you're deeply invested in this, genuinely, and have completely changed my mind that you're doing this to be a troll.
maybe you should learn to read instead of shooting off questions that hold no relation to what we are talking about
You're the one trying to convince me that you absolutely believe abortion is the same as killing, which you have failed to do. So there's absolutely no burden on me whatsoever to do anything at all.
I stated that I don't believe the OP is being truthful in that they consider these truly murders, you jumped into say they were "killings" (and still haven't given any further justification), and I don't believe either of you.
You are still welcome to attempt to change my mind.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just think that killing a baby still in the womb is killing a human being. I do consider it murder from a personal ethics point of view, obviously under the law it is not.
Good news, it's not.
whats not?
If there was a chick inside there, it certainly would be a chicken, no?
people should be allowed to murder whatever is growing inside them.
This is one of those interesting things. If we accept OP's premise for the sake of argument... then what does that really change? Society accepts that people can be lawfully killed on purpose given the "right" circumstances (e.g.: criminal punishment, war combat, equivocal self-defense). We generally don't like it, but we do fundamentally accept that human life is on the negotiating table when justified.
That's what irks me about the murder label. We already willfully choose to end human lives, irrevocably destroying a vast collection of lived experiences and social connections in the process. What is destroyed when an unborn child dies? A life which knows nobody, understands nothing, and thinks/feels at best at a level no more complex than animals which we routinely slaughter without a second thought. One might argue that the life itself contains some unknowable potential for these things, but that theoretical future potential comes at the price of the mother's current potential and freedoms.
The way I see it, the position is inherently precious. It fears the label of murder without caring to consider why the label exists. A philosophy so myopically focused on keeping one's own moral hands clean that the term "second order consequence" may as well be written in hieroglyphics.
In that same line of thinking, anti-abortionists are likely staunch supporters of the military, the death penalty, and gun rights for murder as self defense.
So which is it: is life precious or isn't it? When is a life undeserving of protection? From birth? 5 years? 18 years?
The rights of the unborn shouldn't precede the rights of the life being lived by the mother.
A life which knows nobody, understands nothing, and thinks/feels at best at a level no more complex than animals which we routinely slaughter without a second thought. One might argue that the life itself contains some unknowable potential for these things, but that theoretical future potential comes at the price of the mother’s current potential and freedoms.
This can all be true while it still being true that you are killing a baby.
Self defense is never murder.
Agreed.
Whenever a woman has her period it should be considered murder and her IMPRISONED!
Same when a man jacks off.
When a man does it, it’s genocide. Trial would have to take place at The Hague first.
sperm is not a human life under any definition of the word. A fertilized egg 6 months into development almost certainly is.
My religion says that it is, and it was written by my God herself. There's no higher definition.
I'm not religious nice try though
I didn't say you were. I said I was. And in this country anyone can define it however they want to if they have a religion.
Well too bad, because when their religion gets big enough, they get to force it on you!
Do you think it is? Why?
Because the fetus is a person.
As an actual father-in-waiting - no it is not. That little thing is going to be a human, maybe. Not a human yet.
How is it not a human in the early developmental stages? This reads as cope to me tbh. A baby doesn't magically become human when it comes out of a vagina. A baby 6 months into pregnancy has pretty much all their body parts. They have a brain, a nervous system, arms/legs, etc
The difference is a woman's consent to allow the use of her body by another person.
Consent is given when you had sex. Don't have sex if you don't want a baby. You don't get to kill it because you made bad choices. I'm okay with early abortion in the case of rape and life threatening health issues of the mother.
The woman has every right to deny consent to any person using her body.
Just because she lets a guy have sex with her, doesn't mean somebody else has the right to show up too.
Considering birth is a direct consequence of having sex, yes I would say a woman should be aware that they can get pregnant. You don't have to have sex, and you don't get to kill a baby because you were irresponsible.
And there it is, the moral panic. These scandalous whores are out there fulfilling a basic human need. They must be punished with a life sentence of hard labor.
Obviously women are aware that pregnancy can result from sex. How stupid do you think women are? Just the fact that a baby showed up has not the slightest bearing on whether it has any right to use her body without her continuing consent.
Sex is a basic human need, and consent may be withdrawn at any time. Just because she said yes earlier doesn't mean she can't change her mind at any time.
Do you consider it mass murder when you ejaculate? All that sperm can be considered people by your logic. Is a woman having her period or a miscarriage murder? After all, all of those cells or dead fetuses she's purging are clearly people. If a fetus, which is a parasitic clump of cells that isn't conscious and depends on the host to survive, is considered a person, then by your logic, so is sperm, eggs, miscarried fetuses, and even cancer.
Why do leftists keep asking that? At first, I thought it was just a one-off dumbass, but now its way past that point.
And sperm are not fetuses.
My mother has three children but had four pregnancies. She unfortunately can't give birth naturally and needed C-sections. The complications that come with C-sections get greater each time and doctors (at least at the time) heavily recommended against more than three C-sections.
She had to terminate her third pregnancy because the fetus didn't develop properly and the babies spine wasn't connected. He would have lived for maybe 30 seconds before dying an incredibly painful death if brought to term. My youngest sibling wouldn't be here if she needed to bring that baby to full term.
Overturning Roe v Wade is already putting thousands in similar situations or worse, like the examples brought up in John Oliver's segment.
You don't oppose murder. You support suffering.
idk what it is with you americans but why does everything have to be about politics.
Don't need to put a label to everything that is bad in your opinion. Its your opinion, great, good for you. You don't have to get an abortion if you don't like it.
What is the land of the free where everyone is living their way. Other people are just as American as you are and can do whatever they want to, whether you like it or not.
Just because drinking is bad and is killing parts of your brain and i dont like it doesnt mean i get to decide if people can get drunk or not.
I just think killing babies is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged as a secondary form of birth control. That is a real living human in the early stages and I think it's sick that we treat their life with such disregard.
Just because drinking is bad and is killing parts of your brain and i dont like it doesnt mean i get to decide if people can get drunk or not.
Drinking while pregnant is already illegal, so it seems there is precedent in law for treating fetus' as a human being. You also can get charged with double murder if you kill a pregnant woman. Why is that?
A bunch of cells in rapid development with the potential to become a human being. Murder is a strong term, but in a broad sense I don't think your insinuation is wrong per se.
This might be getting a bit controversial, but for the sake of discussion:
The important thing here is, do you mind if that potential for life is taken away. In this case we place priority on the human being that eventually has to dedicate her life to that potential. Or is that new potential more important than that already existing, conscious human being (especially when there are physical / mental problems involved)?
It comes down to why we live, and why must we live? Personally I believe trying to avoid (potential of) suffering is a more reasonable concept.
If one gives life to a baby, you give it a potential for suffering which it otherwise does not. I'd say the ways one can suffer is of a greater weight than the ways one can be happy. So if you go the route of creating life, you better be damn confident that you are in a good position to do that.
In that philosophy 'murdering' a potential with a large chance of creating more suffering for the collective is not that bad. One might view this differently when the being is conscious and might actively not want to die, as we bring the complexity of individual human choice to the table and what worth that has; but I think we can agree that is not applicable on the unborn potential human being discussed in this topic.
I committed so many murders today when I cummed into a paper towel earlier.
In fact, I've probably racked up enough murders to qualify for a genocide.
And I LOVED it.
Hail Pazuzu
"We have to protect all life!" he said and throws another piece of former cow on the barbecue.
