Texas woman with ectopic pregnancy denied abortion

[rjs330]

Sorry, but I do not think you believe that. You are not vegan. You believe, I think, the same as I do that ending a persons life is immoral. Where we disagree is on when something becomes a person.

I really hope you are a reasonable person to know what I'm talking about. If not, I will explain best I can.

I am talking about a human life, not personhood. It's immoral to take an innocent human life for convenience sake.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I really hope you are a reasonable person to know what I'm talking about. If not, I will explain best I can.

I am talking about a human life, not personhood. It's immoral to take an innocent human life for convenience sake.

So... Whose opinion regarding who is or isn't "innocent" are we using here?

 

[ottawak]

We can agree on one thing here and that is we should care about this woman and future women who have ectopic pregnancies. You can can on my support and many other pro lifers in those cases, that it is acceptable to terminate the pregnancy due to the threat to the mothers life.

Going after abortion doctors and clinics is a good thing and very moral if our goal is to save the lives of the unborn.

Using the civil process rather than the criminal process accomplishes the goal and I'm okay with that.

And, I take it, the collateral damage of baseless grudge lawsuits against the innocent is not important to you.

 

[KCfromNC]

You have failed to acknowledge that I clarified for you what I meant, since you didn't understand it.

This is confusing not accepting the special pleading required to salvage that argument with a a lack of understanding.

Look, I get that accepting the actual implications of this alleged "right to grow to reach their fullest potential" leads to some uncomfortable situations - we'd have to get other people to pay for student's college debt, have to force people to open their homes to homeless people, and many other violations of things we consider basic, actually existing rights that people normally enjoy. It's the problem with pretending there are no costs associated with freely giving potential someone all they need to "reach their fullest potential".

I get that part of the pro-abortion argument is wanting to force women to suffer for having sex by paying those costs, and goes out of their way to try to minimize those costs. But pointing out how actually believing in a made up "right to grow to reach their fullest potential" would lead to similar issues with people that anti-abortion groups don't want to similarly punish doesn't make me the bad guy. It just shows the idea was poorly thought out - it actually makes the anti-abortion goals of punishing women even more obvious.

 

[Belk]

I really hope you are a reasonable person to know what I'm talking about. If not, I will explain best I can.

I am talking about a human life, not personhood. It's immoral to take an innocent human life for convenience sake.

I try to be reasonable but I have had this conversation many times and know the rabbit holes it tends to go down. First it is "life is sacred" which morphs into "Human life is sacred" which moves on to "innocent human life is sacred". This is the reason I try to be precise with my terms.

So, with that said, why should we use "human life" instead of person? What is the distinction you wish to draw with "human life" instead of person?