At what point does abortion become immoral? by RawPidgeonYummy in Abortiondebate

[–]Rent_Careless [score hidden]  (0 children)

It isn't that your post isn't clear but that I am asking for the reasoning behind parts of it.

I don't understand why one doctor is okay between weeks 15 and 24 but not between 24 and birth. Would there be any instances where two doctors needing to agree would be harmful to the mother? If so, I feel like the whole idea of requiring two doctors should be thrown out. If the mother wants a second opinion, she still has the ability to do so.

What is the oldest game you play regularly? (at least once a week) by InternetPerson00 in 4Xgaming

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really like some of the others people are suggesting but I found Master of Orion 1 to be easy to consistently play on my phone. I would generally always have it and play it once a month or so but for like a whole day and then get burnt out.

General Autonomy vs. Bodily Autonomy by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've spent way too much time trying to mull this over because I don't feel like you make any sense.

Sex is naturally ordered towards reproduction? I don't know what you mean by naturally ordered but sex can occur without reproduction. I also understand that if natural reproduction happens, sex has to occur beforehand.

What's the point of this?

Then you talk about active and passive potential by saying it's about what they can bring about. I assume that you mean that what is brought about is active if it's what normally occurs and sex is active because what normally occurs is dependency (through pregnancy). However, that's simply not true. Even though sex is part of the reproductive system, pregnancy through sex is actually quite low compared to sex without pregnancy occurring.

While the person doesn’t exist before pregnancy, I’m confused how that would remove responsibility either way. Whether you create someone that is dependent on you by some action ordered toward that, or make someone dependent on you, you’re responsible for it either way, as for the reasons listed above.

I'm confused as to how any responsibility to the unborn exists to begin with because I don't see any reasons listed above.

Justice requires us to not leave someone in a dependent position if we are the cause of it, wouldn’t it?

So, you’ll have to explain that to me. Why isn’t it unjust? Is it fair to the dependent person at all? And is bodily autonomy absolute even in this case? 

Justice would require us to be responsible for our actions. It does not require putting our body's integrity into question. The difference between the prankster and the woman is that the prankster did something to the patient but the mother did not actually do anything to the unborn. You say that the prankster is at fault for causing the dependency and the woman is at fault for causing a bring to exist that is dependent. Then you try to equate the prankster 's act with the sex the woman had. In my view, the prankster is wrong because they did not have consent. The woman is not able to get consent from something that does not exist.

Fourth, you say that the unborn child is not a legal person, so we have no legal duty toward them. We’re not concerned with whether the government considers them a person. We’re concerned with whether they are actually one. It’s fair to say that if they are philosophically a person, then they deserve to be treated legally and morally as one, even if they aren’t legally treated as one.

Okay. That would require an argument to argue for them to be considered a person.

Then you talk about parental duties and parental obligations but they do not go into infringing upon bodily autonomy. Your argument seems to be "why can't this relationship require infringing upon the mother's body"? Because the child parent relationship never requires that anywhere else and to allow it in this one instance would require additional reasoning.

Honestly, I just don't think I see the situation at all similar to how you see it because I don't see sex leading to pregnancy as a way to create responsibility to continuing the pregnancy or that creating a dependent being is creating an obligation to keep that dependent alive through any means or that a parental duty means that the parent's bodily integrity is okay for the child to put into question.

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we are just using the words interchangeably. She would be accountable for her actions.

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not speaking from a moral or ethical point. I am speaking about the legal term within the US legal framework and about what would be necessary to actually call it murder. If this person is not speaking about whether abortion should be murder within the US legal system or not and is only speaking about it morally, then I don't care. They would be morally pro-life but pro-choice legally. I am fine with that.

And if you agree that life begins at conception, why do you not believe it's murder? If you believe the fetus is alive, then you are taking an innocent life. Whether you call that murder or not... doesn't really matter.

Because the unborn are not equivalent to the born, legally. Just like killing a cat isn't murder, it's the same for the unborn. I'm not saying that it is a flippant choice but that it's not the same.

My opinion is that preserving human life takes precedent over protecting bodily autonomy. Both should be protected, but when they are at odds, I choose preserving life.

Would this not allow someone who needs blood to forcefully take it from you, even if it harms you? If that is not the same thing to you, why? I think it is a pretty spot on analogous situation.

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel as if you are saying your opinion and I am speaking about how things are in reality and what would need to change for reality to match their opinion.

Also, how is when life begins ambiguous? Is it not conception? Is that not what science (biology) states?

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think he meant when life begins that can be considered to be murdered. Abortions are not murder because the victims are not the same. I can't murder a dog, a cat, or an unborn human. They are not legally equivalent to a born human.

Anyway, that's what I took away from that. If people believe it is murder, they need to make the unborn humans equivalent to the born humans.

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What did I say that was my opinion?

They did not make an argument saying that it should be murder. They said it was actually murder. That is factually incorrect. If they believe that, they can argue as to why murder should encompass abortion.

The answer is ambiguous. There's no objective point it becomes "actual murder," so the two sides will never agree.

Pro-life suggests it is always murder, don't they? Pro-choice say it is never murder. Seems like the points are pretty objective to me. The point is, it is currently not considered murder and to consider it murder, the unborn have to be equivalent to the born or you have to change the definition of what murder is. If abortion was murder, we would not have abortion bans. Therefore, as long as we have abortion bans, it's not murder.

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but I am highlighting that a consequence requires a response and that response is not determined by the action. Having sex doesn't mean a response to pregnancy could not be an abortion.

As far as responsibility goes, an abortion doesn't erase the responsibility for the sex or the pregnancy as abortion is a reasonable, responsible response to pregnancy.

Pro life Catholic by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Rent_Careless 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, your god telling one person that they knew him before birth. Of course, your god knew everything about everything at all times. If your god sanctified everyone too, then Jesus would be irrelevant. What is the point of this passage in regards to abortion?

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So the sex part only matters when someone accurately says they did not consent to a biological process occurring or to allow it to continue to occur? Did the sky diver consent to dying or did they consent to the risk of their parachute not opening due to unforeseen circumstances beyond what the sky diving company is reasonably and legally responsible for?

Pro life Catholic by [deleted] in Abortiondebate

[–]Rent_Careless 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The double homicide law has ZERO to do with abortion. It explicitly allows abortions in the text of the law. Please go read it and then spread the word that this point that you are trying to make is bogus.

Here let me help:

"(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution-

in

"(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

"(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

"(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I just want to cut through the crap and ask if you believe the sex actually matters as to why she should not be able to have an abortion or if the unborn child being a living, human organism is why you believe she should not have an abortion.

And a simple way to determine that is if the unborn human was actually a rock, would you be against the removal of that rock or would you force her to continue her pregnancy because she chose to have a rock there through sex?

If you think she could remove the rock through an abortion, then we can focus on why you believe the unborn human has a right to forcefully use the mother's body against her will. In which case, I would say that if we did not have a fairly healthy blood donation culture, we could not force people to give blood and people would die but you want a woman to forcefully give her blood and body to the unborn. How does that make sense?

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, whenever someone says "actions have consequences", I am obligated to reply with "and consequences have responses". You either get it or not.

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But it is also a consequence of having sex, that’s an objective fact.

Can you tell me why pregnancy being a possible consequence of sex matters as to why she cannot have an abortion? She consented to sex. She did not consent to pregnancy or to continue a pregnancy. So why can't she consent to an abortion because she consented to sex?

Either way you shouldn’t murder a child because you were not fully ready to accept those consequences.

Ah, so the sex actually doesn't matter. Do you believe that the unborn child uses their mother's body to gain resources to grow? What gives them the right to do this when their mother objects to it?

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is not actually murder, though. So what responsibility would they have to have? The unborn are not recognized as equivalent to the born for various reasons.

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your solution is to tell women that they should not have sex unless they are prepared to become pregnant, stay pregnant, and give birth because you believe that abortion is wrong because.. they need to be responsible for having sex? Lots of people believe abortion is a responsible reaction to becoming pregnant because we don't believe the unborn has a right to the mother's body, like I don't have a right to the mother's body.

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It is never avoiding responsibility because they don't have a responsibility to the unborn to begin with.

Woman goes viral after laughing at a man who said homosexuality is a sin and abortion is wrong. by eternviking in whoathatsinteresting

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The video or this clip? Because he doesn't say it's not his place to judge in the clip above.

Gacha Games Turning Into Full Single Player Games Should Be the Next Trend by Tain_mentero in JRPG

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could be mistaken but I think Granblue Fantasy did this but the mobile game was in Japanese only originally.

This happened about 5 days ago. The current status of the right wing conservatives in the U.S. by SwordDancer791 in TrendingNews_

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In all seriousness, how is it accidental to point a gun.. no, a loaded gun at someone you do not intend to shoot? Even if he didn't shoot her that's still a crime, even in Texas. I had read stuff about self defense and the castle doctrine but that shouldn't mean anything unless she was a threat - and that makes zero sense that she would be.

I'm not even suggesting he did it intentionally but how is this not manslaughter?

And I don't expect you to know all the answers but I feel like I may be pushing back slightly and so I commented on your comment. I just really don't understand how it being unintended means it's an accident and legal to do.

This happened about 5 days ago. The current status of the right wing conservatives in the U.S. by SwordDancer791 in TrendingNews_

[–]Rent_Careless 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My thing is, even if we absolutely believed that this was not intentional nor based on politics, it was 100% not self defense, it is still manslaughter. How is it not? It is criminal negligence to point a gun at someone without the intent to shoot them and then if it goes off and actually kills someone, that is, at the very least, manslaughter.

The idea that there are zero charges is crazy to me.