This link goes to Reddit, however, we have used a direct video link to avoid giving them ad revenue.

  • Jelly@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reminder that all forms of miscarriage care are considered abortions in medical settings and banning abortions means dead babies are more important than live women

  • Drusas@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As a note to those who don’t know: this varies by state, but generally speaking, you cannot become a licensed physician without having learned abortion care.

  • khelmr@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just received a secondary application from University of Michigan Medical School. Looks like I know what school isn’t going to receive my application.

  • BigToe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think abortion will be treated much like slavery in the future. People will look back at past atrocities and ask “how did people think it was okay to kill babies that inconvenience them?”. It will be as bizarre if not moreso than owning a slave.

    • Drusas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you, except it will be the opposite. “How did people think it was okay to force women into this with no choice? Even at the risk of their own lives in a country with a high maternal mortality rate.”

      • PectoralisInspector@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        “How can they have freedom be one of their foundational guides, but think restrictions on what women do with their bodies is alright?”

    • Laticauda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      How did people think it was okay to force 13 year olds to give birth to rape babies? How did people think it was okay to force a woman to give birth to the corpse of her already confirmed dead child or carry her dead child until it rotted inside her? How did people think it was okay to let women go to jail for having a miscarriage? How did people value a bundle of formless non-sentient cells more than rape victims or children or even just women in general who deserve autonomy and respect? How did people understand why it was wrong to force someone to donate their organs without consent, and yet still tried to force women to donate their wombs and in some cases their lives without their consent?

      Oh yeah, because they were fucking idiots, like you.

    • zefiax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think rather they would look back and wonder how we failed so badly at education to result in comments such as yours to get to the point where we allowed risking a woman’s life for dead clump of cells.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “how did people think it was okay to kill babies that inconvenience them?”.

      Let me fix this for you.

      “How did we create a society with so little support for mothers that some had abortions for financial or lack-of-support reasons?”

      That’s the real tragedy. If a woman doesn’t want a baby, then she’s going to be a horrible mom and raise a horrible person. Those people can have abortions all day and night for all I care. But the women who might want one, but can’t afford it, but don’t feel safe in their own home, that’s society failing.

    • Holyginz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, what will actually happen is they will wonder how people could ever mistake a clump of cells as a baby and force women to carry a child they don’t want.

      • BigToe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like when people use the “clump of cells” argument like that doesn’t perfectly describe all life as we know it. You sir are just a clump of cells, can I take your life because you are an unwanted clump of cells?

          • BigToe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I call it an “argument” because it is a very standard and typical “argument” made when debating abortion. Yes we are all clumps of cells and if you google “debunking clump of cells argument” you will find much more intuitive and thoughtfull responses.

        • Darukhnarn_normal@lemmy.fmhy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Early foetal development stages are literal clumps of pluripotent cells. A lot like most medical test matter when it comes to testing mechanisms in human/eukaryotic organisms. What both lack, is Organisation and viability. If we were to follow your argument, we wouldn’t be allowed to use nearly all medication developed in the last 50 years or so. Also: whom would you try for the repeat murder of Henrietta Lacks?

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

          “I” am not a clump of cells. I am the ghost in the machine. A pattern, existing in a biological computer, piloting a meat mech. Once that pattern ceases to exist, “I” cease to exist, even if the meat mech is still fully functional. At that point, what remains is just a clump of cells. Or, more usefully, a collection of spare parts, for other meat mechs.

          For many, the key difference between a fetus/baby and a “clump of cells” is the ability to support similar patterns (a soul, if you will). Almost all abortions happen long before the clump of cells develops to the point it can support such a pattern. (Neurons alone aren’t enough, it needs a critical mass and proper wiring)

          There is a potential for argument on late term abortions. I agree that should be restricted. Even that, however need to be dealt with with solomness, logic and care, not emotional knee jerking.

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

          That clump of cells would need “conciousness” or the ability to think for itself to be considered sentient, something you apparently lack as well.

          • BigToe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There’s the ad hominem. Out of curiosity how do you determine if someone or something has a consciousness, how do you feel about people on life support that are clinically brain dead? How about people in a coma?

            • kezza596@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not a great argument. If they’re brain dead then correct, they’re no longer sentient. Therefore I wouldn’t disagree with pulling the plug at all.

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

                If I was braindead with no hope of recovery then I would seriously hope my family pulled the plug. It wouldn’t be me anymore and I would hate to be a drain on resources for nothing.

    • mouth_brood@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The vast majority of abortions, like 99.9%, are either for medical reasons or sexual assault. The conservative hegemony has done an excellent job of brainwashing people like yourself into believing the opposite. I can’t even imagine the horror that rape victims go through when being forced to give birth to a constant reminder of the unbelievable hell that they endured.

      Whenever these two reasons (medical and rape) are brought up to abortion opponents, they all seem to be ok with terminating pregnancies as these are acceptable exceptions.

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

      I’d like to think that, in the future, people would realize most if not all anti-abortion activists were low information and largely indoctrinated. When you actually understand the science behind reproduction, it’s really hard to look at a blob of cells that’s frequently lost without human intervention anyhow as a “baby”.

      And this, yet again, is why science education, REAL science education, is so important.

    • Rottcodd@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m going to presume that you’re confused rather than lying.

      NOBODY thinks “it’s okay to kill babies.”

      The reality is that those who support a right to abortion do not believe that fetuses qualify as “babies” at all. In their opinion, a fetus is at most a potential person - not an actual person.

      Yes - I understand that that’s not your position, and I’m sure you have lots of what you believe to be compelling arguments to support your view that fetuses docqualify as “babies,” but that’s explicitly NOT the position of people who support a right to abortion.

      So when you characterize the pro-choice position as one that asserts that “it’s okay to kill babies,” you’re at the very least misrepresenting what they actually believe.

      I presume you consider yourself to be a moral person, so you should likely ask yourself - just how moral is your position, really, if you feel compelled to lie and misrepresent the views of those who disagree?

      • BigToe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A failure to understand or believe that abortion is murder does not make it no long a murder. For the people that believe Jews deserve to die their opinion does not change the fact that the holocaust was genocide. I also said “in the future” since, much like slavery was accepted in the past, I believe our understanding of human life will undergo change and abortion will be viewed as a murder of innocents.

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

          So far, all you’ve shown is that you don’t understand squat about murder, fetal development, slavery, or the holocaust. Care to add any other ignorant takes to the pile you’ve built yourself?

        • Rottcodd@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Presuming, for the sake of argument, that the consensus in the future comes to be that it is in fact murder, then yes - it’s rightly labeled “murder” regardless of the view one might hold.

          But that’s beside my point.

          To carry on with this particular context, what you’re asserting is that those who support a right to abortion believe that murder is okay, which is very much NOT what they in fact believe. They believe that it does not qualify as “murder” at all.

          So again, you’re misrepresenting what they actually believe, and doing so in order to saddle them with a moral position they do not in fact hold, snd that dishonesty, in my estimation, calls into question the notion that you actually are a moral person.

          Oh, and for the record, I think you’re wrong anyway. I think that when all of the reactionary, emotional fervor dies down and cooler heads prevail, the beginning of human life will be defined by the exact same thing that’s already the accepted marker for the end of human life - the presence or absence of measurable cortical activity.

          And curiously enough, cortical activity can only be detected in fetuses well into the second trimester.

          • BigToe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I disagree with your logic, it is a massive logical fallacy to say that becuase something isn’t murder now that even if it’s seen as murder in the future it wasn’t murder in the past. Slavery now is still the same as slavery in the past and past atrocities do not become humane because they are viewed through the lens of time. Now legally speaking sure, if slaves are allowed then slavery is legal, but legality does not in any way dictate morality. This begs the question why do you keep insinuating that because something is legal then it is moral?

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

              The premise of your argument is that they’re going to consider it murder in the future. But what if they don’t? Anyway, the logical fallacy is worrying about what future societies might think, since they’re not here now.

              Abortion is moral and merciful. Forcing an unwanted child into the world is cruel.

              Your opinion that a fetus deserves rights is something that most of us don’t respect here.

    • BeeOneTwoThree@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hopefully in ghe future the need for abortions is close to zero becuase of better education, birth control and standard of living.

      But today it is better to have abortions than put people into this world when nobody is going to take care of them the way they need.

      I think they will look back at this time and think “how sad that they did not have the tools and care needed to avoid abortions”.

      • BigToe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s completely fair and very possible, but I do disagree morally that it’s better to have an abortion than to bring a baby into the world that isn’t wanted. Want should not dictate the viability of life nor the concept of basic human right to life. Most times the right thing isn’t easy or even what we want, but that should not get in the way of doing what IS right. Should there be better foster care systems and increased funding for both systems and families willing to foster/adopt? Absolutely. But the failure of our government to put spending where it should to assist with fostering/adoption and, as you mentioned, in education and standard of living, does not change the morality of the ending of a baby’s life through abortion.