a great day for the devil and the antichrist
If you believe in that garbage, I guess every day is a test, and you passed this one!
i do not see where
I'm not >>2, but I understand the mythos enough to comprehend his lament.
I've been ignoring the Argentina Constitution news regarding "abortion" rights, but overall now men and women have the individual right to kill their babies against the state wishes.
I honestly don't care what Argentinian want to do with their state, but they have never gotten over their mass genocides.
People talk about abortion as being "killing babies" a lot and I say fine, let's entertain that notion. Killing humans is a complex issue because there are a lot of ways to judge humans -- the notion of personhood being a fairly good one. Let's look at the opposite end of the spectrum from a fetus.
The ethics of killing someone who's very elderly and braindead or in chronic sorrow is controversial among some, but I feel is generally accepted among progressives. Similarly "pulling the plug" on a long-term coma victim will probably cause very little guilt relative to someone killing a youth.
The reasons for abortion are also rarely driven by severe delusions in the way the classic serial killer mentality is commonly portrayed.
Waving aside all that stuff, a great argument for abortion comes from harm reduction (same with legalizing drugs and issuing condoms) and anyone who's against it should consider addressing the roots of the issue, aka the difficulty of having the resources to support motherhood / parenthood easily available.
That's just state propaganda, which Argentinians said "enough". Nobody wants to support chattel, so the state now gave them rights do away with fetal matter if it doesn't have the resources to be self sufficient.
It'd be a miracle if the people shouting "that's killing babies!" would take in the feti themselves and raise them.
damage is caused by non-persons → non-persons
violence is committed by persons → persons
there is no harm to the body (a non-person thing) in an unwanted pregnancy by baby's initiative; even so, all damage is recoverable, damage refers to the world of quantity
any damage caused by the baby's body [but not by the baby] is recoverable; the damage that is done to the body through the practice of abortion is also recoverable, plus a difference, the practice of abortion is deliberate, so it is also a violence — it follows that it is irrational to promote abortion by the way of "reducing" the related damages to the body
through pregnancy there is only damage, while through abortion there is damage and violence
if the damage is appeased through the recovery of quantities, violence is not appeased since it was caused by the degeneration of qualities
what remains [as a option] is the [presumption] baby's violence, basically pure feeling
the mother will have to prove that the baby is deliberately "violenting" her; it is possible? not until the baby is consulted
so there is no point in the argument of the redefinition of harm and violence; it is a linguistic confusion
abortion has to be defended in other ways, and i see many... but let the demons do their job, i will not
tl:dr abortion is more harmful than birth and MAYBE more violent
You need to solve the captcha before you can post.