ninjakittenarmy:muse-on-wheels:ninjakittenarmy:fandomsandfeminism:ninjakittenarmy:fandomsandfeminism

ninjakittenarmy:muse-on-wheels:ninjakittenarmy:fandomsandfeminism:ninjakittenarmy:fandomsandfeminism:ninjakittenarmy:fandomsandfeminism:ninjakittenarmy:fandomsandfeminism:ninjakittenarmy:sadslothsmiling:No offense, @ninjakittenarmy but if it’s not murder sometimes, depending on the circumstances of the mother, which has nothing to do with the fetus or the method of termination, then it’s not murder. And if it’s not murder, then it follows that they’re not people. And if they’re not people, and they’re inside someone’s body, then it falls under bodily autonomy, period. End of conversation.I’m sorry to all of the ppl in this thread who’ve been treated like dirt by people who either know full well that it’s about hurting women and trans men (which is gross), or have been drinking the water and somehow can’t think it through (which is also gross but it’s not their fault). I hope that you can find support from people who are educated and qualified to help. ❤️Just saying “end of conversation” doesn’t actually end the conversation with you as the victor. The life threatening circumstances are because it’s one life for another. And no, it isn’t just about the person carrying the child. There are at least two individuals involved here and denying that disqualifies your argument.So, Im perfectly comfortable in calling a fetus a person. Because if it is a person, it has all the SAME rights as a person- and no person has the right to use the body of another against their will for any reason, even to save their own life. Situations where bodily autonomy and protecting life come into conflict are very rare, so it isn’t surprising that those situations are contentious. However, nearly all of those situations, legally, the right to bodily autonomy comes first, and I believe this is an ethical imperitive. Abortion should be legal and protected for any reason at LEAST to the point of fetal viability (in which case the right to an immediate c-section should come into play.)However personally distasteful you find abortion, the right to it needs to be legally upheld. Otherwise, once you decide that SOME peoples bodies can be violated and used against their will to benefit OTHER PEOPLE, you open the door to some very very scary situations. The right to life outweighs all other rights. Nothing comes first.So, that’s legally not true. If a person is dying of kidney failure, are they allowed to steal a kidney from another person to save their life? Is a person allowed to deny medical treatment, even if doing so will likely kill them? Do doctors need to give medical testing participants accurate information about the risks of the trail and allow them to drop out, even of that will delay or event halt the development of life saving drugs? Are elderly people allowed to sign DNR orders for themselves? Is a person able to claim self defense if they kill someone who was attempting to rape them? Is a personal legally obligated to put themselves in danger of possible physical harm to save another person from certain death? There are situations where legally, and ethically, we as a society recognize that bodily autonomy can be protected above life. They aren’t common, but they do exist. And again, once you decide that one class of people can have theor body violated for the benefit of others against their will, that becomes very very ethically problematic very quickly. “That’s legally not true” legal and moral are not the same thing. That abortion is legal is why I’m angry in the first place.My argument is that it morally isn’t true either, hence the REST OF MY REPLY which you appeared to have completely ignored. Please read the rest of my last post to see my argument that ethically we hold bodily autonomy above life in the rare situations when they conflict. I read the rest of your reply and it was chock full of false equivalencies and other nonsense. There is a huge difference between not sacrificing your life for someone and killing them actively because their existence is detrimental to you. DNRs and the refusal of life saving medicine are also problems, not something that should be acceptable. You think doctors should be able to force a person to accept medical treatment against their will? You think doctors should be able to force a person to undergo a painful or expensive treatment if they don’t want it? And you ignored many of my other examples of times when bodily autonomy supersedes the protection of life. Can someone kill a person trying to rape them? Can a person steal an organ to save theor own life or the life of another? Do doctors need informed consent to perform potentially dangerous medical tests on people?Also, you misunderstood my question about putting yourself in danger (not inherently mortal peril, just physical pain) to save another person. That is an example of bodily autonomy vs protection of life. Is a person MORALLY obligated to put their body in danger of harm or pain if it would save the life of another person? I mean, given my my advocacy for universal healthcare the expense thing is just another problem to be disposed of. And pain is better than death, always. The value of a rapist’s life is not the same as that of an innocent, so that’s just nonsense. I do not and never will consider an evil person’s life as of equal value to an innocent’s, it is possible to deserve death. The medical test thing is wrong just as abortion is wrong, because it actively risks the lives of others. And as for that last question, yes, you are morally obligated to save someone’s life if yours is not in peril. I do however say that they are not as culpable for their inaction if they don’t because fear makes it harder to act. To abort someone you have to actively kill them, not just do nothing. Yeah, hi, person with several chronic disorders here pain is not always better than death, and you have no right to decide that for someone else, nor does a doctor. A doctor forcing a tube down someone’s throat to help them breathe when they have said they do not want that is, on many moral and legal grounds, no different than an act like rape. If I have clearly said no, I do not want this, and it is forced upon me, it is a crime in both legal and ethical terms. I have faced years of medical abuse from doctors who think they “know better” than me. So no, DNRs and refusal of medical treatment are not problems or something that “needs to be fixed,” they are basic advocacy for people to use to dictate their own needs for their own body.So just allow suicide then?I mean, yes, I am an advocate for medically assisted suicide, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about DNRs and refusal of treatment. They are very different things. A refusal of treatment, or extreme measures, is a person saying “Here is my line, if we reach this point, I want to let nature take its course.”If I have a congenitive disorder that will eventually make my lungs stop working, does a doctor have a right to force a breathing tube on me? Does he have the right to perform a lung transplant despite my protests? Does he have the right to pump my body full of drugs to prolong my life, even if it causes me great suffering, or gives me no quality of life? Whether you’re speaking in legal, moral, or ethical terms, the answer is aways no. -- source link

More pics about