Baffled European here. The only clinic in the whole state! Then I looked the state up on the internet. Okay. Maybe it's better just to move out altogether.
But seriously someone fully intended to build the abortion clinic even if it wasn't finished yet they still wanted it following the analogy she basically force-fed an 8 month pregnant woman poison to kill her unborn baby.
Basically this. If you harm a woman you know is pregnant, you are charged for hurting both her and the baby. There's no justification that the baby wasn't born yet. There are differences regarding abortion. This joke is toxic and it punches down.
I'm not sure if this was about sending a message or more some delusional fuckmuppet thinking she was preventatively saving babies, and trying to charge is as a hate crime can muddy the waters when it comes to the mens rea part, so I don't think legally it's the best idea to charge it as such. Felony arson is probably the way to go, proving a hate crime is a lot harder than proving facts.
Lawyers at MARVEL comics once argued that "Mutants aren't people" so that they could pay lower import fees on toys not dolls, because dolls are representations of people.
@OP Why not include the performer's name in the post?
It seems to me that people who post clips from comedy performances, hardly ever bother to credit the artist/let the people who see the post know who it is...
Also, buildings are stagnant. You sign an intended purpose of the usage of the building before you start building it. She burned it down *because it was an abortion clinic, not some random construction. The abortionissue is very complex. Women should of course have all the rights over their bodies and their lives, but there's an upper limit. In Norway you have 12 weeks to get an abortion (which will now soon increase to 18 weeks), and after that only if the health of mother or child is at risk.
Anyone that doesn't like dad jokes is lame and are envious of such wit. With requires knowledge and tact. Dad jokes are harmless jabs at reality, and if you can enjoy reality, then i don't want to know you. Stay sharp my friend. Keep cracking wyze.
Heās losing his mind because the entire āwhen does it count as a babyā debate on abortion is a red herringāitās a bodily autonomy issue. A woman shouldnāt be forced to carry and give birth; the end.
If you knowingly harm a pregnant woman to kill her fetus, it's a murder attempt. There are good reasons why abortion is not treated the same way. It's not a brilliant observation, it is a joke playing on the innately-terrible sense for the absurd humanity has.
Reminds me of the one about a bar that burned down after a church prayed for it to happen. Bar owner sues, church claims no part in it. So, a bar owner believes in the power of prayer and a church that doesn't.
Our entire legal system is based on intention. That's the difference between manslaughter and murder. Same outcome, one has motive and one doesn't. One should be punished more severely than the other, if you believe in the validity of a punitive justice system.
Good example. However the system doesnāt care if you know if something is illegal or not. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, yet there are constantly new rules made.
Yeah turns out that's actually false? If you commit a crime with 0 knowledge that it's a crime and can prove it (that's gonna be the hard part), or are an unwitting participant in a crime, you -could- get off without punishment. Ignorance of the law IS actually an admissible defense, in some cases. Probably not major felonies. But some fraud and other things you do without being aware of any broken laws can exculpate you, because of no mens rea.
Poppycock, balderdash, horseshit, bullshit, hogwash. Hate is a supremely important motivation and many aspects of law consider intent/motive. Oversimplification (puritanical or otherwise) is not the path to combating theocracy.
purely from an outside observer of the US -and Iām all for pleading your case, there are so many conspiracy and hate crimes that make it seem like itās no wonder the system is clotted. Explaining the actions doesnāt excuse them
Because motive can matter. If i accidentally crash my car and kill you. If I lynch you because I don't want black people in my neighborhood that has much larger implications for society. You end up dead either way, but one is designed to send a message.
There's also the tiny issue of intentional manslaughter making it WAY MORE LIKELY for it to reoccur, than if it was just an accident (rather than supreme negligence and lack of skill, by comparison).
Yes, legal definitions of murder, for example, tend to hinge on intent. As opposed to manslaughter, etc. More to the general point, hate is what we are fighting, writ large. Hateful intentions matter hugely, however clearly genocide is present. So fuck the bullshit that we are here responding to.
The entire concept of Mens Rea is why this is a thing. I have issues with the Hate Crime status for ... reasons, mostly because it furthers divides ppl, but yes, motives matter. If my friend calls me to pick him up from the bank, I drive up, he hops in and tells me to hurry, I'm like 'wow rude', but my lawyers can defend my being an accessory to a crime because I didn't go there to commit a crime. If I'm the waiting getaway driver, I wanted to commit a crime, I -can- have charges.
Ok so help me out, because in the spirit of this comedian, I was performing a thought experiment on how a conservative could think along those lines to sell abortion as murder; preventing life to start as method, motive is murder. What do I bring up as a counter argument? that before life starts, you should have the right to choose? im not sure that defuses the murder stance.
That's the best part. Literally anything you want. It doesn't have to make sense, and in fact it probably shouldn't make sense. That's the "conservative" argument against abortion. And arguing with them on the points they bring up and semantic nip picking they love instead of drowning out the bullshit with facts is how they win.
Under "overview" look for the violinist argument. That's always been my go to. No other person has a right to be a tenant to your body without your permission, period. If they can be evicted and survive, great, do that. But under no circumstances can you prevent their eviction - the woman's sovereignty over her own biological processes, insofar as they can be affected by action, is absolute.
I always go to the bodily autonomy argument. Does the govt have the right to make medical decisions for people? Do we own our bodies or does the govt get to withhold medical care from us? That's the question. Morality is beside the point - we don't legislate morality. We don't force, for example, a parent to donate blood to their dying child, even though the obvious moral choice is for the parent to give blood. So how can we force an entire pregnancy in order to save a life?
The thing is, "we" don't force a pregnancy, "we" only don't allow to actively end a pregnancy and "we" are not saving a life by not ending a pregnancy, "we" don't actively end a life by doing so. That's the reason why practically all western societies have term limits at least for elective abortions as a way to balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the unborn child.
Canada doesn't, we leave it up to the medical associations to define the guidelines, and then doctors work with patients on the options. Doctors aren't going to abort babies who could just be birthed. There's really no need for legislation.
Wtf are you talking about? What does it matter who decides on the guidelines? The gestational limit in Canada varies between 12 and 24 weeks depending on the region, beyond that people have to travel to another region or even the US to get any abortion. So yes, Canada does have term limits. The only places who don't have that are some US states, that's what I meant by "practically all".
You're buying into the lies that conservatives use to sell their agenda. It's not about saving babies. It never was. It's about establishing women as second class citizens and broodmares for men. They don't care about children. You can tell because they also try to kill the Department of Education, WIC, and Medicaid, which disproportionately helps children of low income families. They also want to criminalize porn. Which can really only serve as an attempt to increase sex crimes against women.
This is where the debate comes in on this. The two sides are specifically pro choice (goal)and pro life(method).
The goal for abortion is to prevent whatever bad scenario is going to come from giving birth, ie: it's the mothers choice. The method is what people are debating. If you consider an embryo is a living human, then your arguing that the method is murder and the mothers choice doesn't matter.
But this is putting it simplistically. There are many other ways to view this debate.
I was gonna downvote, not because I think you don't know what's up, but because your comment seemingly foreclosed on alternative explanations until the last two sentences, and that's where I changed my mind.
I've always found Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist to be the most persuasive argument. To reframe it in the context of the current discussion, if an intruder trespasses in your house, and them leaving your house will result in their death, you're still within your rights to evict them.
The argument is moot though. The human fetus is, as a matter of fact, both functionally and biologically a parasite. The semantic spin is so mentally deficient, "Pro-Life," is quite literally Pro-Parasite, it's the equivalent of Pro-Tumor. Sure, you want a kid, you wanna pass down name, legacy, w/e great, BUT forcing an unwanted pregnancy to term is Aggravated Assault (parasite = weapon), Attempted Murder, or actual Murder considering how obscenely high the maternal death rate is in the US.
This is a load of steaming bullshit, not a "fact". Even completely ignoring the whole "procreation" aspect of the matter, a parasite in the biological sense is always an organism of a different species than the host, which a fetus is obvioiusly not.
The only reason that "of a different species" is marked ik the classification of parasites is to specifically exclude fetuses, as they are otherwise completely the same as what we call parasites now
This argument depends on "murder" being defined as "ending a life", but in law, we define murder as a *specific class* of unlawful homicide. Not only are there other classes of unlawful homicide, there are even lawful classes of homicide (such as self defense, executions, and war). "Abortion is murder" is actually a much higher bar than just showing that terminating a fetus is homicide, and I don't know why that moving of the goalposts is accepted so often.
Ye, this is another aspect for that whole debate that just didn't have the space to include. So thanks for mentioning it. Plus you're probably way more accurate than myself. It's good to hear the proper legal terms instead of the nonsense I try and fail to articulate XD
If I needed a kidney to live and yours would, FOR SURE, save my life - and with out it I would FOR SURE die - and you did not need that kidney, you're not obligated to give me a kidney and never could be under such an obligation. Because you have bodily autonomy. That's all.
I stay awake at night thinking about this shit, and it always comes down to the slippery slide. Anti-vaxxers and idiots who are afraid of surgeries should be told their idiot brains don't matter and they should be forced to get vaxxed/have surgeries/whatever for their own or the greater good. I firmly believe this. But I also know the instant we pass that law, we're shooting body autonomy in the gut. It's the slippery slide, I hate it, but we have to keep it even with the idiots around.
The entire argument is based on life being sacred and then applying religious morality to legal morality in an attempt to make the laws of the state subject to the laws of the church.
If you take all morality out of the equation, it comes down to "nobody is willing to take care of it" and "it can't take care of itself" so the humane/ethical stance is to put it out of its misery aka minimize suffering. Like a stray animal no one adopts.
The alternative is sterilization and that never ends well.
If the religious right truly hated abortion then the solution would be state sponsored orphanages with no criminal charges for dropping your kid off. But they don't hate abortion. They hate that we don't adhere to their rules and thus are ungovernable. Abortion is just a straw man because fetuses don't have a voice and therefore any argument could be made in their favor. This is never about compassion or legality. It's about control.
My approach would be that if this abortion clinic were built on this lady's property it is not a hate crime because she doesn't have to let others build whatever they'd like on her property. This goes straight to: preventing a life that grows within you and could become a threat to your own life is not murder, you don't have to subject yourself to potential risk from another person merely to extend their life - you have a right to choose if you'd allow it or not.
Even simpler. Killing someone in your house is an accepted scenario of self defense. It's even accepted, too often by these same people, that killing a child is okay if it's on your property. The double standard of not allowing women to decide what happens on their property is the POINT. They don't think women should own property and thus shouldn't have the right to decide what's on it. AKA, pro-control, pro-birth. So, at the end, we need to argue further and harder that women are people.
I'll also back up previous point about extending another's life. Corpses have more rights than women in the US. Bodies cannot be harvested for parts unless permission is granted pre-death. Blood cannot be taken either, even if it's magical. No body has the right to violate a person's body for self-sustenance, it's illegal. Therefore, in-utero beings, if classed as people, still have no right. They are there thru the mother's permission only and only until birth or revocation.
If a pregnant person goes to an abortion clinic to prevent themself from having a kid they donāt want or cannot have safely thatās their choice, if I kick a pregnant person repeatedly in the gut because I donāt want them to have a kid regardless of their opinion on it itās murder (and assault and probably some other stuff as well IANAL)
Depends on the state but it's not always considered murder to kill a fetus, unless it can be proved it took a breath first. Aggravated assault, probably some other felonies to be sure, but it's -technically- not considered murder, even if your goal was to Falcon Punch that thing out its mother's mouth.
beccs
That dude deserved a way bigger applause, than what he actually received. š¤š¼šš¼
themayorMcCheese
That bit is gold, man. Well done
userfriendly19777
Baffled European here. The only clinic in the whole state! Then I looked the state up on the internet. Okay. Maybe it's better just to move out altogether.
usernametakenisthestoryofmylife
"But Democrats are letting be burned down 1 month after opening!" /s
domillomew
democrats consider it a crime to murder a fetus too....only the mother gets to make choices about her body.
MmmmmSoup
Shouldn't she get jail time for arson anyways
DarkBusterBaron
But seriously someone fully intended to build the abortion clinic even if it wasn't finished yet they still wanted it following the analogy she basically force-fed an 8 month pregnant woman poison to kill her unborn baby.
RaspK
Basically this. If you harm a woman you know is pregnant, you are charged for hurting both her and the baby. There's no justification that the baby wasn't born yet. There are differences regarding abortion. This joke is toxic and it punches down.
idiotsonfire
Simple as; "Did she do this because it was an abortion clinic under construction, or a random building under construction?"
Schnickelfritz2
She's serving 5 years in prison and has to pay 300k. Source:
Schnickelfritz2
https://apnews.com/article/wyoming-abortion-clinic-arson-fire-restitution-62779a51bdbcf5cd2d0612586227a514
ZSabre
I think aborting someone elseās fetus could still be a hate crimeā¦.
bobbobbybobbington
Simple, it wasn't her baby... I mean construction site.
GabbyJayYay
UNHchabo
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on the left opposed to Abortion Without Consent as a felony.
salunatics
The ol' switcheroo
itwasababyox
Bollramm
Lets test it. Burnldown the construction site of a sacred building. If the purp gets charged with a hate crime you have your answer.
RaspK
+1
nickamont
How is it a hate crime, though? Domestic terrorism seems more accurate.
Persephone407
A hate crime is any crime committed to intimidate, terrify, or harm a specific group of people. Generally speaking though, both definitions can apply.
kamenhokage
I'm not sure if this was about sending a message or more some delusional fuckmuppet thinking she was preventatively saving babies, and trying to charge is as a hate crime can muddy the waters when it comes to the mens rea part, so I don't think legally it's the best idea to charge it as such. Felony arson is probably the way to go, proving a hate crime is a lot harder than proving facts.
tweetlebug
Lawyers at MARVEL comics once argued that "Mutants aren't people" so that they could pay lower import fees on toys not dolls, because dolls are representations of people.
ThatWhichRemains
This is exactly the sort of shit magneto was angry about!
JohnnyLawlessEsq
What happens in courts has very little to do with justice and nothing at all to do with the truth.
mbzlr
I am unsure why burning down an abortion clinic is considered a hate crime. Can someone explain that to me?
LoopStricken
Open Ba Comedy: It's Funnier in Her
tweetlebug
what?
wyrframe
Look at the last half-second. They're commentating on the shitty vertical-video crop.
SmergBlaerghl
@OP Why not include the performer's name in the post?
It seems to me that people who post clips from comedy performances, hardly ever bother to credit the artist/let the people who see the post know who it is...
Clockworkdancerobot
Prosecution stands up: "Did she burn it down because she hates construction sites? No? I rest your honor."
Fairdinkums
FvckinNailedIt
Fuckin' nailed it.
WeirdComments
Also, buildings are stagnant. You sign an intended purpose of the usage of the building before you start building it. She burned it down *because it was an abortion clinic, not some random construction.
The abortionissue is very complex. Women should of course have all the rights over their bodies and their lives, but there's an upper limit. In Norway you have 12 weeks to get an abortion (which will now soon increase to 18 weeks), and after that only if the health of mother or child is at risk.
DanielAsparagus
Thatās a well constructed joke.
Spoutinwyze
Ba dum tst
DanielAsparagus
Now I see why people say Iām the dad joke champion and I alienate those I love. This has been informative. Wow. Gonna take some time to reflect.
Spoutinwyze
Anyone that doesn't like dad jokes is lame and are envious of such wit. With requires knowledge and tact. Dad jokes are harmless jabs at reality, and if you can enjoy reality, then i don't want to know you. Stay sharp my friend. Keep cracking wyze.
Spoutinwyze
Can't* enjoy.
DanielAsparagus
It brings light to my eyes every time I see a co worker die inside.
Spoutinwyze
Could barely hear audio. The titles just made me dizzy.
giraffinator
What a world
irrationalcompromise365
Heās losing his mind because the entire āwhen does it count as a babyā debate on abortion is a red herringāitās a bodily autonomy issue. A woman shouldnāt be forced to carry and give birth; the end.
zafner
What a brilliant observation
RaspK
If you knowingly harm a pregnant woman to kill her fetus, it's a murder attempt. There are good reasons why abortion is not treated the same way. It's not a brilliant observation, it is a joke playing on the innately-terrible sense for the absurd humanity has.
mccar7hy
Me too bro. Only makes me vote harder
nurmich
I didn't know Prof did standup. If I ever go to see him, I'll remember to pack a lunch.
JellyGlonut
I too am bald with a stache and Prof is like my alter ego. He is so fkn entertaining. Saw him live for the first time earlier this year.
nurmich
Markuspsyches
Reminds me of the one about a bar that burned down after a church prayed for it to happen. Bar owner sues, church claims no part in it. So, a bar owner believes in the power of prayer and a church that doesn't.
jiminyjilIikers
why complicate things by trying to prove intention? Motive is always less important than outcome. Itās arson. Itās a very severe crime.
GingerLaird
Agreed. Though, I'm curious what it could escalate to, if they let her free.
arfalottaroff
You believe that motivation by hate is always less important than its results?
GingerLaird
It's like watching a natural disaster. You don't want it to happen, but you have trouble looking away.
HankeringForASpankering
Our entire legal system is based on intention. That's the difference between manslaughter and murder. Same outcome, one has motive and one doesn't. One should be punished more severely than the other, if you believe in the validity of a punitive justice system.
jiminyjilIikers
Good example. However the system doesnāt care if you know if something is illegal or not. Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, yet there are constantly new rules made.
RaspK
Ah, yes, because nobody is aware of... [checks notes] murder being illegal.
kamenhokage
Yeah turns out that's actually false? If you commit a crime with 0 knowledge that it's a crime and can prove it (that's gonna be the hard part), or are an unwitting participant in a crime, you -could- get off without punishment. Ignorance of the law IS actually an admissible defense, in some cases. Probably not major felonies. But some fraud and other things you do without being aware of any broken laws can exculpate you, because of no mens rea.
jiminyjilIikers
maybe thatās america, that would fit with what the rest of you are saying
arfalottaroff
Poppycock, balderdash, horseshit, bullshit, hogwash. Hate is a supremely important motivation and many aspects of law consider intent/motive. Oversimplification (puritanical or otherwise) is not the path to combating theocracy.
jiminyjilIikers
purely from an outside observer of the US -and Iām all for pleading your case, there are so many conspiracy and hate crimes that make it seem like itās no wonder the system is clotted. Explaining the actions doesnāt excuse them
ilikepot8os
Because motive can matter. If i accidentally crash my car and kill you. If I lynch you because I don't want black people in my neighborhood that has much larger implications for society. You end up dead either way, but one is designed to send a message.
RaspK
There's also the tiny issue of intentional manslaughter making it WAY MORE LIKELY for it to reoccur, than if it was just an accident (rather than supreme negligence and lack of skill, by comparison).
arfalottaroff
Yes, legal definitions of murder, for example, tend to hinge on intent. As opposed to manslaughter, etc. More to the general point, hate is what we are fighting, writ large. Hateful intentions matter hugely, however clearly genocide is present. So fuck the bullshit that we are here responding to.
kamenhokage
The entire concept of Mens Rea is why this is a thing. I have issues with the Hate Crime status for ... reasons, mostly because it furthers divides ppl, but yes, motives matter. If my friend calls me to pick him up from the bank, I drive up, he hops in and tells me to hurry, I'm like 'wow rude', but my lawyers can defend my being an accessory to a crime because I didn't go there to commit a crime. If I'm the waiting getaway driver, I wanted to commit a crime, I -can- have charges.
PraiseAzathoth
If you tamper with somebody's brakes to get them killed in an accident, your goal is murder, your method was vandalism.
Her goal was to prevent an abortion clinic from opening up. Her method was destroying a construction site.
Motives matter here. Hate crime.
sevensided
So, Felony Arson, yes, but what would the hate crime be applicable to? Do abortion clinics have protected status?
Leaps
Hate crimes can be based on gender, and since it was a doctors office for women, you could argue it was a hate crime against women.
poocolonel3030
Absolutely true, nevertheless, a solid joke.
stevelepastis
Actus reus / mens rea
cptnobvious537
Ok so help me out, because in the spirit of this comedian, I was performing a thought experiment on how a conservative could think along those lines to sell abortion as murder; preventing life to start as method, motive is murder. What do I bring up as a counter argument? that before life starts, you should have the right to choose? im not sure that defuses the murder stance.
ImRodAndILikeToParty
That's the best part. Literally anything you want. It doesn't have to make sense, and in fact it probably shouldn't make sense. That's the "conservative" argument against abortion. And arguing with them on the points they bring up and semantic nip picking they love instead of drowning out the bullshit with facts is how they win.
AllTheKitties
The fetus doesn't have to die. It just has to get out of my uterus. Then it is more than welcome to live out its life as it sees fit.
aguacatedeldiablo
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Under "overview" look for the violinist argument. That's always been my go to. No other person has a right to be a tenant to your body without your permission, period. If they can be evicted and survive, great, do that. But under no circumstances can you prevent their eviction - the woman's sovereignty over her own biological processes, insofar as they can be affected by action, is absolute.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
I always go to the bodily autonomy argument. Does the govt have the right to make medical decisions for people? Do we own our bodies or does the govt get to withhold medical care from us? That's the question. Morality is beside the point - we don't legislate morality. We don't force, for example, a parent to donate blood to their dying child, even though the obvious moral choice is for the parent to give blood. So how can we force an entire pregnancy in order to save a life?
JaromirAzarov
The thing is, "we" don't force a pregnancy, "we" only don't allow to actively end a pregnancy and "we" are not saving a life by not ending a pregnancy, "we" don't actively end a life by doing so. That's the reason why practically all western societies have term limits at least for elective abortions as a way to balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the unborn child.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Canada doesn't, we leave it up to the medical associations to define the guidelines, and then doctors work with patients on the options. Doctors aren't going to abort babies who could just be birthed. There's really no need for legislation.
JaromirAzarov
Wtf are you talking about? What does it matter who decides on the guidelines? The gestational limit in Canada varies between 12 and 24 weeks depending on the region, beyond that people have to travel to another region or even the US to get any abortion. So yes, Canada does have term limits. The only places who don't have that are some US states, that's what I meant by "practically all".
CyberHexx
You're buying into the lies that conservatives use to sell their agenda. It's not about saving babies. It never was. It's about establishing women as second class citizens and broodmares for men. They don't care about children. You can tell because they also try to kill the Department of Education, WIC, and Medicaid, which disproportionately helps children of low income families. They also want to criminalize porn. Which can really only serve as an attempt to increase sex crimes against women.
PraiseAzathoth
This is where the debate comes in on this. The two sides are specifically pro choice (goal)and pro life(method).
The goal for abortion is to prevent whatever bad scenario is going to come from giving birth, ie: it's the mothers choice. The method is what people are debating. If you consider an embryo is a living human, then your arguing that the method is murder and the mothers choice doesn't matter.
But this is putting it simplistically. There are many other ways to view this debate.
aguacatedeldiablo
I was gonna downvote, not because I think you don't know what's up, but because your comment seemingly foreclosed on alternative explanations until the last two sentences, and that's where I changed my mind.
I've always found Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist to be the most persuasive argument. To reframe it in the context of the current discussion, if an intruder trespasses in your house, and them leaving your house will result in their death, you're still within your rights to evict them.
EleganceIsDead
The argument is moot though. The human fetus is, as a matter of fact, both functionally and biologically a parasite. The semantic spin is so mentally deficient, "Pro-Life," is quite literally Pro-Parasite, it's the equivalent of Pro-Tumor. Sure, you want a kid, you wanna pass down name, legacy, w/e great, BUT forcing an unwanted pregnancy to term is Aggravated Assault (parasite = weapon), Attempted Murder, or actual Murder considering how obscenely high the maternal death rate is in the US.
JaromirAzarov
This is a load of steaming bullshit, not a "fact". Even completely ignoring the whole "procreation" aspect of the matter, a parasite in the biological sense is always an organism of a different species than the host, which a fetus is obvioiusly not.
aguacatedeldiablo
That's not true, and your self righteous insistence comes off pretty foolish. Look up anglerfish procreation.
Nyxera
The only reason that "of a different species" is marked ik the classification of parasites is to specifically exclude fetuses, as they are otherwise completely the same as what we call parasites now
DavidBrooker
This argument depends on "murder" being defined as "ending a life", but in law, we define murder as a *specific class* of unlawful homicide. Not only are there other classes of unlawful homicide, there are even lawful classes of homicide (such as self defense, executions, and war). "Abortion is murder" is actually a much higher bar than just showing that terminating a fetus is homicide, and I don't know why that moving of the goalposts is accepted so often.
Slimewire
Have you read Redefining Life and Death by Peter Singer? I found it fascinating
PraiseAzathoth
Ye, this is another aspect for that whole debate that just didn't have the space to include. So thanks for mentioning it. Plus you're probably way more accurate than myself. It's good to hear the proper legal terms instead of the nonsense I try and fail to articulate XD
pictory
If I needed a kidney to live and yours would, FOR SURE, save my life - and with out it I would FOR SURE die - and you did not need that kidney, you're not obligated to give me a kidney and never could be under such an obligation. Because you have bodily autonomy. That's all.
kamenhokage
I stay awake at night thinking about this shit, and it always comes down to the slippery slide. Anti-vaxxers and idiots who are afraid of surgeries should be told their idiot brains don't matter and they should be forced to get vaxxed/have surgeries/whatever for their own or the greater good. I firmly believe this. But I also know the instant we pass that law, we're shooting body autonomy in the gut. It's the slippery slide, I hate it, but we have to keep it even with the idiots around.
blairdavies350
The entire argument is based on life being sacred and then applying religious morality to legal morality in an attempt to make the laws of the state subject to the laws of the church.
If you take all morality out of the equation, it comes down to "nobody is willing to take care of it" and "it can't take care of itself" so the humane/ethical stance is to put it out of its misery aka minimize suffering. Like a stray animal no one adopts.
The alternative is sterilization and that never ends well.
blairdavies350
If the religious right truly hated abortion then the solution would be state sponsored orphanages with no criminal charges for dropping your kid off. But they don't hate abortion. They hate that we don't adhere to their rules and thus are ungovernable. Abortion is just a straw man because fetuses don't have a voice and therefore any argument could be made in their favor. This is never about compassion or legality. It's about control.
Photeus
My approach would be that if this abortion clinic were built on this lady's property it is not a hate crime because she doesn't have to let others build whatever they'd like on her property. This goes straight to: preventing a life that grows within you and could become a threat to your own life is not murder, you don't have to subject yourself to potential risk from another person merely to extend their life - you have a right to choose if you'd allow it or not.
PectorialMuscles
Even simpler. Killing someone in your house is an accepted scenario of self defense. It's even accepted, too often by these same people, that killing a child is okay if it's on your property. The double standard of not allowing women to decide what happens on their property is the POINT. They don't think women should own property and thus shouldn't have the right to decide what's on it. AKA, pro-control, pro-birth. So, at the end, we need to argue further and harder that women are people.
MonkeyPushButton
Wow didn't expect castle doctrine for uteruses, hooray America?
PectorialMuscles
I'll also back up previous point about extending another's life. Corpses have more rights than women in the US. Bodies cannot be harvested for parts unless permission is granted pre-death. Blood cannot be taken either, even if it's magical. No body has the right to violate a person's body for self-sustenance, it's illegal. Therefore, in-utero beings, if classed as people, still have no right. They are there thru the mother's permission only and only until birth or revocation.
Rignak
Very interesting argument. It has merit.
Coolmikefromcanada
If a pregnant person goes to an abortion clinic to prevent themself from having a kid they donāt want or cannot have safely thatās their choice, if I kick a pregnant person repeatedly in the gut because I donāt want them to have a kid regardless of their opinion on it itās murder (and assault and probably some other stuff as well IANAL)
kamenhokage
Depends on the state but it's not always considered murder to kill a fetus, unless it can be proved it took a breath first. Aggravated assault, probably some other felonies to be sure, but it's -technically- not considered murder, even if your goal was to Falcon Punch that thing out its mother's mouth.
Coolmikefromcanada
Fair enough like I said not a lawyer