imported>Matteel No edit summary |
imported>Matteel No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
TL:DR Nice strawman.</b> | TL:DR Nice strawman.</b> | ||
^ Ok in response to your reply. I never said I agreed with selective abortion for things like disability. But the problem lies with the fact that it's not mandatory, which makes it not eugenicist in nature. And besides, if a person can't handle raising a person with a disability then I don't see how it's fair for the mother. Outlawing selective abortion won't remove sigma for people with disabilities, people would be less inclined to abort children with disabilities if they could ensure that these people would have a good quality of life and services at hand to raise them. TL;DR, your stupid. | |||
^ Mucho texto | ^ Mucho texto | ||
| Line 20: | Line 22: | ||
2 r***rds fighitng. | 2 r***rds fighitng. | ||
Republicans | Republicans in a nutshell: All life is sacred and we should outlaw abortion because it's murder | ||
Also republicans: We should cut welfare for the mentally and physically disabled, and make laws that allow for workplace discrimination | Also republicans: We should cut welfare for the mentally and physically disabled, and make laws that allow for workplace discrimination and discrimination against LGBT people | ||
Revision as of 22:35, 27 March 2022
no
--Magicpeartree (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
SomeCrusader - Abortion but honest.
^ I second this - Template:UserGeneralGanyu
Selective breeding to get rid of hereditary disease may be good, but racism is cringe. We need to reward merit, not race.
People who call this planned parent hood are fucking retarded
Abortion is about giving the right of a mother to her own bodily autonomy, eugenics is about selectively breeding children to get rid of things like mental and physical disability and other things like race. We aren't mass exterminating minorities or anything. Pro-life logic really confuses me tbh, I just don't understand it.
^The above is a strawman argument and fails to recognize the nuance regarding the debate as well as understand abortion often is done specifically to remove fetuses that are going to be birthed with defects such as with down-syndrome or other conditions. If there were other ways to scan for babies of other conditions such as autism I wouldn't doubt many mothers would abort their children even including other autistic mothers because of the stresses it would provide to them. So even while not openly eugenicist in a bubble, in practice, abortion is often used by mothers specifically to abort fetuses that have a risk of bad traits. This isn't me being anti-abortion, this is just acknowledging the fact that when it comes to giving one the choice to decide what type of child they can have there will be actions that will be inherently eugenicist in its reasoning. I am not saying it isn't without reason of course but it still very much is. Also the justification you give of "protecting womens bodily autonomy" can only go so far when it comes to the debate on the morality of essentially killing something that could be old enough to be considered a human infant. If it is for example in the third-trimester to the point where if the baby was out of the womb it would perfectly survive itself is allowed to be aborted then I would consider it child murder because the only real difference is that a newborn baby is outside of the womb while a third-trimester isn't. And for some reason, abortion advocates don't really see a problem with charging a person who for example hit a pregnant person in the stomach whether intentionally or not to be equated with child murder for a child that has not even been birthed yet, however when the women herself does it apparently it makes a difference. Also also, it is the males sperm that made the child, so what about their choice? I am not trying to say that I am anti-abortion, (I honestly see it as just proof that child-birth is inherintly immoral by nature alongside the process of life itself and there really is no right awnser and there really is only wrong ones) I just think you are making a very nuanced and complex debate into an extremely simplified way that aligns with YOUR current biases.
TL:DR Nice strawman.
^ Ok in response to your reply. I never said I agreed with selective abortion for things like disability. But the problem lies with the fact that it's not mandatory, which makes it not eugenicist in nature. And besides, if a person can't handle raising a person with a disability then I don't see how it's fair for the mother. Outlawing selective abortion won't remove sigma for people with disabilities, people would be less inclined to abort children with disabilities if they could ensure that these people would have a good quality of life and services at hand to raise them. TL;DR, your stupid.
^ Mucho texto
^ Why yes, I do openly give my personal thoughts on a deeply complex issue such as abortion and try to explain the nuances you fail to grasp. How could you tell? *Gigachad* Yes I know the meme is shitty fart-sniffing auto-fellatio, smug, egotistical and close-minded to new ideas but its funny
2 r***rds fighitng.
Republicans in a nutshell: All life is sacred and we should outlaw abortion because it's murder
Also republicans: We should cut welfare for the mentally and physically disabled, and make laws that allow for workplace discrimination and discrimination against LGBT people