• HalfSalesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I got into an argument once with my dad about abortion. And he told me “You know, you should be totally against abortion. You’d not exist if I managed to convince your mom to abort you.” As an argument to limit abortion access.

    Obviously a fucked up thing to say to your own kid, but also it kind of was like: I wouldn’t give a shit if you had, I wouldn’t exist essentially. Kind of wish you’d convinced her TBH.

      • Omnipitaph@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        If it was alive and then isn’t, it is dead. That’s what dead means. A fetus that died in the womb is still dead, and died, and there is no other way to define what unborn is than to describe it as a previously living entity; thus dead.

      • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        5 hours ago

        A fetus is only a potential person, but it’s still a living organism. After it’s aborted, it’s dead.

          • Instigate@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 hour ago

            I don’t think “it can’t continue living on its own” is a good measure of whether or not something is alive or a separate organism. Even after birth a baby human can’t “continue living on its own” without being provided for. A parasitic creature can’t “continue living on its own” without a host. A severely injured person can’t “continue living on its own” without life support. Pretty easy argument for even a stupid forced-birther to deconstruct.

          • Omnipitaph@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            This does not actually refute the claim that the fetus would be dead. I’m not actually sure if you’re contesting anything.

              • Omnipitaph@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 hours ago

                Do you think women are conceiving intern minerals in their womb? What is this question xD I’m going to assume you’re having a laugh, because by every metric a fetus is alive. If those cells are multiplying, consuming various stuff to continue multiplying; the fetus is alive. If the fetus, removed from its source of food, dies; it must be alive. If you removed me from all sources of food, I too would die.

                If you have a compelling argument, I’d love to hear it though.

          • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            True, but only due to current technology. With an artificial womb it would eventually develop into a person, unlike, say, an organ.

            • rockerface🇺🇦@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              5 hours ago

              I mean, with cloning technology any cells could develop into a person. Doesn’t mean we should count my hand as a separate living thing.

              • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                4 hours ago

                A fetus is considerably further along than just a random cell. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make a distinction there.

  • The Mop LordA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    7 hours ago

    This is like the Batman refusing to kill killers thing but better cause it involves unprotected sex, my favorite kind.