5 ms·

>For example, it seems like we can't say "mother" anymore in medical settings. For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing peopl

>For example, it seems like we can't say "mother" anymore in medical settings. For my partner's entire pregnancy, our providers only referred to "birthing people" because of some tiny number of trans men that exist and also want to give birth. The troll argument here is: now that we're saying "birthing people" instead of "women", it's time to acknowledge that abortion is not actually a "women's issue".

kergonath 4y ago
> now that we're saying "birthing people" instead of "women", it's time to acknowledge that abortion is not actually a "women's issue". Which is partly right, to be fair. It’s a fundamental human right issue about who can force things on your body. The consequences also affect whole families, not all men are arseholes who vanish when their girlfriend gets pregnant. Framing this as only women’s issue is part of a dangerous tribal war. It is also part of a pattern of subjugation of a social group on religious grounds, and as such part of a broader attack on secular, liberal societies.
- bandie91 4y ago
  1. the embryo/fetus inside the mother's body is not the mother's body. 2. it is not the mother's body, but it's completely dependent on it to live. 3. parents have and have to have natural responsibility over their offspring. 4. the society establishment (both secular and religious) are there to protect society's norm. 5. not killing innocent humans is a social norm. 6. the embryo/fetus is a human. 7. saying that someones on "religious grounds" want to subjugate "secular, liberal societies" by opposing to killing innocent humans is no more that projecting USA's domestic radicated bipolar politics to the global level. 8. "religious grounds" are nothing mystical, nothing like "things which only unreasonalbe superstitious are afraid of", but a core attribute of the human nature: just »don't kill humans who are annoying to you even if they don't have social security ID yet, even if they don't pay taxes yet, even if they are your own children« 9. "abortion rights" group also stands on religious grounds, except it worships Moloch. 10. "abortion rights" people often comes from the pre-assumption that they are entitled to enjoy sex without consequences and without any responsibility. gain without pain. 11. "abortion rights" is an other level of productionalization of people. our life is already mostly a product of soulless companies. now they are turning babies into commodity which you can return if you changed your mind or not satisfied with it. wondering how much does it differ from the menacing "slavery".
  - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
    If human's mind was erased to embryo stage, does it constitute killing?
  - bigbluedots 4y ago
    I'm unsure if you're joking, so I'll bite: if 6 is true (a fetus is a human), then is a zygote a human? Can a human be a single cell? Of course not.
    - eru 4y ago
      I'd say 9 is more fun to pick apart. Looks like there's only two kinds of religions in the world, those that worship the Right Deity and those that worship Moloch.
      - bandie91 4y ago
        needless to go on theology grounds to argue against unborn killing. you don't need to accept any particular theology to come to the conclusion. btw it is sorted in a list not because of any argumentation structure. i don't think (and don't see what indicated it to you) that there are only these 2 options in terms of worship targets. but phrasing the other option the "only" "right" one, paints me an intolerant blind-faithed, which i reject.
        eru 4y ago
        Just leave 'Moloch' out of the picture. It makes your argument weaker for the HN audience. Btw, you might find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion interesting.
        bandie91 4y ago
        yea, i thought that referring to a supernatural being by a name which is also found in books associated with religion may indeed turn the reader dismissive. however i hoped a slight chance to draw maybe a few reader's attention to the point that fetus-killing arguments often are as religion-based as the oppotent is represented to be. the difference which hides this similarity is that religions which are not public, visible, inquireable, are not called "religion".

kergonath 4y ago

> now that we're saying "birthing people" instead of "women", it's time to acknowledge that abortion is not actually a "women's issue". Which is partly right, to be fair. It’s a fundamental human right issue about who can force things on your body. The consequences also affect whole families, not all men are arseholes who vanish when their girlfriend gets pregnant. Framing this as only women’s issue is part of a dangerous tribal war. It is also part of a pattern of subjugation of a social group on religious grounds, and as such part of a broader attack on secular, liberal societies.

bandie91 4y ago
1. the embryo/fetus inside the mother's body is not the mother's body. 2. it is not the mother's body, but it's completely dependent on it to live. 3. parents have and have to have natural responsibility over their offspring. 4. the society establishment (both secular and religious) are there to protect society's norm. 5. not killing innocent humans is a social norm. 6. the embryo/fetus is a human. 7. saying that someones on "religious grounds" want to subjugate "secular, liberal societies" by opposing to killing innocent humans is no more that projecting USA's domestic radicated bipolar politics to the global level. 8. "religious grounds" are nothing mystical, nothing like "things which only unreasonalbe superstitious are afraid of", but a core attribute of the human nature: just »don't kill humans who are annoying to you even if they don't have social security ID yet, even if they don't pay taxes yet, even if they are your own children« 9. "abortion rights" group also stands on religious grounds, except it worships Moloch. 10. "abortion rights" people often comes from the pre-assumption that they are entitled to enjoy sex without consequences and without any responsibility. gain without pain. 11. "abortion rights" is an other level of productionalization of people. our life is already mostly a product of soulless companies. now they are turning babies into commodity which you can return if you changed your mind or not satisfied with it. wondering how much does it differ from the menacing "slavery".
- GoblinSlayer 4y ago
  If human's mind was erased to embryo stage, does it constitute killing?
- bigbluedots 4y ago
  I'm unsure if you're joking, so I'll bite: if 6 is true (a fetus is a human), then is a zygote a human? Can a human be a single cell? Of course not.
  - eru 4y ago
    I'd say 9 is more fun to pick apart. Looks like there's only two kinds of religions in the world, those that worship the Right Deity and those that worship Moloch.
    - bandie91 4y ago
      needless to go on theology grounds to argue against unborn killing. you don't need to accept any particular theology to come to the conclusion. btw it is sorted in a list not because of any argumentation structure. i don't think (and don't see what indicated it to you) that there are only these 2 options in terms of worship targets. but phrasing the other option the "only" "right" one, paints me an intolerant blind-faithed, which i reject.
      - eru 4y ago
        Just leave 'Moloch' out of the picture. It makes your argument weaker for the HN audience. Btw, you might find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion interesting.
        bandie91 4y ago
        yea, i thought that referring to a supernatural being by a name which is also found in books associated with religion may indeed turn the reader dismissive. however i hoped a slight chance to draw maybe a few reader's attention to the point that fetus-killing arguments often are as religion-based as the oppotent is represented to be. the difference which hides this similarity is that religions which are not public, visible, inquireable, are not called "religion".