Ohio voters have approved a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to abortion and other forms of reproductive health care. The outcome of Tuesday’s intense, off-year election was the latest blow for abortion opponents.
Excuse me, how do you kill something that isn’t alive yet? You are literally so stupid that you made a clear contradiction within a single sentence.
You realise that awareness is not the criteria for life? I would even argue (much more effectively than you, or most moral philosophers) that the wrongness of killing doesn’t come from possessing a temporary state of awareness, but being an entity that will possess this temporary state in the future. If the former was actually true, then killing anyone would be permissible so long as you did it fast enough that the total pattern of behaviour didn’t meet some definition of consciousness. But I’m running far ahead of myself, you didn’t even make any argument remotely as coherent as the one I just refuted.
“At the point where it is legal anywhere”
This is actually false, the majority of jurisdictions in the US and worldwide do ban 3rd trimester abortions, but you claimed that all of them don’t allow abortion past a point of awareness. So I would like to point you to New Mexico’s criminal code, where abortion up to birth for any reason is not classified as a crime(aka it’s legal in case you are too stupid to realize that).
“Also abortion is quite critical to women’s lives”
You are confusing edge cases where it may be critical to someone’s life and asserting it to be the norm when it simply isn’t. Chemotherapy is critical to some people’s lives, it would be false to assert that the everyday individual makes decisions based upon obtaining it.
You either are severely intoxicated or have actual brain damage. Your statements are dumber and less coherent than the standard propaganda that you should have just copy-pasted.
“It is killing a being that isn’t alive yet”
Excuse me, how do you kill something that isn’t alive yet? You are literally so stupid that you made a clear contradiction within a single sentence.
You realise that awareness is not the criteria for life? I would even argue (much more effectively than you, or most moral philosophers) that the wrongness of killing doesn’t come from possessing a temporary state of awareness, but being an entity that will possess this temporary state in the future. If the former was actually true, then killing anyone would be permissible so long as you did it fast enough that the total pattern of behaviour didn’t meet some definition of consciousness. But I’m running far ahead of myself, you didn’t even make any argument remotely as coherent as the one I just refuted.
“At the point where it is legal anywhere”
This is actually false, the majority of jurisdictions in the US and worldwide do ban 3rd trimester abortions, but you claimed that all of them don’t allow abortion past a point of awareness. So I would like to point you to New Mexico’s criminal code, where abortion up to birth for any reason is not classified as a crime(aka it’s legal in case you are too stupid to realize that).
“Also abortion is quite critical to women’s lives”
You are confusing edge cases where it may be critical to someone’s life and asserting it to be the norm when it simply isn’t. Chemotherapy is critical to some people’s lives, it would be false to assert that the everyday individual makes decisions based upon obtaining it.
You either are severely intoxicated or have actual brain damage. Your statements are dumber and less coherent than the standard propaganda that you should have just copy-pasted.
You remind me of a quote by Mark Twain. “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain