• Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Your taxes may also go towards murdering kids, whether it be state funded abortions or bombing Gaza

    • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Those two examples are wildly different from eachother. One is a medical procedure involving theoretical children, and the other has real kids getting injured and killed.

      Edit: wanted to add that the medical procedure is always to prevent a major health issue when being funded by state taxes.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Whenever the israelis bomb the buildings, they don’t know for certain there are kids in there. They are just theoretical kids in the moment to them.

        • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          More like, Schrodinger’s kids. I genuinely hope you find peace and learn to not let being pro-birth justify letting others suffer and/or die. Red tape and bans kill when it comes to healthcare, without solving anything.

            • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              16 hours ago

              Why does that matter? If the fetus cannot survive outside the womb due to genetic defects, why would I care about that when I could care about the health of the mother?

              • Flax@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 hours ago

                If you are absolutely certain the foetus cannot survive, and carrying it to term will give the mother a high probability of dying after giving birth due to physical complications, then an abortion is a valid medical procedure. However, this accounts for less than one percent of abortions, so unless we are arguing against that, it’s not a valid talking point.

                • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  I’m saying that red tape and bans gets in the way of that happening for that specific scenario. By your morals, I hold the, “Let 100 guilty people go free before jailing one innocient” stance, also I’m not ok with the government being in charge of deciding when that is appropriate. Thank you for actually treating this like a discussion. I feel like it’s important to have.

            • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 day ago

              Oh, so the mother’s die every time?

              Even under your bad definition it’d be only 50-60% (accounting for the fact that some mothers do die)

                • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  23 hours ago

                  You can’t have a higher than 100% death rate, that means more people died than were involved in what happened

                  By reasonable definition that’s 1 death: the mother

                  By your own poor definition it’s 2: mother and fetus

                  So where are we getting extra from?

                  • Flax@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    8 hours ago

                    The fundamental core issue is: do we count the foetus as a life? If so, there’s no such thing as a “safe abortion”