This link goes to Reddit, however, we have used a direct video link to avoid giving them ad revenue.

  • PectoralisInspector@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    “How can they have freedom be one of their foundational guides, but think restrictions on what women do with their bodies is alright?”

    • BigToe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think babies deserve rights as well and in the future it will be much more accepted that those that cannot speak for themselves need someone to speak for them. A woman’s right to her body is entirely her own until there is a separate body whose rights have to be considered, not really a complex topic to understand. One side wants to kill babies because they are not wanted while the other side wants to protect a baby that can’t speak for itself. Here’s something to consider, when has the side that has been in favor of killing someone, especially a helpless infant that is unable to protect itself, been the side of right?

      • pizza_rolls@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Humans deserve rights. One of those rights is NOT to use other people’s bodies though.

        If I’m dying of kidney failure I don’t get to force you to donate your kidneys to me. Quite the opposite, thanks to bodily autonomy. That thing you hate when it applies to other people.

          • nukeworker10@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            How. I woman being forced to carry a child to term appears to me to be the same as you being forced to donate a kidney. They both involve involuntary use of a body for someone else’s benefit.

          • null_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s actually an incredibly relevant and appropriate equivalence, since restricting access to abortion care means endangering women’s lives in cases where the pregnancy is non-viable or there are other serious complications to the pregnancy.

      • TrontheTechie@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why don’t we put them in artificial wombs at the expense of the state and create a child army? Then when they age out of the military they can have full citizenship! /s

        • threephotonsinacoat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not to mention that childbirth can be deadly for either party involved on a good day. It’s naive to think that every fetus is going to come into the world alive. I have personally known people who aborted a fetus that they desperately wanted because it was essentially non-viable, and not worth the risk to the mother. They later had several other healthy children, who would not have existed had that aborted birth been traumatic enough.

      • Niello@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are fucking clumps of cells and fetuses, not babies. The to-be-mother is a fucking adult human (and only a child in some cases) with fully grown nerves cells and developed emotions.

      • Exatron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re not talking about babies. During the first trimester, when most elective abortions occur, that “baby” is the size of a grape, and barely has the beginning of organs. It can’t think or feel, let alone experience consciousness.

        Your attempts at trying to paint abortion as killing an actual infant is disgusting.