I hate it when they for the sole purpose of keeping their aesthetics stick to "freedom" as a fundamental idea for the end image of society.
At some point (like I do every time) somebody will genuinely ask (and I strongly believe everyone knows this, its obvious, but taboo and therefore uncommon to see):
One of the arguments for women to have the right to abortion we had was compassion, so that the parent needn't to suffer giving birth to a dead organism, so that after birth the child wouldn't suffer for hours to die and cause the family more suffering... However, living it up to the decision in the hands of the people means some will choose to give birth. Doesn't it mean there would be people who believing their doing the right thing will cause pain to others by exercising their freedom? If so, doesn't it show is, that there freedoms people have, that can cause others harm?
I can't be the only who sees this. Is there a plot somewhere which agreed to use this rhetoric as a last bullet or something? Because asking someone who justifies his position with compassion, what about cases where a mother decides to give birth to a sick fetus, is totally on point. Hell, I asked that question, and do you know what I got in response? That'd be immoral to do.
Anyway, there is no other way than to take away the right to choose in cases where the fetus is damaged. This is a pure conflict between logic and foids, logic demanding to adjust the law to the conclusion and the foid screaming it is against her rights. There's also the alternative of remaining idealist, and therefore nothing will change.
At some point (like I do every time) somebody will genuinely ask (and I strongly believe everyone knows this, its obvious, but taboo and therefore uncommon to see):
One of the arguments for women to have the right to abortion we had was compassion, so that the parent needn't to suffer giving birth to a dead organism, so that after birth the child wouldn't suffer for hours to die and cause the family more suffering... However, living it up to the decision in the hands of the people means some will choose to give birth. Doesn't it mean there would be people who believing their doing the right thing will cause pain to others by exercising their freedom? If so, doesn't it show is, that there freedoms people have, that can cause others harm?
I can't be the only who sees this. Is there a plot somewhere which agreed to use this rhetoric as a last bullet or something? Because asking someone who justifies his position with compassion, what about cases where a mother decides to give birth to a sick fetus, is totally on point. Hell, I asked that question, and do you know what I got in response? That'd be immoral to do.
Anyway, there is no other way than to take away the right to choose in cases where the fetus is damaged. This is a pure conflict between logic and foids, logic demanding to adjust the law to the conclusion and the foid screaming it is against her rights. There's also the alternative of remaining idealist, and therefore nothing will change.
