• neatchee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      And you don’t seem to be listening to people who are telling you that the law doesn’t have to be draconian to cost people their lives.

      If some number of hospitals conclude that the cost of letting people die and settling wrongful death cases is lower than the cost of defending patients’ rights to an abortion under their specific circumstances, then those hospitals will set policy that prohibits providing those abortions. Because they are profit-driven, not charities (a separate but related problem)

      I will say it again: if the cost is less than the profit, it’s not a punishment, it’s a business expense. Put another way, if actually breaking law A costs less than defending accusations of breaking law B, they will break law A every time.

      I’m really tired of trying to explain to people that laws and politics do not exist in a bubble.

        • neatchee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          28 days ago

          A) You hope it will. In the meantime, we continue to see cases of people being in danger or even dying.

          B) Good for you that you can hand-wave away other people’s lives and safety as just a temporary bump in the road.

          Your callousness is disconcerting, to say the least, and I’m done with this conversation now because I can’t teach you to stop looking at people as statistics.

            • neatchee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              27 days ago

              I’ll come back for one last comment to make this clear:

              It is never, EVER acceptable to force someone to use their body to save the life of another. Ever. CORPSES have more rights than that (you have to volunteer to be a donor before death).

              You want women to have fewer rights than corpses?

              And that’s without even arguing whether a clump of cells that can’t survive on its own is even considered a life.

              You can think someone sucks for having an abortion, and we can discuss what happens when a fetus could possible be viable on its own. But bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. If someone says “disconnect me from the thing attached to my body” you fucking do it. End of story. Call them horrible, callous, a sinner, whatever you want. But you do not force people to use their body as an incubator against their will.

                • neatchee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  27 days ago

                  You obviously don’t understand the concept of bodily autonomy. Parental obligation is not the same as losing bodily autonomy. A parent is not required to give up a kidney or liver for their child. Accountability for a child’s behavior is not the same thing as losing bodily autonomy.

                  It’s no different than if you agree to a blood donor and decide in the middle of donation that you want to stop. They cannot force you to continue, even if someone’s life depends on it. The fetus’ bodily autonomy comes in the form of not having its organs harvested, and being allowed to survive outside the woman’s body if it can. There is no form of autonomy that involves another person. That is literally antithetical to the definition of autonomy

                  You are wrong, flat out, and I encourage you to learn more about ethics before making such patently erroneous statements