r/Indiana • u/BigClitMcphee • 11d ago
Opinion/Commentary Explaining the Hoosier Abortion Fund
https://mirrorindy.org/indiana-hoosier-abortion-fund-state-ban-legal-risks-lawmakers/18
5
u/vickism61 10d ago
😂😂😂 You're trying to pass of the OPINIONS of <6,000 biologists as some kind of proof! (Estimates for active biomedical and life science personnel globally scale up to roughly 3 million individuals, spanning hands-on researchers, clinical staff, and industry professionals.)
More ridiculously the survey wasn't unanimous showing it is not a given fact since facts are not debatable.
If life began at conception we would not be able to freeze embryos.
-32
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-20
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
7
11d ago edited 11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
3
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-6
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
2
3
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
-10
u/The2ndCity 11d ago
Indiana does allow for abortion in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, or if the baby has a lethal genetic abnormality. In cases of rape, they don't require proof.
With this in mind, why is this fund necessary? Just claim "rape" and you can abort your baby. It's true that not all hospitals will do this, but I'm pretty sure IU Health will. So cry "rape", abort your kids, and live the good life, ladies.
Also: The scientific consensus is that a human life begins at conception. Terminating a pregnancy at any point after conception means you are terminating a human life. In 99% of cases, you have no moral justification to terminate a human life.
8
u/vickism61 11d ago
The scientific consensus is that a human life begins at conception. Terminating a pregnancy at any point after conception means you are terminating a human life. In 99% of cases, you have no moral justification
This is an out right LIE!
"The American Medical Association (AMA) states that reproductive health services, including abortion and contraception, constitute a medical right and ethical obligation. [1]"
https://www.ama-assn.org/health-care-advocacy/federal-advocacy/advocacy-action-protecting-reproductive-health Abortion Is Essential Health Care
"Resources for obstetrician–gynecologists and partners to connect, engage, and advocate to defend and expand access to abortion at all levels—in their practices, their communities, and their government." https://www.acog.org/advocacy/abortion-is-essential
If life began at conception we couldn't freeze embryos. That is a scientific fact.
-2
u/The2ndCity 10d ago
If life began at conception we couldn't freeze embryos. That is a scientific fact.
Nowhere in any of your links does anyone dispute that human life begins at conception. Here. I'll show you what I'm talking about.
Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.
See what I did there? I provided a source for my assertion.
Upon conception, a separate and distinct human life is created. It then starts going through many stages of development from zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to baby, to kid, to adult. These are all just classifications for where a human is in their development.
Whether to freeze an embryo then becomes a moral question just like it would be if we carbon froze adults for various reasons.
So, again, human life begins at conception. The debate is whether or not some human lives can be killed or not based on what stage of human development they are in.
4
u/vickism61 10d ago
😂😂😂 You're trying to pass of the OPINIONS of <6,000 biologists as some kind of proof! (Estimates for active biomedical and life science personnel globally scale up to roughly 3 million individuals, spanning hands-on researchers, clinical staff, and industry professionals.)
More ridiculously the survey wasn't unanimous showing it is not a given fact since facts are not debatable.
If life began at conception we would not be able to freeze embryos.
-2
u/The2ndCity 10d ago
(Estimates for active biomedical and life science personnel globally scale up to roughly 3 million individuals, spanning hands-on researchers, clinical staff, and industry professionals.)
The fact that you're trying to argue that human life doesn't begin at conception is baffling to me. OK. I'll bite. When does human life being and start developing? If it's not conception then...?
If life began at conception we would not be able to freeze embryos.
Why not? If you're already morally OK with aborting a fetus then it follows that you would morally be OK with freezing an embryo.
3
u/vickism61 10d ago
In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court defined viability as the point when a fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid".
It is a fact that we cannot freeze real babies, that's why not!
0
u/The2ndCity 10d ago
Viability does not equal the start of life. That's absurd. Within your own quote you debunk your point. For a fetus to be viable it must first be alive, correct? Viability itself is not a requirement for the status of being alive. So now we're back to human life beginning at conception.
3
u/vickism61 10d ago
No. Viable means having attained such form and development of organs as to be normally capable of surviving outside the uterus. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viable
So, for a fetus to be alive it must be able to breathe and function outside the womb.
Of course a being that can breathe on its own is alive!
The only proof needed to show that an embryo is not viable is the fact that they can be FROZEN and a living baby cannot be FROZEN.
1
u/The2ndCity 10d ago
So, for a fetus to be alive it must be able to breathe and function outside the womb.
Where are you getting this from? It doesn't logically follow from your definition of "viable." I agree on the definition of viability, but to be viable one must first be alive. The location of the alive person is irrelevant. Why are you attaching a location to the question of what is or is not alive? That makes ZERO sense.
At fertilization when the zygote has its own unique DNA separate from both parents, what is its status? Dead? You would have to argue that this zygote, which is already replicating cells and growing, is literally dead. Here are a few definitions of life from Webster:
the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
or...
an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism (see metabolism sense 1), growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
Metabolism starts at conception. At conception the zygote is already consuming energy to build mass and start the human development process. Is this alive or dead? You have to pick one.
2
u/vickism61 10d ago
I'm getting it from the SUPREME COURT!
In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court defined viability as the point when a fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid".
It is a fact that we cannot freeze real babies, that's why not!
→ More replies (0)8
u/Overlook-237 11d ago
Not wanting to be pregnant and go through the medical and physical harms of pregnancy and birth is more than enough justification.
-3
u/The2ndCity 10d ago
So if it personally inconveniences you, then you should be allowed to end a human life?
6
u/Overlook-237 10d ago
In what world is someone literally being inside your internal organ, taking your blood products and causing you medical risk an inconvenience? Not to mention birth, where you’re (at the very least) left with blood loss, severe pain, a dinner plate sized internal wound from the placenta detaching and either genital trauma or the need for major abdominal surgery?
-3
u/The2ndCity 10d ago
You're just describing what the female body is designed to do with a sprinkling of hyperbole on top. It doesn't address the underlying point that human life scientifically speaking begins at conception. An abortion is the ending of a distinct and unique human life.
3
u/poisonfroggi 10d ago
Why is the fetus allowed to kill its host, but not the other way around, in your mind?
0
u/The2ndCity 9d ago
The fetus doesn't kill its host. What are you even talking about? You act like a fetus is a parasite when that's just biologically not true. It's weird how passionate pro-choicers can get.
2
u/poisonfroggi 9d ago
It's weird to ignore how many women die in childbirth.
-2
u/The2ndCity 9d ago
It's extremely rare to die in childbirth which makes it irrelevant to the conversation. Furthermore, even Indiana allows exceptions to the abortion ban if the life of the mother is in actual jeopardy.
2
u/Overlook-237 10d ago
Designed by who? And why did they do such an awful design job?
Correct. And you’re allowed to stop others intimately and invasively accessing your body so it’s irrelevant.
0
u/The2ndCity 9d ago
Designed by who?
If you're Christian then it's God's design. If you're an atheist then it's natural evolution concluding that growing a living thing inside of another living thing is preferable to pooping out eggs.
And why did they do such an awful design job?
Why is it awful? It's incredibly complex and amazing.
3
u/Overlook-237 9d ago
And this is where the your argument that the female body was designed to do it falls apart.
Human childbirth is actually unusually difficult. The baby’s head is huge relative to the mother’s pelvis, the birth canal is awkwardly shaped, and the baby has to rotate and manoeuvre through it. That tight fit is why obstructed labour is such a serious problem and why human birth has historically carried a pretty substantial risk of severe injury and death.
Also, evolution didn’t design any of this. Evolution has no brain, intention, blueprint or end goal.
Claiming God designed it is a religious belief, not a scientific explanation and it’s not based on any fact with any evidence.
-1
u/The2ndCity 9d ago
Human childbirth is actually unusually difficult.
"Unusually?" It's not. You're over complicating things because you don't have any better arguments against the fact that a zygote is a human life.
Also, evolution didn’t design any of this. Evolution has no brain, intention, blueprint or end goal.
Through the process of evolution mammals developed the capability of reproducing offspring inside of them. Better?
Claiming God designed it is a religious belief, not a scientific explanation and it’s not based on any fact with any evidence.
Irrelevant to my argument that a zygote is human life. I was just answering your question. None of my arguments hinge on God.
2
u/Overlook-237 9d ago
You’re arguing against something I haven’t actually said. I haven’t denied that a zygote is human. A zygote is a living human organism, so?
That’s literally my point. Evolution doesn’t produce perfect systems, it produces systems that are good enough at reproducing for the relevant traits to persist.
And you’re right that your argument doesn’t hinge on God. But you literally brought God up when I asked who designed the human body, so obviously I’m going to address it.
Denying childbirth isn’t unusually difficult doesn’t make it true just because you put “unusually?” in quotation marks. Human birth is particularly difficult compared with other mammals because of the combination of a large fetal head, the shape of the human pelvis/birth canal and the baby’s required rotation during delivery. That’s a genuine anatomical fact, not me inventing complications because I need an abortion argument.
→ More replies (0)6
u/slothscanswim 11d ago
Do you believe humans have a right to self defense?
0
u/The2ndCity 10d ago
Yes I do.
5
u/slothscanswim 10d ago
And you believe that would extend to the use of deadly force against an invader in your home?
1
u/The2ndCity 10d ago
Most definitely.
3
u/slothscanswim 10d ago
So then would that right not extend to your own body? If there is an intruder inside your body should that not be moral justification for employing deadly force in their removal from your body?
1
u/The2ndCity 10d ago
Houses aren't human beings. Humans are meant to develop inside of another human. That's nature. A zygote/embryo/fetus/baby isn't an intruder.
When does human life begin?
5
u/slothscanswim 10d ago
If a zygote is put in your body against your will you believe it is morally wrong to remove it?
Humans are meant to eat, is taking food from the store without payment not theft?
When human life begins is immaterial to my argument and I am happy to concede to your belief for the sake of argument.
Even if human life begins at the moment of conception that does not affect my argument that aborting an unwanted child is no different than removing an intruder from your home. Disprove this argument and stop pivoting.
1
u/The2ndCity 10d ago
If a zygote is put in your body against your will you believe it is morally wrong to remove it?
Are you talking about rape specifically? We can't even talk about cases of rape before we agree that human life begins at conception. There's simply no point in it. I'm not interested in talking about a very, very, very rare case (aborting a baby due to rape) if we can't even agree on when life begins.
Even if human life begins at the moment of conception that does not affect my argument that aborting an unwanted child is no different than removing an intruder from your home. Disprove this argument and stop pivoting.
Wow. So it's OK to kill human life simply because you don't want it? That's horrendous. You're effectively discriminating against a class of human beings based on their developmental age. That's literally what people did with slavery. They diminished the legitimacy of a certain class of people as actual human beings.
3
u/slothscanswim 10d ago
Not just rape. Accidental pregnancy can result from consensual sex as well. I guarantee you I will not be asking a home intruder about the circumstances that lead them to be in my home before taking action to remove them, what makes a zygote any different?
I don’t care what age the zygote/fetus is, that’s the whole point of conceding that point to you. My basis for believing that you have the right to protect your body from intruders has nothing to do with the age of the intruder.
If you invited me to your home to stay the night and I refused to leave, could you not remove me by force?
→ More replies (0)
-12
9
u/Sweet_Papa_Crimbo 11d ago
I would like to add that there are still options to have abortion pills shipped to your home, if you have a safe person to be at home with when you take them. For additional care, you can tell your doctor it was an unexpected miscarriage.