• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle


  • Well thats an easily disprovable lie err… lets be generous, error through ignorance.

    Canada food programs

    There are a number of food programs, including charities that recognize some kids starve over the summer when kids are not in school. E.g. the food banks Canada after the bell program.

    foodbankscanada.ca/after-the-bell

    So take the time to reflect on 1- your right to feed your kids is not impacted, these programs are for kids who have no food, but you can still provide your own meals

    2- without these programs some children starve

    3- is there any possible argument that supports the outcome where some kids starve.








  • Wut?

    You keep repeating that the “scale of ethics” is incomparable but flip flop between “theyre not omnicient or omnipotent”… “but maybe they are”

    And what does “balance” have to do with ethical behaviour without you begging the question.

    “If we assume the existence of god, we have to assume a lot of other things too” and…???

    Ultimately you spent a lot of time stating the cop-out argument of “its beyond us mere mortals”. To which I can fairly respond… no.








  • Girru00@lemmy.worldtotumblr@lemmy.worldTyranny
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    The op is read as “should have some fundamental rights vs no rights” while you’re turning the conversation into “all rights vs no rights” unless you intended to share another more nuanced point.

    Criminals typically have controls in place, and should, depending on the nature of the crime.



  • Sure, but you have the logic backwards. Viability isnt used so that people can get an abortion even though the baby can survive, its so the physician can make the judgement to deliver a baby that can survive instead of attempting an abortion - when the mothers life is in danger.

    There is no magic cut off date, where all babies are ready to deliver or will die. So basically the math goes like this: physician determines the mother will die if the baby does not come out. If they determine the baby is viable --> the baby comes out and is alive via medical procedure (not abortion). If they determine that the baby is not viable --> the baby comes out and cannot survive via medical procedure (abortion). Fyi, in case you think oh well, keep the baby in: the mom dies, the baby is not viable to survive and dies too. Thats it. No one is aborting babies that could be birthed and survive.

    “Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability – be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor – as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.” Colautti v. Franklin (1979)

    This is a different situation than early pregnancy abortions. Different areas of focus, rights, benefits, ethics etc. Dont treat both rights as requiring the same logic to support.

    It seems to me, at least, no matter what someones position is on early term terminations, late term is a slam dunk obvious answer. Leave the decision to the parents and their physicians, not lawyers and legislators.