this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
183 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

19 readers
2 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 1 year ago
 

A stark example of how digital footprints will be utilized in a post-Roe America

The article is from Aug 10, 2022 but remains relevant

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's probably a waste of time, but okay, I will be kind enough not to delve into your ignorant slander, delusions, straw men and ad hominems.

Since anti-abortionists don't consider women as human beings possessing equal human rights (...) A right to life without right to agency is slavery. Do you understand that anti-abortionists want women to be slaves?

Let us come to the main issue. As I mentioned, this is a difference of importance, not all rights are equal and when there is a conflict one should prevail over the other. Although nothing is written it is easy in some cases, for example, the right not to be tortured is more important than the right to marry.

If for a moment you are able to consider the premise that fetuses are subjects of rights (say one of 42-week to make it easier), tell me, which is more important, the temporary and partial suspension of the right of agency or the right to life?
(I do not include slavery because I find it fucking absurd, as well as a trivialization of something very serious. You could have said something more coherent like reproductive freedom.)

This is not something like seeing the woman as property to be controlled, only considering the rights and interests of "both". Let us also not forget that it is a self-imposed situation, and the cases in which it is "imposed by third parties" abortion is allowed all over the world.

[–] xuxebiko@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Thank you for making clear

  1. your utter contempt for women,
  2. your denial of women as human beings with human rights, and
  3. your misconception that you and other anti-abortionists are arbiters of human rights

ps: How is an unwanted pregnancy is a "self-imposed situation"? Is it your understanding that women are capable of parthenogenesis?

[–] Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

*Sigh. As I guessed, your reading comprehension is nil and you are not capable of debate or simple mental work, you can only use fallacies. Well, at least I tried.

[–] jwiggler@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fetus does not have the right to life. It's not a person, it does not have rights. Simple as that. People have rights, fetus does not.

[–] Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Aha, we agree, at least until high fetal development and viability.
However, that's not my point, and it's a pity no one bothers to address it.