Josseli Barnica grieved the news as she lay in a Houston hospital bed on Sept. 3, 2021: The sibling she’d dreamt of giving her daughter would not survive this pregnancy.
The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.
But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”
For 40 hours, the anguished 28-year-old mother prayed for doctors to help her get home to her daughter; all the while, her uterus remained exposed to bacteria.
Three days after she delivered, Barnica died of an infection.
First off, I’m sorry I mistook you for the other person. I’ll take back those claims.
Second, we are all “clumps of cells.” A fetus just so happens to be a really, really small one at a particular stage of development.
Third, a parasite is, by definition, a member of a different species than its host. Therefore, a fetus is not a parasite.
Fourth, almost everyone on earth depends on other people to continue existing. The ones who don’t are hardcore survivalists. Are they the only ones who get a right to life?
Maybe you are, you’re certainly showing the intelligence level of one, but most people are far more than that. They’re lived experiences, personalities, and all the other shit. By your logic a caterpillar is a butterfly, and that’s silly
That’s a link to a cancer website, and it doesn’t even load, so the attempt at Cherry-Picking is extremely poor, do better with your fallacies or you’ll bore me
parasite. noun. par·a·site ˈpar-ə-ˌsīt. : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host - well wouldja looky there, doesn’t require a different species at all and, in fact, applies to a fetus too!
Got any more bad points to try and make because you don’t understand basic biology or are you ready to admit youre ignorant and just go learn some shit? Nobody will be mean to you for admitting your ignorance and becoming a better person. Shit, we’d actually probably respect you then, unlike now
In one respect, they are similar: a caterpillar is the same species as the butterfly which it becomes, just like fetuses are to humans. In another sense, they are significantly different: no human society regards a butterfly’s life as highly as a born human’s. What moral ramifications are there for stepping on a butterfly that wouldn’t be relevant if it was still a caterpillar, and vice versa? If there are none, then it makes no sense to compare the two on that basis.
I suspected you wouldn’t settle for a non-medical source for something with a precise technical definition, which is why I used that page.
I won’t be mean to you, either, if you admit that killing innocent people is wrong and so is erasing personhood from human beings. If nobody here can admit that, then their disrespect means nothing to me.
Ok so you DO understand, nice
And I was wrong. That’s irrelevant, what value we place on a butterfly relative to us isn’t important at all to me pointing out your logic would mean a caterpillar is a butterfly. All that matters is the way in which they are alike, which you agreed with. This is what mental gymnastics looks like, and it’s obvious to anyone not entrenched like you.
Nope, my point was simple that calling an earlier stage of a lifeform exactly the same thing as the later stage is silly. You wouldn’t call a caterpillar a butterfly, you wouldn’t call a fetus a person.
Weird that you’d do that. Looks more like you hunted a specific definition that specifies cross-species requirements so you could try to well ackshully someone. Failed miserably because it’s easy to google what words mean.
I won’t, because your definition of “people” is faulty and I don’t want to say anything you’ll take wrongly. Its wrong to take a life in most situations, a fetus is not that.
It pleases me to know bitter idiots like you are, in fact, a dying breed who will be remembered as the stains on history you are 🙂
If this is irrelevant, so is your caterpillar argument.
You can’t even define what a person is and you’re accusing me of mental gymnastics?
Right, it’s very easy to Google what words mean. That’s why I found three different definitions. Sticking with one you found from a dictionary in the face of three more authoritative sources is odd - especially since the same page cites the Britannica article I linked in the last post. From the same page, this definition sounds like it lines up better with your ideology:
Anyway…
But you can’t explain why…
…or what you think a person is. Would you like to share that, or are you going to continue hiding behind ambiguity because it’s easier to attack something you can actually understand?
I suppose that’s one benefit of refusing to explain your arguments. Can’t be stupid if you never say anything at all!
Ironic, since pro-life people give birth more than pro-choice people.
Wow, you’re completely incapable of basic reasoning. I mean, I’d have assumed as much, but I tried to give you a chance to prove you could think. Ah well, my mistake.
Those are unrelated, again. You can’t define antidisestablishmentarianism and you’re accusing me of genocide?! Same energy.
Not really, given that it’s the commonly used definition and we’re not talking in a medical setting here. I used it colloquially, not professionally, so I’m grabbing the colloquial definition. You want to use the medical one because it specifies a different species and makes my colloquial use of the word technically incorrect (the best kind), but I refuse to give a fuck
Oh, look, here’s the relevance: by your own logic if a fetus is a person then a caterpillar is a butterfly. If you cant grasp that then I fear for anyone who has to be around you any time you operate sharp objects.
Yeah, forcing births through regulation does that. It also tends to produce people who vehemently disagree with and hate you. Rightly so, you monster
Why is it relevant? All you’re saying there is literally just “This argument is absurd, it’s vaguely similar to your argument, therefore your argument is absurd.”
I didn’t know antiwhatever was relevant to the debate. However, the definition of personhood is. And you don’t seem to know what a person is.
What did you think of the other colloquial definition I provided for you? Like I said, it seems to line up more with your ideology, it’s even simpler than the one you gave, and it can justify killing anyone you want to!
I don’t know if it bothers you that it uses a word you don’t understand, but hey, up to you.
Again, you’re arguing from an illogical comparison. You haven’t explained why a fetus isn’t a person, and I have explained why it is. I mean, you’ve called me and my idea stupid, but that doesn’t make your actual judgement of it any clearer. Would you like to tell me so we can discuss it? Or do you just want to keep trying to chisel away at my definition like the world’s worst sculptor? The fact you’re this intent on not directly answering a very relevant question, along with this implication that I’m a bad person for wanting to protect life, are kind of weird, don’t you think?
Pro-life births are higher in Democrat counties, too.
It tends to produce people who vehemently agree with me, too, And people who are ambivalent. It really just tends to produce people in general.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
And to think, you’re the one who called me bitter. Projection, thy name is gamermanh.