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.
So if they’re not people, then what are they? Can you define what a person is without it being completely arbitrary?
Says the guy calling me a Nazi because I hate genocide.
Fetus. Could grow into a person if nothing goes wrong and the mother wants it to, could end up as a really heavy period after a week. Welcome to basic biology, since you missed it in school
I didn’t call you anything, learn to read. Also: not a genocide. Your kind best stop trying to dilute the value of that word by applying it incorrectly
How is a fetus not a person? Every human being is a person. Sticking with an extremely broad definition of person is the only way to prevent a slippery slope towards justifying killing people further and further along in development. Trying to call certain human beings not people is a genocidal tactic.
You can’t actually be so stupid as to not be able to spot the difference between a clump of cells and a born human, so don’t pretend to be.
Things that might become other things are not treated as though they are fundamentally the thing they might become.
No, it’s not. Fetus isn’t a person, it requires parasitization of an already existing person to continue existing, it is very much not the same as a born human. The only people who try to equate the two are weirdos like you.
I didn’t do that either, learn to read usernames
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.