Saw this and was somewhat incensed by it. Partially from recalling when I may have agreed with it or in the least brushed it off as mostly harmless. I was going to either question the person that posted it or silently be done with them. Instead I discussed it with some people and now shall post my break down to what actually turned out to be an eye opening realization of how my principles have changed, in large part due to internalizing the non-aggression principle.
Shall do it statement by statement:
Abortion seems to be the only medical procedure that people want to deny you based on how you got in that situation.
By the second word the use of ‘seems’ instead of is… This seems like a good idea to some but is a sign of a lack of certainty and/or intention to care for or produce anything factual.
Drove drunk, got in an accident and need an organ transplant? No problem.
There is often an organ transfer list. I am assuming that if you get intoxicated, drive your car into a few people and end up needing an organ, say a kidney, you aren’t jumping to the front of the list. Even if you get someone to directly offer you one, you are likely still seeing jail time after it. I doubt they are suggesting that unconditional abortions with possible criminal charges for those that got pregnant while drunk. Lastly, this is almost always a case of if the surgery is not done, the life can be lost. I’m not cosmetically getting an extra liver put in.
Messing around with a gun, accidentally shoot yourself in the leg and need surgery? Of course.
Depending on your circumstances, criminal charges can be included with any potential medical care. You again may be saving a life, sometimes removing inanimate foreign matter from disrupting the workings of organic tissue. Essentially fixing something damaged.
Smoke tobacco for most of your life and need treatment for lung cancer? Yep.
I know there is an expansion of ‘universal’ heath-care or insurance in the USA. The idea that everyone gets similar considerations for any cancer is false. Chain smoke for 20 years and you should not have the same consideration for cancer treatment as a child with leukemia. Insurance SHOULD be able to discriminate due to your choices, whether or not they are legally allowed to is another issue. Does smoking marijuana have a lower prevalence of cancer? How about Vaping? I know one is mostly illegal and the other is coming under regulations similar to those with tobacco. If these reduce cancer risks then where is the compassion or consideration?
Climb a tree, fall out and break your leg? We’ll fix that right up.
Kid in a tree getting a Frisbee, falls out and has to have their leg set? My compassion they shall have. Some perv peeking into someone’s window and falls out of the tree? No compassion. Even if the fractures were treated equally, how would it be comparable to abortion? You don’t fall out of a tree into a pregnancy. Maybe if you were having sex in a tree and fell out and broke a leg. You went and got that attended to and were unable to obtain and use the several forms of post coital forms of birth control available…Regardless the procedure of setting a broken leg is one of resetting inanimate matter that if left alone in general worsens.
Have sex and get pregnant when you don’t want to be? YOU GOT YOURSELF INTO THAT SITUATION AND YOU DESERVE NO MEDICAL HELP OR COMPASSION!THIS IS YOUR FAULT AND YOU WILL DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCE!
When I first read this it was infuriating. Abortion to deals with a potential life or actual life. Many of the objections to abortion are from consideration of the potential life. They are not objecting to spite the female carrying the fetus but to save the life within.
Even the most ardent pro-choice advocate will likely have a limit to when this procedure can be undertaken. I think a negligible fraction of people are advocating for elective abortions at the point of 8 months and 3 weeks.
So when is the mark? When does what is in the womb change from a collection of cells to a potential or actual human? I’ve settled at around when the brain develops. But when is that exactly, is it entirely subjective?
My first reaction was to post a comment to the image saying one of these things is not like the others. On further analysis thought there is no reason abortion should be added to the list of things one should be compassionate about even if they don’t have to forcibly pay for it through taxation. Why should anyone who thinks that a human life begins at conception have to support or fund your decision to terminate the results of what is almost 99%of the time a result of other decisions you made?
I since realized that my main grievance was the insinuation that the first 4 were rights. They are not.
The problem is the insinuation that one deserves anything at all from anyone else for the results of your actions. No doctor or person should be required to give you compassion or medical care. You can earn and pay for things, but in no world that does not infuriate me, are there people that walk around thinking they deserve my compassion. Let alone for something as questionable as choosing to end a potential life that has zero ability to defend itself. If you are stating that it is virtuous to give consideration regardless of the situation, then how about the compassion that future person ‘deserves’ by not aborting them.