2220
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
2220 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
34973 readers
119 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That article doesn't really change anything.
In regards to Facebook, and why you should never trust it, no. But given the headline, which is intentionally vague and seems constructed to imply this was related to the Supreme Court's reprehensible ruling on Roe, it adds much needed context, such as the fact that this would have been illegal even before Roe was overturned, and the heinous and sociopathic comments she made. As a rule, I support a childbearing person's bodily autonomy, but in this case? When the fetus was almost certainly viable and her reasoning for the abortion was because she wanted to wear jeans again? Fuck that.
So in this case, because you don't like the person, you deem to have to go through pregnancy and childbirth a rightful punishment or what exactly is your reasoning?
In this case, when she had ample time to abort the pregnancy before it became viable, and didn't choose to do so until in inconvenienced her fashion, my reasoning is that the baby (and yes, this was a baby) did not deserve to die for vanity's sake. She should've given birth and put the baby up for adoption if she didn't want it. There's a reason third trimester pregnancies were illegal even before Roe was overturned. In the third trimester you're no longer dealing with an amorphous clump of cells, which anti-women fanatics ridiculously argue should overrule a woman's bodily autonomy. You're dealing with a person.