Hunter Rozier

Here for the comment debates. Typos to be expected. Placement of commas is based on what feels right in the moment. Shakespeare and I both make up words.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

Today going to see the @Braves face off against the @Nationals. Super excited to watch the game. I will also be formally protesting @MLB making the shift illegal. They must right this wrong #legalizeIt

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

Heading out to walk for life for the pregnancy resource center. Please donate to these amazing centers.
Bloom by PRC Richmond https://t.co/xpW0plO5fn

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

This is only true if a person has a selfish world view. Having a child gives a person great purpose. It is a purpose far greater than career or any other pursuits for personal glory, pleasure or success. Certainly some fail as parents and the degree of responsibility they have for that failure varies in each case. But one thing is absolutely true, the mere existence of the child is not the reason for the failure nor is it justification for killing them because failure could theoretically be the end result.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

@_ParisOlivia @LilaGraceRose What people call human beings at this stage in their development is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that people still believe it is morally permissible to kill them, which is terrible.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

One human being is pregnant and the other is in her womb. This doesn't give the mother the right to kill her child just because it is dependent on her body. It will be dependent on her body for nurishment and care after it is born and it would not be morally acceptable for her to kill if then either.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

This type of thinking is wrong for a number of reasons. Here's two of them.
First, in common parlance everyone knows that we use abortion to means a procedure with the goal to directly, intentionally kill the human in the womb. This more recent use of abortion in the broader sense is simply an attempt to hide it.
Second, If your going to argue from a biblical premise then you have to accept the fact that God ordains the kind and time of death for everyone and has the obsolute right to do so. The problem with abortion isn't solely that the unborn are dying (though that's tragic), it's that humans are killing them.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

Situations like this (whether this specific story is true or not), while tragic, don't justify the killing of an innocent human being. We still need to do the right thing, even if it costs us a great deal and doing the wrong thing is still wrong even if the reason we are in the terrible situation is not our fault.
There is another problem with this line of thinking and it's the idea that if we are unable to go down the specific path in life we initial wanted to then our life is ruined and we cannot find other paths, perhaps even better paths, that we had not considered. We can.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

Abortion is not self-defense because the human being in the womb is not attacking its mother. Being pregnant is natural, well-ordered, and evidence of good health on the part of the mother. It is illogical to say that the kind of process necessary for the continuation of a species is a violent attack from which a woman should defend herself.
Arguments like these are only able to bring up situations where a mother's immediate health is in legitimate danger. Which could lead to a reasonable discussion but the problem is that they are trying to use them to justify all abortions.

[General Anchorage 𓅣 🝃 @infocraving]

@secularprolife @LeahLibresco No like roses actually are red tho

And abortion is self defense

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

Points 2 and 3 don’t work because right and wrong aren’t based on the technology and tools available. If an individual cannot access formula or a pump (a very real scenario), they would not be morally justified in starving their baby. As for point 1, it’s completely arbitrary: yes, the physical nature of the baby’s dependency is very different, but the fundamental nature is the same. The baby needs the parents in order to live. The fact that other people might be willing to care for the baby instead is not logically relevant, because their existence or nonexistence doesn’t change whether killing the baby is right or wrong.

[Sappy 🖤 @sappy_satanica]

@RozierHunter 1. It makes sense because we're talking about a non birthed child and once they're born they are an independent being who's parents are held responsible for it
2. Formula does exist so tough luck
3. The mother can use a pump if she doesn't want to be sucked on.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

And if formula were not available, the baby would need to be breastfed, meaning it would continue to use her body to develop. So unless you’re comfortable with someone letting a baby starve because they don’t want it to “use their body,” this argument doesn’t work.

[Sappy 🖤 @sappy_satanica]

@ZELLKLUMPEN I think while it is inside the womb, since it is the woman carrying it she should have full rights to do whate she wants with the child. Regardless of what we think of the baby being an individual or not. It is using her body to develop.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

If a mother is able to breastfeed her child and no other alternatives are available, she would be morally obligated to do so, lest her child starve to death and that undeniably qualifies as the child “using her body.” Also, both parents are morally obligated to care for their child to a degree that would be considered enslavement if another person (not their child) forced the parents to care for them in a similar manner, and that care will also require the use of their bodies. This argument arbitrarily ignores these other categories, which are indeed different from when the child is in the womb but, ultimately, categorically the same.

[MissAnthrope @LyssAnthrope]

@GeigerEmilyA "No one has the right to use another person's body" -blood/organs/involuntary physiology- is not an extremist position

It's a basic ethical boundary widely accepted for everyone else, in every other context. Even parents.

Tantrums only ensue when it's applied to pregnancy.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

@LyssAnthrope Also, if a mother dies then the environment the fetus is in has changed and naturally they can no longer survive. This would be just as true for us if the sun suddenly went out. We would all be in the same environment but are definitely going to die.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

There is a fundamental difference between a healthy individual existing in their natural environment and a person who requires medical intervention to stay alive in theirs. The claim being made is that if the removal of an individual from their natural environment causes their death, that person is 'currently dying.' If that logic holds true, then we are all currently dying. A fetus is not in a special category when it comes to this fact but is just like the rest of us. If the roles were reversed, and an adult was suddenly shoved into a giant womb, they would die just like a fetus would die if it was suddenly removed.

[MissAnthrope @LyssAnthrope]

@secularprolife Can you explain how an embryo or fetus can survive inside another person's body and exit that person's body without that person's body continuously actively keeping them alive?
Saving them from death?

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

@LyssAnthrope This is shifting the argument, the point of the argument was that it is not accurate to say that a fetus is dying not that the mothers body isn't helping to keep it alive. We wouldn't say a person in a lifevest is dying just because the vest is keeping them from drowning.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

@RiverHeights88 and @penelopedidit2 , perhaps this will help
AI Overview of what a thought expirement is:
a hypothetical scenario, often imaginative or counter-factual, designed to explore the consequences of a theory, principle, or idea through logical reasoning rather than physical observation. Frequently used in philosophy and physics, they serve as mental tools to test, refine, or challenge assumptions.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

Hypothetically, if a woman were willing for the baby to remain in her womb (using her body with her consent) but unwilling for the baby to pass through her vaginal canal (using her body against her will), would it be morally acceptable for her—if it were medically possible—to keep the baby in her womb until it died, or to wait until she died, resulting in the baby being born severely disabled because of this? The answer is no btw.

[Penelopedidit2 @penelopedidit2]

Science is irrelevant. Our country wad built on an individual's rights. Government exists to protect the individual. And a god-given right is every citizens right to their own person. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has the right to use someone else's body against their will. The point when life begins doesn't matter.

[Clare Anne Ath @clareanneath]

Life begins at conception.

[Live Action @LiveAction]

They’re on to us…

[Secular Pro-Life @secularprolife]

Conceptualizing the embryo as a parasite the woman's body wants to destroy requires you to ignore how embryos are created, everything our bodies go through in puberty, and the primary evolutionary basis for the desire to have sex in the first place.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

Stated more clearly, this statement suggests that it is more common for a woman who is denied an abortion and subsequently gives birth to experience deeper mental anguish alongside her newborn than it is for a woman to have an abortion and later regret it. This is an absurd statement, and it becomes even more absurd when one considers the long‑term mental health of the woman.

[Chuck Pinkerton @SailOtisJ24]

@StudentsforLife The negative psychological impact of being denied an abortion is more frequent than that of abortion regret. That being said, it would be wise to have better screening identify and council women to reduce their risk of making the wrong decision.

[Hunter Rozier @RozierHunter]

@elonmusk Not trying to be the chatGPT cheerleader here but gotta call out fake news when I see it. ChatGPT is reporting correctly but as you can see in prompt, user is not using web search feature. Why they have that as an option to turn off an on I'm not sure but still its not accurate