We exist, FYI. Some of us are even pro-life.

ND HB 1572 FTW!!!

Views: 1871

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Nobody said there isn't. The point is that you're backing the law for having separate charges for killing under duress, yet you claim to refuse to acknowledge for the sake of argument that the law also has separate charges for abortion, that being none.
1: I am pro-everyone, embryos included; the rights of embryos are equal to the rights of adults, but some rights supersede others.
2: I do not claim dictatorship over the female body; I am opposing dictatorship over the unborn body.
3: That's why I'm a libertarian and not a Libertarian. I also disagree with their economic stances.
4: Argumentum ad antiquitatem. The "traditions of our legal system" can be wrong. Abortion has only been illegal for a few dozades. Slavery was much more a "legal tradition", but I think we all agree now that it was wrong.
5: Why dis you pluralize "embryo" with an apostrophe?
1: This is not about prolonging a life, or saving a life, or sustaining a life; this is about not ending a life.
2: Killing all Mexicans would open up a ton of resources. Not everything that fixes overpopulation is good.
3a: You want to remove the "children". I want to remove the "unwanted".
3b: The way to achieve "all children are wanted children" is better education, contraception, etc., not "kill all unwanted babies!".
4: All expansions in rights will necessarily reduce the freedom to oppress. Abolition reduced the freedom of whites to own slaves. Feminism reduced the freedom of men to rape their wives. The Declaration on the Rights of the Child reduced the freedom of parents to abuse and indoctrinate their children. The Geneva Convention reduced the freedom to torture. The Kyoto Protocol reduces the freedom of big businesses to fuck up the planet.
5a: Abortions still aren't safe now, and 90% of illegal abortions were done by doctors.
5b: Frankly, a woman who dies trying to kill her child gets no sympathy from me.
1: Why would I want us to leave children in ditches?
2: It is safe for mother but not child.
3: THE FETUS IS NOT A PART OF YOUR BODY! You have every right to control your body, but your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
4: When did I ever suggest baning contraception, or adoption, or anything besides abortion? Banning abortion does not make you a "production facility" any more than not letting pilots drop stowaways midair makes them chauffeurs.
If something is happening to MY body I have every right to alter it. You have absolutely no right to tell me what to do. You can express to me your ideas about the embryo I am carrying but don't you dare tell me how I should deal with the situation. Do you genuinely think you are standing up for the life inside me? I am responsible for nurturing that life as it grows inside me or not. You have absolutely no business sticking your nose up my vagina and telling me what I should be willing to allow come out of it. Do you not understand how you are sticking your nose where it does not belong? I am genuinely offended that you dare tell me how to use MY body.

The fetus IS a part of my body, it is, no seriously it bloody well is, have I made that clear enough it is, ffs it really and truly is!!! As a mother I truly GET that the child I nurture IS a part of ME!!! I have two kids I could not adopt them out cause they are a part of me they exist because of my cooperation, they grow because I nurture them. They get their identity from my relationship with them. I understand that the meaning of their lives IS their relationship with me and their family and later their world. I understand that if they were not brought into this world with my cooperation then this whole thing would break down and the meaning of their lives would also break down and ultimately their lives would be 'meaningless'.

I swear to you I am speaking from experience before I had kids I thought that I could NEVER abort a child now as a parent who understands the enormity of LIFE I think actually I can understand why someone would abort. Think about it!! Do you understand what the heck you are talking about. You have not expressed that you do. Show me that you understand beyond the black and white. I despair that you are so unwilling to see where others are coming from?!?
Okay, you're talking "part of me" in an emotional sense. You admit that you have two children, and they are "part of you". Killing them, however, would be murder.

I agree that you have the right to control your body. You may not control anyone else's, which is what abortion is.
No it is not just emotional although the emotional cannot be dismissed because that is what gives us humans our meaning.
Physically a baby growing inside me is a part of me, it is from my egg and it certainly relies upon me for survival and that cooperation is optional from me it cannot be sanctioned by law. If I cooperate and give it life it is lucky and lives. When it is born if I do not want to cooperate by breast feeding or otherwise caring for my child than fair enough take it and nurture it. You are willing to cooperate with that life and nurture it so it may survive.

We are all trying to survive if an embryo is unlucky enough to turn up in an unwilling host than it will die such is life.
It is also from its father's sperm. That's how sexual reproduction works: 50% mom, 50% dad, 100% child.

I'm not sure you understand how abortion works. Abortion is an active act who's goal is a dead fetus, not just an "unplugging". The child is burned chemically, or dismembered, or his brains are sucked out. If he survives, he is often killed after birth (a practice Obama supports).

By your logic, abortion after viability is immoral.
By my logic you do not have the right to tell me how to make this decision. Let's be clear about this. It may genetically be half mom, half dad, but physically it is way more mom and I think this is the point you are missing. Mom must give a great deal of her blood sweat and tears to the production of this baby than dear old dad in the first nine months. You seem to think it is a simple process and moms are just being stubborn and uncooperative if they don't go through those 'few inconvenient months'.

If a woman is an uncooperative host than she has a right to do whatever she want to the growing child inside her. This may sound awful and I know what I am saying when I say this. But the host has the rights in my opinion, if the woman does not want anything in her body she can remove it. If it is viable the other people can if they are willing try to save it. But this is up to the other people. You see as much as we like living, living is NOT a right it is something we all allow each other to do
Living, exactly, is something we let each other do. You are not required to give life, but you may not take it away. The right to live is a negative right.

No matter how inconvenient the first nine months are, it does not outweigh the right to not be killed.
Yes it does because if the mother is unwilling to sustain that life and society is unable to sustain it without her, that that life cannot survive.

If society as a whole wants to protect unborn children they need the cooperation of individual women. If they don't want to give that cooperation and the society cannot keep that child alive without that woman's cooperation well society loses. With murder the society can stop the person from killing because they can kill them first or otherwise disarm them or with live babies simply remove them from the mother. You see homicide and abortion are completely different.
3: THE FETUS IS NOT A PART OF YOUR BODY! You have every right to control your body, but your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Until you have a way to incubate said "fetus" without my body, it is in fact part of my body


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service