Concern for the protection of women’s lives in anti-abortion laws is not a pro-choice ploy. It’s a p

[Sheldon]

Deliberately killing someone is the same in your world as not donating all your organs while you are still alive?
Abortion is a deliberate act that causes a death. It's not a passive action like failing to donate organs.

So deliberately murdering someone by not letting them use your body against your will is ok by you?

 

[Sheldon]

Which is again simply wrong. Surely you can see the difference between deliberately killing a person and passively failing to save someone's life.

Yes, you made a conscious choice to kill someone, by not letting them use your body against your will, and yet you don't think this is ok for others, bizarrely. The main difference is you killed a sentient human being, whereas abortions involved an insentient clump of cells.

 

[Sheldon]

Look. I just had chicken for breakfast.

Om my god, you murdered two chickens...

 

[Sheldon]

Unsafe abortion is a leading cause of maternal death worldwide (WHO).
If safe, accessible, legal abortion is not available, women will resort to unsafe abortion.
Therefore the provision of safe abortion is essential for women's health and safety.
QED.

Sadly some people only care about controlling women, religions have a long history of this.

 

[KWED]

Slowly? As far as I can tell, the US has always supported Ukraine. They were just treated badly by your former President, so maybe that's what you're thinking about?


And equality. I don't what that you mean by "promise never to promote it in schools, seek gay marriages, etc." Who did/said that? Why wouldn't gay people want the same rights as anyone else? Nobody "promotes" homosexuality in schools. Learning about the existence of gay people isn't "promoting it in schools." So what are you talking about here? Some "slippery slope" of rights for gay people? Like that's a bad thing?

Just like with any new legislation, there are kinks that need to be worked out and I don't know where you pulled that number from or if it is accurate.

Medical marijuana is not a gateway drug. The legalized, controlled sale of marijuana takes away the "gateway drug" part of it, because now people are purchasing it legally, rather than seeking it out from drug dealers on the streets who quite often have plenty of other, stronger drugs to sell. Legalizing it takes away the gateway aspect of it.


And pretend ones too.

@PruePhillip has a habit of just making stuff up. Perhaps its with the intention of slipping things under the radar and therefore claiming them to be fact?

 

[PruePhillip]

Uh, no they aren't. They think the CHOICE about what to do with one's own body should be left up to the individual, because it's that individual's body and nobody else's.

Slave owners think they own human beings as property and can make choices on their property's behalf.

Terrible analogy.

A woman who kills her unborn child is treating that child as property, and declares the father or anyone else, has no say in her property.

 

[KWED]

A woman who kills her unborn child is treating that child as property, and declares the father or anyone else, has no say in her property.

If you mean like how a kidney or tumour is considered a person's "property" which they cannot be forced to donate or have removed - then yes.

An early-stage foetus has no sentience and cannot survive outside the womb, therefore it is right that it is considered to be a part of the woman's body and therefore subject to her decisions and no one else's.

Once again, your slavery analogy fails miserably. The slave owner is like you, because you are both controlling what someone else can do with their own body.

 

[PruePhillip]

If you mean like how a kidney or tumour is considered a person's "property" which they cannot be forced to donate or have removed - then yes.

An early-stage foetus has no sentience and cannot survive outside the womb, therefore it is right that it is considered to be a part of the woman's body and therefore subject to her decisions and no one else's.

Once again, your slavery analogy fails miserably. The slave owner is like you, because you are both controlling what someone else can do with their own body.

Yes, we have turned unborn children into kidneys and the like.
And not just early stage, but late stage for the convenience of a woman who decides at the last moment .....
I see no difference between slavery and abortion.
And I have no doubt that one day we will kill infants too.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@PruePhillip has a habit of just making stuff up. Perhaps its with the intention of slipping things under the radar and therefore claiming them to be fact?

I've noticed and suspected as much myself.
That's why I don't just ignore these posts - my brain won't let me lol

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, we have turned unborn children into kidneys and the like.

If that's how you feel about it then you've completely misunderstood the analogy. The analogy speaks to how we actually view human life versus a blastocyst/zygote/fetus. And it demonstrates quite nicely that anti-abortionist actually want to confer special rights upon blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses that we don't even extend to actual birthed, living breathing human beings.

The blastocyst/zygote/fetus is not the kidney in the analogy. The blastocyst/zygote/fetus is the person who needs your kidney in order to survive. Maybe that helps you understand it better?

And not just early stage, but late stage for the convenience of a woman who decides at the last moment .....

Ah, there's that word again - "convenience." Used to dismiss, demean and patronize women about choices they're making for their own lives. I really wish we could trash that bit of misogyny already.

As pointed out several times now, that almost never happens. The vast majority of "late term abortions" are done when something has gone horribly wrong in the pregnancy and it's a necessary procedure to save the woman's life.

I see no difference between slavery and abortion.

Maybe that is because, and I'm sorry to have to point this out, you don't seem to understand how analogies work.

The slavery analogy can work if we use it correctly though. As in, taking away someone's bodily autonomy makes them nothing more than a slave who can't make their own decisions about their own lives and their own bodies. Where someone else makes those decisions for them. Ever seen or read The Handmaid's Tale?

And I have no doubt that one day we will kill infants too.

The ancient Spartans used to do that. My nana used to work in a Catholic Church that did that.
We don't do that anymore.

 

[PruePhillip]

If that's how you feel about it then you've completely misunderstood the analogy. The analogy speaks to how we actually view human life versus a blastocyst/zygote/fetus. And it demonstrates quite nicely that anti-abortionist actually want to confer special rights upon blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses that we don't even extend to actual birthed, living breathing human beings.

The blastocyst/zygote/fetus is not the kidney in the analogy. The blastocyst/zygote/fetus is the person who needs your kidney in order to survive. Maybe that helps you understand it better?


Ah, there's that word again - "convenience." Used to dismiss, demean and patronize women about choices they're making for their own lives. I really wish we could trash that bit of misogyny already.

As pointed out several times now, that almost never happens. The vast majority of "late term abortions" are done when something has gone horribly wrong in the pregnancy and it's a necessary procedure to save the woman's life.


Maybe that is because, and I'm sorry to have to point this out, you don't seem to understand how analogies work.

The slavery analogy can work if we use it correctly though. As in, taking away someone's bodily autonomy makes them nothing more than a slave who can't make their own decisions about their own lives and their own bodies. Where someone else makes those decisions for them. Ever seen or read The Handmaid's Tale?

The ancient Spartans used to do that. My nana used to work in a Catholic Church that did that.
We don't do that anymore.

The killing of children is more the Peter Singer approach. I doubt it will gain traction, at least at this point. It's more the killing of the elderly that's currently a real thing, as statistics show. It's the next step after consigning the elderly the old-age homes.
I have never looked into this late-term stuff, but have stories about it. Some want the state to film executions as a way to 'highlight' capitol punishment - I suggest we do the same for abortions.But more than anything, it's the anti-life mentality that concerns me with Western society.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The killing of children is more the Peter Singer approach. I doubt it will gain traction, at least at this point.

Nobody is advocating for that.

It's more the killing of the elderly that's currently a real thing, as statistics show. It's the next step after consigning the elderly the old-age homes.

I've yet to see these statistics you're supposedly citing.

I have never looked into this late-term stuff, but have stories about it.

You should look into it.

Some want the state to film executions as a way to 'highlight' capitol punishment - I suggest we do the same for abortions.

That would be absurd. And a massive violation of peoples' privacy and rights.

But more than anything, it's the anti-life mentality that concerns me with Western society.

What "anti-life" mentality? Preserving bodily autonomy is a pro-life position.