Abortion-clinic picketers.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by **Omg a Black Conservative
**In this thread there have to be, at the very least, a hundred different responses effectively arguing that because a woman isn’t required to donate her body to someone who is born to save their life or, at the very least, could refuse to continue providing her body for someone who is born to use, that she shouldn’t have to provide for the unborn in the same way she doesn’t have to provide for the born.

What I meant was, give me a few real life examples of a born person being biologically attached and dependent upon another individual. I’m thinking there are very few.

So the unborn exist in a vacuum and don’t effect the woman’s body?

Never said anything remotely like that. One more sterling example of how you consistently rephrasing and misrepresenting my argument.

I was mocking your so called logical conclusion. If an attached born person cannot make demands then the unborn can because pregnancy is unique. Something like that?
It’s not a logical argument, but playing your game, let’s say is, and the unborn can make demands on the pregnant woman.
How will the unborn communicate those demands?

Quite possibly because demands don’t have to be spoken. Demands are also taken to be requirements or needs.

While demands can be defined as urgent need in some cases, we happen to be talking about the law. Urgent need , and unspoken demands do not define the law. Right now the only people making legal demands are the unattached born people who think their personal moral view ought to be law.

I think the whole “demands” discussion casts some light on your “not liking to play semantics line”

Second of all, I don’t like to play semantics, but in this case I will.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH…I think we just saw how untrue this is.

The closest situation to pregnancy one can think up is a situation in which a born individual suddenly becomes attached to the woman and needs her body to live for an undisclosed period of time. For all intent’s and purpose’s, such an would be deemed to have no right to use the woman’s body and the woman allowed to sever that connection if she so chooses

I suppose. And if that situation doesn’t exist in the real world, that would make pregnancy and abortion , what? Unique right? Can you find any real life examples rather than imagined ones?

[curlcoat]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

I never ignored you to begin with. You’re the one who decided to stop arguing once it became deathly apparent you were getting some of that good California education (yeah, that’s sarcasm because California’s educational system sucks ass and is one of the worst in the nation). As it relates to your most recent post, I read it, sighed and said it wasn’t worth it.

Ah. Then why wasn’t this one worth it as well? I’m thinking it’s more like you have no answer to what I said, since it wasn’t just the most recent post you have, er, sighed at.

As for my education, once again you are declaring a fact from a lack of information - I did not go to school in California.

[Pullet]

Thanks for highlighting that link, **cosmosdan/b]. I especially like the last bit:

If abortion is an institution that is destructive of some good end, then the affairs of people who practice it will suffer, and the affairs of people who do not practice it will not suffer. We shall know them by their fruits. It is not the business of the state to second-guess such consequences, especially when it can be wrong and thus end up applying the coercive force of government, destroying people’s lives, for the sake of a moralistic error.

Fuck, yeah.