Abortion stops a beating heart. That sums up my beliefs.
The government would never do that. It’s ridiculous. You cannot force a person to put their life at risk to donate a kidney to a complete stranger:smack
Yes I know. That’s kinda the point and where your inconsistency lies. How about just donating blood or some other procedure that’s not generally life threatening? They can’t force that either can they?
You appear to feel it’s okay for the government to require a woman to remain pregnant when she doesn’t want to, and anti abortionists in general are willing to make those decisions about and for strangers.
IOW; it would be wrong to require you to give of your body and health to save a life {all life is sacred remember?} of a stranger, but it’s okay for you and other antiabortionists to make that decision and require that of strangers. Cool huh?
Someone has to fight to end the slaughter of innocent human beings.
But most of them don’t stop a functioning brain.
Most do stop a beating heart though. You pro-choicers claim it’s all about women’s rights etc etc. Then why the need to de-personalize the fetus with the "it’s just a bunch of cells, it’s the same as a tumor, it’s not alive, it’s not a human."Blah blah…
Do you have statistics on that, or are you just throwing out nonsense like you have this whole thread? Minimizing everything to “this sums up my position” and then 2 seconds later with some other useless platitude that also sums up your position?
So, rather than actually address the obvious conflict in your reasoning just reassert your unproven axiom?
I guess that’s all you got.
Someone has to stop folks like you from trying to impose your unscientific opinion and personal moral position on your fellow citizens , and increasing their suffering in the process.
The heart is surely beating by six weeks gestation. Google it!!!It’s common knowledge for goodness sakes:smack::smack::smack::smack:
Is axiom your favorite word or something? Axiom this, axiom that:rolleyes:
Gosh that’s utterly annoying. Just what do you plan on doing to stop me. It’s MY CHOICE to have the opinion I do. Don’t interfere with my rights LOL
Their suffering my ass. How about the suffering of those babies that are sucked out and torn to pieces by a fucking vacuum. It’s called getting rid of an incovenience and not taking responsibilty for your actions. It’s pathetic. It’s the easy way out. It’s immoral.
Having an abortion IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS. And it is a safe and legal option that is hardly an easy choice for someone to make. The bottom line is it is not your choice to make for anyone else.
Well for me it’s a little thing called caring about the facts. I believe I mentioned it earlier. We might ask why anti abortionists constantly use emotionally charged falsehoods like “baby killers” etc in order to push their moral view on others.
Repeat after me:
An embryo is not a baby.
An embryo is not a baby.
An embryo is not a baby.
Now write it a hundred times for penance, young lady, and err no more.
Also, if you think choosing abortion is the “easy way out”, you’re living in fucking la-la land. All the more reason not to listen to what you have to say, never mind enshrine it into law.
So, facts don’t matter to you as much as trying to force your moral code on others. Good for you.
All it really sums up is a medical fact. And it still is not that simple.
Still waiting to see your responses to the list in #1359.
I’ll tell you what; when a pro-choicer states that a woman can’t have an abortion because she’s just being reckless, or they put a reasonable quota on the number of abortions a woman can have, then I’ll take this post seriously.
Anyway, yes, mental gymnastics. I find it funny-- well, maybe moreso odd than anything else-- is that a woman’s actions here are being argued to be constrained by her intent, the latter of which is being assumed to give birth to a healthy (and wanted!) child because she didn’t abort the child. Aside from the fact that such an argument rests on the assumption that the unborn only has worth so long as the mother doesn’t abort it (!), you still run into the issue where the woman’s right to bodily autonomy is being subverted by others because it may be in that future child’s best interest to do so. And if it can be argued that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy can be subverted in the interest of that future child to prevent that child from suffering unnecessarily, then it stands to reason that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy can be subverted in order to ensure that said future child has a life, period.
Either that future child matters, in which case the mother’s actions can be restricted to ensure the best for that future child, or it doesn’t, in which case whatever the mother decides to do during her pregnancy is really only her business.
Killing that to which you would otherwise be responsible for is taking responsibility for your actions? lolwut? Man, what a bizarre, strange new world have I woken up in. Pretty sure the mental gymnastics continues. That sounds like absolving yourself of responsibility, rather than being responsible. Sorta’ like flushing a goldfish down the toilet because you don’t want to take care of it.
And again, too many people in this thread are misusing the word axiom.
Edit: Oh, and to repeat something I said earlier.
[QUOTE=Me]
Unless you live in an anarchy, and even then, you either force someone to abide by your personal beliefs or you force someone to abide by yours. Let’s not kid ourselves, okay?
[/quote]
But it’s not ridiculous to force women to donate their uteruses? Your mantra isn’t life begins at conception, but life begins at conception and ends at ovaluation.
I think I’ve proved my point adequately, and as I’m mostly just amused by certain parties attempts to get me to take positions I have explicitly disclaimed, I’m done.
You’re laboring under the delusion that aborting a fetus is a killing in any meaningful sense. Do you weep for an excised tumor? Do you go through the stages of grief for a skin tag?
And like clockwork, here comes the fetus equals tumor/cancer argument again. I’d like to believe that the people who make the comparison are being facetious, yet I know they’re being deadly serious, which would make it funny if it weren’t just plain sad.
Anyway, not to speak around you, but did you know that some women do weep for their lost children when they miscarry? But, oh, you’ll probably say that was because the child was wanted, right?