Is that really want it sounds like to you? Is it possible you were listening wrong?
The ability for a woman to have control over her own body and her own reproductive rights are a relatively new concept for humans. One which many still aren’t willing to accept. So instead, they try to come up with some other way to subjugate them. Right now that method is to claim their lives and rights are less important than everyone else’s. That they are uniquely required to provide rights for someone else. A condition that exists in no other form.
No one can force you to provide life for someone else. But you think you can force a woman to. It sounds like you want to continue treating women the way we have in the past, and deny her the fundamental rights we grant everyone else.
If you’re not sure which specific treatment I’m referring to I’m not sure what you propose to contribute to this discussion.
Certainly, one can (hopefully) easily see the difference between sperm and a fetus. Sperm left on its own will not form into a human. Similarly, an egg left on its own will not form a human. Sperm and eggs don’t need to be actively killed in order to prevent the formation of life.
Could you rephrase this? I mean, a number of common contraceptives have “spermicidal” in their names or descriptions. Clearly the intent is to indeed actively kill sperm cells to prevent the formation of life.
An interesting comparison. A fetus left on its own, how well will it do? A premie left on its own, how will it do? A person suffering kidney failure, left on their own, how well will they do?
All of these require intervention to survive. None of these force action on someone else.
It brought humour to a thread that now involves comparisons to the Holocaust. What have you brought other than a warning to be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, cautious?
The woman made a choice to carry the baby to term. She could have terminated early in the pregnancy if she wanted.
Why do you think women are not responsible for their choices?
If late in the pregnancy the woman wants it out of her she is either killing what is now a living being or she is threatening it with harm, possibly profound harm, by delivering a premature baby.
I know of nothing in the law or morals that allows you to do something that would injure or kill someone else who has no part in your decision and, had they a voice, would certainly not welcome what is going to be done to them. But hey, it’s “incidental” death or injury so its ok right? Afterall the only thing that matters is that the woman not be inconvenienced any longer by a choice she made. So what if someone has to die to achieve that?
Better still she refuses to take care of it so now this premature infant with serious medical needs becomes the problem of the state and thus MY problem as my tax dollars go to support the spawn the woman decided she didn’t want.
I know of nothing in the law or morals that allows anyone to use my organs without my consent, and you certainly haven’t offered any examples.
It happens every day that I choose not to donate a lobe of liver. It also happens every day that you choose not to donate a lobe of liver. I can live with it, and clearly so can you.
And the right to life suddenly becomes problematic when it inconveniences you. Duly noted.
The woman gave consent when she decided to carry to term. That then leads to a human relying on that support which you see fit to revoke for any reason whatsoever resulting in death or injury of the other person.
Not donating a liver is refusing help.
More apt would be you donating a lobe of liver then some months down the road deciding you want it back and killing the recipient to get it back. The recipient has zero say in the matter. How DARE they use your organ that you originally chose to give!
The problem is the woman has made a choice for me. One I have no say in.
Since you seem fine with the woman making a choice for others then you should be fine having others making a choice for the woman.
So people shouldn’t be allowed to back out of organ donations once they’ve signed the consent forms? It’s my organ, and I can withdraw consent at ANY time that it’s still inside my body.
Nope. Once the liver is OUTSIDE of my body, it’s not mine anymore. Nice try, though.
If that’s what you’re basing this on then the matter is settled. She may not have decided to carry to term, ergo she may not have given her consent.
Either we give a woman control over her body and reproductive system or we don’t. A woman choosing to have an abortion is her exercising that right. As long as the fetus is inside her, the control is hers. There is nothing in the law or morals that grants rights to another person’s body, period.
So I’ll ask again, do you have anything new to provide?
You mean the oppressors of women? Yes, definitely.
I think they’ll consider most pro-lifers as bad as we do the shower operators at Auschwitz. I know I already do.
Compare it to how the current youth views homosexuality. Yes, there’s still “that’s so gay” as a pejorative and religious-driven homophobia, but in general, this current generation of teens in the West is probably the last for whom this is going to be an issue of any enormity. The move is towards liberalization. So to will it be with abortion.