Because comparing what is essentially a clump of cells to actual human beings isn't offensive or demeaning whatsoever.
Why don't you go the full route and call everyone who promotes a woman's right to choose what she does with her body a nazi? We all know you want, so why don't you have some faith in your convictions and make that final step C_H.
If you read any embryology Textbook it is always argued that from the point of conception that a new human being is created and that life is worth saving. You are ignoring ll the scientific evidence. Also if i were to show pictures of the remains of abortion I will get infracted because it will show tiny body parts that have been separated from the rest of the body. The only way you can get an unborn child out of the womb is by dismembering it, since the natural way is for the females body to dialate and expand to allow the child through. The irony of current laws is that moments before delivery it is legal to take the life away, but a few cm's difference and it is illegal, as shown in the Gosnells trial. An unborn child is not simply a "clump of cells" as the abortion crowd likes to be erroneous about.
And thus we come full-circle back to rape, and now you know why feminists get so frustrated.
No, it can't. If abortion is murder then you don't kill person B because person A was raped.
This reveals another aspect of the pro-life sides interest in regulating action. They "forgive" a woman if her sexual activity was involuntary.
I agree, I think it's entirely possible to convincingly argue against abortion in general while still maintaining it should be legal in case of rape.
I'm just pointing out that some pro-life groups do indeed take their opposition to the full logical conclusion: all abortion should be banned, period.
So why are you about punishing the innocent? What crime did the child commit to have his life taken away?
The argument goes something like this:
-A fetus has rights and killing it is wrong;
-If you engage in consensual sex you know there is a risk it may result in pregnancy. This risk can be virtually eliminated with proper precaution, but it will always be there. Having sex is accepting this risk (whether it is big or almost non-existent depends on how careful the partners are). Both partners must deal with the consequences of their voluntary actions and the risks they took; there is no justification for trumping the fetus's rights.
-In case of rape there was no choice involved, and as such the woman cannot be forced to "deal with the consequences" of her acts. While the abortion is still regarded as regrettable, and may even be discouraged, ultimately the mother cannot be forced to host a fetus that is there through no action of her own.
Agree or disagree, it's not logically incoherent.
Yep, but in their view protecting life trumps "unfairness". Life is always unfair anyway.
1 is correct, then in 3 you seem to have that as if it overrides number 1. No one has the right to override number one in that we are talking about innocent life.
I don't think the law is supposed to stop people from doing what anybody considers morally abhorrent; the law is supposed to, as far as this is possible, 'work towards the good of society'. It is not designed to enforce morality.
Every single law on the books is reflecting morality. The laws against murder are saying that murder is wrong.
It's the most horrible people who will not compromise. Like the slavers who started the Civil War.
Yep, they didn't compromise on the issue that we should respect all people as human beings regardless of skin colour, just like how the pro-abortion crowd won't recognise the legal rights of the unborn to life just like everyone else. Thus violating the UN declaration of Human Rights.
The presumption that a fetus constitutes a party is not a given IMO.
Again that was the same issue ewe have with slavery and what jews were considered
As we all know a fetuses rights override's a womans, this isn't at all disturbing or inherently misogynistic, reducing an entire gender's reproductive rights to cater to an entity that isn't even born yet.
It's almost as if they believe women primarily exist to give birth, screw their individual agency
The fact that women can get pregnant violates what we know about the immune system since all rights should have the foetus rejected by the mother since it is a foreign object and different from the mother, but we know that the immune system does reject it and actually the female's body actually gives it nourishment and protects from harm. The women's body does what it is supposed to do when it's gets pregnant, and that is gives the child a home for nine months for it to grow and be ready for life outside of the womb.
Its not being a jerk to try to point out that you're proposing something radical and alien to our culture. You don't get to discount personhood when its convenient to do so. If it is a person when conceived through consensual sex it doesn't stop being one when conceived by rape. Knowingly ending a persons life is often considered evil in our culture.
Also: At what point in fetal development of a child conceived by rape does abortion stop being permissible? And why? When does personhood increase such that it overtakes autonomy again?
Well the body already has autonomy in the decision since it normally accepts that foetus to allow it to grow full term, or if there is a problem with the child in the womb, then it rejects it and miscarries. The bod knows what it is doing when it either accepts or rejects the child on it's own.
What if the couple had decided they didn't want to reproduce tho? That the economic situation was poor, job prospects uncertain and their parents haven't warmed up to the idea etc.
In modern society there are plenty of options to stop you from becoming pregnant that those who do get pregnant are doing so willingly. There is no excuse to say that we weren't ready, when the options are available to stop pregnancy before the stage of fertilisation. It is just a cop out for irresponsibility.
Your comments, lightly sprinkled with withdrawel symptoms giving it just enough umph to make me pause, made me realise it's incredibly hard to make a succinct statement on abortion which doesn't make me go hmmmm....
hahaha
