It's funny that you think it's all about religion with people like me, when I literally haven't argued with you using ANY religious arguments on abortion, nor have I during my three years on this forum! I was using your language for the sake of argument. What I personally mean by "person" in that context is BORN person. And I can say that I don't think that it's a person at the point of conception. Except that your claim was "you are not SAYING anything."
All correct. And it's quite telling that you didn't dispute my claim, that even YOU acknowledge the difference between the life at the point of conception and the life outside of the womb! Not how it works in any country as far as I'm aware. If it was how it worked, then abortion up to point of birth would be legal in all countries.
MANY posts are longer than 10 words and you know it! And what a stupid standard to hold! Only debating people with a certain word count in their posts! Of course you are! I'm just STUNNED that you lasted as long as you did!
You can make that argument, but the point is that if it was banned, it wouldn't mean that people would loose bodily autonomy, just like if cancer treatment was banned, it wouldn't mean that people would loose bodily autonomy.
Just like every other anti-abortionist, you too base your case against abortion on Christian ethics; The pregnant woman has an obligation to serve a higher goal, motherhood is her duty and sacrficing her own goals for the future childhood of the fetus is virtue. Sometimes the anti-abortionist will explicitly say that his arguments come from God, but a lot of the times it is more implicit and even sub-conscious for the anti-abortionists themselves.
The problem is that comparing cancer treatment to pregnancy termination is apples to oranges. As far as an analogy regarding bodily autonomy.
Then what's so radically different about abortion which would make banning it removing bodily autonomy?
To prevent a woman from terminating an unwanted pregnancy is to deprive her from control of her own body. Abortion is an available service and banning it would hurt also those professionals who want to help women have them.
I assume that you are also against destroying fossil fuel energy jobs for the sake of the environment.
Not at all, the point was made and you disagree. Conflating it with cancer treatment did not negate the argument. It is still an expression of bodily autonomy. The fact that it is a medical procedure is superfluous to the discussion.
Because the question has nothing to do with why a woman has the right to bodily autonomy. It’s irrelevant.
Except that I think that abortion can be banned with women STILL having the right to bodily autonomy.
