I hope pro choicers haven't seriously deluded themselves into believing sperm is equivalent to a fetus.
Ironic coming from those OPPOSED to women's rights who have deluded themselves into believing a fetus is equivalent to a citizen who has Constitutional Rights.
The Constitutional rights all hinge on whether the fetus is considered a person. By denying personhood, you deny all other rights that automatically come along with that. The question of citizenship is kind of irrelevant. While the 14th Amendment doesn't grant citizenship to the unborn, it doesn't preclude them from having it either. (And I'll point out we could defeat the whole purpose of the 14th Amendment by not considering Blacks persons, so that's worth bearing in mind when you're talking about limiting applicability to fetuses)
FoxHastings said: ↑ WTF would lead you to believe I would be for forced abortions since I'm against forced gestation? You don't seem to apply any logic to your opinions. DUHHHHHHHH, one has nothing to do with the other as I patiently explained to you. In your silly desperation to catch Pro-Choicers in some wet dream fantasy "AHA " moment you don't seem to apply any logic to your opinions.
Those who are against a women's right to her won body (Anti-Choicers) have no problem taking away a woman's right to her own body so forced abortion would be possible. If women don't own their bodies ( an Anti-Choicers wet dream) then anything can be done to them...
Of course I wouldn't support forced abortion, I'm not an Anti-Choicer who believes we can do anything we want to women. I don't believe that we should stop funding aid organizations that provide abortions to poor women in other countries ( like our IGNORANT administration wants to do), FORCING women to give birth to more children than they can support.
Actually the 14th Amendment stipulates that rights only apply to those who are BORN. You would have to change the Constitution to do what you propose. But for the sake of argument let's go down your rabbit hole and see what happens in your Malice in Blunderland anti-choice bubble world by assuming that you have granted a fetus full constitutional rights from the moment of conception. A pregnant woman walks into your local church and opens fire with a bumpstock on her weapon and slaughters 87 of the people before she is stopped and arrested. The carnage is devastating. Those who are not killed are injured. The dead include grandmothers and newborn infants there for baptism. She is charged with 87 counts of murder and pleads not guilty. Bail is denied but her lawyer argues that she is pregnant and therefore cannot be incarcerated pending trial because that would violate the constitutional rights of the fetus. She is allowed to walk out the door of the courtroom. Even after the trial where she is found to be guilty on all counts she still cannot be incarcerated because of the rights of her fetus. It is only after she gives birth that she can finally be put behind bars. But while she is behind bars she has sex with the male guards and becomes pregnant again. Once again she is freed because of the constitutional rights of her fetus. A pregnant woman uses the men's bathroom at the baseball stadium. Says she can do so because her fetus is male and therefore must be allowed to use the appropriate bathroom. Cop pulls a pregnant woman over for using the carpool lane requiring 2 or more people in the car. She says her fetus counts as another person and this entitles her to use the carpool lane. All pregnant women will be required to register their fetus and obtain a Social Security number for the fetus. A pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage. The cops are required to investigate every miscarriage just in case it was an abortion. They do a forensic examination of her uterus and any remaining tissue samples they can find. Since in most instance this tissue is flushed they charge her with tampering with evidence of a crime and she is sentenced to 5 years behind bars for having a miscarriage that she was not even aware was happening. The prisons are overflowing with millions of women who have had miscarriages. These are the kinds of things that will happen in your bizarre scenario. Our nation will become a place where guilty people are free to roam the streets and innocent people are imprisoned. That is what theist beliefs can do to a nation.
Great post! But I fear you have given Anti-Choicerss another wet dream! They would LOVE to have a world such as you described...or seem to..
And is doomed to die if it does not implant Most don’t you know. Only about 30 - 40% of fertilised eggs manage to successfully implant and develop
Wrong! A fertilized has TWO sets of DNA, one from each parent. It does not have any unique DNA of it's own therefore it cannot be "fully human".
I just want to make sure I understand your position here. You're saying that we should implement forcible immunization protocols to prevent mass death from contagious pathogens, but we should not implement forcible population controls like forced abortion to prevent mass death from famine/resource depletion/climate change, and one has nothing to do with the other. If this correctly portrays your position, can you explain to me the notable difference in mass death from overpopulation and mass death from contagious pathogen that justifies the use of force to prevent only the latter and not the former? And ftr, I'm trying to argue that neither justifies forcible prevention; that forcible injection, forcible gestation and forcible abortion are all equally unjustifiable, and I'm trying to understand how you can be against one yet support the other.
Yes, for the reasons I already gave you. Abortion (notice I said abortion not forced gestation or over population) does not harm anyone or society in any way. Epidemics cause harm to society. I believe in reproductive freedom. Forced abortion is assault and wrong....and illegal. In another totally UNRELATED issue , (but hey, this is a free for all of topics) I support euthanizing stray dogs and cats... ...now I supposed you'll claim I believe in euthanizing everyone or some such silly illogical nonsense..
"""I'm trying to understand how you can be against one yet support the other"" Then give up, I explained, you couldn't understand, The End.
So far, your explanation consists of 'one has nothing to do with the other' and 'abortion doesnt harm society.' 'One has nothing to do with the other' is neither an explanation, nor is it objectively true. Both situations represent a threat to civilization. 'Abortion doesnt harm society' is not relevent. Overpopulation is as much a threat to society as disease epidemic. Objectively, either both justify forcible prevention protocols, or neither justifies forcible prevention protocols.
You sound confused and I can't help. What YOU decide isn't relevant means nothing to me. Abortion poses no threat to society. That's a fact you can't refute. Then give up, I explained, you couldn't understand, The End.
Did slavery pose a threat to society? I mean besides all those pesky Abolitionists and before the Civil War.
It's odd you have to ask....no one else would even consider that slavery wasn't a threat to society. Yup, all those pesky Anti-Choicers trying to bring back slavery by taking away women's right to their own bodies....despicable.
