Argentina abortion: Senate approves legalisation in historic decision

For those talking about a woman's bodily autonomy...

Let me preface this by saying that I am not against abortion on a political scale. I am pro-choice politically. I support it politically because I have no Right to tell a woman to not have an abortion, or to have one. Hence why I am pro-choice....politically.

Personally I am against abortion however.

That said, you talk about a woman's bodily autonomy, but what about the ZEF's bodily autonomy? You cannot argue that it isn't alive. That it isn't human. And that it doesn't have its own unique dna. Trying to argue otherwise is to deny science. Why won't you acknowledge its bodily autonomy?

I have no problem with anyone supporting abortion. How can I when I support it politically? But if you acknowledge one then you must acknowledge the other as well. If of course you're thinking logically and not emotionally. As such I find anyone that doesn't acknowledge such as doing nothing more than fooling themselves.

The question of abortion really comes down to 1 thing and 1 thing only. Who's Right to Life should supersede the others Right to Life? Because make no mistake, the ZEF has a Right to Life also as it IS a human life. An innocent one at that. Of course many will argue otherwise. But they are wrong. If you're thinking logically. Too many like to let their feelings control their decisions. Hence the political chaos that we have in this country right now.

Anyways, I learned long ago that its pointless to argue about abortion. Both sides of this debate have valid points. Though one side or the other refuses to acknowledge such. As such I don't really care if anyone responds to my post or not. I just wish that people would start learning to listen and understand rather than just talk at each other.

 

SHOW ME WHERE SOMEONE HAS SAID THAT.

I will, just as soon as the ZEF is NOT using the woman's body to sustain it's life, at BIRTH.

OH, you want to think logically ?... then tell me why you think a fetus should have more rights than anyone else, the right to use another's body to sustain their life.

The right to harm another without their consent.....logical??
.

Yes, you seem to with all that talk of ZEFS having more rights than anyone else..

No, the side that wants to destroy women's rights do NOT have any valid points.....an example would be those who claim "someone" says that a ZEF isn't alive.

""Someone" (?) says that it isn't human.....but never has any proof that "someone" said that......

 

Thats how it happened here in the US so, sadly, the answer is yes.

 

No way to monetize that.
Thats the bottom line, money. For both parties, they both use abortion and other issues as cash cows and nither will solve or settle any issue they are making money on.
Sad but that is the truth.

 

Birth control and sex ed would be even cheaper but for reason the anti-freedom crowd is against that as well.

 

Funny, nowhere in the Bible does it talk about abortion?....Hmmmmmmm

Me thinks this is just another ploy for Religion to control people!

 

Most of the ideas they “deeply hold” are not in the Bible especially the original version. The things that are — selling your worldly possessions to give to the poor, adultery, worshiping false idols, subservience, forgiveness, lying — they like to ignore because they are inconvenient.

 

Canada is as close as you get
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

But why should there BE any restrictions on abortion? I am not asking a rhetorical question I genuinely would like to know why people think it is necessary

 

More specifically to control women

 

I seem to have hit a nerve. First, you have to show me where I said that someone said that.

Ahh, so you're for abortion all the way up until birth? That seems to be implied in what you said here.

Where did I say that a ZEF should have more rights than anyone else?

Again, where did I say that a ZEF should have more Rights than anyone else?

You've proved my point with your whole post. Both sides refuses to acknowledge such and doesn't try to listen or understand.[/QUOTE]

 

I can argue viability and I can argue that the “rights” of a potential human do not and cannot negate the rights of an actual human

 

Here:
"""Kal'Stang said: ↑
For those talking about a woman's bodily autonomy...

Let me preface this by saying that I am not against abortion on a political scale. I am pro-choice politically. I support it politically because I have no Right to tell a woman to not have an abortion, or to have one. Hence why I am pro-choice....politically.

Personally I am against abortion however.

That said, you talk about a woman's bodily autonomy, but what about the ZEF's bodily autonomy? You cannot argue that it isn't alive. That it isn't human."""""


You imply someone has said that or else why would you bring it up ?

Yes, I am...if a woman's/fetus's life/health are in danger ...

Where you stated : """ Why won't you acknowledge its bodily autonomy?"""

Where you stated : "" Because make no mistake, the ZEF has a Right to Life also as it IS a human life.""

 

Those are common talking points used by pro-choice folks over many years. I never said that anyone said it in this thread. That is your own implication.

With the exception of a few hardcore pro-life zealots pretty much everyone agrees with an abortion if the woman's life is in danger. What about elective abortions? IE: Abortions committed even when there is no threat to the woman's life? And why would you add fetus's life in your exception? We're talking about abortion here. IE: the killing of a fetus.

Sorry, but saying that does not equal saying that a zef has more rights than anyone else. That is your own spin. IE: Strawman argument.

Sorry, but saying that does not equal saying that a zef has more rights than anyone else. That is your own spin. IE: Strawman argument.

If you take things in context and stop trying to spin what I said you would notice that I said that the question of abortion really comes down to 1 thing and 1 thing only. Who's Right to Life should supersede the others Right to Life? I never said that a ZEF's right to life should supersede that of the woman's. Nor visa versa. It is a fact that a ZEF has a Right to Life. Just like the woman has the same Right. Every human life has that Right. We just have to figure out at what point does a ZEF's Right to life supersede that of the woman's and when a woman's Right to life supersedes a ZEF's Right to Life. That is the hard part. And one that I believe should be made individually. Not by law. Hence why I am pro-choice politically, and pro-life personally. At least this is where I currently stand. If we ever get to the point where a ZEF can be raised in a tube or by a male then my position may change.

 

"An actual human"? "Potential human"? There is no potential human. And a ZEF is an actual human. That is scientific fact. Different stages of human growth does not negate whether or not they are "actual humans". All that you're doing is dehumanizing in order to justify your support of abortion. I have no need to do such. I accept that abortion is the killing of another human life. And yet I am pro-choice.

 

I think maybe there should be a cut-off time where he can. Like maybe after 10 weeks gestation...

If she waited that long...

 

"""Kal'Stang said: ↑
For those talking about a woman's bodily autonomy...

Let me preface this by saying that I am not against abortion on a political scale. I am pro-choice politically. I support it politically because I have no Right to tell a woman to not have an abortion, or to have one. Hence why I am pro-choice....politically.

Personally I am against abortion however.

That said, you talk about a woman's bodily autonomy, but what about the ZEF's bodily autonomy? You cannot argue that it isn't alive. That it isn't human."""""

.

IF they are "common talking points"" then why can't you produce an example??

NO one has EVER shown proof of what you say no matter how many times I've asked....because there isn't any...


I didn't say you said anyone in this thread said it.....YOU brought the whole thing up, YOU.

Why would a mentally stable woman go through all the "fun" of pregnancy just for the "fun " of having an abortion?

Answer: they don't which is why laws aren't needed....

Because if there is life or health problems the fetus can be aborted ..

Obviously, since abortion is legal, it doesn't.


IF a fetus has a right to life so the woman isn't allowed to kill it then the fetus has MORE RIGHTS than anyone else....it would have the right to use another's body to sustain it's life and harm another without their consent ...rights NO ONE ELSE HAS.





.

How odd that things change with you if MEN got pregnant....different set of rights for men?????

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Consultation is fine but meaningless...a husband cannot force his wife to gestate...….. or abort.

.


What TF are you talking about !!! AT NO TIME DOES A MAN OWN A WOMAN....wives are NOT PROPERTY.

 

No

That would be slavery

 

Why don't you research Canada's abortion regulations for yourself?

Who knows, you might learn something that extends your limited knowledge regarding abortion.

 

And I sadly must agree with you that it has become a political football to raise funds and incentivize voters to go to the polls.

The HYPOCRISY of those DEMANDING that we must have a SMALL government while at the same time SHOVING their beliefs into BIG government legislation in order to CONTROL women's vaginas is despicable.

 

The bible provides specific instructions on how to perform an abortion and puts a monetary value on a dead fetus.

 

Can we shoe that section to the Pope - he is pretty upset that his home country has passed this legislation

 

Just because the Pope wears a dress and pretty red shoes does not mean that he knows squat about women's rights.

The antipathy of the RCC towards abortion is because they NEED babies born to their believers in order to sustain their numbers.

If religion was treated as a mind altering substance like alcohol and tobacco, thereby making it illegal to expose children under 18 to it, the number of theists in the world would be around 20% at most.

 

Australia is pretty, I was going to say areligious but i think irreligious might be better. Weirdly though it was an American who probably summed up how we think of it best


Heinlein had so many quotations about religion though

He certainly shaped my early thinking

 

Are you saying you believe that "religion" is controlling a "lot of people" today? If so, which religion is that?