Less punishment for killing when it is inside the womb? (part 2)

Without which none of us would exist.

 

And your point is exactly what? Do you even know what the point of the post you quoted was?

I swear, you anti-abortionist are absolute clodpolls when it comes to defending your stance on abortion. Mostly because you are to afraid to just say it out loud that your position is based on faith and not on logic, but you try to tiptoe around it by making the lousiest of arguments.

Just tell us you believe abortion is wrong "because God said so"... Or if you are not a theist, I guess you are either a blatant misogynist and/or a non-thinking second-hander who just blindly has accepted his favourite podcaster's talking points.

Do you believe in God? If the answer is a yes, this is not the sub for you. Go to the Religion/Philosophy sub. If the answer is no... Well... No words.

 

That has nothing to do with it.


IT IS STILL HARMFUL and YOU claimed it wasn't. Can you admit you were wrong?

 

No, those are facts of life. Everything in life is burdensome to one degree or another. But we don't whine about it and say it is too much to bear. A contract is a contract. Intimacy and pleasure on the upfront as an invitation to conception is a binding contract to see it thru to fruition. What part of that is incomprehensible to you. It called being responsible.

 

You make no sense. You have not followed or addressed my string of posts, but refer to me as "you anti abortionists". And who said anything about God or religion? I merely took issue with the absurd notion that conception following intimacy is an assault upon a woman which supposedly justifies abortion. If you wish to bring God into the discussion, be my guest.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
That has nothing to do with it.


IT IS STILL HARMFUL and YOU claimed it wasn't. Can you admit you were wrong?

.

Yes, what I posted about pregnancy are FACTS...pregnancy causes women harm.

.



SHOW the LEGAL contract that says if a woman has sex and gets pregnant she must give birth.

No, it isn't.

So you can't admit you were wrong....


IF someone is harming you , you have the right to stop the harm….and , sadly for you, women also have that right....

 

You are joking, right? I carefully responded to your lengthy and contentless post with very clear quotations and paragraphs and addressed everything said in each of them. Is this all you have to say?

Well, I prefer to call a spade a spade and since you very obviously are an anti-abortionist, I refer to you as such. I cannot call you Pro-Life because by opposing abortion, you oppose life. I addressed you by the label you deserve.

I kmow and that is a big problem. Stop avoiding the question; Do you believe in God? Yes or no?

Who said that conception following intimacy is an assault upon a woman?

 

Everything? Really? I strongly disagree and think you have a very negative view of life and could need some introspection to check your premises.

Life is not suffering,

In most cases, intimacy is actually an invitation to pleasure. It is only an invitation to conception if the loving couple in question want to concieve. You really do not understand consent, do you?

Even in the cases where "the contract" is one of "let's have kids" it is more likely to end with an orgasm (at least for the man) than with conception. You have to write many such contracts to concieve.

Why are you so opposed to sexual pleasure anyways? I think it is a truly beautiful act.

 

Would it be okay to kill that same fetus if it were outside the womb?
(in your personal opinion)

 

You mean if there was a futiristic technology where we could grow babies in boxes?

 

You do realize they're killing now even in cases where the baby does have a chance of surviving outside of the womb?

I don't want to unfairly deflect the main discussion topic with that, but that should be pointed out.

 

Then don't deflect it or at least be clear with what you are saying. Right now you are being very vague and I sense you are playing "gotcha" with me, so I refuse to answer your questions.

 

No, "they're " not.

 

+++++++++++++

 

Does the argument ultimately come down to one of gestational development?

Is that what you are saying?

Or are you saying we're all a bunch of "clodpolls" for supporting equal human rights, when it comes to a category of disenfranchised human beings?

 

In 2021, the only place in which a fetus can grow is in the womb of a woman, so that is all that really matters.

If you want that which is not a human being to be granted equal human rights you are indeed a clodpoll.

 

Anti-Choicers do NOT support equal human rights ! They steadfastly support ZEFs having more , or superior, rights than the women they are in …

They support destroying women's HUMAN right to bodily autonomy...

 

A woman has every right not to get pregnant.

Let's face it, FoxHastings, even you are willing to take rights away from women. The question is simply a matter of when.

 

Hypothetical arguments can still be very useful to analyze things logically.

(singling out certain aspects of the issue in isolation, that you could not do in a real life situation, which can be more complicated)

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
They support destroying women's HUMAN right to bodily autonomy...

What TF has that got to do with Anti-Choicers trying to destroy women's right to bodily autonomy by attempting to ban abortion?
Which proves you so WRONG when you say , """we're all a bunch of "clodpolls" for supporting equal human rights"""

You don't.

I don't have to "face it" because it's not true (big surprise(not), you posted something not true )

 

and all of it meaningless....if you can't use facts and reality, you lose.

 

Only if they actually make sense. I have replied to many such hypotheticals and none of them are very tricky at all.

 

It seems like you are making your definition of "human being" contingent upon whether it can survive on its own, independent from another human being.

If that is the case, we have entered semantic argument territory.

 

Seems like you are conceding that your logic will not work in certain hypothetical situations.
Why is that?

Are you still confident the logic you are using is actually fully correct and beyond reproach?

 

I was simply referring to you recognising that abortion should be restricted after a certain developmental time table.