To the anti-abortion people, a question...

So funny when someone equates a 1/10 of an ounce embryo as a child. ..leaves out the word POTENTIAL

 

So you equate babies to trees? Prime example of dehumanizing.

 

Is a child outside the womb with incurable cancer a "potential" adult but not afforded the same rights cause they could possible die before reaching that stage in life? I mean seriously, why do you consider abortion the termination of a baby in womb acceptable because there is a chance it may die before birth? What makes the baby any better protected outside the womb than inside which gives it more privileges? Fact is, everyone, from the time you are conceived, will die eventually. And to put a reasonable excuse on why you have the right to kill them at a certain time based on what you think their quality of life will be, their viability is, or convenience of the mother can be is inexcusable.

 

Oh please! She was making an analogy...look it up...and look up "potential".

There is no reason to "dehumanize" anything ...abortion kills a human fetus and NO one has ever denied that.


However, Anti-Choicers wish to dehumanize women by making them nothing more than broodstock.

 

That wasn't the point, you are way off the mark.


The fetus has NO rights. Once it's BORN it then has rights.

 

Firstly...a "Baby" is a born human, we have other terms for the unborn.
Secondly…."privilege" (rights) are endowed upon each individual human in this country but a ZEF is not an individual yet.
Finally...what YOU find inexcusable is your own opinion and is best kept to yourself.

 

Since when did a one year old have the same rights as a 20 year old?

Are they allowed to vote?

Drive a car?

Smoke?

 

Democrats used state's rights as an excuse for slavery. Now they argue women's rights to murder babies. Same playbook to justify atrocities.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Not quite sure what you're asking mainly because abortion and murder are two different things ….

Could you rephrase?

(BTW, abortions have been going on for thousands of years, not just the last 45)


No, there's a law against slavery because it is wrong...didn't you know that?

It was wrong because it took away people's right to their own bodies.

Taking away women's right to their own bodies IS slavery......good to know you know it isn't right..

.


WTF ? What state has slavery? See, the big bolded sentence above? Slavery is against the law....try to keep up with the current century..

No, no one does that.

And, like all Anti-Choicers you have no proof they do.

OK, you think that slavery was an atrocity.

Slavery took away people's right to their own bodies.


That is EXACTLY what you want to do to women.

WHY isn't THAT an atrocity? Because it's ONLY women you want to do it to???

 

Well then I guess slavery wasn’t abuse because even back then abuse was illegal.

 

No, slavery was slavery. You know where nasty people take away the rights of others to their own bodies, exactly like Anti-Choicers wish to do to women...

 

Let's say you give your genetic material to a gene bank and they tell you that they have a match. They say your match needs a kidney and will die without your kidney. They also tell you the patient has microcephaly and would never wake up. Must you give him the kidney? Would the decision be different if the patient would fully recover and be normal? Must you give a kidney to that person?

 

Crickets?

 

Being ignored because of trolling??

 

No, the questions are too hard.

 

It’s called an analogy.

 

Remember one thing those Democrats became Republicans

 

Let's just say your great great grandfather six times removed, committed murder but was found innocent. Then a ship sunk in the Indian Ocean that was carrying Latin spices to Egypt. Would ducks still taste like beef enchilada from Turkey?

 

A question directed to the "pro-life" people and answered with nonsense. You must be pro-choice.

 

idk. If good journalists were able to come out with live footage of toddlers being murdered and get it on the nightly news the holocaustic facilities probably wouldn't stand long.

Of course if abortions were shown on the nightly news with the counting of the little body parts on a tray that might derive the same result.

 

It was meant to ridicule the convoluted and nonsensicle nature of your question, that said....your answer is NO.

 

Its called comparing human babies to baby trees. You dehumanize all you want, I am going to stick with facts.

 

So you are going to call them fetuses and acorns now?

 

Why did Southern conservative Christians hate balck people so much?

 

Amazing how many people can not seem to figure out the difference between a single human cell (the zygote) and a living human.