And the early version of abortion wasn't part of a country's health system, was it? Abortions in the cave for example. So if abortion was removed from today's health system, but not made illegal, then there should be no problems. Women would still be able to do what they want with their body. It didn't exist with the first humans did it!
That was women exercising their bodily autonomy. I would have said that it should be perfectly legal for any woman to do that. It still should be if any woman was to go down that path.
You seem to be under the impression that I said, the only reason that people enjoy sex now is because of modern technology. And how exactly would the pill have changed any of that?
I clearly do as I have been in lengthy exchange with Charles gfm7175 Darwin for several pages and a couple of days now. You seem to like me too.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the crime isn't, 'taking away a woman's right to choose!' Can you support this claim, that it was a "sop to the Anti-Choicers?"
FoxHastings said: ↑ Ask those who passed the laws ….but I suspect it had to do with placing more serious charges against a criminal who takes away a woman's right to choose (killing her fetus)… I never said it was... Nope, not without research... it's just part of the history which I know and you don't.... and whether you believe it or not hardly matters.. but they would've fought harder if abortion was allowed to full term......and it didn't matter anyway...
I have no idea what you're talking about. You posted: """""chris155au said: ↑ In this case, it WAS literally all about me, as the claim related to me."""" And I answered sarcastically: Oh, of course it was
First of all, I am not a chat-bot who can answer posts the second they are posted. Secondly, I was not quiet, I answered the simple yes-or-no-question you asked with a yes. It needs no argument. See, the reason none of you anti-abortionists have been able to address your opponents' points is because you all live on the Internet and think reality is a meme. You think that those who are for abortion are just NPCs who just repeat "her body, her choice", so when you are confronted by reality and face actual arguments, you have no real way of dealing with them. The only thing you are left to do is to ask a couple of trick-questions and then say "Ha-ha! Told you it is murder!" after your opponent agrees that a human fetus is not the fetus of a dolphine. Here are couple of serious, non-tricks-questions for anti-abortionists to answer: 1. What are rights? 2. Do different rights apply to different individuals? Can the rights of one individual conflict with those of another? 3. Who does your life and body belong to? 4. What is 'murder'? 5. Should man subordinate himself to procreation? 6. What is your stance on "morning-after-pills" -- Do they differ from abortion and if yes, how? 7. Should medical advancements be ignored in favour of biology? 8. Do you recognise that an embryo and a fetus are completely dependent on the life, health and diet of the woman carrying it? 9. Do you recognise there is a difference between potential and actual? 10. What should the punishment for abortion be? Do I expect any serious attempts at answering even one of these questions? No. But, hopefully I can at least help you think.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yup, protection, NOT rights.... Uh, because it has value. Animals have no rights but some are protected because they have value....if a person kills a protected animal it's a crime. A house has no rights but is protected because it has value...if an arsonist burns one down they are committing a crime. Sad that that had to be explained but maybe you will learn the difference between "protection" and "rights".
And if you interpreted it that way you would be interpreting it incorrectly and only to suit your agenda. Yes, he does... """""You've gone all quiet again. Run out of arguments?"""""
As we have seen throughout this thread, anti-abortionists are quick to make the most ridiculous package-deals that do not really have anything to do with the topic of abortion such as "Lol, you support abortion, so you are a Democrat, how can you be against guns but for abortion?" (this one was actually made by a poster) So, allow me to do something similar that actually makes sense and actually relates to the topic; You are often very quick to - and rightfully so - argue against any proposition of "government handouts" -- The right to property, does not mean that you have the right be handed property. Now, how come the right to life means you have the right to be handed life? Pregnancy is "basically" a tax on the mother to redistribute health and life from her to the fetus. (A willing pregnancy, however, is voluntary and is more like charity). ... Just sayin'.
This forum is in desperate need of a minimum word-count for posts. I do not mean to be rude, but you provide nothing to the discussion. Thankfully, there are anti-abortionists who at least actually engage in the discussion.
I think you're confusing issues here. But, let's at least recognize that there are millions of Americans who can't afford a health care policy. And, there are health care insurance offerings from companies who don't cover abortion. Besides, Canada pays for it fully through their health care system and they have a lower abortion rate than we do. By the time humans became fully conscious of self it's quite possible that they recognized ways of controling their futures in this way.
Legislatures can make pretty much any act a crime and they can call their new crime anything they want. As long as they can get it past the courts, they're golden. Abortion related laws vary by state.
The fact that women had such a serious need that in significant numbers they risked their very lives in that way is CYSTAL CLEAR evidence of how important it is that our health care professionals are involved. The very idea that YOU want to subject humans to this kind of suffering is absolutely disgusting - it's moral depravity.
What anti-abortionists do not realise is that their assault on the right to abortion poses a threat to individual rights as such because rights form an unity which means threatenning one is to threaten all of them. A woman's right to control her own body logically connects to every other right including those in the economic sphere. A ban on abortion means a ban on volumtary, economic exchange; doctors, nurses, pharmacists, insurance companies researchers, you, me and everyone will have our rights to trade and production violated. And for what? For the sake of protecting a potential life. A boyfriend assisting his girlfriend to get medical help would be a criminal. The doctor/provider would be a criminal. If the government is handed the power to ban or restrict one type of medical service, it sanctions bans and regulations on every other sphere of the health-care system and broader economy. And for what? For the sake of protecting a potential life. Young people would be afraid to seek out relationships because of fear of committing the crime of falling in love and sharing an intimate experience with each other. The convenience store owner will face jail time for committing the crime of selling condoms. Everyone would be forced to live in fear. And for what? For the sake of protecting a potential life. What is perhaps most dangerous about this is that a ban or restriction on abortion opens up the door of the State to the Church. Legislation will now be based not on observable facts but on divine revelation. When these people are seated in legislative positions and mix with the other nutjob social-conservatives, we will soon be brought back to the Dark Ages. And for what? For the sake of protecting a potential life. You can sit there and say "aBoRtIoN iS mUrDeR" and "pRo ChOiCeRs wAnT sOcIaLiSm" all you want, but remember that the day your demands to ban abortion becomes reality, your whole life will have been banned too. ... And for what? I guess it is all fine though because embryos are, afterall, homosapiens.
This is why no one should never grant them the label "Pro Life" because that is such a contradiction to what they actually stand for. A lot of you do good in calling them "Anti-Choice" instead, but "Anti-Life" is much more fitting. Or maybe even "Anti-Rights". The only thing they are pro is God, suffering, force and pain.
Incoming roflol-emoji and a comment along the lines of "so what you are saying is that condoms have more rights than a human fetus?" in 5, 4, 3, 2...
