You could've explained why instead of continually running and evading. """"Yes, you want to give the fetus more rights than the woman it's in. NO person has the right to use another's body to sustain their life. May I FORCE you to donate your heart so I can have a transplant? No. YOU want to take away women's right to bodily autonomy and FORCE them to give birth. That is PURE emotion, no fact or law or science has touched your opinion"""
This is precisely the reason I claim no government should have the authority to force a woman to use her body to form another person against her will. We can identify the point in the third trimester when meaningful brain activity is possible, and I can believe at that point the fetus could be more than an empty vessel. Fortunately the fetus should be viable by that time as well. What is your justification for demanding that a woman must act as incubator before the fetus is inhabited by a sentient mind, or spirit, or soul if you prefer?
I think pretty much everybody objecting to my point of view has entirely missed the point I made. It has nothing to do with being sentient or viability inside or outside the womb--no human is 'viable' without intense care from other humans for some time after birth. But my point is that we all must go through every stage of development inside the womb before we have any chance to be viable ever. So to say that development in the first weeks is any less important to the human being than later development in the womb is just silly. It is all important. It is all necessary in order for humans to have any chance to reach their full potential.
We are not discussing the worth of all life on this thread so let's just focus on human life for now. For everybody's information, I was using birth control two of the three times I got pregnant. But it never occurred to me to kill those babies however inconvenient they were, and they were extremely inconvenient at the time they decided to join our world.
I do not see abortion as authority granted to the federal government. But that is another discussion separate from a choice to kill a developing life. - - - Updated - - - Insert the same post you quoted here. I do hate repeating myself.
Where did I say that? Are you capable of debating without hurling insults or getting nasty? BTW, I am not in your country, thank fecking god.
That was your choice, and even though I may disagree with it, I would never take it away from you. *I* will most likely abort any time my contraception fails and that is *my* choice.
Ya, those facts and inconvenient questions ARE hard to face....but they are for all Anti-Choicers.. If you hate repeating yourself try LEARNING something and you won't have to repeat the same old tripe....
Here, I'll fix it for you so you can think of some other excuse not to face facts Well, ya you did, not in those exact words but you posted them. And if a woman is in a car accident you believe she shouldn't get medical aid because she risked driving....I assume you would deny yourself medical aid if you risked driving a car and were in an accident.... Women who have abortions when the don't want or can't afford a kid ARE acting responsibly just not YOUR Royal Decree of what is "responsibility. Unfortunately for you women DO have rights. Yet you insist that a fetus is more important than the woman it's in! Grab a history book or newspaper and learn how silly that idea is... Yup, it is.... Uh, that's the point....and if you want to think of every single fetus that is aborted every minute of every day you won't get much done... I understand you, you don't like abortion and because YOU don't like abortion nobody should have free choice to have one......how totally uninteresting and meaningless
Isn't it nice you had a CHOICE and no one forced you to have an abortion??? I can see where you might be mad at women who could and did sensibly remove the inconvenience.
You don't respond to "chopped up " posts (posts with quotes that everyone uses) and you don't respond to my other posts either. If there's no point rehashing what you posted why don't you stop? OR respond??
Your reasoning is based on a false premise, and that is that it is a good thing for ALL human life to "have a chance to reach their full potential." It is not advantageous to society as a whole for every conceived zef to be gestated to birth, and it is not advantageous to the individual women with unwanted pregnancies. As for advantage to the zef, it neither knows nor cares since it doesn't have a brain to know or care with. No one, at least very very few, would consider that a woman should attempt to get pregnant every month because there are hundreds of human egg lives being killed and wasted. No one, at least very very few, want to limit or regulate invitro fertilization because already conceived embryoes are being discarded. Now, you mentioned that it is important to you that all humans have a "chance to reach their full potential." Now that sounds good, but I have not seen any pro-lifers actually support programs that help accomplish that, such as improving public schools by offering more and better classes with a lower pupil-teacher ratio, improve childhood nutrition by improving school lunches and breakfasts and nutrition classes for parents, easier access to higher education such as free college tuition including vo-tech schools, etc. No, pro-lifers across the board oppose such programs.
"They decided to join our world" is a major flaw in reasoning since a zef cannot make any such decision. Describing the zef as having that capability is anthropomorphic , it is giving them characteristics they do not possess in order to make them seem more like already born people instead of recognizing the differences. There is a difference between "inconvenient" and "impossible." Describing gestation and birth as "inconvenient" is a gross understatement, and since even wanted pregnancies are "inconvenient" for a woman, it is a distortion of truth.
It is a fact that all of us have gone through that stage, but it is also a fact that no fertilized egg is guaranteed that it will complete the process. You must have a compelling reason to justify forcing OTHER people to accept YOUR "religious" belief that every fertilized egg has the right to complete that process. I call it a "religious" belief because you offer no scientific evidence to support it. If that other person believes the spirit will enter the fetus near the end of the third trimester, you have no right to force them to follow YOUR "religious" belief that every single zygote must be incubated by every pregnant woman.
So (leaving all other life forms out of this discussion) what is the basis of your belief that every pregnant woman is obligated to incubate every fertilized egg? If you take a naturalist view, you must realize that nature itself offers no guarantee for ANY species. If you take a Christian view, you must realize that even God has destroyed the unborn in some cases. What is the basis for your belief that OTHER women must be forced to follow your "sanctity of human life" doctrine?
I did not say that it is a good thing for all human life to have a chance to reach its full potential. Nor have I argued that it is important to me that all humans have a chance to reach their full potential. I have not tried to convince you or anybody else that you are wrong in any way. I have not judged a single person here. I have not personally insulted anybody here which is a whole lot more than I can say for most who have addressed me personally on this topic. I have simply made my argument that there is no stage of pregnancy less important to a developing human being than any other stage. I have simply made my argument that the aborted baby is a human life. I do not want a society that considers any human life expendable purely because it is inconvenient. That's all.
Blue bolding above, mine. You seem to have said just that. You: "" I do not want a society that considers any human life expendable purely because it is inconvenient.""" That's how "society" has always been.
In that case, I hope you will not interfere with women who feel that they have the right to evaluate their own beliefs and circumstances and make their own decisions about their own bodies and their own pregnancies. I have stated my own beliefs and I ask a lot of questions here on this forum because I do not presume I am right about everything. I want to understand how pro-lifers justify the actions they take to interfere with the free will of other individuals.
I do not want a society that considers women's lives less important than a zef's. I do not want a society that forces women to gestate, birth, and rear children against their own wishes. Convenience is a 7-11, convenience does not apply to pregnancy or rearing children in any way.
You mean women who were born to make new life by their very biology have 'no obligation' to society at all? Go live on a desert island by yourself then. Good luck with that.
