Abortion compromise

Nah they aren't human or a human being according to that poster.
A zygote is not human, it lacks too many necessary parts; a working brain for example. Once all the necessary parts have developed, then it is human.
 
Nonsense.
Whether a undeveloped fetus has "rights" has nothing to do with biology.
Wrong, it has everything to do with biology. Biology tells us when human life begins, and thus informs our decisions. It's the pro-choice's denial of biology that fuels their love for killing unborn babies and allows them to not have their conscience bothered.
 
No, no it doesn't. You don't have the right to end a life just because you chose to have sex and consented to the chance that said life could form.

They also thought locusts had 4 legs.
Ah, so you think Jews, who wrote the Bible are dopes.

Having sex should not require the woman to endure a pregnancy and childbirth, and there are plenty of pregnant rape and incest victims as well as women coerced into sex.
 
Ah, so you think Jews, who wrote the Bible are dopes.
Correct. They thought that locusts had 4 legs, thought the smallest seed was the mustard seed, etc..

Having sex should not require the woman to endure a pregnancy and childbirth,
I agree, she has a variety of options, ranging from birth control to fertility monitoring to tying her tubes or her male partner getting snipped.

and there are plenty of pregnant rape and incest victims as well as women coerced into sex.
I've never understood the liberal propensity for breaking out incest from rape. If the incest is between consenting adults who are related(and thus not rape), then there should be no particular need for abortion. Thus the incest being talked about is already rape, so why act like that's an extra category?

In any case it is unfortunate that some women are victimized. But they shouldn't be further victimized by an abortionist, nor should the innocent child.
 
How is that a change of argument.
The argument has always been that women should not be forced to be incubators against their will.
Women can always say no to sex. But now I remember you once said that some women lack the self control to say no
 
How is that a change of argument.
The argument has always been that women should not be forced to be incubators against their will.
The vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience which means they don't want to take responsibility for their actions. Boo hoo. Even if you didn't to break my window you have a responsibility to me. You think killing me is "taking responsibility" for breaking my window. I know you have no idea what I'm talking about because I am taking about morals.
 
Nope.
The dependence of babies on other people is not the same as the dependence of fetuses on their mothers.
Except that both are dependence, which was the point. That they are different dependent situations doesnt mean that one of them isnt dependence.
 
If rights can be denied by govt, then those rights are defined by govt.
You might think you have those rights anyway, but in practice, you do not.
And some rights given by governnent dont actually exist because they are trumped by other rights.
 
Not remotely like that when it comes to abortion.
Choice means just that, the woman gets to choose, and no one's opinion is forced on others.
Dobbs is the opposite allowing states to force all women to follow their dictates.

The Electoral College DOES violate a democratic principles of one person, one vote, and all votes treated equally.
Choices have consequences.
 
Back
Top