Clarifying Question
- Thread starter radvermin
- Start date
Temujin
Well-known member
No.
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
Correct: it is the claim that a woman should have absolute sovereignty over her body. The fetus may or may not be a person, who cares. If the fetus is in the woman's body and she does not want it there--as far as you are concerned, she should have the absolute right to hire someone to surgically murder it (woops! Excuse me. Let me put this euphemistically, that is, as abortion supporters would put it: "It is her absolute right to have a medical procedure done by a qualified MD whereby the doctor performs a surgical procedure called an abortion whereby he or her 'terminates' the pregnancy.") because it is her body. Nothing has the right to be on her body without her consent.
But--as far as you are concerned, "choice" and "sovereignty" over one's body is only absolute when it pertains to the right to have someone surgically murder your offspring. When someone says "I do not want to take a vaccine that I feel has not yet been thoroughly tested" or "I do not want a drug in my body" sovereignty over one's body and choice are out the window. Why? Well, you know, there is this real bad virus going around with teeth born waiting to hurt people. We need to force vaccines on unwilling people in order to protect society. That, and, well, like science, and stuff, dude!
In other words: a bad virus going around with teeth born, waiting to harm people--is a good reason to override sovereignty over one's body---------but--------protecting an innocent, unborn child and their right to exist-------is NOT a good reason to override sovereignty over one's body.
Gotta love liberal abortion supporters. If they didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all.
Last edited:
Temujin
Well-known member
Wrong. Abortion is justified because the woman owns her body and the foetus is not a person. Abortion is not compulsory.
Vaccination is not compulsory either. Both private and public organisations are justified in refusing to deal with those who choose not to vaccinate, because their failure to do so endangers other people. I don't care if you want to commit suicide, unless you choose to do so by blowing yourself up with high explosive in a public place.
Vaccination and abortion have nothing to do with each other and your point merely highlights your ignorance about both subjects.
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
Yes---"ignorance." That is a vintage tactic used by the left to discredit pro-lifers. Just accuse them of being part of the unenlightened masses, too stupid to understand the "nuances" of the debate.
I take that as a left-handed compliment. If you actually had an argument to make, you would make it. you wouldn't have to resort to such tactics.
Abortion is not compulsory? Perhaps not for the woman, but it is compulsory for her unborn child.
Would public and private organizations be justified in refusing to deal with women who have had abortions--since getting an abortion endangers the unborn?
And how does refusing to take a vaccine endanger other people? If I refuse a vaccine, what does that have to do with anyone else? My refusal to take a vaccine----does not hurt anyone. Anyone who wants a vaccine is free to take one. Also, vaccines do nothing to prevent transmission of the big, bad, corona virus anyway. So what does my refusal to take a vaccine--have to do with anyone else?
And by the way--I took three vaccines and plan to get the fourth when allowed. I am not an anti-vaccer. It is just that---I would think abortion supporters who are supposed to be for "choice" and "sovereignty" would laud "choice" when it comes to the vaccine. Why don't you people just admit you aren't really for "choice" or "Sovereignty" just the right to abortion? Why not just admit you are pro-abortion? What is so hard about that? At least then--you would be honest about what it is you really support!
That was the same argument used against blacks.
Temujin
Well-known member
And in the case of blacks, it isn't justified. What's your point? Arguments are justified in some circumstances and not justified in others. You are introducing a strawman.
thanks
thanks
Temujin
Well-known member
You're welcome.thanks
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
That is the same argument used by every nut in history to justify countless atrocities against people they didn't think worthy of rights or protections.
romishpopishorganist
Well-known member
The point---sir----isn't all that difficult to grasp.
The arguments used by abortion supporters (they call those "arguments" do they?) to justify abortion parallel arguments used by every nut in history to justify atrocities against any race, ethnicity, etc, they felt were subhuman and not worthy of rights.
Why can we kidnap a race of people with black skin and make them slaves? They aren't human and therefore aren't worthy of rights.
Why can we kill Jewish people and others in order to fix problems in Germany? Jewish people and others aren't human and therefore aren't worthy of rights.
Why does a woman get to kill her unborn child? An unborn child isn't a child, and therefore human. Thus, unborn children aren't worthy of rights. An unborn child is human--only so long as the mother wills, and or at birth--even even then----there might be wiggle room if the child hasn't taken a breath yet. So maybe at the cutting of the unbiblical cord? Either way---unborn children aren't children--so we get to kill them.
Temujin
Well-known member
Do you actually listen to what those who support abortion rights actually say? I ask because you are grotesquely misrepresenting me and my views.
An argument stands or falls on its own merits. Whether it is applicable in completely different circumstances is neither here nor there. You cannot defeat the argument itself, do you pretend that it is something completely different.
The unborn child is human, obviously, and no one with any sense says anything else. That doesn't make it a person. It is for society to choose when a human being becomes a person with rights. Societies in different times and places make different decisions. We, who live in this time and place may agree or disagree with those various judgements. Your views on morality are very different from mine, but that's fine. What counts is not what is moral, but what is legal. If society decides, as a whole, that abortion should be illegal, then so be it. Until then, it is legal, and I hope it remains do, because I personally think that banning the right to abortion is disgustingly immoral.
If you are willing to debate my actual views on when abortion is justified and why, then let's do so. You will need to learn to do without the army of strawmen and falsehoods that you have deployed thus far.
No, as usual you didnt get it. Your response means it isnt her body her choice but rather her body her choice under certain circumstances.
Now other people die from covid just as other people die from abortion. The offspring is a person, just as a man who calls himself a transwoman isnt a woman but a man.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would suggest we are debating your actual views, especially the ones where you people get hurt more by hearing the truth than killing another human being.
Prove the baby is her body
Temujin
Well-known member
I refer you to the answer I gave in post #2 to the question posed by the OP. I know that it might be a trifle long-winded and difficult for you to understand, but I am happy to explain any sections that you have particular difficulties with. Good luck.
Ok, explain 'no' then
Ok so, a 'no' in response to the original question means the embryo/fetus isnt part of the woman's body. So why do you think pro-choice people say that?