If he is right than freedom and any rights of the body to do the act goes out the window by default as you can't practice your rights when they violate the rights of another as to put it simply the right doesn't exist.
Not at all. If they are out for the baby and recognize rights are universal across all people they could be seen as the good guys. Either way, calling your opponent a horrible person is uncalled for.Abolishing free choice for women is something bad so people who promote that are bad people with regard to that. They might be nice guys for the rest but on that issue they are the bad guys.
Yes, it is my opinion that such rhetoric is completely unwelcome and irrelevant.It is your opinion that the abortion debate has nothing to do with freedom of choice and the right to determine what happens in their/to the own bodies.
The "bad guys" are abortionists - contract killers - and their clients. You pro-abortion folks are just their enablers, in part through permitting the unjust legal status quo to continue, and in part through spreading disinformation.Abolishing free choice for women is something bad so people who promote that are bad people with regard to that. They might be nice guys for the rest but on that issue they are the bad guys.
The pro-abortion folks on forums usually aren't "the bad guys" or even the ones intelligent enough to be deliberately deceptive. They're just selling Planned Parenthood's propaganda without a lick of critical thinking.
A woman does not have the right to have an abortion of the fetus is too far along, I do not disagree with that, the SCOTUS does not agree with that and I am sure that most pro-choice advocates do not agree with allowing the abortion of a 24 week old fetus. Just because there is a zygote in the body of a woman does not mean she should loose the right to decide what is going to happen to that zygote IMHO. That is what pro-choice is about, letting women decide what they want (within reason)
That is merely a time argument, not a biological argument. If we are to decide on such important matters on subjective things like this than I could go with whatever I decide is important based on whatever I want.A woman does not have the right to have an abortion of the fetus is too far along, I do not disagree with that, the SCOTUS does not agree with that and I am sure that most pro-choice advocates do not agree with allowing the abortion of a 24 week old fetus.
Privacy is a different issue that deals more with how you go about laws on the matter and not so much what the debate is actually about.I disagree, other people deciding what should happen to another persons privacy and body on the basis that she has a few extra cells in her body that could grow into a baby is a bad thing.
Well if they decide to violate the privacy of people to enforce laws I can see your point.And I said they were bad people with regard to that thing, I did not say they were horrible people.
What you consider legal and morally permissable is up to you and very subjective. Also, the current situation is already that not all choices are legal and it is not the law to determine the morality of people, the law is to determine what is and isn't legal. That most things that are legally forbidden are also morally wrong is logical, but not an absolute fact.
Waterboarding according to the law is not illegal but imho it is immoral where as cannabis use is illegal even in your own home but IMHO it is not immoral.
Pro-choice does not promote abortion but only promotes the freedom for women to have a free choice about what happens in and to their bodies (within the legal limits).
All the anti-abortinists are doing is selling the pro-life/catholic church propaganda without a lick of critical thinking.