I also don't feel some sort of need to punish women for having the audacity to enjoy their sex lives.
Defenseless indeed. Taking over several organ systems of an adult human hardly seems defenseless.And it falls on women to take responsibility for the sexual acts they choose to engage in. In the meantime, we need to protect those who are defenseless.
I'm sorry, I just can't find it in me to hate women enough for that.
A baby, as a self-sufficient, detached organism, has every right.Jeez, what about the baby? Nah, it has no right to bodily integrity at all. Flush the little turd outta there.
A ZEF feeding off someone else's livelihood? No.
Because it is clear the woman's rights are so drastically more important.I don't understand why nobody on the pro-choice side even bothers considering the child.
Then why is this doctors act so wrong? He was just waiting a few extra minutes before he killed them, those things, and playing with the sacks of random flesh a bit. It's not different playing with a scab. Hell, we should give him a medal for his enlightened ethical views.
Also, comparing a baby to a tumor? You're so enlightened yourself. We have all these tumors walking around that we, for some reason, feel the need to protect.
Because some people are crazy. Crazy people do all kinds of crazy things.
You're comparing a ZEF to a baby, so I reckon it's only fair.
The women consented when she engaged in an act in which that was a known outcome. Having to pay on your debts is not non-consensual when you agree to the terms. The risk of sex is pregnancy. To act as though a woman entered the act without that knowledge is absurd.
Well that should be intuitively obvious, it's a poor name because there is no such right and never could be.
2. Yeah but it has nothing to do with the child being a human but a being who is part of the social fabric. You are capable of interacting and develop a relationship with this being because it can respond back to you which the unborn can not big difference
3. I would call it murder but it has nothing to do with the child being more human less human sort of thing but a being capable of projecting it's own existence into the future. A being capable of deciding what it could do days from now weeks from now etc should not be killed because this being is experimenting with a life of some sort. Placing direct value on it's own existence will make a obligation to perserve it's life in my book. Rather or not it's human is irrelevent
4. It's ok in my book as the unborn are easily replaceable which is the cold truth
5. It's legal in Russia, Canada, United Kingdom, China, USA etc it isn't just one nation
many posters, many times, with many science, biology, medical and dictionary links have factually proven that you use words incorrectly almost daily (at least on the days you post)
Maybe you should make less hypocritical and intellectually void posts that do not show how severely uneducated you are on this topic.
its a DOCTOR who is, or seems to be VIOLATING and BREAKING LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS and PROTOCOLS.
If true he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest of the law.
as far as what to do about it? not sure. Not sure what all the actual failures are.
oversight org violations or lack or enforcement, letting things slide etc etc