RedHead9
New member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
This, right here, is why we cannot have civil discussions of abortion. You are either ignorantly or callously dismissing the dramatic physiological changes that the fetus imposes upon the mother's body-- the lifelong impacts upon her health and well-being. You would not accept that any human being has the "right" to do this to any other human being against their will, so why are you making such a gross exception to your moral and political philosophy for the sake of a developing fetus? Your argument is morally and logically inconsistent with your principles.
This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The moral underpinnings of your stated political philosophy are logically incompatible with the arguments you are making here. Other peoples' logical and moral inconsistencies have no bearing on this issue, and I would probably be on your side if we were discussing the issues on which most pro-choice people are less in favor of free choice.
This is morally acceptable in self-defense.
This is irrelevant and dishonest. Consent to sexual activity is not the same thing as consent to pregnancy and childbirth.
Other violations of human rights are irrelevant to the violation of human rights you are advocating.
This is morally acceptable in self-defense.
You have not presented any logical and morally consistent argument for why unborn children are an exception to every human being's right to self-defense.
This is laughably false. If you're not going to be honest, I feel no obligation to continue being civil.
I am a pro-choicer. I concede that the unborn child is a human being. I do not and will not "acknowledge" the blatantly false claim that the unborn child's status as a human being gives it rights that undermine the most basic and inalienable rights of the mother. The right to self-defense almost always involves another human being, and the fact that it involves another human being in no fashion invalidates a person's right to defend themselves from unwanted impositions on their body and its functions.
This does not invalidate the woman's continuing right to exercise control over her own body at all times.
It is far more demeaning to her body and self-esteem to deny her the full human rights that every free person is entitled to. The fact that you have the sheer, unmitigated gall to make this argument while you are advocating for slavery is disgusting and offensive.
Self defense is an inadequate response to why a mother is able to murder her child. From a common sense perspective it is obvious that all of us were once at that precious state in our lives. You make that the equivalent to a mother needing to defend her life. Also I never said motherhood wasn't important I only said that abortion ends the life of the child while pregnancy changes the life of the mother.But simply because a baby needs the mothers body doesn't give the mother a right to abort it .A man is not permitted to expose himself in public. Many places have laws against public urination. My hand is part of my body, but I am not free to use it to strike you or steal from you or to hurt an innocent child. The key question is whether what is done with one person's body brings significant harm to others. Clearly, abortion does.