Lots of words yet nary a justification for how it is any of your business what a woman chooses to do with her body

Slavery is wrong

Removing an unwanted leech is not wrong

Honest question here... At what point in a pregnancy do you believe abortion should no longer performed for personal/economic reasons?

#44 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Up to and including when the cord is cut, I will even compromise and allow for the exiting of the birth canal.

Otherwise it is none of your ------- business.

Why do you not trust women to make their own decisions regarding their bodies?

"Slavery is wrong"

Duh. But a lot of people tried to justify it by denying slaves were human beings. Because it was "generally accepted" at the time.

"Removing an unwanted leech is not wrong"

Scott Peterson agrees.

#55 | Posted by sentinel

And you're justifying slavery by insisting women carry an unwanted foreign entity through childbirth at risk to the woman's life and health.

Christ, you're dumb

scott Peterson was not the woman carrying the fetus.
Can you comprehend the difference?

If you want to argue that not all human beings deserve human rights, go for it. Just stop with this nonsense that pretending it's not a human being because you don't want to face the fact of what you're really advocating.

#52 | Posted by sentinel

Yet you refuse and/or are incapable of explaining why it is any of your business.

"And you're justifying slavery by insisting women carry an unwanted foreign entity through childbirth at risk to the woman's life and health."

I have done either of those things. You're hallucinating.

"Christ, you're dumb"

That's the second time today that someone called me Christ. I must be a saviour now.

#58 | Posted by sentinel

Then what is the point of your argument, if you are not advocating the abolition of the right to bodily autonomy?

From Peterson's POV, his wife and unborn child were leeches, and he didn't think it was wrong to remove them.

#60 | Posted by sentinel

Only a moron would need to be explained how murder is wrong and against the law.

From his point of view it wasn't murder. He probably saw it as a right to self-determination.

#63 | Posted by sentinel

And who gives a ----? Seriously, who gives a ---- as to what Peterson was thinking?

That has nothing to do with what a woman chooses to do with her own body.

Hey, I get it, you're not smart, you're dumb.

You can't understand the difference between a man killing a pregnant woman who wanted to keep a fetus and a woman terminating an unwanted pregnancy. I get it, that is too complex for you.

You have yet to explain why a woman doing something to her body is any of your business.

And to clarify your stupidity.

You think you are making some sort of profound point that a zygote, fetus or embryo are part of the cycle of creating a human being.

That is well, basic basic basic.

You thinking you are making a point with it is dumb, dumb, dumb.

You have been challenged to defend a point beyond the most obvious thing, yet you refuse.

One can only conclude that you agree that what a woman does with her body is none of your ------- business.

Once again you refuse to justify or explain your position.

Yes, a zygote, embryo and fetus are the precursor to a human being.

No one is denying that fact. The fact that you think you are being profound by stating this obvious fact just shows how stupid you are.

What you are being asked is what makes it any of your business what a woman chooses to do with her body?

You refuse to answer that question, because even as stupid as you are, you realize the implications of inserting yourself in that decision making process.

FWIW the 2 things cannot be reconciled.

If you believe a human being has the right to life at all stages then abortion at any stage, even the morning after pill or for even killing the worst serial killers is not permissible. That necessitates forcing women into slavery to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, even raped women or 10-year-old children, even if the pregnancy will kill the woman. And THAT opens the door to forced organ donation to save lives, forced participation in medical studies, forced vaccinations, and a whole host of other actions i would bet you would find objectionable.

The only moral option is to recognize the incongruity of a prebirth and a post birth entity and putting the pregnant person in a place of complete supremacy.

but, again, I don't expect you to understand.

It's just a reflection on it's not that easy to believe in the sanctity of my own unborn children but then take the attitude of "none of my ------ business" when it's not.

#72 | Posted by eberly at 2025-01-05 02:08 PM | Reply

You can care all you want, but that does not make it your business.

At what point should a society insert itself in a woman's pregnancy? That is the essential question.

Any option comes with inherent hypocrisy (unless you take a position to an extreme).

It is actually quite simple though; a woman should not be forced into indentured servitude against her will. A woman should not have to give up her life or health for an unwanted fetus.

Because any other position puts the woman at risk and into labor against her will, that is an irrefutable outcome of a "pro-life" stance.

Therefore, the only moral choice, and the only logical choice for a society is to leave the decision to the person primarily involved.

An unborn entity is NOT equivalent to a living breathing human being, full stop.

his was a basic tenet of Feudalism for centuries. It was considered moral and logical for land-lords to have complete supremacy over everything and everyone on the property they owned. What they did to them was none of anybody's business. A peasant was not considered equivalent to a full human being, full stop.

That's your argument. You know it's weak and problematic, which is why you're lashing out like a child ferociously attacking anyone who criticizes it.

#77 | Posted by sentinel

Wrong.

I acknowledge the inherent issue with terminating a pregnancy, it is the termination of potential life and a human being in it's developing state.

It is without a doubt moral to value the woman over the unborn. That should not even be questioned.

Therefore, the ONLY moral option is to leave the choice with the woman, otherwise an outside entity is valuing the unborn/potential human being over that of a living breathing person.

That is how the ethical question resolves until such time as the unborn can grow from fertilization to outside of the womb permanently without necessitating the need for a woman's body.

If you do not agree with me, you are for:

1. Forced labor-i.e. slavery
2. A rapist's rights over a rape victim's rights.
3. A woman being a second-class citizen.
4. Forced organ donation
5. Forced participation in medical studies
6. Forced vaccinations

Deny it all you want, that is the obvious moral endpoint of valuing the unborn over a living human being. In point of fact, the unborn now has MORE rights than the living breathing human being

?

Really?

What do you call forcing a person to labor without pay and against their will?

A rapist can impregnate a woman and require that woman to bear his child. That is the definition of a rapist's rights over the victim's rights.

Women would, by definition, have less rights than a man. Full Stop.

You do realize that forcing a woman to carry a fetus forces them to give up their organs, you get that right? Or where else does the fetus reside? On top of that, women OFTEN lose the ability to have children when forced to keep an unviable pregnancy.

That is the next logical step. A person MUST forgo their own bodily autonomy for another. The next step is forcible participation in medical studies. You do realize that happened before, right?

Again, if you don't have bodily autonomy, you are subject to the authority of the state vis a vis vaccines.

These aren't even controversial opinions.

You are equating the value of a living human being with an unwanted zygote

I find that incredibly immoral

Dumbass wants it both ways. You can't force a woman to carry a rape fetus to term and it NOT be slavery

You're just too dumb to understand

It is immoral to force a 12 year old child to care the results of ------ to term

I can honestly say that is objective truth

You don't think it is immoral because you hold the unwanted zygote to hold the same value as the child

That is not a strawman. That happened and is happening

A functioning and moral society would do all in its power to protect and help heal that child

Pro lifers choose different

"Let's make vasectomies mandatory for any man who wishes to engage in recreational sex."

WCPGW? Society used to forcibly sterilize both genders of certain groups of people to prevent unwanted pregnancies, especially if they were known engage in recreational sex. How would you prevent similar abuse with your proposal?

#88 | Posted by sentinel

Yet magically there is no abuse in the forced birth system?

You know very well that no one here has advocated for this.

#91 | Posted by sentine

I know no such thing

You are, apparently, attempting to equate the value of a living breathing human being with an unborn zygote.

The logical end conclusion is forcing a 12 year old victim of ------ to carry the rape fetus to term. Which is a real life example of your philosophy in action.

If you are not saying they have equal value, then welcome pro-choice abortions for all side of the aisle.

Again, what point are you making? Do you think your argument is profound?

I understand the difference between a living breathing human being and a fetus, do you?

Are you equating the value of a living breathing human being and a fetus?

Again, what is your point.

Since anyone can add arbitrary qualifiers to define what a human being is, you can't prove that an infant is any more of a human being than a zygote. Young children contribute nothing to society and are just parasites. To use your terminology, they're just potential humans until they can live on their own.

Using your logic, Smith and Peterson made individual health decisions that were none of anybody's business.

#98 | Posted by sentinel

You are not a good debater. You post nonsense and the incredibly obvious and you reach no conclusions or strawman conclusions.

"Since anyone can add arbitrary qualifiers to define what a human being is, you can't prove that an infant is any more of a human being than a zygote."

What is the point of stating this?

"Young children contribute nothing to society and are just parasites."

What is the point of stating this?

"To use your terminology, they're just potential humans until they can live on their own."

Wbat is the point of stating this?

"Using your logic, Smith and Peterson made individual health decisions that were none of anybody's business."

I have already stipulated that a zygote, embryo and fetus are part of the cycle in creating a human being.

I have already stated that I believe that the dividing line when society should impose it's laws is after the birth of the entity.

Therefore, you are categorically wrong in stating that using my logic those were individual health decisions. Full Stop.

Those actions constitute murder. Full Stop

I have also explained my reasoning, that the implementation of limitations on abortion, results in the oppression of people who can get pregnant (forced labor, forced organ donation, etc. to say nothing of the secondary but no less important impacts like limitations to choice they have in other aspects of their lives). These negative impacts are unavoidable due to the inherent nature of the abortion restrictions.

And since those negative impacts exist it is morally indefensible to place those restrictions on people who can get pregnant.

You apparently are not intelligent enough to understand what I am explaining (in great detail)