Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Wildswanderer]

Of course it is, that is absolutely what anti-choicers are trying to take away, a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body. In favour of the "interests" of an insentient clump of cells.

Absolutely not. The right over your body doesn't extend to another life that is growing inside you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

We are just looking to see if we can at least find some common ground in the case of rape victims - no matter what percentage they account for.

In truth, for me at least, the reason / motivation for why a woman might want an abortion is not important nor relevant.

Human rights are unconditional.
When you require a kidney and I am a match and you ask me to donate a kidney, I get to say "no" without having to explain myself. My body, my choice.

Let's go further with less invasive procedures.
If you are in need of blood, a question of life or death, and I for some reason am the only one with the correct blood type and you ask me to donate blood - I also get to say "no" without having to explain myself. My body, my choice.

Why would a uterus be any different?

Good grief, that's cold.
I guess I don't have to take any vaccines if I don't want to then?
You are not merely failing to offer a kidney, you are killing a living being...the fact that someone has to explain this to you is ridiculous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good grief, that's cold.
I guess I don't have to take any vaccines if I don't want to then?
You are not merely failing to offer a kidney, you are killing a living being...the fact that someone has to explain this to you is ridiculous.

And you still don't understand vaccines. Here is a hint, if you do not understand a concept it is very hard to use that concept in a debate.

 

[Sheldon]

A zygote or blastocyst is not a baby.

right, it's a fetus which is a live being - not dead.

No, a foetus is different to a zygote or blastocyst, none of them are a baby, as you keep falsely asserting.

This is the only exception and is valid because one of them *must* die, so the choice is normal.

You have missed the point, you are accepting that a woman's life is more important than that of an insentient blastocyst, or a developing foetus, thus contradicting your claim they are equal.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And you still don't understand vaccines. Here is a hint, if you do not understand a concept it is very hard to use that concept in a debate.

Ditto for you.

 

[Sheldon]

Because it's not her body that is being terminated.

It is part of her body and reliant on it, and thus her choice. It also happens to be an insentient clump of cells, so not morally equivalent to murdering a sentient human.

And mass shootings? Let's be honest, those people were not needed for society to function, right?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy, and a straw man fallacy, well done.

Why is it wrong to kill post birth people?

Why would you want to?

Why stop at an arbitrary place like being delivered through the birth canal?

Obviously because we do not share your view it is arbitrary, and for all the reasons already offered, insentient blastocyst, topologically connected as part of a woman's body, reliant on her, using her immune system and getting oxygen and nutrients through her blood etc etc. And of course, because to deny a woman bodily autonomy would enslave her.

 

[Sheldon]

The difference is a few months.

Now that is an arbitrary distinction, as it ignores all the facts you don't want to acknowledge, and simply uses one that has little relevance. It's pretty simple, are you saying that a few months is the only difference between a zygote or balstocyst here:

and a baby, here:

Only I don't believe you are being honest here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ditto for you.

Sorry, you have not demonstrated a lack of understanding on my part.. Maybe next time.

 

[ppp]

Why stop at an arbitrary place like being delivered through the birth canal?

Post birth no one is required to use their body to support another person's life. It is you who is arbitrarily applying a different standard before the birth canal.

 

[Sheldon]

You are not merely failing to offer a kidney, you are killing a living being...the fact that someone has to explain this to you is ridiculous.

Pretty sure he meant it as a hypothetical.

 

[Sheldon]

I guess I don't have to take any vaccines if I don't want to then?

Correct, only you have said otherwise?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't need you to tell me it's ok to shoot my annoying neighbor either. See how that works? This isn't about your body.

Bad analogy.

It is absolutely about my body. And my bodily autonomy. Stay out of my doctor's office, like I stay out of yours. Thanks.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why would you want to?

Why would you want to kill them before birth? Why not give them the same chances you had?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Now that is an arbitrary distinction, as it ignores all the facts you don't want to acknowledge, and simply uses one that has little relevance. It's pretty simple, are you saying that a few months is the only difference between a zygote or balstocyst here:

and a baby, here:

Only I don't believe you are being honest here.

One will develop into the other if you don't choose to kill him. If you wouldn't kill the bottom one, you should not kill the other.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Post birth no one is required to use their body to support another person's life. It is you who is arbitrarily applying a different standard before the birth canal.

Lol, no, I'm saying that the same standard applies. So you can have a baby and leave him on the floor to starve? Not. That will get you arrested.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Bad analogy.

It is absolutely about my body. And my bodily autonomy. Stay out of my doctor's office, like I stay out of yours. Thanks.

No it's an accurate analogy. A child is not your body.. she's got her own DNA.

 

[ppp]

Lol, no, I'm saying that the same standard applies. So you can have a baby and leave him on the floor to starve? Not. That will get you arrested.

Providing food doesn't impinge on my bodily rights.
Not the same standard at all.

If your baby needs blood, and your are the only one with the right blood type who can get there in time, you are not legally bound to provide said blood. If your baby needs a liver transplant, and you are the only good match, you are not required to provide your liver.

Not the same standard at all.

You are certainly not pro-life.
You are not even pro-birth.
You are merely pro-gestation. Nothing more.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Providing food doesn't impinge on my bodily rights.
Not the same standard at all.

If your baby needs blood, and your are the only one with the right blood type who can get there in time, you are not legally bound to provide said blood. If your baby needs a liver transplant, and you are the only good match, you are not required to provide your liver.

Not the same standard at all.

You are certainly not pro-life.
You are not even pro-birth.
You are merely pro-gestation. Nothing more.

You are the one saying it's ok not to help your born child stay alive. I guess that makes you pro death.

 

[ppp]

You are the one saying it's ok not to help your born child stay alive. I guess that makes you pro death.

Wow. You had to really stretch and contort for that sentence. Do you want to try again? Maybe you will hit the target next time.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Wow. You had to really stretch and contort for that sentence. Do you want to try again? Maybe you will hit the target next time.

I think if you get pregnant you should take responsibility for that child from conception to the grave if necessary...I don't have a clue what you think.