Abortion dialogue I've been having...

[Violet]

And I disagree with you both three Here's something "new(?)" for you (and your post was long... geh...):

1. Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I support the woman's right to choose what she wishes to do with the unborn child, but I don't condone abortions. Just because it's not something I wouldn't choose from my point of view doesn't mean it should be illegal for someone else to do so based on their circumstances.

There is a dissonance here. You say "i don't condone abortions"... and the very next sentence you disagree with yourself. If you do in fact consider an abortion to be 'morally wrong' (or the like), and you allow it to continue: that is condoning it.

2. At what point is this a human rights issue? Conception - If so, are morning after contraceptive pills forms of abortion? Sometime in the term - If so, when?

If we were to call the beginning of anything as the point of manifestation... then we would be doing so in ignorance of what came before it... else it could manifest in the first place?

3. "No Bill of Rights should protect people from natural events, like breathing, eating, or being pregnant. You’re getting ridiculous. "

Would that same Bill of Rights be able to prohibit you from protecting yourself in a potentially harmful situation (medically, socially, economically)?

I see no reason that a bill of rights shouldn't allow people to be protected from such events. One could indeed declare all events natural, even ones that include gods or spirits of sorts. Matthew was being ridiculous for believing otherwise.

And at your statement: a bill of rights should not be designed with the the purpose of declaring what is not right, but what is. However... should that assume the behavior not specified in the bill is not right?

4. If this is primarily a human rights issue and abortion patrons are actively violating rights, what should the penalties be?

This dialogue paints this as a black and white issue, and it is far from that. I contend that it is more gray area than either side is willing to admit.

And I disagree that it is an issue at all. It is an action one does to their own body... are we to disallow people to get haircuts and pierce their body now? And yes, i think of abortion similarly to a haircut to fix a bad hairdo... and care about it as much

Further... why indeed should one getting an abortion care that it be a person/child/human/alive or that it has the potential to be one of those? That sounds almost as if they are willing to allow a parasitic growth in their body to ruin their life simply because it is another person, or might eventually become a person... and that just sounds stupid. I could outline every bit of stupid that not aborting when one wants not to strain their body by having the child... but I think that statement speaks for itself.

Shall I respond to the moron theist too, or just leave it to you?

You have a right to self-defence, and to use fatal force if necessary. But tell me, do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers? As to maternal health, the goal of such a termination is to save the life of the mother, not end the life of the unborn. Socially and economically - there's help in those areas that does not require the termination of the unborn.

...



Idiot... does a working airplane propeller set out to harm someone who sticks their hand into the shimmer? Of course not. Does this mean you should not avoid sticking your hand in it? YOU MORON! I feel like saying the same thing to much of what he says, actually... and i really don't see any 'good points'.

I disagree with his assumption (and apparently your own) that humans cannot be ('justly') killed with 'impunity'. Wether "fully developed", "under-developed", or what have you... if I were pregnant I should think of the parasitic growth as not unlike the angry man with the pointed stick who is trying to stab me.

Do I get a commendation from you for having gotten through your fucking huge post?