NationStates Jolt Archive

*snip*

OOTS avatar love! :D

OOTS avatar love! :D

*inscribes glyph of insanity on a bouncy ball*

*tosses it at you*

Love indeed :p

But that's irrelevant either way. Even if the embryo/fetus were alive and fully human (and afforded rights guaranteed to human beings) abortion would still have to be legal, regardless of the moral whims of religious folks.
It's the wonderful thing about this debate.

Therein lies the conflict - there are many who would try to outlaw abortion (who DO, in fact) based entirely on their personal viewpoints, and in complete disregard to any other factors. They'll ignore the inherent risk of illegal abortion, they'll ignore the ramifications of subourning the 'mother' to the offspring - whatever it takes to push their agenda.

That's why it's so important to kick them to the kerb on EVERY level. Give them an inch, they'll declare it a sovereign entity with rights that supercede your own.

Therein lies the conflict - there are many who would try to outlaw abortion (who DO, in fact) based entirely on their personal viewpoints, and in complete disregard to any other factors. They'll ignore the inherent risk of illegal abortion, they'll ignore the ramifications of subourning the 'mother' to the offspring - whatever it takes to push their agenda.

That's why it's so important to kick them to the kerb on EVERY level. Give them an inch, they'll declare it a sovereign entity with rights that supercede your own.

Yeah, but all they're doing is shooting themselves in the foot. Once you acknowledge that an unborn entity's right to life supercedes the right to bodily autonomy of the potential mother, and that the unborn entity is a full-fledged human being, you've opened the door to the abrogating of the right to bodily autonomy of anyone when those rights must be sidestepped to protect someone else's right to life.
Legal theft of organs, for one.

*inscribes glyph of insanity on a bouncy ball*

*tosses it at you*

Love indeed :p

*kicks bouncy ball over to Belkar instead, since that can't do him any harm* :tongue:

Yeah, but all they're doing is shooting themselves in the foot. Once you acknowledge that an unborn entity's right to life supercedes the right to bodily autonomy of the potential mother, and that the unborn entity is a full-fledged human being, you've opened the door to the abrogating of the right to bodily autonomy of anyone when those rights must be sidestepped to protect someone else's right to life.
Legal theft of organs, for one.

Ah yes, but you're thinking logic, in the face of a theoretically theological argument... and one that can't even be corroborated...

If they're willing to accept that kind of mindfuck, mere logic stands no chance.

Ah yes, but you're thinking logic, in the face of a theoretically theological argument... and one that can't even be corroborated...

If they're willing to accept that kind of mindfuck, mere logic stands no chance.

Fair point. Regrettably.

Yeah, but all they're doing is shooting themselves in the foot. Once you acknowledge that an unborn entity's right to life supercedes the right to bodily autonomy of the potential mother, and that the unborn entity is a full-fledged human being, you've opened the door to the abrogating of the right to bodily autonomy of anyone when those rights must be sidestepped to protect someone else's right to life.
Legal theft of organs, for one.
Ah, but see, unlike the slippery slopes they like to cite in arguing against abortion, the above is a slippery slope that they do not acknowledge could ever happen because the focus of their agenda is too narrow to open such doors. Since the only practically attainable goal for the anti-choice faction is to restrict the legal rights and reduce the social status of women -- and only women! -- there is no way that rules made to control women would or could be applied to control men.

After all, segregation of black people did not lead to white people being denied entry or otherwise having their movements restricted in public places, now did it? So why would they expect that laws that strip women of their bodily autonomy and make them tools to be used by others would have any effect at all on people who are not women?

Anyone who tried to bring a case to expand the legal precedence in such a way would surely be laughed to scorn, because how can men be held to women's rules?

According to anti-choicers.

Fair point. Regrettably.

I wish it were otherwise, really I do.

How do you feel about abortion?
Ill.
Would you get one/let your fuckbuddy get one?
Can't happen physically/don't have one. :(
Are your views based on science or religion?
No.
Should it be available for everyone?
It should not be available for people who don't actually have something to abort.
I think we all know one of those people that just has abortions for the fun of it, regardless of whether or not she/he pregnant. Sick, sick, people.

Yeah, but all they're doing is shooting themselves in the foot. Once you acknowledge that an unborn entity's right to life supercedes the right to bodily autonomy of the potential mother, and that the unborn entity is a full-fledged human being, you've opened the door to the abrogating of the right to bodily autonomy of anyone when those rights must be sidestepped to protect someone else's right to life.
Legal theft of organs, for one.

Don't be silly. That isn't the same thing at all. Not even close. Because......

umm....

SHE SHOULD HAVE KEPT HER LEGS CLOSED!

yeah, that.

Ah, but see, unlike the slippery slopes they like to cite in arguing against abortion, the above is a slippery slope that they do not acknowledge could ever happen because the focus of their agenda is too narrow to open such doors. Since the only practically attainable goal for the anti-choice faction is to restrict the legal rights and reduce the social status of women -- and only women! -- there is no way that rules made to control women would or could be applied to control men.

After all, segregation of black people did not lead to white people being denied entry or otherwise having their movements restricted in public places, now did it? So why would they expect that laws that strip women of their bodily autonomy and make them tools to be used by others would have any effect at all on people who are not women?

Anyone who tried to bring a case to expand the legal precedence in such a way would surely be laughed to scorn, because how can men be held to women's rules?

According to anti-choicers.

I dunno. This is the sort of stuff that, with a sufficiently savvy lawyer, could be used as a legal precedent to slip it down a little further. It worries me that they're so myopic in that respect.

Don't be silly. That isn't the same thing at all. Not even close. Because......

umm....

SHE SHOULD HAVE KEPT HER LEGS CLOSED!

yeah, that.

It scares the shit out of me that there are people who actually think like this.

It scares the shit out of me that there are people who actually think like this.
You don't know how lucky you are, it makes me constipated.