I told you guys a year or more ago Roe was doomed!

This side conservation on how anti abortion laws will not prevent illegal abortions (and they won’t) dovetails into an argument over how no law actually prevents a crime (debatable), illustrates how the anti abortion movement is its own worst enemy. The sad reality of the pro life movement is that it has led societies to the point of arguing if women and girls should be charged with murder or homicide (many countries already do it, and they do it to women who often end up hospitalized from life threatening medical emergencies).

Pro lifers see the conservation in extreme black and white (murdering children) and refuse to see areas if gray. They refuse to show human empathy for a raped 10 year old or a young woman bleeding to death in the ER. The rhetoric of murder/homicide opts us to charge them with a crime and/or shaming them. The pro LIFE movement does not encapsulate human dignity or compassion. It’s a movement based on blame and treating pregnancies as an unwanted consequence that woman should endure for selfishly choosing to engage in a pleasurable experience (sex). The pro life movement is misogynistic, and I don’t think it was designed that way accidentally.

At no point do pro lifers admit that IVF clinics destroy embryos. Pro lifers shy away from protesting infertility clinics and attacking the creation and destruction of fertilized eggs. I think it’s because they feel sorry for women who want to be mothers. Those women are obeying patriarchy by wanting people by motherhood, but just like the women standing outside an abortion clinic, they are equally destroying embryonic life.

The pro life movement deserves criticism for creating this dysfunctional debate surrounding murder, homicide, and misogyny. The fact of the matter is, there is common ground in that women don’t like getting abortions. Girls don’t like being raped and then getting pregnant. If we started in a better place, like preventing pregnancy and showing respect for the lives, safety, and rights of women and what happens when abortion is illegal, then we could make the occurrence of abortion less likely. Unfortunately, the way this conversation is framed and the political outcomes demonstrated in other countries reveals pro life rhetoric to be, despite being throughly self righteous, fundamental, and unrelenting, an overwhelming emblem of epic failure.

 

That is incorrect! The majority does not!!!!

 

All that to end up in such an irrational place. “ if we only accommodated would be killers, we could make killing legal and nobody would kill”. How ridiculous can you be?

 

It is NOT someone”s constitutional right to kill another human being at will. Quit hiding behind tge .000000000001% of abortion cases that involve rape.

If you were honest you would admit that you would not be ok with a compromise that says abortion is only allowable in cases of rape. You want kill at will abortion!

 

If they commit a homicide, what should they be charged with? Just because some got away with it for decades doesn’t mean it is a “ right”.

 

“ forced to carry” is a misnomer!
The law is about prohibiting a homicidal act, not forcing anything!

 

It’s two sides of the same coin. Are you like this in every single debate topic or are you sometimes able to see the big picture?

 

I can see your failure to comprehend.
Is prohibiting first degree murder forcing someone not to commit murder?

 

Why don’t you try to focus on decreasing the occurrence of abortion rates without calling people killers? This debate would be non existent if you respected womenswear rights and safety concerns and just tried to eliminate elective abortion in a positive way.

 

No constitutional right to kill people? What are guns for? Baking cupcakes?

 

It has no mind so it's no different from a tumor or appendix. After all, with sufficient technology we could take any cell and clone a person. Just because each cell is a potential new person doesn't mean it should have rights.

 

Killing bambi and mounting his head on the wall I think.

 

I am focusing on decreasing the rates! Explaining what abortion is and is not does that. . Many women have been conned into thinking they are not killing a human being. I seek to correct that!

So if you say that will not decrease abortion rates you are effectively saying women want to intentionally kill young human beings. I have a hard time believing you.

 

You can’t really be this stupid can you? Serious question.

 

Except that it is not a tumor or an appendix, it is a human being at an early stage of development! A fetus is already a human being! A fetus is not a “ potential” human being! Read some human anatomy texts!

 

I still have many of them but they don't really help since the crux of the issue is whether it has a mind, so if any text would help it would be developmental neurology I guess. If it has no mind, I don't see how you can call it a person or being of any kind. It no more develops into a human on its own than a cell plucked from my skin would. Either can become a new person with incredible intervention - that by the mother's body in the case of the zygote, and that of technology in the case of cloning a cell.

 

Actually that is purely a manufactured threshold, and has no credibility in determining what entity is a human being.

a human being exists from the point of conception on. Scientifically, logically, actually!

Trying to back into justifying abortion by attaching new self serving criteria fails every time!

 

So to recap I asked, “why can’t you focus on decreasing the occurrence of abortion without calling people killers,” and you’ve demonstrated here that you call people killers and murderers because you want to and you refuse to stop.

I don’t support you or the movement that you’re part of. Despite you having extremely hyperbolic and inflammatory rhetoric mixed with a self righteous cause, I don’t know how you expect people to take you seriously or respect your views.

 

there’s a big difference between the biological and philosophical definitions of human versus a human being.

 

Lucky for me your support, or lack thereof, means less than nothing to me or anyone else. I don’t support your lying claiming science supports human beings being less than human beings based on some self serving political threshold a human being must meet in order to please your idea of which human beings have a right to life and which do not!!!

The truth is that a human embryo and a human fetus are human beings The fact that this doesn’t fit your agenda really doesn’t mean squat.

 

There really is not in any real sense, only in political rhetoric!

 

No. This is fundamental logic applied to morality. There's nothing more fundamental to morality than this.

Things which have no mind, no feelings, no capacity for experience or suffering, cannot be harmed because they do not exist in a morally meaningful way. You wouldn't weigh the rights of a car versus a person because the car cannot feel. You wouldn't weigh the rights of a tumor versus a person because the tumor cannot feel. More controversial would be whether animals have rights as they have minds, just simpler ones than ours. Whether inanimate and mindless things having rights is NOT a moral quandary. Therefore, a fetus before having a basic mind is not a person and does not have rights.

 

I think pro-choicers who have actually examined the issue know that it is not entirely completely true that fetuses have "no mind, no feelings, no capacity for experience or suffering".

This seems to either be an ignorant and overly wishful opinion, pro-choicers being intentionally dishonest with themselves, or something that is more of a matter of opinion than provable fact.

I read something kind of interesting recently. That up until as recently as 1980, anesthetic was not used during operations on babies because most doctors assumed babies were incapable of feeling pain. Of course we know today that is incorrect and completely absurd. But it's amazing the majority of medical professionals could think something like that at that time.

I think all sorts of advancements are being made that is allowing us to learn more about what goes on in a fetus's brain during development, but those with the funding and capability to run these experiments, large academic institutions, are not so anxious to carry out these experiments or let the findings be known. Their opinion is more important to them than the facts.

 

Nope, you are way off base. If what you are saying was true, it would be allowed to kill seriously mentally ill people, people with dementia.
No your pet threshold is a political manufactured one. There is no need to make up some threshold other than the natural logical one.

 

Then why are socialists so upset?