Abortion is based on the theory of equivalence

FoxHastings said: ↑
If it were a person and inside her body she still has every right to have it taken out.

NO, I stated a FACT....a fact is not a "claim"...it is a fact.
If it were a person and inside her body she still has every right to have it taken out.

LOL! Every time you're faced with a fact you claim, "Well, it's not about that" ….too funny !!!!

 

It's not a "crutch" it's a fact.....

OR you could prove that we don't have a right to self defense...have at it ...

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
The women has a right to kill it since it has no right to use her body to sustain it's life.

How does what connect to what other ?????

 

You claimed the woman has a right to kill because the fetus does not have the right to draw life from her.

Why? How exactly does that follow? What is the reasoning for that?

Remember, the woman is killing before the fetus dies from the woman withdrawing life.

 

WHY TF do you post....if you "know" everyone's argument why post?


I NEVER said ""It would cause her "harm" if it was taken out,therefore she has a right to kill. That way, when it is taken out (dead and in little pieces), it will cause her less harm."

DUH, that was YOU who said that....wow you are seemingly confused !!!

 

Well, if that's not what you're saying, then I have no idea what you're saying.
You're doing a really bad job of explaining what you're trying to say then.

 

From conception, when the woman's immune system is compromised, the ZEF is USING HER BODY TO SUSTAIN IT'S LIFE.

NO ONE ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO USE ANOTHER'S BODY TO SUSTAIN THEIR LIFE.

 

I suspect A. You met facts and are backing off.

B. no one else would have problems with my very clear statement of facts..

 

That's not quite the same thing as killing, is it?

In a typical abortion.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
NO ONE ELSE HAS THE RIGHT TO USE ANOTHER'S BODY TO SUSTAIN THEIR LIFE.

Uh, that statement hasn't anything to do with the post of mine you quoted....WTF are you talking about...

 

What are you talking about then? It seems your statement does not have anything to do with the opening post then.

You keep saying things in response to someone else's post, as if it were an answer, and then when someone else tries to interpret how what you say is an answer to that post, you deny that is what you meant.
But then no one has any idea how what you post is an answer to the prior post you are quoting.

Like you constantly just say inane things without any direct logic.

 

You have a cat who has kidney failure, full of edema, fluid in lungs. Do you watch it have a slow death or euthanize?
You want an abortion. Your choices are suction curettage or surgically removing the fetus and watch it die trying to use undeveloped lungs.

 

The idea of euthanasia is usually to reduce pain and suffering.

 

....and your opinion of watching a fetus die with undeveloped lungs over a suction curettage is....?

 

It doesn't obviously seem less painful than the alternative, and it seems like a more dignified way to die than the alternative.

 

How TF do YOU know what "anyone" thinks ?

For "inane things without any direct logic" see OP.

Instead of making excuses you could try addressing posts with facts ???


OR make a clear POINT

BTW, as for being "off topic"...the topic isn't me.

 

Why?

 

Because, like YOU, women have the right to bodily autonomy.

 

Just to clarify the rather rambling question, you're asking about the moral equivalence of terminating a fetus and them removing it from the pregnant woman or removing the fetus first and then terminating it?

If that is the question, I'd say they are equivalent on the basis of pure morality alone. There are other reasons they're not equivalent though, sure as medical factors (one reason there are several different forms of abortion) and the controversy surrounding the field itself mean that laws and policies can be implemented based on what appears better to lawmen than what actually is in practice.

 

If I decide not to give food and a blanket to a homeless person, knowing they will die as a result, would that also entitle me to kill that homeless person?

 

Abortion is not based on any theory. It is legal because millions of women find themselves pregnant who do not want to raise the child.

If those who oppose abortion were really "pro life" they would support socialized medicine. This would reduce the number of women who die in childbirth, and the infant mortality rate. Anti abortion people seldom support socialized medicine, even when they are low income whites who would benefit from it.

Anti abortion people could also adopt the unwanted children of unmarried women. Few of them seem to.

The vast majority of anti abortion people are not pro life at all. They want to punish sexually active unmarried women with unwanted pregnancies.

 

No, what has that to do with abortion?

 

Why don't you read the quote I was responding to to figure it out.

You need to stop looking at posts individually and look at the context of what they were replying to.

 

I didn't think you could explain it

kazenatsu said: ↑
If I decide not to give food and a blanket to a homeless person, knowing they will die as a result, would that also entitle me to kill that homeless person?

FoxHastings:
No, what has that to do with abortion?

 

I fail to see the relevance if your question was just about the relative morality of terminating the fetus inside or outside the mother.