Let’s be clear, in the case of the fetus, we are talking about the life or death of humanity’s most defenseless member. For the mother, we’re talking about the inconvenience of carrying and delivering a child, who previously had the rights and agency not to get pregnant in the first place. She is not required to keep the child. When we’re talking about life or death, the precautionary principle takes precedence over inconvenience.
And how long are there just a few undifferentiated cells in a womb? The clock quickly runs out on that argument.
That is your opinion. Others may feel differently. In a free society, they would have the right to decide for themselves, not be forced by the government to carry a pregnancy to term against their will.
That is the whole point of my argument. I respect your opinion and your right to decide for yourself. I ask that you do the same for others, but you are not willing to.
You’re right. I’m not willing to respect other’s opinions to brutally torture unborn children just because they don’t feel like going through a completely natural process that THEY brought on THEMSELVES. Yes I am close minded and “unempathetic” on this issue. And calling it “just my opinion” is completely ignoring all objective reality and facts. Abortion is 100% death, and depending on the timing, brutal torture. Pregnancy is a normal physiological process that can have some difficulties but in most cases is completely fine. And the WOMAN is the one who had the sex and got pregnant. The government did not strap her down and artificially inseminate her. She has no right to bodily autonomy FROM HER OWN OFFSPRING. The government would be the one stopping barbaric acts of murder. So no, I will not respect other’s opinions. We treat dogs better than we treat the unborn and it’s pathetic.
I'm glad you admit that you wish to use the force of government to impose your opinions and philosphical perspective on others.
That is exactly the position of those who feel strongly that it's important for society that everyone get the covid vaccine, and therefore the government should force it on people. And the perspective of people who feel strongly that the Canadian truckers' convoy was horribly damaging and that therefore it is right for Trudeau to freeze bank accounts of people who donated to support it. And, in fact, the perspective of every totalitarian who thinks they have the right to impose their perspectives on others by force, because only they could possibly have the right views.
This is where our societies need to be pumping money into. Instead of funding abortions fund adoption agencies so that all unwanted children can be taken care of.
You said the mother "had the rights and agency not to get pregnant in the first place". Contraception is imperfect, so the only way for a fertile woman to avoid getting pregnant for sure is to not have sex. So you are proposing that women who do not want a child (or another child) completely abstain from sex? For perhaps decades? Even if married?
Would you propose the same for men who do not want to father a child - complete abstention from intercourse with women of child-bearing age? Again, even if married?
Even if you would advocate for such a vast social change, I challenge you to provide me with one example of a society, in any historical period, where such a massive absention from sex occurred. I certainly can't think of one, and would suggest that such a proposal is completely unrealistic.
“ So you are proposing that women who do not want a child (or another child) completely abstain from sex?”
If they don’t want to deal with the potential consequences of sex, then yes.
“ Would you propose the same for men who do not want to father a child - complete abstention from intercourse with women of child-bearing age?”
If they don’t want to deal with the potential consequences of sex, then yes.
In reality, people don’t have to abstain from sex. They just have to not kill the child they created from sex. They do not then have to raise the child. That’s what adoption is for.
And I would encourage you to research postpartum abstinence. Many cultures abstained from sex after the birth of a child to practice ideal child spacing.
Let’s be clear, in the case of the fetus, we are talking about the life or death of humanity’s most defenseless member. For the mother, we’re talking about the inconvenience of carrying and delivering a child, who previously had the rights and agency not to get pregnant in the first place. She is not required to keep the child. When we’re talking about life or death, the precautionary principle takes precedence over inconvenience.
And how long are there just a few undifferentiated cells in a womb? The clock quickly runs out on that argument.
Agree. Unbelievable that the decision based on the future inconvenience of the mother has stood for even this long.
Anyone who thinks carrying a child for nine months and giving birth is a mere "inconvenience" clearly knows little about pregnancy and delivery.
Lol. It’s not a picnic but compared to dismembering a child, yeah it’s just an inconvenience. Especially with modern pain medicine. Source: myself.
That is your opinion. Others may feel differently. In a free society, they would have the right to decide for themselves, not be forced by the government to carry a pregnancy to term against their will.
That is the whole point of my argument. I respect your opinion and your right to decide for yourself. I ask that you do the same for others, but you are not willing to.
You’re right. I’m not willing to respect other’s opinions to brutally torture unborn children just because they don’t feel like going through a completely natural process that THEY brought on THEMSELVES. Yes I am close minded and “unempathetic” on this issue. And calling it “just my opinion” is completely ignoring all objective reality and facts. Abortion is 100% death, and depending on the timing, brutal torture. Pregnancy is a normal physiological process that can have some difficulties but in most cases is completely fine. And the WOMAN is the one who had the sex and got pregnant. The government did not strap her down and artificially inseminate her. She has no right to bodily autonomy FROM HER OWN OFFSPRING. The government would be the one stopping barbaric acts of murder. So no, I will not respect other’s opinions. We treat dogs better than we treat the unborn and it’s pathetic.
I'm glad you admit that you wish to use the force of government to impose your opinions and philosphical perspective on others.
That is exactly the position of those who feel strongly that it's important for society that everyone get the covid vaccine, and therefore the government should force it on people. And the perspective of people who feel strongly that the Canadian truckers' convoy was horribly damaging and that therefore it is right for Trudeau to freeze bank accounts of people who donated to support it. And, in fact, the perspective of every totalitarian who thinks they have the right to impose their perspectives on others by force, because only they could possibly have the right views.
It’s an inconvenience at worst and I’ve done it twice.
I get that you view it as an inconvience, but that is not the case for most of the world.
I completely agree. I am just quoting the reasoning behind Roe.
Or about the heavy responsibility of raising a child.
Adoption.
This is where our societies need to be pumping money into. Instead of funding abortions fund adoption agencies so that all unwanted children can be taken care of.
No one is forcing anyone to raise a child.
You said the mother "had the rights and agency not to get pregnant in the first place". Contraception is imperfect, so the only way for a fertile woman to avoid getting pregnant for sure is to not have sex. So you are proposing that women who do not want a child (or another child) completely abstain from sex? For perhaps decades? Even if married?
Would you propose the same for men who do not want to father a child - complete abstention from intercourse with women of child-bearing age? Again, even if married?
Even if you would advocate for such a vast social change, I challenge you to provide me with one example of a society, in any historical period, where such a massive absention from sex occurred. I certainly can't think of one, and would suggest that such a proposal is completely unrealistic.
“ So you are proposing that women who do not want a child (or another child) completely abstain from sex?”
If they don’t want to deal with the potential consequences of sex, then yes.
“ Would you propose the same for men who do not want to father a child - complete abstention from intercourse with women of child-bearing age?”
If they don’t want to deal with the potential consequences of sex, then yes.
In reality, people don’t have to abstain from sex. They just have to not kill the child they created from sex. They do not then have to raise the child. That’s what adoption is for.
And I would encourage you to research postpartum abstinence. Many cultures abstained from sex after the birth of a child to practice ideal child spacing.