Argentina abortion: Senate approves legalisation in historic decision

Really?
How about here?

 

WHERE TF did I say a fetus has no rights because it attacks the woman?


YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ME SAYING THAT as YOU claim...



OH here's the WHOLE UNCHERRY PICKED POST:

YOU: """kazenatsu said: ↑
But you think the fetus doesn't have any rights because it attacked"""



NO, the fetus has no rights because it's a FETUS and hasn't been born!



And I have NEVER said anything different.

I NEVER said a fetus has no rights because it's attacking the woman...NEVER...


I NEVER said "" the fetus doesn't have any rights because it attacked""


You are "wrong" ….

A woman has a right to kill anything that's harming her....just like everyone else.

 

Or how about here?

 

Irrelevant and totally meaningless.
The parts of your post I did not quote had nothing to do with the context of what we were discussing.

I don't have to quote your entire long post every time I respond to something you write.

"Cherry picking" only applies when there's something else that's actually relevant to the issue or specific category of thing being examined.

 

It's plain and obvious to see for all that's what your statements were insinuating.

If I'm wrong, maybe you can tell us what was the purpose of making those statements?

 

1) When you tease it out you can see what they're actually saying. If they say the woman is 'surprised' by a pregnancy (ie, an unexpected pregnancy), then they're saying she doesn't know how babies are made. If they say she knows how babies are made, then they're acknowledging that she chose conception - which renders any claim of an unexpected pregnancy patently ridiculous. They have to engage in this tangled web/house of cards, to avoid saying admitting exactly what you said - that their real goal is to relieve women of adult responsibility. Wanting to relieve women of their right to full agency and adult responsibility is a total dick move. Ergo, misogyny.

2) For sure. They're invested in the disenfranchisement of strong and capable womanhood, and so need to avoid having their malfeasance spotlighted. The BS is obvious, to anyone who makes the time to look.

3) It's mentally incongruous because it's all just cover for the disenfranchisement of women. No surprise that it's often the same people who want the very idea of 'female' to be eradicated.

Edited to clarify .. I don't think the plebs who truck this stuff are malicious - not at all. I think they genuinely think they're on the moral high ground. The problem is that like so many positions taken by people seduced by ideology, they just don't think any of it through.

 

So what ARE you saying?

1) She doesn't know how babies are made?

or

2) She knows full well, and therefore CHOOSES conception?

They're the only two options. If you haven't worked through the internal inconsistency of the premise you're running with, that's your own problem to work out. In this universe, limited as it is by the physics of cause and effect, there is no third option. Knowledge of human reproduction renders the 'I didn't realise' defence a total nonsense. We might forgive a failure to consider consequences in a three year old, but doing so in an adult is despicable.

 

I think we have to recognize the woman chooses risk of pregnancy. Pro-choicers want to argue that a woman choosing pregnancy is not choosing continued pregnancy... even though if she chooses one and not the other, someone has to die.

What it really comes down to is sexual liberation being held as a priority over not killing fetuses.

There are several different "takes" on this from the pro-choice side. (Like the woman just made a one time mistake, for example)
But I believe that's the only genuine honest one that actually holds up to logical scrutiny.


Unfortunately, the more precise and fully technically correct this gets with words, the more verbose and harder to understand it becomes, so in logical arguments we do have to deal with oversimplifications.

 

1) I don't think they consider that far - that the choices lead to a human death. It appears to stop short at enabling female irresponsibility. That seems to be absolute priority.

2) Yes, that. It presents the seriously unattractive prospect that Western Progressives think like smutty minded 14 year old boys, unable to rise above base urges sufficiently to step through a logic path.

3) Agree. It's the only one which holds up to scrutiny.

4) I believe we owe it to women (and unborn babies) to do the hard work of understanding what drives this.

 

What about "here" ??

 

A squirm...

 

Do you still think the rape of an 11 year old is trivial?

 

This has nothing to do with what happened to her. What happened to her was already in the past and couldn't be changed at that point by the time she was so very plump and pregnant.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
WHO said, "" she doesn't choose to engage in procreation"" ?

I didn't say that....
And YOU could not answer the question..

No one said that either...

DUHH, no woman can CHOOSE conception.

Read a biology book....

For what?

There aren't any.

or lack of it like thinking women can choose conception

No one used that....taking a cue from Kas and making things up ???

.

Sheesh you must despise the entire human race....they ALL make mistakes

 

So you still think the rape of an 11 year-old is trivial...

 

Expected or not is not important. What matters is whether the woman wants pregnancy or not and if she does not want motherhood, the most responsible and moral thing she can do is to have an abortion.

If the unwillingly pregnant woman does not have the legal option of choosing abortion when she does not want to become a mother, it is impossible for her to exercise adult responsibility and then, once she gives birth and is forced to raise the child, it will probably grow up to become someone who cannot take adult responsibility either.

It is not as much of a gender issue as it is one of individual rights.

I do think it is malicious to be anti-abortion.

 

No, it is those on the anti-abortionoist side who cannot think any further than the Crypto-Christian bs-view that a piece of protoplasm is a human being whose rights precedes those of the pregnant woman who is carrying it.

Just because one is for abortion, it does not make them a Progressive.

Unborn babies. Undead corpses. Unslaughtered Big Macs.

 

11 years old, bro. Eleven!

Let me use a language you can understand; She's an ungrown grown-up!

 

If you take your car to work every morning, you are being responsible; you are ensuring you get to work in time and ensuring you can be productive to live a happy life. However, by taking the car to work, you increase your risk of being involved in a traffic-accident. If you one day collide with another car and injure yourself, the responsible thing to do is to visit the hospital so that you can go back to work and continue to pursue your own happiness in life.

It would be irresponsible not to visit the hospital and it would be truly disastrous to blame yourself and force you to live with the injuries because you "knew of the risks when you got in your car."

You jumping in your car to go to work does not imply that you "either don't know how traffic accidents happen or that you know and tnerefore choose to be in one". It only implies you want to go to work.

Unwanted pregnancy + Abortion = Responsibility.

 

See, the irony here is that this is how you anti-abortionists view the fetus; the woman just has to take respobsibility for it, but the fetus - despite being a human in your eyes - has no responsibilities and can just chill inside another person and parasitise on their living.

A woman who rationally chooses to have sex with a man is not being "pulled by her animal insticts", she is using her mind and reason and exercising her free will.

No one has even said what you are claiming that they said.

 

Where is YOUR credible substantiation that sex ed does NOT prevent unwanted pregnancies?

 

It probably does, but it may cause others.

Preventing some cases of something does not automatically mean it reduces the numbers of that thing.

 

Yay, women can now kill their unborn baby in the 14th week of pregnancy.
Are you going to throw a party?

 

All victories for reason over religion should be celebrated.

How will you mourn this?

 

Abject FAILURE to even ATTEMPT to provide credible substantiation only harms what few remaining shreds of credibility you might still have had left.

Sad!