That's like hearing a dog is a mammal, and that a cat is a mammal, and then concluding that a dog is a cat. The pill is a form of controlling birth. So are abortion, condoms, abstinence, and castration. They are all forms of preventing births and controlling population numbers.
It is extremely upsetting that in today’s society, women can be so easily dismissed with regard to their personal agency. I do not care that your personal deity claims it’s murder. If it is, your personal deity murders the unborn in numbers far greater than women could ever achieve. These states are going to put poor, uneducated women in a position to wander the internet, looking for ways to force a miscarriage. It’s cool if god kills the unborn.
Oh my, you sure don't seem to know what bodily autonomy is ...and bring out that old crap about hitting someone....which has noting to do with abortion. Here's your story:You invite someone into your home. Then that someone starts beating you...BUT YOU INVITED THEM IN SO YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE BEATING....what an asinine idea...
Indeed. Women are rarely held responsible for their actions and are treated as perpetual victims. It's a form of sexism that comes from both conservatives and neofeminists. Women regarded as weak helpless perpetual victims and men regarded as strong perpetual aggressors who should be held responsible. It's why we have the massive sentencing disparity between male and female convicts. Here we see people arguing that women should have the right to choose to kill and that they are merely the victims and should not be held responsible if they do so. I am atheist (and Pro-choice for the most part), but the above is irrelevant. If there is a God, he kills billions in natural disasters, but that doesn't make it ok for me to murder anyone.
Ya. Abortion is about killing, not just hitting. No, not invite. You force them into your home. The unborn didn't ask to be there. The woman (and a man) put the unborn there. Yeah. If the person you kidnap causes you inconvenience and discomfort, you would just kill them eh? Like a proper gangster.
I have an equal opinion of men and women. Do you? I don't think either should be denied agency and that both should be held responsible for their actions regardless of their gender. Do you?
The woman is carrying a fetus that has no skull, and the state wants her to carry it to term. How is this her fault?
How is it her "fault"? First, why do you say "fault" if you think she is ok to kill it? Second, yes, it's her doing. Unless she got raped. The argument here should be that it isn't a person and shouldn't be regarded as one; that it isn't self aware, doesn't feel pain, etc, if that's the case. So killing it isn't killing anybody. The argument should not be that pro-life folks hate women, don't care about the lives of women, etc. That's like when they say you hate babies and want to kill them. Of course you don't. You just see things differently than they do.
So, you are fine with the state forcing a woman to carry a baby to term, even if it will likely die in the womb, since the brain cannot be contained without a skull. What, specifically, did the woman do to cause her fetus to not develop a skull?
Abortion is a form of controlling and preventing birth, hence a form of birth control. Yes, I support that basic use of the English language. And it also works perfectly well in the context it was used. Whaler said using abortion as birth control, meaning using abortion, so a baby isn't born. That is what was clearly meant. I am sorry if it confused you because you don't agree that's what "birth control" means.
I didn't write that. Why do you insist on trying to put words into my mouth? Nothing. But she did put the fetus there, and now she wants to kill it. If she should be allowed to in any or all circumstances can be argued, and you may have a good case. But you aren't making any case by attributing false statements or motivation to me or others.
The fetus does not have a skull. It’s not a viable human. What part of NO SKULL is complicated? How does a woman have any power to form a baby with key parts missing?
You claim she wants to kill it. That’s a horrible thing to accuse someone of when they are literally carrying a fetus that has 0 chance of life. It’s sad you agree with Louisiana on that point.
She wants to be allowed to kill it, yes. How is that not true? Even if you think of it as a mercy killing, it's still killing. Even if it will die anyway, killing is still killing. Even if killing is justified, it's still killing. She wants to kill it. Do you just not like how that sounds or do you deny the reality?
No it prevents pregnancy same as a condom (sometimes) does but prevention of pregnancy and termination of pregnancy are considered two separate issues. I know the Catholic Church is (theoretically) against both but with 8 billion people on the planet it is time they rethought that cannon
Um. Okay. She wants to help an innocent creature end a very short, very terrible existence. Murder a 10 week fetus with no skull? No brainer , literally. You still haven’t explained how her conceiving a creature with no skull is her fault.
I do see this case as a case of palliative care - euthanasia is the traditional sense of the word I.e. “gentle death”.
It’s forced torture for women who want a child but have to wait all those months for what will certainly be a DOA baby. So very sad that some consider it murder. This woman is grieving a dead child but has to carry it for 30 more weeks. I can’t imagine a worse torture for an innocent woman.
