Posted on 08/26/2014 7:43:54 AM PDT by Salman
e can make all the philosophical and scientific arguments that anyone might want, but ultimately what it all reduces to is a simple question: do women have autonomous control of their bodies or not? Even if I thought embryos were conscious, aware beings writing poetry in the womb (I don’t, and they’re not), I’d have to bow out of any say in the decision the woman bearing responsibility has to make.
(Excerpt) Read more at freethoughtblogs.com ...
“Being ordered about what I’m allowed to do with this infection “
Pretty much sums it up, although in the case of herself and her ilk, she may be correct!
I normally oppose excerpting blogs.
But after reading such a huge amount of pukeage in such a short excerpt; I’m glad you didn’t go any further.
Pro-death feminists are evil. Pure evil.
There is no reasoning with a woman who is still this selfishly immature.
I used to think that if you could convince someone that the fetus is a person then they would have to agree that abortion is murder. However, it turns out that we can arbitrarily decide that corporations are 'persons', that historic houses are 'persons', etc. in order to protect their rights.
But in the case of fetuses, even if we as a society decide to declare them 'persons', we could also decide that the personal rights of the mother outweigh the personal rights of her child.
I urge you to read Thomson's entire essay (know thy enemy and all that) to see how the other side rationalizes their behavior.
Odd how the man has no interest till it’s born,
then has to support it for 18 years weather he
gets to raise it or not.
These “women” are really sick.
Notice to Fetus’, study womyn’s studies in the womb,
then you’ll be worth saving...poetry in the womb, hahaha.
Yes little girl, you’re right; killing unborn children is...health care! Yeah, that’s the ticket.
I do have autonomy over my body—to a point. Suppose I visit a friend who is a mother of an infant. If I take into my arms that infant, then I have an obligation to protect that infant until I can get it into a place of safety. I do not have the right to just drop it to the floor should I decide I no longer wish that burden I voluntarily took up. The law holds me responsible. I see little difference in pregnancy. There’s more inconvenience but, as far as I am concerned, the obligation is the same.
They claim the fetus (or alien being from their analogy) is an uninvited parasite. That’s not true. Having sex, especially unproteted sex is very much inviting a pregnancy. I believe that is why we are made with REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS.
The concept of Autonomy precludes any consideration for the Creator and our relationship to Him, which is never by any means “autonomous,” no matter how much we as creatures believe or think otherwise. The premise that a woman is autonomous is wrong from the start. She is a shining example of what it means to be a creator in her own right, bearing offspring wholly dependent upon her for life and being. There is no greater manifestation of evil thought and deed than that which denies life and being to others.
A fetus, after being implanted in the uterus, has to have its immune system functional to defend the onslaught brought against it by the mother’s immune system.
This simple fact alone is empirical evidence that the child growing within is NOT the woman’s body - it is totally different human being.
They have no excuse.
If a woman can’t legally put heroin in her body - or a butt bomb that would explode and kill other people - then the whole legal premise of “my body, my choice” is sheer myth.
One cannot debate rationally with an irrational person.
PZ Myers is a joke. A very bad one.
He has a daughter. His daughter blogged frequently until a few years ago. One of the things that made her stop was a blog post containing her completely honest defense of bestiality.
PZ, of course, is a well known evolutionist, and his daughter (last I heard) was a rabid atheist like her dad and a radical feminist to boot. It’s funny to me that according to PZ Myers’ own philosophy, his genetic line is doomed.
It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. /sarcasm
I don’t understand why the right to kill a child stops at birth. A minor child is still the onerous responsibility of its parents. Perhaps the only difference between killing a child before and after birth should be that the father gets to also make the decision from birth to majority or emancipation. Where is the logic in limiting legal child murder to pregnancy? I suspect it is all based on what is politically viable. And that will change as the society becomes more Progressive.
Look for legally killing people at the other end of life as they are inconvenient, and well, we’re pretty clear on how we value people with Down’s syndrome, next, autistic kids...golly, the potential in magnificent. The trend truly is to make these politically viable, like you say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.