I want to live in an even more overpopulated world so the world is depleted of it's resources even faster than it already is. BAN ABORTION!
Why am I not surprised?
If we are talking about who should be calling the shots, a fully-grown woman or a loose collection of cells, I'd say probably the fully-grown woman.
I trust a women who is capable of reproduction to make the right decision for her own body, without anyone telling her what she should or shouldn't do, or can or can't do. That is because I believe women are intelligent enough to make decisions about their own body.
I am aware that conservatives feel differently about women and their intelligence, however.
What it really comes down to is this: If you believe that banning abortions and shuttering reproductive services makes either women or fetuses any safer, you are living in a fantasy world constructed entirely out of your own ignorance and hate.
History has shown time and time again that conservatives have a lot of experience there.
There are no good reasons to be against optional abortions. None. As I said in the post you quoted, if you believe that banning abortions and shuttering reproductive services makes either women or fetuses any safer, you are living in a fantasy world constructed entirely out of your own ignorance and hate. This is what conservatives believe. This is what they attempt to legislate.
What you don't seem to understand is that conservatives like Randec have already labelled themselves with their bigoted, anti-humanist agenda.
Also, I don't think they need anyone to defend their ignorance. They can handle that all on their own.
Honestly nothing she stated hasn't been posted across the internet. Bad arguments for a personal opinion.
The sanctity of life is not a valid reason to disallow abortion. Life is not sacred, certainly not in a legal sense. If we actually applied these juvenile ideas about life, that it is in fact a sacred thing, our entire society would have to fundamentally changed. All poverty would be mandated to be removed by any means necessary, as all life is sacred there must be equality in terms of the amenities given to each sacred life. We clearly already acknowledge that life is not a sacred existence, but a naturalistic one, based on naturalistic principles. The strong survive, but the mammalian aspects of humans means we still care for each other by the creation of social support structures. So why treat the initial stages of unconscious life as being so sacred, to disregard unimaginable suffering after birth? It's the common callous nature of the conservative views in regards to abortion, live babies to become miserable wretches which are discounted by society.
She had one mildly applicable point, abortion at 5 months. This is a joke by any rational approach, unless the foetus endangers the life of the mother she should carry it to term. If it takes you 5 months to decide, you're not to be trusted with the responsibility to do so.
Oh and she's coached, don't even fool yourself. Her parents are so "proud" of her words, because they most likely badgered her with them time and again.
At twelve I had my first kiss and didn't know what a vagina was, can kids not be left some level of childhood? Fucking hell.
Oh and twelve year old children from middle America aren't entitled to an opinion on something most people spend their early adulthood forming their opinion on. Little princess hasn't ever seen a drug addicted infant crying for crack. When my mind goes to dementia, I'm being euthanized. I'd like to think I'd not have been born a crack addict as well.
- - - Updated - - -
Regardless, it doesn't excuse these parents for using their daughter for their own bigoted agenda. It also doesn't explain how taking away abortion and reproductive health services makes women or fetuses any safer.
In my opinion, I think what it all comes down to is: The woman existed first, so her rights come first. Even if you're going to consider the fetus a "human being with rights," why does its rights suddenly trump the woman's? Rights are trumped and trounced by others all the time because it's kind of like mass. Only one object can occupy any given space at a time. Only one set of rights can apply at a time in this kind of situation. Is it that the woman has lived long enough, whatever that means, and new is always better than old?
I know I might be acting stupid and provocative, but I'm wondering about some of the arguments that would be made against this.
Also, I understand the desire to publicly shame people, but it's really not going to get to them unless it somehow happened on a very grand scale. More specifically, it would have to happen within just their own world. For example, if they lived on Facebook or some world like that and a large majority of their family members and friends suddenly started talking against the person's views, then it might finally get to him/her.
It's more stimulating, and at least more entertaining, to at the very least pretend to argue with them to see their side. Your side could, and probably is, just as mystifying to them as their side is to us.
Last edited by Senka; 2014-04-16 at 03:55 AM.