5-4 incoming?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

of course i care about their opinion, but if its that they want to have an abortion then its a stupid and wrong opinion.

Translation: I have a right to tell other people what to do with their own bodies, and someday I want the government to tell me what I can do with mine.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Translation: I have a right to tell other people what to do with their own bodies, and someday I want the government to tell me what I can do with mine.

The government already tells you what to do with your body if you murder someone: you go to jail. That isn't anything new. As a society we do agree to certain conditions in which you lose your bodily autonomy.

However, the real problem here is you are equating abortion to "losing bodily autonomy". That isn't true. You had multiple choices to avoid pregnancy before. You had complete bodily autonomy to choose if you wanted to have sex, and how to have that sex. But once you start growing another person inside your body, you have to consider the bodily autonomy of that person as well. You are no longer just one person.

And before you bring up something like rape, most people aren't arguing abortion being illegal for extreme cases. If abortion was legal for rape/incest/extreme medical issues only, that would already reduce abortions by over 90%. It would certainly be a huge step in the right direction.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The government already tells you what to do with your body if you murder someone: you go to jail. That isn't anything new. As a society we do agree to certain conditions in which you lose your bodily autonomy.

Killing someone is the definition of messing with someone else's body. You basically just argued my point by arguing your's so poorly.

Again, prior to this ruling the government would never interfere with what you do with your own body ...

... except when it came to drugs, and even then doing drugs has never been illegal! Possessing them was (because, again, the constitution used to offer a protection against the government messing with your body, but not against you owning certain things).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Killing someone is the definition of messing with someone else's body.

Exactly! Now you understand why abortion is a problem[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] a Baby's body is someone else's body. You're the one helping out my argument.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Exactly! Now you understand why abortion is a problem[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] a Baby's body is someone else's body. You're the one helping out my argument.

A baby is a "someone else". A fetus is not.

It has nothing to do with treating people as non-people, and everything to do with treating a non-person clump of cells as if it were a person.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A baby is a "someone else". A fetus is not.

It has nothing to do with treating people as non-people, and everything to do with treating a non-person clump of cells as if it were a person.

define someone else:

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A baby is a "someone else". A fetus is not.

It has nothing to do with treating people as non-people, and everything to do with treating a non-person clump of cells as if it were a person.

And here is the issue. You actually have no evidence to suggest a clump of cells growing inside a human female's uterus isn't a person. That is your pseudo-science opinion.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And here is the issue. You actually have no evidence to suggest a clump of cells growing in a human female's uterus isn't a person. That is your pseudo-science opinion.

Im so sick and tired of saying that clump of cells DNA is exactly the same as it would be if they were online saying it wasn't while wearing a polar bear hat.

Just like that guy who got hit by a buss and has no arms legs and face, should we kill him even though he says he wants to live?

Is it SAYING that makes him difference? Cant be, cus toddlers cant say.

Is it that someone in a coma has memories of a past where he was able to enjoy life that makes him ineligible for destruction?

There is just no consistency in the liberal argument, and therefore it makes no sense.

We cant be making laws off of shit that does not make sense, THAT IS WHAT CHURCH IS FOR.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Killing someone is the definition of messing with someone else's body. You basically just argued my point by arguing your's so poorly.

Define someone's body:

[Elizondo]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Killing someone is the definition of messing with someone else's body. You basically just argued my point by arguing your's so poorly.

Again, prior to this ruling the government would never interfere with what you do with your own body ...

... except when it came to drugs, and even then doing drugs has never been illegal! Possessing them was (because, again, the constitution used to offer a protection against the government messing with your body, but not against you owning certain things).

*cough* Vax Mandate *Cough*

You don't support those either right?