You're using the consequence of pregnancy as reasoning for being for restricting abortion.This is really not hard to grasp, at all. If you were just pointing it out, like, "hey, if you have sex, you could get pregnant man!" then sure, fine. Odd, but fine. But you chose to make it a part of your morality regarding abortion, and whether divine or not (speaking of "putting words in mouths," when did I ever say anything about god there, pal?) that makes you sound exactly like pro-life nutjobs. Do you truly not see the overlap you have with the same kind of people who literally get in womens' faces as they walk into abortion clinics, calling them "sinners" and other very ungodly things?
I am using pregnancy as a reasoning for restricting abortion. We wouldn't need to restrict abortion if pregnancy wasn't a thing, oddly enough.
You uh, actually did reference religion in your earlier post. Then shortly after talked about "punishment", as if I was suggesting something with agency was inflicting pregnancy on people to punish them for having sex. I don't think I'm particularly out of line for my choice of wording.
I have very little overlap with those people. Firstly, I would never do that, that's despicable. Secondly, I don't want abortion to be illegal. Thirdly, we have already covered that I'm not religious.
This doesn't change the fact that you are using a pro-life talking point and you seem to be absolutely unaware of it. Or, you are aware, and you play along to give people the illusion of balance. I don't know. If you can't see it, what else can I do. My point with the car crash was "shit happens and we all take risks simply by existing." To mitigate these risks of things we willfully participate in (why yes, you DO have to willfully drive a car!) we, for instance, put on a seatbelt. Well, a condom is a seatbelt for preventing pregnancy. They can both fail. So, in essence, all you do by using that tired, stupid rhetoric that so many pro-lifers use is state the obvious, but substantiate nothing.
I'm not trying to give the illusion of anything. The thread wanted my thoughts, I've given them. If my perspective is suddenly being used as a pro-life talking point, then they're the ones trying to give the illusion of being reasonable, not me.
Your point with the car crash was to try and create a falsely equivalent scenario and then apply my logic to it, which doesn't work. Firstly, there is a big difference between being a responsible driver on the road who gets hit by an irresponsible driver and willingly consenting to an activity with a known risk factor. If you are
not a responsible driver and that gets you into an accident, then I have little sympathy for you, but your analogy breaks down unless we're talking about unprotected sex, which we don't seem to be, and if if you have unprotected sex but aren't prepared to risk a pregnancy, you're an idiot. If you're a responsible driver and someone else rams into you and you get hurt, then I have more sympathy for you, but then your analogy breaks down because we are talking about consensual sex here, not rape, and nobody consents to some moron t-boning them.
Secondly, it is pretty much impossible to manage modern existence without at some point having to cross a street, drive or be a passenger in a vehicle. It is however possible to go through life without having sex with someone if you're not prepared to deal with the potential outcome.
The two situations are not at all comparable no matter how many times you try to jam them into the same mould.
So, you've never killed a wasp. A spider? An ant? Any sort of insect, flying or otherwise, encroaching upon your living space? You've never... WASHED YOUR HANDS? Yes, you do kill things that inconvenience you all the time, so don't smugly strut your way to a pedestal just yet. You still have to answer for why you think an unthinking, unfeeling bundle of cells has the same value as a fully aware human being. Since that's the basis of your view of abortion, you may as well call yourself pro-life. Again, you try to pass yourself off as balanced by avoiding the label, but you are so plainly pro-life, and your evasions may get by some here, but come on.
No I have never killed a wasp, spider, ant or any other sort of bug. I do the fair and humane thing and remove them to a location that is safer for them. Washing ones hands would fit into the category of preserving my own life because of the health risks of not doing so. So no, I don't kill things that inconvenience me at any time. Maybe now you can stop trying to decide what I think and do for me as at this point you have been wrong every time you have attempted it.
I already
did answer as to my reasoning behind the value of an unborn baby. A fully grown and aware human being is
also just a bundle of cells. We are not special, we aren't even unique in being self-aware. If we're not special, we have no more right to exist than any other entity. Our value is equal. Therefore, it is not an equal exchange to take the life of another living being as a matter of convenience. It's putting yourself above it and assigning value to yourself that you don't have.
And here we have you digging deeper from the pro-lifer playbook. Tell ya what, when the father gets a link to the umbilical cord, then we can start really talking about how it's a "part of him." True, he hands over 23 chromosomes, but he isn't the literal vessel through which this thing lives and thrives. He doesn't get the depression, the stretchmarks, the joint pain, the kicking, the constant pissing, or any of the mental or physical pain that nine months of pregnancy can bring. I haven't even started on post-pregnancy. The fact remains: after conception, the father could die in a fire, and the baby would still live. No mother, no kid. Still want to argue that the father is just as important all because he ejaculated?
It's not my fault that human biology is the way it is. Men should not be punished for being born men any more than a woman should be punished for being a woman or a baby should be punished for being conceived without a say in it. Also, I never said this hypothetical baby is "a part of him". I quite literally made a statement as to the exact opposite, that baby isn't a "part" of anyone. It is its own unique living being.
We have also seen evidence in this very thread that the decision to abort or not can and does way equally heavily on the mind of the father, even if they are not carrying the baby. So yes, I think the father that had an equal hand it creating the baby should have a say in whether or not the baby is aborted, and have the chance to put forward a case to raise the child as a single parent. Oddly enough, no father, also no kid. It takes two to tango.
Oh you're not further left than me, trust me. It's a guarantee that you're not, and your view on abortion is evidence enouugh.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
And a rapist being able to sue his victim for custody ABSOLUTELY has an impact on how you set yourself up to look like a pro-lifer. Do you think something like that being permissible in a court of law just came out of nowhere? It was a natural extension of mens' and fathers' rights groups who made the paternal involvement in abortion decisions a talking point.
All I have to say to that is that I am deeply concerned for anyone who considers the rights of a rapist a logical extension of the rights of a father who engaged in consensual sex.
If you're a leftist, then please don't call yourself a feminist ally, at the very least.
At what point did I ever use the phrase "feminist ally"?
If you must know, I consider myself an egalitarian (in the true sense, not the far right trying to pretend they're reasonable sense).
