Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This thread has clearly devolved into one religious wingnut posting again and again about how the left is “pro murder” and how women aren’t allowed to have sex for pleasure. Unfortunately, you can’t murder a fetus because it isn’t alive and women can do whatever they want.
I think that due to the history of murdering people for their “cause” (an imaginary person in the sky) religious activists against abortion should be investigated and put on domestic terrorism watch lists.
This thread could be constructive if everyone started from a position that there are competing interests at stake, being the pregnant woman’s liberty and the developing human’s life. At some point during the pregnancy it’s reasonable to prioritize the developing human’s life. As support, most countries ban abortions after a certain number of gestational weeks (and the Roe decision did the same). So we could be talking about where and under what conditions prioritizing the pregnant human’s liberty (and allow termination of the pregnancy) is reasonable. And reasonably that could be drawn in a lot of places—if closer to conception, then perhaps that’s only “reasonable” if there are family assistance programs. That’s all for political debate.
But no— This thread is about bludgeoning the other side with the terms “forced birth” or “pro-murder”. Anyone using those terms doesn’t want to discuss how to reasonably balance the competing interests.
No. There is no compromise. What part of “it’s not your decision to make” is so hard for you to understand?
Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one.
You have no right to force me to carry a fetus if I decide not to. Period. That is the fair and just position since this issue hinges on personal beliefs. It is personal.
I believe that it is my obligation, and indeed the obligation of a sane, moral society, to protect "your fetus" from you and your ill intent.
Then you want civil unrest. You are nothing but a religious crusader.
No, I do not want civil unrest. How in the world do you read that from what I wrote? We, as a moral society, have an obligation to protect and aid the weakest among us. That includes the unborn. If we abandon that obligation, we are no longer a humane people. What's so hard to understand about that?
Of course you want civil unrest because we are telling you directly that you are never going to accept you taking away our rights on issues that are not clear cut right/wrong.
Don’t you understand that I feel just as much an “obligation” to protect innocent people from religious authoritarians like you? But yet I don’t pass laws outlawing your religion or way of life. That’s because I don’t feel a need to control every other human as long as I am allowed to live my life peacefully. The problem is with people like you who refuse to exchange the favor and stay out of my life when I don’t want to have anything at all to do with you.
The result can only be outright hostility since there is no way to reconcile our differences other than “live and let live”. If you refuse to agree to that then we will be fighting for eternity.
A "religious authoritarian?" Please. You have no idea who I am, or what my religious beliefs are, if they even exist. This has nothing to do with religion. You brought up that topic, not me.
So by your post, I am to assume that if you were at the park with your child and saw someone beating the hell out of a two-year-old, you would do nothing, because you believe in "live and let live." Did I get that right? You assume no obligation to help the weak, the vulnerable, those unable to protect themselves from the harm that others can inflict upon them.
You are a seriously disturbed individual.