Iron MikeyJ Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 @Len Cnut, Where else has the LITERAL death of a group of humans been accepted by political party? Sure you could go back in history and find examples, but I'm talking in today's society, by major countries. I am NOT saying the unborn child deserves more rights than the mother either, so don't spin my words. But why does one get to decide the fate of another? I agree the mother has the right to decide what's right for HER body. But that's the thing, the unborn child isn't a part of HER body, it's a completely separate living organism. Yes it's inside of her body, but it isn't hers. That's the lie that's been spun, that most have bought into. When people have children (both men and women, during pregnancy or after birth), they have a responsibility to that child. If they decide to not feed the child, that's negligence. Same goes for the mother that is smoking crack while pregnant. But yet it's ok to murder the child all together? No rights of ANY individual should supersede the rights of another, isnt that the what equality is all about? Yet we live in the delusions that these unborn children are considered less than. So much so, that people (like you are doing right now my friend), try and spin the argument. We get SO obsessed with the rights of the mother's, that we neglect the rights of the unborn child. The simple fact that womens rights get intertwined with this issue is unfortunate. When early feminism started, back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, it was about women having the right to work, being treated equally in the workplace and society as a whole. It didn't have ANYTHING to do with abortion. The truth is, certain politically biased individuals (many that were male doctors looking to open abortion clinics), hijacked the narrative. They intertwined abortion with womens rights, and the line has been blurred ever since. When in reality, the two don't have to be linked. Like I said, the vast majority of early feminists were NOT fighting for abortion, they were fighting for equality in the workplace and society as a whole. Abortion came MUCH later, so much so that I've listened to some of the early feminists leaders talk about how appalled they were when this issue became the #1 issue in feminist circles. Most of the pioneers of this movement held the belief of "we didn't sign up for this." Look I'm all for womens rights, but when we decide that one group has more rights than another group, it's no different than slavery (honestly I would argue worse). This issue is arguably the #1 issue that liberals have built their platforms on. Which I have found that when you unravel this core issue, their entire stance crumbles on itself. Honestly, I have spent so much time researching and contemplating this issue that I can debunk and point out the flaws in ANY opposing arguments. Honestly most liberals and conservatives don't even want to touch this issue, because most view it too complex. But in reality it is not, it's quite simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 (edited) Quote Where else has the LITERAL death of a group of humans been accepted by political party? Sure you could go back in history and find examples, but I'm talking in today's society, by major countries. I remember a great deal of talk about 'collateral damage' out of America in recent years. Quote I am NOT saying the unborn child deserves more rights than the mother either, so don't spin my words. If I'm not allowed to address the implications of what you say without being accused of spin I'm afraid I'm going to struggle through this discussion. Quote But why does one get to decide the fate of another? I agree the mother has the right to decide what's right for HER body. But that's the thing, the unborn child isn't a part of HER body, it's a completely separate living organism. COMPLETELY seperate is it? Quote Yes it's inside of her body, but it isn't hers Well whoose is it then?! Quote No rights of ANY individual should supersede the rights of another, isnt that the what equality is all about? Yet we live in the delusions that these unborn children are considered less than. So much so, that people (like you are doing right now my friend), try and spin the argument. We get SO obsessed with the rights of the mother's, that we neglect the rights of the unborn child. The simple fact that womens rights get intertwined with this issue is unfortunate. When you're born is when those rights kick in surely? Quote When early feminism started, back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's, it was about women having the right to work, being treated equally in the workplace and society as a whole. It didn't have ANYTHING to do with abortion. The truth is, certain politically biased individuals (many that were male doctors looking to open abortion clinics), hijacked the narrative. They intertwined abortion with womens rights, and the line has been blurred ever since. When in reality, the two don't have to be linked. And especially not when you have a particular narrative to push. Also, the fight for womens rights began a fair bit before the 1940s. Quote Look I'm all for womens rights, but when we decide that one group has more rights than another group, it's no different than slavery (honestly I would argue worse). This issue is arguably the #1 issue that liberals have built their platforms on. Which I have found that when you unravel this core issue, their entire stance crumbles on itself. Honestly, I have spent so much time researching and contemplating this issue that I can debunk and point out the flaws in ANY opposing arguments. Edited July 16, 2018 by Len Cnut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron MikeyJ Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Len Cnut said: 1. I remember a great deal of talk about 'collateral damage' out of America in recent years. 2. If I'm not allowed to address the implications of what you say without being accused of spin I'm afraid I'm going to struggle through this discussion. 3. COMPLETELY seperate is it? 4. Well whoose is it then?! 5. When you're born is when those rights kick in surely? 1. I'm not here to defend anything the US government has done or is doing. I don't see how that correlates to our discussion. I'm not going to defend collateral damage. 2. You can address anything I've stated, honestly I encourage it. When I say "spin" I mean the narrative has been spun at large. I have found that many (if not most) people have not actually spent much time on this issue, thinking about it for themselves. I'm not saying you haven't, perhaps you have? But when I hear the typical rhetoric that most pro choicers give, it doesn't sound very well thought out to my ears. I for one was a pro choicer for most of my adult life, but I was so out of ignorance. I always avoided the issue, and just relied on the political stance of my party to define my feelings on the issue. Which I feel MANY people do, so in reality you are NOT truly being a free thinker. 3. Yes it is completely separate. It has its own heart, organs, DNA, etc. It's a symbiotic type relationship with the mother, I will give you that. But it's STILL a separate living organism. This is a matter of fact that can't be disputed. 4. It's the babies body. Again, it's a separate living organism. It shares similarities with the mother's DNA, but it isn't her EXACT DNA, it is different. Again I don't really see how you can honestly argue differently. 5. So you believe BIRTH is when rights should kick in? So a mother that is addicted to crack and gives birth to a baby that is also a crack head did nothing wrong? It's her body, so she can do what she wants? She doesn't deserve any blame or responsibility to the circumstances her child was just born into? I'm just trying to determine where you draw the line here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gracii Guns Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 I immediately feel superior to any political movement or moment when it’s name is preceded by a misused hashtag. That video is conservative astroturfing. I can’t see why it would exist otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 Quote 1. I'm not here to defend anything the US government has done or is doing. I don't see how that correlates to our discussion. I'm not going to defend collateral damage. You asked when the death of a group of people was accepted by a political party, so I told you Quote 3. Yes it is completely separate. It has its own heart, organs, DNA, etc. It's a symbiotic type relationship with the mother, I will give you that. But it's STILL a separate living organism. This is a matter of fact that can't be disputed. It can't live without the mother and would not have come to be without the mother therefore it is not seperate. Quote 4. It's the babies body. Again, it's a separate living organism. It shares similarities with the mother's DNA, but it isn't her EXACT DNA, it is different. Again I don't really see how you can honestly argue differently. The babies body which has been created by the mother and lives off of the mother for 9 months. Quote So you believe BIRTH is when rights should kick in? It was a question. Quote So a mother that is addicted to crack and gives birth to a baby that is also a crack head did nothing wrong? It's her body, so she can do what she wants? She doesn't deserve any blame or responsibility to the circumstances her child was just born into? There's a difference though between harming a life that is eventually born and comes out damaged and terminating the possibility of a life being born inside you. A huge difference. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 Warning was given not to start another debate over abortion where it doesn't apply. Warnings were ignored, so the thread is locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts