Also, the baby is not violating anyone's consent BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONSENT TO BEING IN THERE! YOU CANNOT KILL IT FOR EXISTING.
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
The consent of the baby is irrelevant because the baby is the one violating the mother's consent, not the other way around. The baby has no consent, since it is the one using another person's body.
Even if it was a grown adult that was using your body, that person becomes the violator the moment you do not consent to their use of your body. It doesn't matter if you will be fine or not, it doesn't matter if they'll die or not, it doesn't matter whether it's a baby or a full-grown adult, it doesn't matter whether it's sex, pregnancy, a medical procedure, etc...YOU still have the sole right to determine who can or cannot use your body, in any way, for any or no reason. Read more
@WhatisaWoman?11mos11MO
Here's the thing: if you won't admit that doing an act you know can create life, becoming pregnant, and punishing the innocent baby with death is evil, than you cannot be argued with, so I'm done trying.
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
Easy: because it's not.
No one who uses another person's body without their consent is innocent; in fact, it is the opposite. Knowingly using another person's body without their consent is evil, and if you think that's okay, then it is you who is against freedom and fundamental human rights.
@9CJ6CB68mos8MO
I agree, I’m very much on the pro-choice side, though when we do abortions, if the fetus is capable of feeling pain, nullify the effect. After all, the fetus is still dependent on the parent until near-term, which is a couple of weeks before birth. If they’re still dependent, then how can we say that the rest of it MUST happen? They’re still a part of the parent, and still reliant on them. Any abortions done after that point are done because of specific circumstances, and even then how does a two-week period make that much of a difference? If we can’t mandate vaccines,… Read more
