ABORTION

124 posts / 0 new

Last post

Fri, 05/03/2019 - 19:36

#122

Old man shouts ...

@ SBH

Although I appreciate the efforts of the woman who carries the child, the child is an entirely different being.

It is emotive nonsense to call a blastocyst a "child".

Then why and how do you have the authority to decide that this parasitic embryonic"child" has rights that supersede that of the carrier?

I am so glad you "appreciate the efforts" of women who carry to term. I am sure your patronising "appreciation" will buoy them in the sleepless nights ahead.

I am saying (with no religious reasoning) that life happens at conception. This is because scientifically, as soon as the sperm and ovum meet in a romantic dance, an entirely new human is formed.

I don't accept your argument at all about when sustainable, independent, human life begins. It is specious uninformed nonsense and has been debunked many times on these pages if you but read some older threads.

The issue is: Why do old men with religious convictions, or young patronising men with their heads in the fifties, get to decide what a woman does with her body?

(Edit tags)

Sun, 05/05/2019 - 03:34

(Reply to #122) #123

Sheldon

Old man shouts ...SBH

Old man shouts ...SBH "Although I appreciate the efforts of the woman who carries the child, the child is an entirely different being."

It is emotive nonsense to call a blastocyst a "child".

Then why and how do you have the authority to decide that this parasitic embryonic"child" has rights that supersede that of the carrier?"

Especially given he's refused to answer my question:

If a teenage child need a kidney donated to save their life, and the only donor available was the biological father, and the father refused to donate a kidney. Would Somebodieshero be happy to strap the man down and remove his kidney against his wishes, even passing a law to insist this could be done?

If he wouldn't do this, then why does he want to grant an insentient blastocyst or foetus rights over the woman carrying it, he would deny a conscious self aware teenager who could experience emotional trauma and physical pain?

It's a ludicrous rationale that can get into an emotional outrage over the termination of an insentient blastocyst, yet disregard the rights and suffering of fully sentient woman.

Sun, 05/05/2019 - 05:11

(Reply to #123) #124

Old man shouts ...

@ Sheldon

If a teenage child need a kidney donated to save their life, and the only donor available was the biological father, and the father refused to donate a kidney. Would Somebodieshero be happy to strap the man down and remove his kidney against his wishes, even passing a law to insist this could be done?
If he wouldn't do this, then why does he want to grant an insentient blastocyst or foetus rights over the woman carrying it, he would deny a conscious self aware teenager who could experience emotional trauma and physical pain?
It's a ludicrous rationale that can get into an emotional outrage over the termination of an insentient blastocyst, yet disregard the rights and suffering of fully sentient woman.

*fist bump*

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages