You don’t know? lol. Are you familiar with game theory? Here’s a tip for next time: try not assuming people are talking to you in bad faith. It might lead to a more positive outcome if they aren’t, and even if they are you won’t have lost much if anything. Put another way, I think we have different communication styles or something. You can take your last shot and I won’t discuss why we aren’t discussing it any further, how about that?
I, on the other hand, have only said the following (after your accusations),
While I agree, it is amazing that you are writing this as I’m still trying to engage you in good faith and you are still attacking me personally and shutting down the conversation.
Here’s a few tips for you: Don’t be hostile or escalate situations. If you don’t understand a response, let the other person know rather than assume bad faith and make personal attacks against them. Which brings me to the last one, don’t make the disagreements personal. I think it’s even a rule or something.
By definition, that makes you pro-choice. Pro-choice = “government, get your hands off my choices to do with my body and family planning choices what I will”. If you’re pro-choice, it means you think people should have a choice. That’s why it’s called “choice”. For some reason people are convinced that pro-choice means someone is going to go around forcing everyone to have abortions. It’s not the CCP!! Pro-life = government should have the power to dictate that a woman doesn’t have autonomy over her own body and under no circumstance should she be allowed to abort an unwanted fetus because the lives of unborn humans are the only thing they care about but not the lives of the women that will be destroyed = two sides of the same CCP coin
I don’t agree. And the labels mean nothing as it’s different for everyone. Ask 100 people who are pro choice, they will tell you different things of what that means. Plenty of pro choice people believe the gov should provide access to abortions on tax payer money. I do not.
I don’t think the government should be involved at all.
I don’t think so. I have never met a single person who thinks that. None here as well. Most of the pro choice objections I’ve seen are against late term abortions and using tax payer money to fund abortions. Not because it means people will be forced to have one.
Very few people do, either as a percentage of the population or as a matter of country policy. In real life when I do have these talks with pro-choice people, very few actually believe that you should be able to electively abort a baby immediately before birth.
It’s a right. It’s not my place to judge such people. People who do abortions later in the pregnancy are people who live complex lives just like you and I. I don’t know their situation and I don’t care. Keep the state away from legislating morality and women’s bodies.
It’s not a baby. It’s a foetus. Calling it a baby is intentionally misframing it.
Nobody can judge anyone if I follow your reasoning.
I’m not talking about the state deciding what women do with their bodies. I’m talking about you saying a foetus is a foetus. It doesn’t matter what the law is in different countries. Being able to abort a healthy baby at full term is wrong.
The state does little else other than legislating morality. Is the intentional killing of post-birth human life legal where you come from? No? How dare they legislate morality!?!
A fetus is an unborn baby. Denying this is a an intentional misrepresentation and a stupid game of semantics which will not convince anyone other than those converted to your religious views on life.
Agree, if the baby is at an age where it can live outside the mother, I don’t see how it can be justified outside of emergencies. But most people indeed aren’t advocating for it, I think.
Again, even if you weren’t wrong on a linguistic level (which you are), your semantic word play does nothing to further your cause.
I have already noted your religious belief that rights are granted to an entity based on location differences and the magical conveyance of rights when moving a couple of feet. I prefer a more scientific (and obviously moral) approach.
No problem. I don’t necessarily disagree with your views on the science. I just prefer the economic, practical and rights-of-the-carrier views on the subject and they carry more weight for me.
In that sense, this would make it hypocritical for me to support anything less than unrestricted access to abortions for the people who want/need them.
They have different morals, I don’t want to interfere.
I’m also for government help in adoptions. I think that’s a wonderful option for those that don’t want to keep the baby. State and federal laws gives the birth mother tremendous control over the process and it’s completely free.