prolifeproliberty:shitanti-choicerssay:prolifeproliberty:shitanti-choicerssay:prolifeproliberty:fort

prolifeproliberty:shitanti-choicerssay:prolifeproliberty:shitanti-choicerssay:prolifeproliberty:fortunateserendipity:thecatsmeow90:badboshtet:brownskinlady21:Yes. Bitch.rapist vibe, fuckin’ gross^^^ agreedI like the ending message tho. It’s her body, her career, her life.This is fucking disgusting“This kid is mine” so therefore she can kill him or her? Why are we treating children like property that can be destroyed at will?The guy isn’t helping. Not once does he make the argument that she shouldn’t kill the child because it’s a child. He makes it all about them and their relationship.One may be arguing against abortion and the other for abortion, but neither of them are acknowledging the humanity of the person they’re talking about killing.It’s entirely possible that she actually recognizes the “humanity” of the fetus when she says that only she can make the choice about her body. If the fetus is to be referred to as a sentient, independent, viable human being (which it is not), then you have to hold it up to the rules of consent as well. That woman has the right to want to get rid of something that is using her body without her permission. Have a good one~~!The fetus is not choosing to be in her body any more than a newborn baby chooses to be in a crib. If a woman owns a crib and doesn’t want a baby to be in it, does she have the right to tear the baby apart limb from limb?Not necessarily to tear the infant limb from limb (since, y'know, that whole tearing limb from limb thing is a side effect of the anti-choice movement), but she definitely has the right to remove the infant from the crib. I’m not saying that everybody should dash the heads of their children against walls Gregor Clegane style, but consent is still a basic right. The cool thing about medical procedures like this though, is that I don’t need your consent to get one, cause it doesn’t apply to you :3 just like how this woman’s choice is hers alone to make and not the man’s. You seem to have a lot of difficulty connecting the fact that a crib and a womb are really not similar enough for this analogy though… An infant in a crib is a sentient being, not leeching calcium, oxygen, and other assorted minerals/vitamins and such from the crib. A fetus does all of that to a pregnant person. Oops :3You’re right that the woman has the right to remove the baby from the crib. She doesn’t have the right to kill the child in the process. I’m not asking anyone to get my consent before having a medical procedure. I’m asking them not to kill their children.The fetus is receiving nutrients and oxygen, which the newborn also needs. We all need nutrients and oxygen to survive.And what do you mean by sentient?Can I just divert this conversation for two seconds?On what plane of existence are a crib and a womb equivalent? I literally do not understand. Onto the rest of your rebuttal:The fetus receives those things by TAKING THEM FROM THE MOTHER, infants receive those things either from the air around them, or through food (which may be provided by the mother via breastfeeding, if she so CHOOSES to do so). Sentience is defined as “the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.” The last study I ran across regarding prenatal development stated that at the EARLIEST, fetuses experience these things after the 24 week mark, which is long after most deadlines for legal abortions, and after the fetus has the potential to be viable outside the mother’s body. :3 -- source link

More pics about