Abortion Should Be Used To Save Life And Not Destroy It

@LadyGrace Amen, sister, amen.

@SatanBurger Is that not exactly what you do? I reject most things looking like artificial inteligence. Or media influancers.

@Wireman No because I carefully weigh my decision to be pro choice with lots of various factors. Your reasons for being pro life are anti science, anti female and birther type mentality. You can't put it aside to look at the picture as a whole, I can.

@SatanBurger Suit yourself. Do as you wish and be happy.

@ElwoodBlues
You were once an embryo, what gives you the right to pass the death sentence on other embryos while you get to live? Were you more valuable than they are?

@GodSpeed63 asks You're STILL not getting it!! Lemme try again.

I don't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

YOU don't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Trump & Vance don't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Can you guess who DOES have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body??

@ElwoodBlues
I know who has that right. Do you know?

@AbbeyRhode Absolutely!! And unless they were raped, that child is their CHOSEN responsibility.

@AbbeyRhode Amen to that!!!

@SophSmiles
And everyone else. Nobody owns the Truth save one, and that is God sine He's the one who established it.

@GodSpeed63 Nobody owns the truth except you, huh?

@GodSpeed63 you’re embarrassing yourself yourself now if you don’t even recognise that your religion are your set of beliefs and truths but other people may have different ones

@Thrust
Me too.

@nedkelly
The same God that created the baby in the womb. Even though women are free to do with their bodies as they see fit, they also are responsible to treat their bodies like the valuable temples as God created them to be.

@DallasCowboysFan Yes, we all heard how loudly the Reich Wing screeched “My body, my choice!” when asked to get the Covid shot.

@GodSpeed63 We've been saying 2,000 for quite awhile so that is actually impossible, numbers have to move up with the years. It can't just stay at 2,000 for decades.

The big think site says around 3,400. So I was right.

Technically you've been waiting for 3,400 years.

@SatanBurger
The big think site also miscalculated..

@GodSpeed63 We've been saying 2,000 years for a long time. It can't stay at 2,000 it has to move with the years.

@newjaninev2

So scrape out the rest of them right?

Fiend

@Thrust Yes, such gods would certainly be fiends! I mean, nearly a third! Yet there are people who worship them.

@Thrust I meant if men the one getting pregnant

@greensnacks Oh, so you're admitting that there IS a difference between men and women?

@IM5688 This post is about abortion, keep it on subject. Trying to derail the thread.

@GodSpeed63 It's not murder. You can't murder an embryo or a cell.

@SatanBurger
Didn't know that anything that is non-living can't grow?

@GodSpeed63 I'll repost this from below.

From the Phil archive, can't really copy the link it's a download, it's titled 11 Common Arguments Against Abortion, you can look it up.

“Murder” means “wrongful killing,” and so this definition implies that abortion is wrong by definition, which it isn’t. This definition means that to know that abortion is wrong, we’d just need to reflect on the meaning of the word, and not give any reasons to think this. Murder is wrong by definition, but to know That any particular killing is murder, we need arguments. (Compare someone who calls the death penalty
murder: we know it’s killing, but is it wrongful killing? We can’t just appeal to the definition of
“murder”: we need arguments that this is wrongful killing).

This definition also means that someone who claims that abortion is not wrong says that “Wrongful killing is not wrong,” which makes no sense. We can even call this a “question-begging” definition, since it assumes that abortion is wrong, which can’t be assumed.

So this definition is problematic, even if abortion is wrong.

Definition 1 also describes fetuses as “babies” or “children.” While people are usually free to use whatever words how they want, people can say things that are false: calling something something doesn’t mean it’s really that thing.

And the beginnings of something are usually not that thing: a pile of lumber and supplies is not a house; fabric, buttons and thread are not a shirt, and an embryo or early fetus is not a baby or child. So it’s false and misleading to call embryos and early fetuses “babies” or
“children.”

Defining abortion in terms of “babies” seems to again result in a “question-begging” definition that assumes that abortion is wrong, since it is widely and correctly believed that it’s wrong to kill babies.

We understand, however, that it’s wrong to kill babies because we think about born babies who are conscious and feeling and have other baby-like characteristics: these are the babies we have in mind when we think about the wrongness of killing babies, not early fetuses.

Describing early fetuses as “babies” characterizes them either as something they are not or, at least, assumes things that need to
argued for, which is misleading, both factually (in terms of what fetuses are like) and morally (insofar as it’s assumed that the rules about how babies should be treated clearly and straightforwardly apply to, say, embryos).

Part of the problem with this definition is that terms like “babies” and “children” encourage strong emotional responses. Babies and children are associated with value-laden terms such as innocence, vulnerability, preciousness, cuteness, and more

....

(1) abortion is murder;
(2) abortion is killing babies or children;
(3) adoption is a better option than abortion;
(4) pregnant women just must keep the pregnancy and give birth;
(5) abortion should not be used as ‘birth control’;
(6) women who have abortions are irresponsible;
(7) a good person wouldn’t have an abortion;
(8) women who have abortions feel guilty.
These premises all assume that abortion is wrong.

To explain:

(1) assumes that killing fetuses is wrong, since “murder” means wrongful killing;
(2) assumes that fetuses are like babies and children and so are similarly wrong to kill;
(3) assumes that abortion is a worse or bad option, since it assumes it is wrong;
(4) assumes that women must not have abortions since it assumes they are wrong;
(5) assumes that abortion is wrong: but if it is not wrong, while it might not be an ideal form
of “birth control” it could permissibly be used for that purpose;
(6) assumes that women who have abortions are doing what they are not supposed to do,
doing wrong, and so are “irresponsible”;
(7) assumes that abortion is wrong and so good people, who avoid wrongdoing, wouldn’t
have one;
(8) assumes that abortion is wrong and so assumes that some women feel guilty because they
have done something wrong: however, people can feel guilty even if they haven’t done
anything wrong, so guilt feelings aren’t perfect evidence of wrongdoing (just as not
feeling guilty doesn’t mean you did something that was OK).
People would believe these claims only if they already believed abortion is wrong, so these claims
should not sway anyone who wants to think critically about the issues.

@BabyDolls
1. Are you trying to justify the murdering of an unborn child?

2. You didn't answer my question.

3. If she does suffer through pregnancy at that tender age, who do you blame?

@GodSpeed63
1. Are you trying to justify the murder of a mother?

2. You didn’t answer mine

3. Definitely not a child

@BabyDolls
1. Answer my question first, then I'll answer yours.

2. Answer mine first, then I'll answer yours.

3. Which one?

@MiraRoss I'm sorry, that's terrible. I see the same controlling nature in pro lifers. I hope you can get away from them.

@SatanBurger it's not good. Was at court yesterday and they've given him two full days now despite the proof of the red flags

@MiraRoss
According to whom?

@OogieBoogie Bold of you to assume he is capable of feeling shame. I see no evidence to that effect.