females should have final say-so over what happens to their bodies.
Sure, just not what happens to another body inside their body.
Using this logic, is a female allowed to kill me during consensual sex because I am inside her and hence become her body?
>It's interesting to know just how many anons are entirely incapable to seeing something from someone else's perspective.
It's interesting to see how you ignore what I say and put words in my mouth to not confront the issue I brought up.
>then you might just have authoritarian ideations.
>>Being against murder of the innocents is authoritarian.
Kek.
>>Everything I disagree with is a satanic ritual.
And probably a lot of stuff I don't even realize the satanic connections to and therefore don't know to disagree with.
Conclusion; Everything is satanic.
>>Promoting rape babies is ultra maga!
>Awesome.
So a child conceived during rape is less worthy of life? Why? What wrongs did it commit? Come into existence?
So we should just murder it?
I don't promote rape. But it's not the babies fault their dad raped their mom. Why should they pay?
If the choice is between;
'Promoting rape babies' (as you say) or killing innocents for the transgressions of their father, I'll pick 'promoting rape babies' any day.
<And you feel like you got the moral upside of this argument, wtf? kek.
>It's obvious you have absolutely no regard for bodily autonomy
Says you who want to kill babies…
>Define when life begins.
When new DNA is created. At conception. Period.
>Provide anon with a logical argument that proves your viewpoint has dominion over someone else's body.
Like the 'logical argument' that a females displeasure gives her dominion over a childs right to live?
>You can't.
I did. Multiple times.
>Every argument that comes from the "at conception" crowd will be based on religious leanings.
I'm atheist. But nice try.
>Apparently "God" hates "babies"
You didn't read that I told you I was atheist?
What you're basically saying is;
>Because it happens in nature at times, we should actively accelerate it, Instead of using our technological advances to prevent it.
>Who is more qualified to determine her ability to mother than her?
Aborting is not part of 'ability to mother'. It's literally the opposite.
What are you even saying?
Also funny how we moved from 'rape babies' to 'ability to mother' as the qualifier for when aborting is OK…
Moving the goal post in typical leftist fashion.
>Who is more qualified to determine a woman's ability OR INABILITY to mother, that herself?
Based on the amount of regret I hear from women I know who had abortions, I'd say probably not her.
But even if we pretend to agree.
Give it up for adoption? Why kill it?
>But until you or (I) are in the position, it's not for (Us) to decided.
Why? Murder is wrong.
Are you saying that unless I killed someone it's not my place to decide if murder is wrong?
That would make for some fucked up courts.
While I actually agree with you that neglect of children is a big issue too. It's completely separate from the realm of whether or not to murder someone.
>Deciding how other people should survive this Beast System, just serves the Beast.
So no laws then? Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law?
>I am an atheist and I have raped and killed all the people I have ever wanted to…exactly zero.
Same. Aren't we speshul?
It still happens though, and not always justly. Just because you don't want to kill someone doesn't mean other share that viewpoint.
>Why did the women arguing over the baby have to ask the King (Solomon) to decide the issue?
Because historically laws were controlled by kings. Today (at least in the west) they are controlled by lawmakers. Same difference.
No laws being bad != all laws being good.
>There isn't a single law "on the books" that PREVENTS "crimes".
Wrong. The whole idea is preventative.
If you know there are negative consequences to your actions you are less likely to follow through. It's common sense…
In that example they are one and the same.
>1. Laws that rule murder of pregnant women a "double homicide" are put in place to put maximum punishment on offenders.
Yup because they are killing 2 people, not 1.
>2. Conception = Life is a religious argument. Our laws are (and should always remain) secular.
I'll say it again. Life starts when new separate DNA is created - a separate being from the mother. This is not based on religion - I'm atheist.
>3. As another stated, nearly half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. God is the biggest abortionist there is.
How is that even an argument? So because 'God'/nature does it we should actively encourage it ourselves?
In some species of spiders, the mother eats the father after sex for nutrients for their young. Should we encourage that in humans too? I mean it's only natural.
>Chart attached is the common sense way to start a legal debate over when life begins, and how abortion laws should be governed for everyone that isn't a religulous authoritarian, or a rabid pro-abortinist.
Not much a debate really. All the images on that 'chart' are of humans and therefore not OK to kill.
No, I know there are societies where regards for the consequences are taught out of them - even though when they then finally get the consequences they are the biggest cry-babies.
That doesn't change the fact that for normal people, it is a consideration that affects their decisions. I never said it was the perfect preventative measure - but stating that there is no preventative measures is flat out wrong.
I don't see how this relates to anything though? We were talking about murder laws. Are you suggesting that because we can't prevent murder we shouldn't punish those who commit murder either?