Anything inside my body is part of my body. an independent body would not be inside my body...

>anything inside my body is part of my body
Eh. No... and WTF?
Everything you eat is not part of your body. When you shit or piss, that's part of your body?
Stop with the stupid.
A fetus is genetically distinct from both the mother and the father. It is also isolated from the mother's body by the amniotic sac. It is NOT part of the mother. It is a distinct entity.
> the baby is part of me.
Come on, this is basic biology.
>nor for you to interfere in other people's choices
> I wanna be able to kill people just by defining them as not human.
Have you ANY idea just how fucking dangerous this is?

Abortion is only wrong if its a white child.

why are roasties so salty about having to adopt a tiny fucking bit of responsibility?
not being a whore is a tiny responsibility.

>why can't I fuck whoever I want without using protection and then not face any of the consequences.
>Since I'm an intolerable whore I should kill my babies and hope that no one else cares.

>all this mental gymnastics
Its murder of a small human.

And How many times have You been pregnant?
>mind Your own business
Well, today talking to Useless roastie who enjoys killing babys Its the my business so Lets Continúe, shall we?

Only a completely self centered, narcissistic CUNT liberal female wouldn’t understand the simple significance that her fetus is a separate entity and life form. You cunts are such complete fucking degenerate whores that you see it as something you can vacuum away because you can’t keep your legs closed. You shit stains might as well have a blinking neon sign between your legs that says “Open 24 hours! Everyone welcome!”.

There is nothing that walks the earth more repulsive than a liberal female.

>Abortion is wrong
>But let me murder my baby in peace.

You know deep down that that is a life growing in you and that you are intentionally murdering it out of convenience. You’re a murderer. A child murderer.

You paid a doctor to chop up a child. That’s you. Child murderer. Live with it. And stop expecting us to tolerate your abhorrent behavior.

There are dozens of ways to prevent pregnancy.
Abstinence. Hormonal pills, IUDs, Hormonal implants, diaphragms, condoms.
Why don't you take your sexuality seriously?

Oh no they found out how to post here

Attached: 1557750686889.jpg (346x250, 8K)

Time to abandon ship

Fuck you bitch
Youll do as youre told

>why aren't you pushing for better education and less promiscuity?
>her fetus is a separate entity and life form

part of my body. only an flagrant idiot would disagree with that. its like a biological fact. women don't get pregnant outside their own body. duh.

reeeeeeeeeeee! how many sins have you committed this week including your disgusting diatribe?

>Why don't you take your sexuality seriously?

I do. why do make assumptions?

yeah I did. have u figured out how to read?

>abortion is wrong, but that's not for the government to regulate, nor for you to interfere in other people's choices

Is the boar ok?

use condoms, do anal, your murdering needs
to stop. it's not the sex you're after, you want
to butcher souls.

very stern response from another yank who cant read.

>why arent You Pushing for Better education
Bitch the whole purpose of sex ed an Medical care is to Make You do the Right Choices and Avoid pregnant, but it seems You Cant Even do That

oh I can. what made you think I don't?

might it be all those convenient assumptions you make?

>Bitch the whole purpose of sex ed an Medical care is to Make You do the Right Choices

well its obviously not working, so why aren't you working to fix it?

is it because you cant read?

>Crickey! Your cocks up me ass, its a part of me body now, mate!

>anything inside my body is part of my body. an independent body
would not be inside my body. this is the difference between people
who understand what a fetus is and people who do not.

you want to butcher babies and eat souls. just admit it.

Attached: lilith pissed.png (336x188, 139K)

In an ideal world, I’d throw you into a fucking hole alive, piss in your face and then fill in the hole. You’re that much of a decrepit cunt.

>case closed.

See this is where you're wrong. Case very fucking far from closed.

If it can survive on it's own with medical treatment outside of """your""" body, then it's a human with a future. Killing it is murder.

There, now the case is closed.

Attached: 6dr1u1353qt21.jpg (640x562, 86K)

Lawfag here.

Almost every single aspect of the criminal law control's someone's body. It circumscribes your rights by telling you what you can and cannot do. For example, laws against theft prohibit you from, well, stealing. Laws against assault prohibit you from threatening other people. Laws against drug abuse prevent you from smoking crack, etc etc. So it's clear that the law actually does routinely dictate what you can and cannot do with your body. It's usually a calculus between paternalism and protecting other people. Therefore, the starting point should not be the platitude, 'stop controlling women's bodies'. That is a thought terminating cliche (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché); the cliche doesn't really mean anything in this context but is used to end discussion. Rather, the starting point should be: what justification is there to interfere in this area? Which leads to the next question, what protection, if any, should a foetus have?

Now it's clear that a foetus is something special. Despite the dismissive and, frankly, dehumanising language often used when discussing abortion, a foetus is more than a 'clump of cells' or a 'parasite'. We know this because procuring a miscarriage or suffering a miscarriage is a distinct kind of harm from, say, being battered or becoming seriously ill, despite the fact that the latter two may involve more cellular destruction than a miscarriage. Similarly, drugging someone to procure a miscarriage is a more heinous act than drugging someone to incapacitate them. There is an emotional response to a failed pregnancy which seems to mark it as a special sort of harm. And there is, of course, the fact that a foetus will become an infant child, absent medical complications.

cont

Attached: 1552379210971.jpg (540x337, 30K)

. I think it's clear, then, that a foetus is a special case, and that society should recognise this by implementing special laws to protect it. This is also to the advantage of women who would perhaps like additional criminal sanctions against someone who forces them to have a miscarriage; current laws against poisoning and battery are extremely clumsy tools to wield here, and using them to punish forced miscarriages would be similar to using equality laws to enforce pregnancy leave (i.e., in the past the UK had an Act of Parliament that mandated men and women be treated the same, but because men could not get pregnant, it was originally held that women could not obtain leave for pregnancy complications or maternity leave. Eventually this was overruled and it was held that a pregnant woman was in a similar position to a temporarily sick man, and therefore she could not be fired if she had to take time off to account for her pregnancy. The tortured logic here is a bit obvious).

So then we get to the degree of protection desired. Current laws criminalise procuring a miscarriage. In some states in the USA, this criminal sanction even comes in the form of murder charges. Yet how can these protections (especially the ones deeming a forced miscarriage as a murder) be reconciled with the idea of 'my body, my choice'? Is the protection given to an infant dependent solely on the intention of the mother? For example, what if there is a mother who absolutely will go to an abortion on Wednesday. On Tuesday, her partner, not knowing about her plans, mixes an agent into her drink which causes her to undergo a miscarriage. Are we to accept that on Tuesday the termination of the pregnancy will amount to murder or child destruction, but on Wednesday no harm occurred? This is fundamentally at odds with the idea of special protection granted to a foetus. Why should the ‘worthiness of protection’ of a foetus depend on the whim of the mother?

cont

Attached: 1549942656268.jpg (612x300, 74K)

However, let’s assume instead that the ‘harm’ here is not done to the foetus. Let’s assume, again somewhat clumsily, that the law is intended to protect only a woman’s bodily autonomy rather than a foetus at all (in which case, again, why are there laws specifically protecting a foetus? But that’s an aside.) “My body, my choice”. The first point is that common law governments almost universally protect the sanctity of life. This isn’t an empty saying, it’s something that’s hardcoded into their legal DNA. There’s a reason why euthanasia is a criminal offence and why suicide used to be criminalised. There’s a reason why duress is not a justification to kill another, and why you cannot simply walk up and disconnect patients who are in a persistent vegetative state. It is because it is considered the duty of the government to protect life. Given that foetus will grow up into a human being, is there not a more than ample justification for interference with a woman’s personal autonomy? Consider that the government will often post warnings on the sides of alcoholic beverages and tobacco, warning that smoking can endanger a foetus. How can it be that the latter are acceptable in the goal of protecting life, but preventing the outright destruction of a foetus is somehow crossing the line? It’s an entirely incoherent position.

cont

Attached: 1550736870408.jpg (944x629, 88K)

It’s also unclear if a woman even has bodily autonomy in this particular area to the extent necessary to avoid ANY sort of criminal laws. I notice, for example, that many pro-choice advocates seem to react with outrage that men are making any decisions about their bodies, and that only women should make those choices. But this ignores the inescapable fact that every pregnancy has both a mother and a father. It is the creation of two people, carried within the mother. Why should the father not have any say whatsoever in whether he will eventually have a child? Is it not the case that a father may also suffer emotionally from a miscarriage in a similar manner to a mother? Does a father not have any interest in the well-being and care of his future child? He clearly does, and this fact being avoided by pro-choice advocates does not do anyone any favours. And, of course, pro-choice advocates often want tax dollars to fund abortion clinics to some degree. But if taxpayers are on the hook for something, they absolutely should have a say in it regardless of whether they’re male or female. So I don’t find the ‘bodily autonomy’ argument to be a particularly good one here. It’s an extremely important consideration, but it’s not a magic bullet that just avoids the argument.

cont

Attached: 1552378769921.jpg (519x612, 88K)

Finally, I just want to speak about the argument that ‘if you are against abortion, then it’s your responsibility to maintain the child and pay for its upkeep, healthcare, etc.’ You haven't argued it, but it pops up often enough.

This is such a transparently poor argument that I’m surprised it’s bandied about so often. First, the child is not the responsibility of other people. It is the responsibility of the mother and the father. No one else caused it to come into existence except the mother and father. And no, a law preventing abortion is not causative here in any legal or moral sense. Second, saying that because someone supports a law preventing abortion, they should pay for the children who would have otherwise been aborted is like saying that because someone supports a law against murdering the homeless, they should assume responsibility and pay for the homeless. It’s completely ridiculous, and it’s just trying to evade responsibility.
What the argument on abortion SHOULD boil down to is ultimately a question of balance. As I argued above, I think a foetus is a thing worthy of special protection. I have also mentioned that personal autonomy is an important consideration. What, then, is the proper balance between personal autonomy and protection granted to a foetus? In the United Kingdom this has been solved by the judiciary. A foetus is considered ‘alive’ when it can have an existence independent of its mother, i.e. when it can survive in a neonatal care unit etc. Afaik, Roe v Wade held roughly the same thing. Before that point, abortion is tolerated. After that point, it is illegal, barring extreme medical circumstances. Debates on abortion should be focussed on the issue of balancing the mother’s rights with protection of a foetus, not on simplistic platitudes and thought-terminating clichés.

That’s all.

My argument could be much better structured but w/e it's Jow Forums, I'm not writing a memo here.

Attached: onzpjl08xxx11.png (418x500, 214K)

>"oh i can"
Doesnt seem Like it Since You came Here Spread Your Bullshit about "muh body"
>well its obviously not working, so why aren't you working to fix it?
Because the system works as it is You GodDamn Fucktard, it is You who is a failure
Based lawfag

DOUBLE the reddit spacing. Wow!

>anything inside my body is part of my body. an independent body would not be inside my body.
If I shove my dick up your arse, it's not part of your body.
kys.

WTF? Isn't it like 4am in oz?

Maybe you should act like a woman and not a hole? Why should the fetus/baby/whatever pay the price so you can continue to party and avoid the joys and responsibilities of motherhood?