The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[toxicmedia]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

I love this type of thread PC.....let me explain my position, in words pro lifers can understand

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

Exactly!
They don't care, they approve of killing the offspring of humans.

Exactly, and since murder is the unlawful killing of another human. Abortion in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy, where legal, Is lawful, and not murder.

Furthermore, when a first or second trimester fetus has an undeveloped cerebral cortex it cannot have feelings. If you want to make the case that the human baby has "personhood" rights, you must also grant those same rights to brain dead people, and make pulling the plug on anybody, under any circumstances, illegal, regardless of their wishes.

What people like PC do is think that calling a fetus a baby makes it any different, it doesn't.

Another thing PC won't address, is all the babies she wants to government controlling. Because she wants the government to control every aspect of reproduction, yet she doesn't seem to want to make sure EVERYONE the government would force to carry human babies to term, gets to turn them over to a loving family.

Government control of women's bodies and decisions is what she wants, and would offer nothing to guarantee good lives for them. She just assumes that'll happen.

And that's only the beginning of how naïve her position is

 

[koshergrl]

"An objective study of the Holocaust and legal abortion demonstrates striking similarities. There are differences. For instance, the Nazis felt they had to hide the death camps to avoid general outrage; nearly all such camps were in Poland or Byelorussia, not Germany. In contrast, Americans debate but largely accept abortion clinics in our midst." Are Abortion and the Holocaust Comparable

 

[Skylar]

No one else is obligated to take care of a newborn, according to you.

According to me, anyone can care for a child. Or a parent can pass the care to another. There's no exclusive obligation to do for any one person. Where in the scenario of abortion, only one person can carry a given embryo. And the exclusive obligation you infer don't exist. As a woman has no obligation to allow her body to be used by anyone or anything.

You're insisting that she's a slave to the embryo.....that no matter what she wants, no matter what she chooses, she must submit to the use of her body for months on end without break or respite in the most intimate way possible.

Nope. No such obligation exists.

 

[toxicmedia]

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

Then you are a murderer.

What you clearly do not understand is that there is no right to murder and as a result, there is no right to publicly advocate for murder.

The Reader should understand, that what you see in the cited contributor's comment, is the slippery slope which we went down, when we, as a culture allowed ROE to stand.

What it shared, was what every PRO-CHOICE person 'believes'. And it is evil personified. That they now feel comfortable stating such, merely indicates that we're at the point where tolerance of these people is no longer a viable alternative.

Shut the fuck up you waste of space and pick up a dictionary.

Murder is unlawful homicide, and where it is legal, it's not murder.

You can get all teary eyed with someone else.

Figure out a way to have the government pay for prenatal, delivery, and post natal care for the mothers you force to have human babies...then guarantee those babies are adopted by fit parents, then you might have more than intolerant judgmental legs to stand on

 

[koshergrl]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

I love this type of thread PC.....let me explain my position, in words pro lifers can understand

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

Exactly!
They don't care, they approve of killing the offspring of humans.

Exactly, and since murder is the unlawful killing of another human. Abortion in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy, where legal, Is lawful, and not murder.

Furthermore, when a first or second trimester fetus has an undeveloped cerebral cortex it cannot have feelings. If you want to make the case that the human baby has "personhood" rights, you must also grant those same rights to brain dead people, and make pulling the plug on anybody, under any circumstances, illegal, regardless of their wishes.

What people like PC do is think that calling a fetus a baby makes it any different, it doesn't.

Another thing PC won't address, is all the babies she wants to government controlling. Because she wants the government to control every aspect of reproduction, yet she doesn't seem to want to make sure EVERYONE the government would force to carry human babies to term, gets to turn them over to a loving family.

Government control of women's bodies and decisions is what she wants, and would offer nothing to guarantee good lives for them. She just assumes that'll happen.

And that's only the beginning of how naïve her position is

She's not naive, and her position is firm. Your argument is poorly thought out, and nonsensical.

For example..."all the babies she wants to government controlling" makes zero sense. It's impossible to even figure out what the hell you're talking about. I've read P.C. for a loong time, and I've never seen that she wants any government control of reproduction. Protecting the vulnerable is not control of reproduction. It's simply protecting the results of it.

If you hate babies, don't get pregnant. Just because you despise the offspring of humanity doesnt' give you the right to kill them.

 

[toxicmedia]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

I love this type of thread PC.....let me explain my position, in words pro lifers can understand

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

"I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother,....

1. As you have admitted to acceptance of homicide, why draw the line at 'first and second trimester"...?
Why not first or second decade of the child's life, as Obama's science adviser Singer has suggested be done (well...he didn't go quite that long....)


2. What is the right the mother has to take that life, aside from the acquiescence of homicidal maniacs like you?
Or....why does that mother not have the same "right" to kill any other person she comes across?

What, exactly, is that "right" based on?

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

I love this type of thread PC.....let me explain my position, in words pro lifers can understand

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

Exactly!
They don't care, they approve of killing the offspring of humans.

Exactly, and since murder is the unlawful killing of another human. Abortion in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy, where legal, Is lawful, and not murder.

Furthermore, when a first or second trimester fetus has an undeveloped cerebral cortex it cannot have feelings. If you want to make the case that the human baby has "personhood" rights, you must also grant those same rights to brain dead people, and make pulling the plug on anybody, under any circumstances, illegal, regardless of their wishes.

What people like PC do is think that calling a fetus a baby makes it any different, it doesn't.

Another thing PC won't address, is all the babies she wants to government controlling. Because she wants the government to control every aspect of reproduction, yet she doesn't seem to want to make sure EVERYONE the government would force to carry human babies to term, gets to turn them over to a loving family.

Government control of women's bodies and decisions is what she wants, and would offer nothing to guarantee good lives for them. She just assumes that'll happen.

And that's only the beginning of how naïve her position is

She's not naive, and her position is firm. Your argument is poorly thought out, and nonsensical.

For example..."all the babies she wants to government controlling" makes zero sense. It's impossible to even figure out what the hell you're talking about. I've read P.C. for a loong time, and I've never seen that she wants any government control of reproduction. Protecting the vulnerable is not control of reproduction. It's simply protecting the results of it.

If you hate babies, don't get pregnant. Just because you despise the offspring of humanity doesnt' give you the right to kill them.

First of all, I don't hate babies.

Furthermore your argument is just like hers, you do not address the results of making laws that cause the government to force women into giving up 9 months of their lives, and the resulting 18 years of unwanted human babies lives

 

[Skylar]

"An objective study of the Holocaust and legal abortion demonstrates striking similarities. There are differences. For instance, the Nazis felt they had to hide the death camps to avoid general outrage; nearly all such camps were in Poland or Byelorussia, not Germany. In contrast, Americans debate but largely accept abortion clinics in our midst." Are Abortion and the Holocaust Comparable

So says Steve Kellmeyer, Catholic blogger. The question is, why should I give a shit what Mr. Kellmeyer believes?

You never did answer my question. If abortion is a crime against children and against humanity.....why then has the UN insisted that safe and legal access to abortion is a requirement of every State?

And why, pray tell, has the UN never found that abortion is a crime against any child, a crime against humanity, a violation of any child's rights, discrimination against children, or a crime of any kind?

And who, other than yourself, are you citing that says as much? The Catholic blogger?

 

[Carib Gyal]

No one else is obligated to take care of a newborn, according to you.

According to me, anyone can care for a child. Or a parent can pass the care to another. There's no exclusive obligation to do for any one person. Where in the scenario of abortion, only one person can carry a given embryo. And the exclusive obligation you infer don't exist. As a woman has no obligation to allow her body to be used by anyone or anything.

You're insisting that she's a slave to the embryo.....that no matter what she wants, no matter what she chooses, she must submit to the use of her body for months on end without break or respite in the most intimate way possible.

Nope. No such obligation exists.

Whether an obligation to care for a child you yourself caused to be made or not can be debated. What can't be debated is no one has the right to murder it.

 

[Skylar]

psst...nobody has advocated for "absolute prohibition".

Psst....that's not an answer to any question I asked? That's an excuse for an answer.

Psst.....why does the UN mandate safe and legal access to abortion if abortion is a crime against humanity? What does the UN know that you don't?

Psst.......why has the UN never found any claim you've made regarding abortion to be true. Ever?

Psst.......if your argument had merit, you wouldn't be running from it.

"On July 22, 1942, the Fuhrer exhibited a highly positive attitude towards abortion as an indispensable method of dealing with the non-German populations in countries under Nazi control. "In view of the large families of the native populations," he asserted, "it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible." Hitler also personally announced that he "would personally shoot" any "such idiot" who "tried to put into practice such an order (forbidding abortion) in the occupied Eastern territories."

Hitler and Abortion

Laughing....and Godwin's law!

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism."

Godwin s law - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The last, desperate bastion of every hapless poster desperately polishing her little rhetorical turd.

Psst......you just blinked.

 

[Skylar]

Whether an obligation to care for a child you yourself caused to be made or not can be debated.

Sure it can. And I can do it in one word examples.

Adoption.

Babysitter.

Grandma.

Anyone.

There's no exclusive obligation to care for any child. As care for the child can be passed on. Why? Because even a newborn has the capacity to live autonomously. Not indefinitely, but for hours, even days. Which means that care can be done by pretty much anyone.

An embryo doesn't have the any capacity to live autonomously...at all. Without its use of a woman's body, it ceases to live. Not in hours. Not in days. Not in any manner where care could be passed to anyone else. But pretty much instantly.

A woman has no such obligation to allow anything to use her body. She can deny the use of her body to anyone. Nor does an embryo have any claim on the use of anyone's body. Let alone exclusive, uninterrrupted, invasively intimate, and non-consensual use......for months without any kind of break, respite or choice.

What can't be debated is no one has the right to murder it.

Because its a fallacy, perhaps? The 'right to murder' is not the basis of her rights. Its control over the use of her own body. The results of killing and denying the use of her body are identical. But the basis of authority is radically different.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Whether an obligation to care for a child you yourself caused to be made or not can be debated.

Sure it can. And I can do it in one word examples.

Adoption.

Babysitter.

Grandma.

Anyone.

There's no exclusive obligation to care for any child. As care for the child can be passed on. Why? Because even a newborn has the capacity to live autonomously. Not indefinitely, but for hours, even days. Which means that care can be done by pretty much anyone.

An embryo doesn't have the any capacity to live autonomously...at all. Without its use of a woman's body, it ceases to live. Not in hours. Not in days. Not in any manner where care could be passed to anyone else. But pretty much instantly.

A woman has no such obligation to allow anything to use her body. She can deny the use of her body to anyone. Nor does an embryo have any claim on the use of anyone's body. Let alone exclusive, uninterrrupted, invasively intimate, and non-consensual use......for months without any kind of break, respite or choice.

What can't be debated is no one has the right to murder it.

Because its a fallacy, perhaps? The 'right to murder' is not the basis of her rights. Its control over the use of her own body. The results of killing and denying the use of her body are identical. But the basis of authority is radically different.

Your argument is the same in both cases. No one has the obligation to adopt, be a babysitter, grandmas have no obligation, etc.

I understand your argument. It's that her right to not be inconvenienced by her own actions somehow trump the right that the has baby to life.

We disagree.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Shut the fuck up you waste of space ...

ROFLMNAO!

I just adore the cyber Ninjas... they're so 'butch'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

First of all, I don't hate babies...

Huh... Yet you advocate for the murder of babies.

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

So, you don't hate babies, you just favor their being stripped of their lives...

We can therefore rest assured that you're also not antisemitic, just because you reject the right of the Israelis to defend themselves from mass-murderers intent upon their destruction.

ROFL! You people are a menace to the species.

 

[Carla_Danger]

"An objective study of the Holocaust and legal abortion demonstrates striking similarities. There are differences. For instance, the Nazis felt they had to hide the death camps to avoid general outrage; nearly all such camps were in Poland or Byelorussia, not Germany. In contrast, Americans debate but largely accept abortion clinics in our midst." Are Abortion and the Holocaust Comparable

Are abortion and the Holocaust comparable? No.

Next question...

 

[Dana7360]

The girls are arguing against abortion in this thread - and kicking ass.

It's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world.

Except my Lola.

Dana is a girl too and she is kicking your and PoliticalSpice's asses so hard your noses are bleeding.

It's been hours and over 40 pages, I'm still waiting for any one of them to respond to my questions about ectopic pregnancy.

I guess proving the fact that a fertilized egg isn't life is way too inconvenient for those people.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

"An objective study of the Holocaust and legal abortion demonstrates striking similarities. There are differences. For instance, the Nazis felt they had to hide the death camps to avoid general outrage; nearly all such camps were in Poland or Byelorussia, not Germany. In contrast, Americans debate but largely accept abortion clinics in our midst." Are Abortion and the Holocaust Comparable

Are abortion and the Holocaust comparable? No.

Next question...

Millions of innocent people killed because they are viewed as an inconvenience or even a parasitic malignant presence. The similarities only begin there.

 

[Bfgrn]

the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.

simple.

That was so very kind of you, signing your name to the post.

posting daily strawmen is for simpletons...

Here's the point, simple......numerous examples of "laws" being wrong are evident.

Is the Bible wrong?

Exodus 21:22
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The girls are arguing against abortion in this thread - and kicking ass.

It's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world.

Except my Lola.

Dana is a girl too and she is kicking your and PoliticalSpice's asses so hard your noses are bleeding.

It's been hours and over 40 pages, I'm still waiting for any one of them to respond to my questions about ectopic pregnancy.

I guess proving the fact that a fertilized egg isn't life is way too inconvenient for those people.

It's been over 40 years and we're still waiting for those opposed to privacy rights to explain their plan to end abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"An objective study of the Holocaust and legal abortion demonstrates striking similarities. There are differences. For instance, the Nazis felt they had to hide the death camps to avoid general outrage; nearly all such camps were in Poland or Byelorussia, not Germany. In contrast, Americans debate but largely accept abortion clinics in our midst." Are Abortion and the Holocaust Comparable

The weakness of the anti-rights position is exposed by invoking Godwin's Law.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"An objective study of the Holocaust and legal abortion demonstrates striking similarities. There are differences. For instance, the Nazis felt they had to hide the death camps to avoid general outrage; nearly all such camps were in Poland or Byelorussia, not Germany. In contrast, Americans debate but largely accept abortion clinics in our midst." Are Abortion and the Holocaust Comparable

Are abortion and the Holocaust comparable? No.

Next question...

Millions of innocent people killed because they are viewed as an inconvenience or even a parasitic malignant presence. The similarities only begin there.

How many of those unwanted millions would have grown up to become criminals?

How much would it have cost you in taxes for their schooling, their parole officers, their incarceration, the courts, police and lawyers? How much would your insurance have increased if there were millions more criminals out there today?

Society benefits by devoting resources to children that are wanted and loved.

Society is burdened by having to expend resources on unwanted children who "fall through the cracks", join gangs, use and sell drugs and commit violent crimes.

Not all life is "sacred". Quality of life is essential for Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Now I know that your kneejerk reaction is that one of those millions might have been the next Einstein or Mozart. Does the dubious "benefit" of one of those people outweigh the untold misery of millions of unwanted children?

And all of the above is utterly irrelevant because the rights of the individual woman to choose outweighs your "moral outrage". Her individual right to her Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness is paramount and no amount of sanctimonious bleating on your part is going to deny her that right to choose. You don't get to impose your religious beliefs on anyone else.

She gets to choose and you don't.