Here's the thing: It doesn't matter when life begins or whether a fetus is a human being or not...

The argument is lost on the very first sentence. It matters if the fetus is a human being, because that human being has rights too, as per our constitution.

And the jews said "Let his blood be upon us for all generations"

looks like they didn't get enough of it

So is this still the valid argument for the attempted forced covid shot scenario?

Then you cant use my body to reach herd immunity.

Keeps your legs closed whores.

Then no one has the Right to deny the little new human their Rights.

"NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life [sic], or the life of another person… Denying women the right to abortion means they have less bodily autonomy than a corpse"

The argument above constitutes the fallacy of false equivalency. The first sentence presents the unstated assumption of pregnancy threatening the life of a woman inherently. Such a proposition provides an excuse for an abortion since any danger remains unknown until further development of the fetus. The first sentence expresses a statement analogous to, "You cannot force me to give birth to save the life of the baby because it will kill me." The first sentence equates birth to death.

The second sentence perpetuates the fallacy further. Does the fetus have the unalienable human right to life? If no, the mother practices hypocrisy by denying and disparaging the same right of the fetus for expedience. If yes, she can proceed with the birth and give the baby up for adoption. The second sentence states essentially, "A living fetus has equal 'bodily autonomy' to a corpse because of the right to abortion." However, the fetus possesses the same unalienable human right to life as the mother. The second sentence equates the right to life of a fetus with a corpse whose same right ends at death.

You can save the life of a fetus in the womb without compromising the safety of the mother. In contrast, you cannot save the life of a human who dies except to salvage organs with consent prior to death. The donations of blood and marrow originates out of the living, whereas organs have a timeframe for usage if donated after death. The conception of a living human being in the womb has no equivalence to a corpse and the action of donating blood or transplanting marrow, organs, et cetera.

Well you can “stop” a woman from an abortion but anything not chemical requires a procedure from someone else. We CAN make those procedures illegal. Abortion is an unnatural medical intervention, laws can be implemented to make it illegal for someone else to tear apart a baby.

I bet women could spend less time talking about "Reproductive Rights" if they spent more time talking about "Reproductive Responsibility".

We all want bodily autonomy. I dont care if you pay $20 to a crackhead to rake a hanger through your vageen, I dont want to pay for it. I dont want to fund programs that offer the service with my tax dollars. I also dont want to fund programs who lobby against me and my beliefs with my own tax dollars. Here is a thought, be responsible about who, and how you screw. (Directed at u/retarddit not OP)

Roughly 50% of unborn babies are women. I'm quite certain they would not consent to being destroyed if they were given the chance to decide. These unborn women cannot be forced to sacrifice their lives for the convenience of their biological mothers. Using the logic in this statement, these babies shouldn't be able to be aborted even if there is a danger to the life of the mother.

Since we can't violate the rights of any women, it makes sense that we wouldn't be able to violate the rights of any unborn men either. It's only fair.

they take your organs while you are alive. and the baby isn't your body, it has it's own dna.

https://communities.win/c/TheDonald/p/15HuxgElbt/womens-rights/c