I personally believe that if someone is in my house, even if I originally invited them, that I have the right to disinvite them at any point. If they refuse to leave, I have the right to remove them by force. If the only way to facilitate that removal, for whatever reason, is with lethal force, then I believe that is still within my rights.
First thing's first, I'm going to respond from my personal perspective of what it should be, not what the actual laws say. I know the laws do not agree with me and I do not agree with the laws.
I believe that if the only way that you can force them to leave (immediately) is through lethal force, then you have the right to do so. In this situation, I believe that you have a duty to exercise the "gentlest" reasonable way to remove them.
With regards to abortion, this means that a woman has the right to have the fetus removed at any time, but, if there is a reasonable (and economical) way of removing the fetus right then without killing it, that should be the option required to be taken. That is, currently it may not be possible to perform an abortion at certain stages without the fetus's death being inevitable. But, if technology progresses such that it is feasible, economical, and reasonable to remove the fetus alive and incubate it or whatever, then that should be required.
I believe there are times that murder is OK. The death penalty, self defense, etc.
It's not possible at any stage, all abortion makes the death of the baby inevitable.
This simply isn't true. Well, depending on how you define abortion. Regardless of what you call it, I'm saying that if the goal is to kill the fetus, that's not OK. If the goal is to remove the fetus, then that's OK, even if killing it is inevitable. If/when technology progresses enough for it to be reasonable to remove the fetus without its death, that should be the option taken.
The devil is in the details. In this case, you did not invite the new human in, you began their LIFE. You did, however, invite the father of this new human in. Feel free to throw out the father, if you wish. But you can't kill the human you have created.
My whole analogy relies on the comparison that beginning a fetus's life is comparable to inviting someone to stay inside. And I don't see how, at least for the purpose of this argument, they are meaningfully different.
there's a big difference between inviting someone to your house and then kicking them out when they're a douche and getting an unwanted pregnancy as a consequence of your own decisions and MURDERING the fetus because you don't want to face the consequences of your own mistake.
Apples to oranges, so much wrong with this response, I can't even. First of all, just try shooting someone who overstayed their welcome and see if the police agree with you... And this isn't a friend coming over to visit your HOUSE. This is a biological relationship of mother to child as nature intended and it is AGAINST NATURE to violently remove that child. Nature doesn't forget, either. There are multiple negative hormonal effects of abortion due to disruption of the pregnancy (not the same in a natural miscarriage) sometimes resulting in breast cancer, emotional effects that linger for decades, not to mention how many women are maimed and killed due to the shoddy "skills" of the butchers calling themselves doctors.
Yes, I disagree with the law and the law disagrees with me. I'm talking about what I personally believe the law should be, not how the law is written right now.
Imagine saying that we have the right to own fully automatic weapons unrestricted per the second amendment and some retard says "lol, no, try having a fully automatic weapon and seeing if the police agree with you."
This isn't a friend coming over to visit your house
Yes, it's actually worse. I believe that a person's body is even more under their control than their property.
It is against nature to violently remove that child.
The number of times I've seen chickens peck at, destroy, and ultimately eat their own fertilized eggs tells me that you're wrong.
yada yada emotional effect
Look, I'm not advocating for abortion. But the argument that it will negatively effect the woman, while a very good reason to not get an abortion, is not an argument for why abortion should be criminal, because that only affects her. The only debate here is about how it affects the fetus, who is the second party in this equation. And I believe it is within the woman's right to murder it, if that is necessary to remove it.
And that is why it is none of our business if someone wants to kill their baby. Is it wrong, of course, but they will have to live with it the rest of their lives and probably will not ever reach salvation. The point is it is not our choice to make for them. No matter right or wrong people will kill bc they have justified it for themselves. This is the same with the gun control argument, someone will still find another way to kill if that is what their intent is. Argueing over whats right and what's wrong is what they want, they want us weak, they want us tired, they want us in fear of, and the more we sit here and argue with each other over these topics that they navigate for us(bc if it wasn't in the news we wouldn't be focused on it right now) the more they continue to win. I chose to give my opinion not to argue but to get the wheels spinning for others, bc I didnt always see it this way.
I personally believe that if someone is in my house, even if I originally invited them, that I have the right to disinvite them at any point. If they refuse to leave, I have the right to remove them by force. If the only way to facilitate that removal, for whatever reason, is with lethal force, then I believe that is still within my rights.
First thing's first, I'm going to respond from my personal perspective of what it should be, not what the actual laws say. I know the laws do not agree with me and I do not agree with the laws.
I believe that if the only way that you can force them to leave (immediately) is through lethal force, then you have the right to do so. In this situation, I believe that you have a duty to exercise the "gentlest" reasonable way to remove them.
With regards to abortion, this means that a woman has the right to have the fetus removed at any time, but, if there is a reasonable (and economical) way of removing the fetus right then without killing it, that should be the option required to be taken. That is, currently it may not be possible to perform an abortion at certain stages without the fetus's death being inevitable. But, if technology progresses such that it is feasible, economical, and reasonable to remove the fetus alive and incubate it or whatever, then that should be required.
I believe there are times that murder is OK. The death penalty, self defense, etc.
This simply isn't true. Well, depending on how you define abortion. Regardless of what you call it, I'm saying that if the goal is to kill the fetus, that's not OK. If the goal is to remove the fetus, then that's OK, even if killing it is inevitable. If/when technology progresses enough for it to be reasonable to remove the fetus without its death, that should be the option taken.
The devil is in the details. In this case, you did not invite the new human in, you began their LIFE. You did, however, invite the father of this new human in. Feel free to throw out the father, if you wish. But you can't kill the human you have created.
My whole analogy relies on the comparison that beginning a fetus's life is comparable to inviting someone to stay inside. And I don't see how, at least for the purpose of this argument, they are meaningfully different.
there's a big difference between inviting someone to your house and then kicking them out when they're a douche and getting an unwanted pregnancy as a consequence of your own decisions and MURDERING the fetus because you don't want to face the consequences of your own mistake.
What if your invitee wasn't a douche, you kicked them out because you felt like it, and they refused to leave so you had to use lethal force?
well at that point you can call the cops on them lmao
Apples to oranges, so much wrong with this response, I can't even. First of all, just try shooting someone who overstayed their welcome and see if the police agree with you... And this isn't a friend coming over to visit your HOUSE. This is a biological relationship of mother to child as nature intended and it is AGAINST NATURE to violently remove that child. Nature doesn't forget, either. There are multiple negative hormonal effects of abortion due to disruption of the pregnancy (not the same in a natural miscarriage) sometimes resulting in breast cancer, emotional effects that linger for decades, not to mention how many women are maimed and killed due to the shoddy "skills" of the butchers calling themselves doctors.
Yes, I disagree with the law and the law disagrees with me. I'm talking about what I personally believe the law should be, not how the law is written right now.
Imagine saying that we have the right to own fully automatic weapons unrestricted per the second amendment and some retard says "lol, no, try having a fully automatic weapon and seeing if the police agree with you."
Yes, it's actually worse. I believe that a person's body is even more under their control than their property.
The number of times I've seen chickens peck at, destroy, and ultimately eat their own fertilized eggs tells me that you're wrong.
Look, I'm not advocating for abortion. But the argument that it will negatively effect the woman, while a very good reason to not get an abortion, is not an argument for why abortion should be criminal, because that only affects her. The only debate here is about how it affects the fetus, who is the second party in this equation. And I believe it is within the woman's right to murder it, if that is necessary to remove it.
And that is why it is none of our business if someone wants to kill their baby. Is it wrong, of course, but they will have to live with it the rest of their lives and probably will not ever reach salvation. The point is it is not our choice to make for them. No matter right or wrong people will kill bc they have justified it for themselves. This is the same with the gun control argument, someone will still find another way to kill if that is what their intent is. Argueing over whats right and what's wrong is what they want, they want us weak, they want us tired, they want us in fear of, and the more we sit here and argue with each other over these topics that they navigate for us(bc if it wasn't in the news we wouldn't be focused on it right now) the more they continue to win. I chose to give my opinion not to argue but to get the wheels spinning for others, bc I didnt always see it this way.