A government’s interest in whether any given individual should start, continue, or end a pregnancy is not overwhelming enough to negate that individual’s interest in their own continued survival, health, bodily integrity, financial wellbeing, future plans, and ability to meet existing obligations like working or caring for dependents. I would discuss a full picture of pro-choice views - we don’t believe coercion belongs in pregnancy, whether that coercion is for or against.
You're asking people to defend their right to have agency over their own bodies, it takes more than one or two sentences because this is an extremely nuanced and important topic. But to try and sum up my position as clearly as I possibly can:
Breaking a window and racing aren't body autonomy issues. The homeowner with a broke window can't remove my kidney for compensation. Even if I caused death in a race, my body can't be used against my will.
Why? I thought you said if a woman wants to get an abortion, she should be allowed to maim and disfigure the child since the child will be killed anyways.
I think it should be illegal to kill innocent humans from womb to tomb. Thankfully, virtually everyone agrees when talking about birth to tomb. Which is why the pro-life, pro-choice battleground only exists in the womb.
I think you hit the nail on the coffin on this one. Never thought about why the pro-life debate centers so heavily on the womb, it's actually because birth to tomb is so well accepted, it's just the womb part.
So if an angry teenage maniac wants to bring a gun to school and shoot all his classmates, this pastor would say, "it would be better if you choose life, but if you want to kill everyone, that's your God-given choice"?
Respectfully, I don't think that "the drug that is/constitutes the least force necessary to deal with the complication" is how medical decisions are made in conditions such as epilepsy.
I'll just say this. I came up with this "Least force necessary" idea from another user, which I have since after careful consideration walked back on. I don't think this should be the standard for anything at all, in fact, because I think it's too subjective.
But this was part of my argument as well, and I'm glad that you (same as me) admit that by not being a doctor you can't know for sure what would or wouldn't be tolerated by a patient's body. That's why the decision should be made between doctor and patient, it's really what I'm saying.
I was one, I went from pro-choice to pro-life. I won't use the term "anti-choice" because it's not representative of my position, I am pro-choice, it's just that I don't think that "choice" is infinite. My reasoning for this terminology is that just like how you don't have the right to choose spousal abuse or to choose school shooting, you don't have the right to choose abortion. It doesn't mean you don't have choice, it's that the wrongness of abortion removes it from the category of things that can be chosen.
Every time you did one of those maps you still gained the 25(?) monkey money each time. Given that's super exploitable, I'm guessing they changed it as a result.
Hmmm, USA, UK, Australia, Japan. Soon will probably be Canada cuz Canada is a colony of the US and NZ will follow Australia. There you go, 5 eyes + their favourite China hater Japan.
My two sentences were pretty clear. Can you provide the requested information or not?
No I will not as per rule 2 of this subreddit. "All posts must be on-topic to the abortion debate."
You claimed that PL are against any deaths of innocent people.
Do you not realize that there are rules to this subreddit, and that all discussions must be on topic to abortions?
I usually talk about the concept of guardianship.
Wait wait wait explain
A government’s interest in whether any given individual should start, continue, or end a pregnancy is not overwhelming enough to negate that individual’s interest in their own continued survival, health, bodily integrity, financial wellbeing, future plans, and ability to meet existing obligations like working or caring for dependents. I would discuss a full picture of pro-choice views - we don’t believe coercion belongs in pregnancy, whether that coercion is for or against.
Thank you for the response!
You're asking people to defend their right to have agency over their own bodies, it takes more than one or two sentences because this is an extremely nuanced and important topic. But to try and sum up my position as clearly as I possibly can:
Thank you! That's very insightful.
Simple
This is a link from the Guttmacher Institute and it puts the number at 4%. Source:
We completely agree on this issue here.
Breaking a window and racing aren't body autonomy issues. The homeowner with a broke window can't remove my kidney for compensation. Even if I caused death in a race, my body can't be used against my will.
Imagine the following scenario.
Yes
Why? I thought you said if a woman wants to get an abortion, she should be allowed to maim and disfigure the child since the child will be killed anyways.
[удалено]
I see you're point, but i just see a complete contradiction in the pro-choice ideology.
This is as perfect as the consent argument gets.
I'm always on the side of keeping separate issues separate.
Yeah you have a good take on this.
I think it should be illegal to kill innocent humans from womb to tomb. Thankfully, virtually everyone agrees when talking about birth to tomb. Which is why the pro-life, pro-choice battleground only exists in the womb.
I think you hit the nail on the coffin on this one. Never thought about why the pro-life debate centers so heavily on the womb, it's actually because birth to tomb is so well accepted, it's just the womb part.
Mike Winger has done an excellent breakdown on this argument, though from a different pastor:
Perfect, thanks for the link to the video!
So if an angry teenage maniac wants to bring a gun to school and shoot all his classmates, this pastor would say, "it would be better if you choose life, but if you want to kill everyone, that's your God-given choice"?
Lmao this is a wonderful rebuttal.
Respectfully, I don't think that "the drug that is/constitutes the least force necessary to deal with the complication" is how medical decisions are made in conditions such as epilepsy.
I'll just say this. I came up with this "Least force necessary" idea from another user, which I have since after careful consideration walked back on. I don't think this should be the standard for anything at all, in fact, because I think it's too subjective.
But this was part of my argument as well, and I'm glad that you (same as me) admit that by not being a doctor you can't know for sure what would or wouldn't be tolerated by a patient's body. That's why the decision should be made between doctor and patient, it's really what I'm saying.
One thing we can both agree on is that common ground is good, and that in some sense, it's necessary.
I was one, I went from pro-choice to pro-life. I won't use the term "anti-choice" because it's not representative of my position, I am pro-choice, it's just that I don't think that "choice" is infinite. My reasoning for this terminology is that just like how you don't have the right to choose spousal abuse or to choose school shooting, you don't have the right to choose abortion. It doesn't mean you don't have choice, it's that the wrongness of abortion removes it from the category of things that can be chosen.
Every time you did one of those maps you still gained the 25(?) monkey money each time. Given that's super exploitable, I'm guessing they changed it as a result.
Wait what I tried to farm monkey money it didn't work it only gave it once when I first beat it
Ezili and grand master ninja and probably solo a bad
I live in Shanghai, still waiting for my district to implement 5G
China and Serbia are friends and China doesn't recognise Kosovo
Hmmm, USA, UK, Australia, Japan. Soon will probably be Canada cuz Canada is a colony of the US and NZ will follow Australia. There you go, 5 eyes + their favourite China hater Japan.
Use AMD GPUs
someone told me "China invaded HongKong"
This is why Trump has to be reelected so China can prosper