Wanted: Clever Pro-Choice Slogans

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Without the emotional hyperbole the inherent misogyny is much harder to conceal.

I'm all about honesty. Let all the people who hate women and wish to enslave us be honest with their intentions. Then we can tackle the root of the problem instead of this bullshit where they want to justify being able to tell me what I should and should not do with my body.

The thing is, many of them live in imaginationland where they refuse to accept the connection between denying women their rights and denying women their rights.

[Terca-Lumireis]

"I want YOU to make a choice."

[Nulono]

I think there would be many more variables to take into consideration, but either way it's not relevant.

Lol wat. A main argument/alternative put forth by the anti choice lobby isn't relevant in a thread about the anti choice lobby?

Whether or not the child can be adopted doesn't determine the child's right to live.

Who says we aren't doing those things?

I *do* care about the baby after birth. Even if I didn't, that wouldn't justify the baby's death.

There is no baby.

As for caring about the 'baby' after birth, the simple fact that every woman wanting an abortion (or not wanting one, of course) was a baby once, and you're quite happy to enslave her to the unborn - so your claim is demonstrably untrue.

Enough with the ad hominems already!

There was no ad hominem. I didn't attempt to invalidate an argument, by dismissing it based on a perceived flaw I claim I find in you - I'm saying I don't buy your platform, at all, because the 'pro-life' agenda stops at birth.

1. Caring about someone does not mean letting them kill their offspring, and not killing your offspring isn't slavery.
2. You rejected the rights of the unborn based on a perceived inconsistency in my beliefs. A tu quoque to be specific.

I'm all about honesty. Let all the people who hate women and wish to enslave us be honest with their intentions. Then we can tackle the root of the problem instead of this bullshit where they want to justify being able to tell me what I should and should not do with my body.

The thing is, many of them live in imaginationland where they refuse to accept the connection between denying women their rights and denying women their rights.

I don't hate women, nor do I want to enslave anyone. I want nothing more than for parents to not kill their offspring. You're committing the fallacy known as Bulverism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

I don't know when the last time I saw a wire hanger was.

Get some clothes dry cleaned, you'll get some.

They're also handy for trying to remove clogs in your drain.

Isn't that what pipe cleaners are for?

Who says we aren't doing those things?

I *do* care about the baby after birth.

Really? How much time do you put in volunteering at homeless shelters? How many foster children do you care for? How much do you donate to your local Planned Parenthood so they can educate people about contraception? There are a lot of children who need homes and a lot of adults who are totally ignorant of contraception.

Even if I didn't, that wouldn't justify the baby's death.

Look, if you want to argue that an embryo/foetus/etc is a person you still have to deal with the fact that one person is never justified in using another person to survive. If I need blood and you're a donor, I can't force you to give it to me. If I need a kidney, I can't do that either. You're arguing that embryos and foetuses have special rights that born human beings don't have and you have not justified this in any way.

However, there is no baby. Please stop using emotional language in an attempt to make your point. If your point can't stand on its own, then it's no good and you should find a better one.

I am arguing that the fetus, like all people, has a right to NOT BE KILLED. That's IT.

[Unhealthy2]

Whether or not the child can be adopted doesn't determine the child's right to live.

Correct. It is the capacity for self-valuation that determines an individual's right to exist. Does a fetus have the capacity to value its own existence?

[Dakini]

Lol wat. A main argument/alternative put forth by the anti choice lobby isn't relevant in a thread about the anti choice lobby?

Whether or not the child can be adopted doesn't determine the child's right to live.

Ah, so the "child" has the right to life, but not to quality of life.

And once again, where's my right to life if I need an organ transplant?

The thing is, many of them live in imaginationland where they refuse to accept the connection between denying women their rights and denying women their rights.

I don't hate women, nor do I want to enslave anyone. I want nothing more than for parents to not kill their offspring. You're committing the fallacy known as Bulverism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

You want women to be slaves to their uteri.

Get some clothes dry cleaned, you'll get some.

They're also handy for trying to remove clogs in your drain.

Isn't that what pipe cleaners are for?

Usually it's better to attempt a manual removal before switching to chemicals. So a straightened hanger or sink plunger is sometimes useful.

Really? How much time do you put in volunteering at homeless shelters? How many foster children do you care for? How much do you donate to your local Planned Parenthood so they can educate people about contraception? There are a lot of children who need homes and a lot of adults who are totally ignorant of contraception.


Look, if you want to argue that an embryo/foetus/etc is a person you still have to deal with the fact that one person is never justified in using another person to survive. If I need blood and you're a donor, I can't force you to give it to me. If I need a kidney, I can't do that either. You're arguing that embryos and foetuses have special rights that born human beings don't have and you have not justified this in any way.

However, there is no baby. Please stop using emotional language in an attempt to make your point. If your point can't stand on its own, then it's no good and you should find a better one.

I am arguing that the fetus, like all people, has a right to NOT BE KILLED. That's IT.

The embryo/foetus is not "people".

And you didn't tell me how much time you spent helping born people, including some of these babies who were born as a result of their mothers being guilted and shamed into carrying to term by people like you. Women who put their babies up for adoption and the babies who are waiting for families to adopt them. Or older children who don't have families languishing in the foster care system.

You would have a woman carry to term even if she would give birth to a thing without a brain, so I suspect that you would expect her to carry to term if she was going to adopt off a very disabled child. How many severely disabled children have you adopted? Do you know how many of them are waiting for a family?

[GeneralHaNor]

How many severely disabled children have you adopted? Do you know how many of them are waiting for a family?

"Unless you give everyone a million dollars, you aren't committed to ending poverty"

That's your argument

[-St George]

How many severely disabled children have you adopted? Do you know how many of them are waiting for a family?

"Unless you give everyone a million dollars, you aren't committed to ending poverty"

That's your argument

No. No, it's not. Her argument is 'If you claim aborted babies could be adopted, go out and do it.'

So, in your scenario, it's akin to telling to celebrities on telethons, etc to donate/take on the responsibility instead of just doing a 5 minute short film on it.

[Dakini]

How many severely disabled children have you adopted? Do you know how many of them are waiting for a family?

"Unless you give everyone a million dollars, you aren't committed to ending poverty"

That's your argument

No. His argument is "I give a shit about babies when they're born" and I'm pointing out that he probably just cares about making sure that women carry to term and doesn't give a shit after that. My point is that he probably just cares about controlling women and our reproduction, not about the results.

If he cared at all, he'd be out raising awareness of contraception. He'd know that large numbers of disabled children are waiting for adoption, he'd know that the foster system is full of children looking for permanent homes, he'd at least be encouraging people to do something about this instead of spending all of his time insisting that we add more children to the adoption queue. He'd be encouraging people to adopt these unwanted children or support agencies that help these children. He'd be doing something other than sitting here insisting that every woman carry to term every time.

However, he's pretty much stated that he doesn't give a shit about quality of life, only quantity (which makes a lot of sense when he demonstrates that he doesn't care about a woman's quality of life).

Also, I'd accept time working in a soup kitchen/food drive or perhaps one that helps distribute clothing, food and school supplies to needy families as a demonstration that he gives a shit about children after they're born. I can understand that he might not be old enough to adopt a child, but if you're old enough to post here, you're old enough to help out the needy children in your community.

[Grave_n_idle]

1. Caring about someone does not mean letting them kill their offspring, and not killing your offspring isn't slavery.

Caring about someone MIGHT mean letting them kill their offspring.

Caring about someone arguably DOES mean defending their right to autonomy.

"Killing your offspring" is somewhere between an appeal to emotion, and deliberately misleading.

Forcing someone to do something against their will arguably IS slavery. Forcing a woman to carry a child she doesn't want, then...

[Grave_n_idle]

How many severely disabled children have you adopted? Do you know how many of them are waiting for a family?

"Unless you give everyone a million dollars, you aren't committed to ending poverty"

That's your argument

No, you're missing the point. The 'pro life' platform claims to be 'pro-life', but all the focus SEEMS to be on ensuring that fertilised eggs become born babies. The pressure is all about preventing abortion, not maintaining life.

If someone claims to be pro-life and claims that their efforts DO extend beyond the usual pro-life agenda (stopping female sovereignty), then that is worth investigation. And skepticism.

[Slovitrea]

1. Caring about someone does not mean letting them kill their offspring, and not killing your offspring isn't slavery.

Caring about someone MIGHT mean letting them kill their offspring.

Caring about someone arguably DOES mean defending their right to autonomy.

"Killing your offspring" is somewhere between an appeal to emotion, and deliberately misleading.

Forcing someone to do something against their will arguably IS slavery. Forcing a woman to carry a child she doesn't want, then...

Bingo. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. But you cannot impose your will upon others for your own beliefs.

[Nulono]

Whether or not the child can be adopted doesn't determine the child's right to live.

Correct. It is the capacity for self-valuation that determines an individual's right to exist. Does a fetus have the capacity to value its own existence?

Plenty of people don't have that ability, even after birth.

Whether or not the child can be adopted doesn't determine the child's right to live.

Ah, so the "child" has the right to life, but not to quality of life.

And once again, where's my right to life if I need an organ transplant?

I don't hate women, nor do I want to enslave anyone. I want nothing more than for parents to not kill their offspring. You're committing the fallacy known as Bulverism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

You want women to be slaves to their uteri.

Isn't that what pipe cleaners are for?

Usually it's better to attempt a manual removal before switching to chemicals. So a straightened hanger or sink plunger is sometimes useful.

I am arguing that the fetus, like all people, has a right to NOT BE KILLED. That's IT.

The embryo/foetus is not "people".

And you didn't tell me how much time you spent helping born people, including some of these babies who were born as a result of their mothers being guilted and shamed into carrying to term by people like you. Women who put their babies up for adoption and the babies who are waiting for families to adopt them. Or older children who don't have families languishing in the foster care system.

You would have a woman carry to term even if she would give birth to a thing without a brain, so I suspect that you would expect her to carry to term if she was going to adopt off a very disabled child. How many severely disabled children have you adopted? Do you know how many of them are waiting for a family?

1a. The child has a right to quality of life. That's not the same as saying they can be killed.
1b. I already explained positive and negative rights.
2. No. That is a flat-out lie. I want women not to kill their offspring, nothing more.
3. A pipe cleaner isn't a chemical. Though it looks like they were designed for cleaning a different kind of "pipe".
4. I assume you don't want people killing crack babies after birth? How many crack babies have you adopted?

"Unless you give everyone a million dollars, you aren't committed to ending poverty"

That's your argument

No. His argument is "I give a shit about babies when they're born" and I'm pointing out that he probably just cares about making sure that women carry to term and doesn't give a shit after that. My point is that he probably just cares about controlling women and our reproduction, not about the results.

If he cared at all, he'd be out raising awareness of contraception. He'd know that large numbers of disabled children are waiting for adoption, he'd know that the foster system is full of children looking for permanent homes, he'd at least be encouraging people to do something about this instead of spending all of his time insisting that we add more children to the adoption queue. He'd be encouraging people to adopt these unwanted children or support agencies that help these children. He'd be doing something other than sitting here insisting that every woman carry to term every time.

However, he's pretty much stated that he doesn't give a shit about quality of life, only quantity (which makes a lot of sense when he demonstrates that he doesn't care about a woman's quality of life).

Also, I'd accept time working in a soup kitchen/food drive or perhaps one that helps distribute clothing, food and school supplies to needy families as a demonstration that he gives a shit about children after they're born. I can understand that he might not be old enough to adopt a child, but if you're old enough to post here, you're old enough to help out the needy children in your community.

I *do* care about quality of life. That is NOT the same as allowing people to kill each other.

1. Caring about someone does not mean letting them kill their offspring, and not killing your offspring isn't slavery.

Caring about someone MIGHT mean letting them kill their offspring.

Caring about someone arguably DOES mean defending their right to autonomy.

"Killing your offspring" is somewhere between an appeal to emotion, and deliberately misleading.

Forcing someone to do something against their will arguably IS slavery. Forcing a woman to carry a child she doesn't want, then...

When, aside from abortion, does caring about someone mean letting them kill their offspring?

"Unless you give everyone a million dollars, you aren't committed to ending poverty"

That's your argument

No, you're missing the point. The 'pro life' platform claims to be 'pro-life', but all the focus SEEMS to be on ensuring that fertilised eggs become born babies. The pressure is all about preventing abortion, not maintaining life.

If someone claims to be pro-life and claims that their efforts DO extend beyond the usual pro-life agenda (stopping female sovereignty), then that is worth investigation. And skepticism.

I'm all for female sovereignty. That does not mean I think females should be allowed to kill people.

Caring about someone MIGHT mean letting them kill their offspring.

Caring about someone arguably DOES mean defending their right to autonomy.

"Killing your offspring" is somewhere between an appeal to emotion, and deliberately misleading.

Forcing someone to do something against their will arguably IS slavery. Forcing a woman to carry a child she doesn't want, then...

Bingo. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. But you cannot impose your will upon others for your own beliefs.

If you don't want to own a slave, don't own one. But you cannot impose your will upon others for your own beliefs.
If you don't want to rape your wife, don't rape her. But you cannot impose your will upon others for your own beliefs.
If you don't want to murder your toddler, don't murder him. But you cannot impose your will upon others for your own beliefs.
If you don't want to kidnap anyone, don't kidnap them. But you cannot impose your will upon others for your own beliefs.
If you don't want to lynch a black man, don't lynch him. But you cannot impose your will upon others for your own beliefs.
If you don't want to burn down the library, don't burn it. But you cannot impose your will upon others for your own beliefs.

[Nulono]

Let me make something very clear, because people don't seem to get it. The only thing I'm arguing for is that all humans have the negative right to live, that is the right not to be killed. That's IT.

[Dakini]

Ah, so the "child" has the right to life, but not to quality of life.

And once again, where's my right to life if I need an organ transplant?


You want women to be slaves to their uteri.


Usually it's better to attempt a manual removal before switching to chemicals. So a straightened hanger or sink plunger is sometimes useful.


The embryo/foetus is not "people".

And you didn't tell me how much time you spent helping born people, including some of these babies who were born as a result of their mothers being guilted and shamed into carrying to term by people like you. Women who put their babies up for adoption and the babies who are waiting for families to adopt them. Or older children who don't have families languishing in the foster care system.

You would have a woman carry to term even if she would give birth to a thing without a brain, so I suspect that you would expect her to carry to term if she was going to adopt off a very disabled child. How many severely disabled children have you adopted? Do you know how many of them are waiting for a family?

1a. The child has a right to quality of life. That's not the same as saying they can be killed.
1b. I already explained positive and negative rights.
2. No. That is a flat-out lie. I want women not to kill their offspring, nothing more.
3. A pipe cleaner isn't a chemical. Though it looks like they were designed for cleaning a different kind of "pipe".
4. I assume you don't want people killing crack babies after birth? How many crack babies have you adopted?

1a. Apparently the child does not have the right to quality of life. If a child is born into a severely impoverished family and its parents can barely afford to feed this child, what kind of quality of life will this child have? Did you say "not good"?
1b. No you didn't, you linked wiki. That's not you explaining anything. That's you linking to a long wiki article without explaining or demonstrating that you understand what you're talking about.
2. Why do you care whether women wish to continue their pregnancies or not? Further, why are you equating killing a child that has been born with having an abortion? They're not at all the same.
4. I would rather the crack mothers have abortions so they don't produce children that are addicted to crack from day 1. What are you doing to help keep these women off crack?

No. His argument is "I give a shit about babies when they're born" and I'm pointing out that he probably just cares about making sure that women carry to term and doesn't give a shit after that. My point is that he probably just cares about controlling women and our reproduction, not about the results.

If he cared at all, he'd be out raising awareness of contraception. He'd know that large numbers of disabled children are waiting for adoption, he'd know that the foster system is full of children looking for permanent homes, he'd at least be encouraging people to do something about this instead of spending all of his time insisting that we add more children to the adoption queue. He'd be encouraging people to adopt these unwanted children or support agencies that help these children. He'd be doing something other than sitting here insisting that every woman carry to term every time.

However, he's pretty much stated that he doesn't give a shit about quality of life, only quantity (which makes a lot of sense when he demonstrates that he doesn't care about a woman's quality of life).

Also, I'd accept time working in a soup kitchen/food drive or perhaps one that helps distribute clothing, food and school supplies to needy families as a demonstration that he gives a shit about children after they're born. I can understand that he might not be old enough to adopt a child, but if you're old enough to post here, you're old enough to help out the needy children in your community.

I *do* care about quality of life. That is NOT the same as allowing people to kill each other.

How many hours a week do you help feed the poor? How much time do you spend trying to make sure that children have clothing and school supplies? How much time and money do you spend helping needy families?
How much do you lobby your local government to increase funding to welfare and employment services to help needy families who are down on their luck survive between jobs and find new ones? How much time do you spend lobbying your local government for improved foster care?

Do you do any of that? Or do you just insist that women keep popping out babies they can't support?

I'm all for female sovereignty. That does not mean I think females should be allowed to kill people.

Women aren't allowed to kill people.

Fortunately, we are (and should be) allowed to make medical decisions about our bodies.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Their Lives, Our Choice. It's good to be a slave(owner).

[Dakini]

Let me make something very clear, because people don't seem to get it. The only thing I'm arguing for is that all humans have the negative right to live, that is the right not to be killed. That's IT.

What evidence do you have that all humans have the negative right to life? What evidence do you have that embryos should count as human beings (instead of human tissue)? How are you defining human?

Why are you arguing that women should not be allowed sovereignty of their own bodies? Why are you arguing that only women have the responsibility to support another thing that you're calling a human being at the expense of their own health?

[Linux and the X]

Their Lives, Our Choice. It's good to be a slave(owner).

This is the pro-choice slogans thread. You're looking for the anti-choice slogans thread. Just down the corridor.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Their Lives, Our Choice. It's good to be a slave(owner).

This is the pro-choice slogans thread. You're looking for the anti-choice slogans thread. Just down the corridor.

No, I'm pretty sure this is where the friends of the fetus butcher live.

[Dakini]

Also, what makes you think that pro choice people should be immune to skepticism considering that many posters here talk of babies as parasities, advocate free abortions that can be readily handed out (pol a good back asked NSG's opinion on abortions and the most popular answer was abortions should be free and hasseless as ordering food from McDonald's).

Medical care and procedures should be paid for by the government. This includes abortion.

How is this a difficult concept?

[Nulono]

1a. The child has a right to quality of life. That's not the same as saying they can be killed.
1b. I already explained positive and negative rights.
2. No. That is a flat-out lie. I want women not to kill their offspring, nothing more.
3. A pipe cleaner isn't a chemical. Though it looks like they were designed for cleaning a different kind of "pipe".
4. I assume you don't want people killing crack babies after birth? How many crack babies have you adopted?

1a. Apparently the child does not have the right to quality of life. If a child is born into a severely impoverished family and its parents can barely afford to feed this child, what kind of quality of life will this child have? Did you say "not good"?
1b. No you didn't, you linked wiki. That's not you explaining anything. That's you linking to a long wiki article without explaining or demonstrating that you understand what you're talking about.
2. Why do you care whether women wish to continue their pregnancies or not? Further, why are you equating killing a child that has been born with having an abortion? They're not at all the same.
4. I would rather the crack mothers have abortions so they don't produce children that are addicted to crack from day 1. What are you doing to help keep these women off crack?

I *do* care about quality of life. That is NOT the same as allowing people to kill each other.

How many hours a week do you help feed the poor? How much time do you spend trying to make sure that children have clothing and school supplies? How much time and money do you spend helping needy families?
How much do you lobby your local government to increase funding to welfare and employment services to help needy families who are down on their luck survive between jobs and find new ones? How much time do you spend lobbying your local government for improved foster care?

Do you do any of that? Or do you just insist that women keep popping out babies they can't support?

I'm all for female sovereignty. That does not mean I think females should be allowed to kill people.

Women aren't allowed to kill people.

Fortunately, we are (and should be) allowed to make medical decisions about our bodies.

1a. The child has a right to expect the government to supply aid. I'm for quality of life, but not for killing people that might one day have sub-par lives.
1b. My bad. I explained in another thread.
Rights, in general, fall under two major categories. There're the rights of obligation, or positive rights; these rights obligate someone else to do something to fulfill them, and mostly include things we expect from society, such as emergency services, health care, and a social safety net. There are also rights of non-interference, or negative rights; these restrict the actions of others to those that do not violate the rights, and include the basic rights such as life, liberty, and the purfuit of happinefs. Positive rights obligate action, while negative ones obligate inaction.
2. I care whether or not a woman kills her child.
4. But you would be against killing the newborn crack baby? Yet you haven't adopted any crack babies I assume?

I don't care how many babies a woman "pops out". All I'm saying is parents shouldn't kill their children.

Women shouldn't be allowed to make decisions as to whether another human being lives or dies.

Let me make something very clear, because people don't seem to get it. The only thing I'm arguing for is that all humans have the negative right to live, that is the right not to be killed. That's IT.

What evidence do you have that all humans have the negative right to life? What evidence do you have that embryos should count as human beings (instead of human tissue)? How are you defining human?

Why are you arguing that women should not be allowed sovereignty of their own bodies? Why are you arguing that only women have the responsibility to support another thing that you're calling a human being at the expense of their own health?

I'm not arguing any of those things. The ONLY thing I'm arguing is that the fetus has a right not to be killed. THAT'S IT!

[Norstal]

Let me make something very clear, because people don't seem to get it. The only thing I'm arguing for is that all humans have the negative right to live, that is the right not to be killed. That's IT.

Like when robbers invade your homes, you can't kill them.

[Norstal]

This is the pro-choice slogans thread. You're looking for the anti-choice slogans thread. Just down the corridor.

No, I'm pretty sure this is where the friends of the fetus butcher live.

No one goes out to kill fetus because its fun. No one gets pregnant because its fun.

[Dakini]

1a. Apparently the child does not have the right to quality of life. If a child is born into a severely impoverished family and its parents can barely afford to feed this child, what kind of quality of life will this child have? Did you say "not good"?
1b. No you didn't, you linked wiki. That's not you explaining anything. That's you linking to a long wiki article without explaining or demonstrating that you understand what you're talking about.
2. Why do you care whether women wish to continue their pregnancies or not? Further, why are you equating killing a child that has been born with having an abortion? They're not at all the same.
4. I would rather the crack mothers have abortions so they don't produce children that are addicted to crack from day 1. What are you doing to help keep these women off crack?


How many hours a week do you help feed the poor? How much time do you spend trying to make sure that children have clothing and school supplies? How much time and money do you spend helping needy families?
How much do you lobby your local government to increase funding to welfare and employment services to help needy families who are down on their luck survive between jobs and find new ones? How much time do you spend lobbying your local government for improved foster care?

Do you do any of that? Or do you just insist that women keep popping out babies they can't support?


Women aren't allowed to kill people.

Fortunately, we are (and should be) allowed to make medical decisions about our bodies.

1a. The child has a right to expect the government to supply aid. I'm for quality of life, but not for killing people that might one day have sub-par lives.
1b. My bad. I explained in another thread.
Rights, in general, fall under two major categories. There're the rights of obligation, or positive rights; these rights obligate someone else to do something to fulfill them, and mostly include things we expect from society, such as emergency services, health care, and a social safety net. There are also rights of non-interference, or negative rights; these restrict the actions of others to those that do not violate the rights, and include the basic rights such as life, liberty, and the purfuit of happinefs. Positive rights obligate action, while negative ones obligate inaction.
2. I care whether or not a woman kills her child.
4. But you would be against killing the newborn crack baby? Yet you haven't adopted any crack babies I assume?

1a. Does your government supply sufficient aid for children born in extremely disadvantaged families that allow them to live normal, healthy lives?
1b. So shouldn't a woman have the negative right to have her body not used as a life support machine?
2. Why? Is it your business?
4. No, I'm in favour of crack addicts getting abortions, preventing the birth of crack babies.

I don't care how many babies a woman "pops out". All I'm saying is parents shouldn't kill their children.

We're not talking about parents killing their children. We're talking about abortion.

Women shouldn't be allowed to make decisions as to whether another human being lives or dies.

What makes an embryo a human being?

What evidence do you have that all humans have the negative right to life? What evidence do you have that embryos should count as human beings (instead of human tissue)? How are you defining human?

Why are you arguing that women should not be allowed sovereignty of their own bodies? Why are you arguing that only women have the responsibility to support another thing that you're calling a human being at the expense of their own health?

I'm not arguing any of those things. The ONLY thing I'm arguing is that the fetus has a right not to be killed. THAT'S IT!

Why does the fetus have the right to not be killed? You said that humans have the "negative right to live", so if you want to claim that humans have the right to live, what makes an embryo a human as opposed to human tissue? How is an embryo different from a tumour, for instance?

[Nulono]

Let me make something very clear, because people don't seem to get it. The only thing I'm arguing for is that all humans have the negative right to live, that is the right not to be killed. That's IT.

Like when robbers invade your homes, you can't kill them.

Because the fetus is a robber. Next you'll be accusing kidnapping victims of trespassing.

[Dakini]

Like when robbers invade your homes, you can't kill them.

Because the fetus is a robber. Next you'll be accusing kidnapping victims of trespassing.

Uh... no?

If anything, the unwanted embryo is more like a trespasser or a squatter. It invaded a woman's uterus without her wanting it there and is using her resources. If she wants it gone, she should be able to remove it.