Crockerland wrote:Liriena wrote:Equality under the law is a "buzzword" now? Please, do elaborate on that. I want to hear you explain yourself in great detail. :3
Equality under the law is not a buzzword, you used it as a buzzword when you acted as though anti-infanticide legislation was somehow a violation of equality
Anti-abortion laws are a violation of equality under the law.
And abortion is not infanticide. If you're so convinced of your beliefs, you shouldn't have to lie about them like that.
Crockerland wrote:Liriena wrote:It's ultimately rooted in the belief that the primary purpose of women's bodies is childbirth, and that this supposed purpose gives society the right to force any woman to carry a fetus to term, her privacy and freedom and equality under the law be damned.
Unless laws against killing humans who are still not fully developed would be applied only to women and not transmen, or only to a certain race of women, it obviously isn't discrimination at all, and to throw it in as though it is remotely applicable to the situation is laughable and obviously you've simply downgraded it to buzzword status.
Nah.
Crockerland wrote:Liriena wrote:Also, no, abortion is not anti-equality, because a fetus is not equal to an actual person in the first place. Way to try and throw in a premise we did not agree on.
I didn't say "person", I said "human", and yes, fetuses are obviously human; It is simply not possible for one animal to transform into an entirely different kind of animal, so if fetuses are not human than there are no humans alive on the Earth, as everyone was a fetus at some point.
Fetuses may be human, but so is my appendix. The question is not whether fetuses are human, but whether a fetus can be considered a separate person from their hosts, and whether a person has the right to use another person's body, and potentially endanger said other person's health, without their consent.
