My goodness, I think I struck a nerve.
Pro-life is only about the topic of abortion, yes. It's not about welfare. It's not about war. It's not about capital punishment. The life of that child IS relevant to the topic of abortion. Are you fucking dense? Preventing an abortion limits that ONE choice of the mother while opening up many many many many MORE choices for the child. What the fuck is hard to understand about this?
You are correct. It is fundamentally about choice, specifically about the choice to have an abortion. A choice that, by definition, pro-life people seek to take away. That, by definition, makes the pro-life movement anti-choice. Because the subject at hand isn't all the choices that cluster of cells might get to make if it doesn't get aborted; it's whether or not the woman carrying it has the right to decide whether she wants to, or not.
I completely understand your argument. I also understand that it is fallacious. A literal existential fallacy.
You didn't answer my question. Do you support late term abortions? When is it no longer just "her body"? Do you see the problem with your simplistic, manipulative language? You just say "her own body" over and over with no logical reasoning to back it up. Do you understand that the ENTIRE FUCKING ARGUMENT is about whether or not it actually is just her body, or whether it's somebody else's body?
I did, actually, answer your question in my first post. Whether I personally support late term abortions or not, I don't think the ban should be law. I trust women to make informed decisions, especially difficult ones like aborting late in their pregnancy. Making that more difficult, or even illegal, is adding insult to injury.
I also pointed to the American court system as the basis for my reasoning here. A fetus isn't a life until 24 weeks. This is our societally settled-upon definition for when abortion is appropriate; although, in most places, it's not actually murder until the child is born. If we use that standard, life essentially begins at birth. Let's be generous and go with the shorter number.
At 24 weeks, it's possible (with a lot of expensive medical assistance) for a fetus to survive outside the host. That's where we draw the line, legally, as a society. That's when it has a "body", and at least some rights. This is pretty much settled law, at this point. Even this conservative-friendly supreme court isn't interested in changing that line.
I'm not arguing it. You are. You say life begins at conception, and you have every right to believe that. Believing it doesn't give you a say in anyone else's life, though. Nor should it. You've made no argument in support but ad hominem attacks, which are fun, but do little to further your point.
Do you think for more than two fucking seconds before you post? Yes, many people have many different definitions, but the state only has one. Some people are solipsistic, does that mean they're allowed to go around hacking people up because they think everybody is a figment of their imagination? We have to pick one definition to legislate by because we have laws protecting human life. Well WHAT IS HUMAN LIFE? That's the entire question.
Please see above. You are free to believe whatever you like about when life starts, but believing it doesn't give you a say in anyone else's life. We have a settled legal definition for when life begins.
You literally make me sick to my stomach. This time I'm done for sure, so I can sleep tonight.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me.