I did not say what people should do with their bodys, I said there is birth control so that baby murder does not need to happen.
birth control is dictating what one should ingest or not thus it has to do with their bodies.
Are you supporting a persons right to get prego when their plan
is to kill the baby?
Are you really beggining the question through a strawman to make an ethical point to the extreme? Do you really believe that there are women outhere who think "Hmmm, let me get pregnant so i can get an expensive abortion and kill it. that will make me happy".
I find it funny that they are parasitic until they are born but after you don't see them as parasitic for the first 18 years the are alive that you are required by law to take care of them properly.
Google the word parasite. They can also be a parasite after they are born but then they don't endanger the mother's life.
You say the right to do what you want to your own body but when do you take into account the babies body and life?
I don't . it is irrelevant. Life A gives life to B. B can kill A by being a hostile parasite.A can decide at any moment to get rid of it. Really simple.
Oh, what about the fathers right? Does the father have any say in this process?
Nobody has a say when it comes to another person's body. Your body, your property.
Is it ok to force the father to raise a kid they don't want or to let a mother kill the baby when the father wants it?
It is not ok to force anyone to do anything.
It is not a strawman, it is something that is included with your position.
So question still stands.Do you support people that want to get prego only to get an abortion?
Yes there are women out there that want to get prego just so they can get an abortion. I have met one irl even. Calling it a strawman does not inform us on where you sit on the subject.
Ok I get it that you think all kids are parasites now. thank you for clearing that up.
Thank you for saying that you think babies have no rights.
You say the father has no rights what so ever when it comes to their kid because its in the mothers body. if you feel that way, what is your stance on forced fatherhood? how does the baby suddenly become property of the fathers only after it has been born? the day before the kid is born its not the fathers but the second it comes out of the mother no matter the age of the baby it suddenly becomes the fathers kid? is a baby that came out of the mother a month early the fathers when a baby that came out 2 weeks late not the fathers for a full month after the other baby that came out early?
You say it is not ok to force anyone to do anything but you are not taking into account the babys rights. also yor not taking into account forcing a man to have a kid agienst his will. we are not talking about raising the kid. we are talking about forcing someone to have offspring in the world. So how can you support the mother killing the kid and say the father has no say but at the same time you are forcing the father to let the woman kill his kid? or the other way around even if the father doesn't want the kid and the woman wants it you are forcing the father to have a kid. by law he is forced to pay for it too.
I think I get where your coming from though. Your saying till the kid breaths air they do not have human rights.
I may disagree with that but we al have the right to believe what we want.
P.S.
Look up abortion addiction if you don't think women get prego just to get abortions.
I am nto dodging. Yes she can do that. It is her body. You have no right to tell to another person what they can do with their body. same logic applies.
It has nothing to do with effects of birth control. you cannot dictate what one can do with their body even if it involves ingesting harmless sugar pills. You don't get it do you?
Natural vs Human Rights is an actual philosophical debate. They are defined differently. Google before you try to play smartass
http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/08/natural-rights-vs-human-rights/
i googled. found no statistics that they are the rule. you are talking out of your ass again because you saw it in the news..if its in the news...it means its rare and flashy. that's how they make it to the new..normal things don't make head lines. honor your name. be a "sceptic" .
Yeah keep dodging.
If a woman wants to get prego so she can get an abortion is covered by your stance.
I never said anything about the effects of birth control only said it is an option to prevent getting prego. abortions has effects too. was never a part of the statements I made.
When does personal responsibility come into play and where do you draw the line?
It is a choice not to take birth control so getting prego is a choice (because we aren't talking about rape victims) so they are choosing to get prego or are to stupid and lazy not to. the only force getting used is agienst the baby by the mother that had the choice not to get prego in the first place.
You say hearsay but
the evidence is there, all you have to do is type in abortion addiction and it is not an exception to the rule, it is part of your rule.
Exception to the rule would be rape victims or chance of death from giving birth.
Whatever though. Its pointless to bring any outside views to anything you say because you play games and dodge points.
just ecause you say "natural" and not "human" does not change the rights. I could understand more if you said we have no rights and they are all made up but to play the word/name game is sad and pathetic imo.
LMFAO!
So now atleast you have answered it even though you keep with your games.
You think women should have the right to get prego if they are only doing it because they want an abortion.
LOL
Have fun playing your games. I find it funny that because im skeptical of your stance you try to play the your not skeptical because your bringing points I disagree with.
LMFAO!!!!!!
STEEM ON WITH YOUR BULLSHIT!
xD