4th is pushing

It's reasonable but could curb it slightly

Call them babies instead of foetuses, the answer is the same. No matter how innocent someone is, they do not have the right to the use of someone else's organs.

But it should be as many as someone can afford.

That is such a ridiculous argument.

So neither the mother has that right then.

Which does not square with other things you have said.

Anyway good luck with your mong invasion

It squares just fine, having cum left in you is not continual use of someone else's organs.

Abortion is a bloody natural selection

The reason the organs happened was from the stimulus from the father

i do agree with the notion that the father should have a say because the baby has half of his dna however the cells multiply and the baby develops with the use of the mothers body so thats why it would ultimately be logical for her to have a say

The best natural selection would be if another bubonic happened.

No really.

But I will say no more on this. It's too controversial

Abortion is artificial not natural selection fwiw

define natural and artificial

It's removing your genes from the gene pool

But I'm done commenting on this. This is one of the few issues I dislike talking about.

The technical distinction between babies and foetuses is used by abortion advocates to pretend the right they are in favour of doesn't kill. I make no such pretension, the right results in the killing of the foetus, and there is no hard moral distinction whatever between a foetus and a baby.

The right for your organs to not be used by others against your will trumps that in my opinion.

I am perfectly willing for all that death to occur in order for that right to be preserved.

It was nice talking to people with different views though. I like it.

@Whiskey-Vargas I do not hear many other advocates of reproductive rights holding this position though. Instead they merely scream "misogynist" when people disagree with them. I disagree with the curtailing of freedom to save young lives, but being against that freedom does not mean you hate women.

And these same people foolishly want to curtail the 1st and 2nd ammendments, which are magnitudes more important.

They want the right for a woman who makes the choice to terminate her pregnancy to not be judged for it, which is utter nonsense.

They also do not seem to realise that if you go after liberties that other people care about, that they don't much care about, those other people will go after theirs in turn, sometimes purely out of spite.

The abortion debate is a good example of this.

I'm sorry, I don't want to waste your time. I see you still typing. I moved to another channel. It was great talking to you. I'm very tired and these topics are tiring so I'm just shitposting now.

Luckily, cooler heads prevailed in the long term. Only once has a constitutional ammendment curtailed freedom, and it was repealed. It seems that enough people are aware of how foolish the game of going after other people's liberties is.

Ok.

So let me ask you something then

You are essentially advocating for the right for women to be in control of their property, right?

In control of their body.

I do not believe that children are property.

But organs?

Your organs are part of your body.

Mhm

Sperm, on the other hand, are a component of a fluid produced by a few different organs.

But sperm is by itself not life

They are not themselves organs, like how bile isn't actually the pancreas or gall bladder.