Abortion is not a “reproductive right”….change my mind.

[theHawk]

The left keep calling abortion a “reproductive right”, and any restriction on abortion an attack on “reproductive rights”.

The definition of reproduction is as follows:

Definition of reproduction​

1: the act or process of reproducingspecifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual
2: something reproduced : COPY
3: young seedling trees in a forest

So as you can clearly see, reproduction is the act of making offspring.

Conception of a new human is reproduction, the creation of life is reproduction.

Abortion is the exact opposite of that. It is the intentional killing of the life that has already been created. Ending life is not reproduction. Thus, abortion is not a “reproductive right”.

No one is disputing that women have a “reproductive rights”. In other words, no one is outlawing or persecuting women for creating life. But abortion is not a reproductive act, thus it is not a “reproductive right”.

A woman who has gotten pregnant has already exercised her “reproductive rights”. She does not have “the right” to end that life.

 

[Moonglow]

What the decision did in the original intent was the liberty to do with one's body as one wishes. What the so-called conservatives did was take the liberty of the body to the individual away and gave it to the state.

 

[Darkwind]

What the decision did in the original intent was the liberty to do with one's body as one wishes. What the so-called conservatives did was take the liberty of the body to the individual away and gave it to the state.

They are always free to do with their body what they wish. Pregnancy is now two bodies, not one.

Yes, one is dependent upon the other for a period of time for everything, but that does not give the mother any right to kill it, any more than anyone has a right to use their body to kill anything.

 

[koshergrl]

What the decision did in the original intent was the liberty to do with one's body as one wishes. What the so-called conservatives did was take the liberty of the body to the individual away and gave it to the state.

The original intent was never to allow the government to fund baby killing. The baby killers keep forgetting that. I encourage you to provide evidence that the intent was even to allow people to do with their bodies exactly as they wish. That is no such life, and the right to pursue happiness is tempered by the understanding that the right to pursue happiness isn't a right if it terminates someone else's right to do the same. The right to pursue happiness is already in there, and the SCOTUS never had the authority to add the extra right to kill babies.

 

[Moonglow]

The original intent was never to allow the government to fund baby killing. The baby killers keep forgetting that.

That's a maybe, yet that is not what followed.

 

[Moonglow]

They are always free to do with their body what they wish. Pregnancy is now two bodies, not one.

Yes, one is dependent upon the other for a period of time for everything, but that does not give the mother any right to kill it, any more than anyone has a right to use their body to kill anything.

Yet, humans must kill the feed off the death.

 

[Darkwind]

Yet, humans must kill the feed off the death.

Incorrect. There is no "Must" about it. Humans have and will continue to kill.

In case you missed biology in school, all life feeds off death. Be that plants, animals, solar systems, or universes.

It is called, "entropy".

 

[Moonglow]

Incorrect. There is no "Must" about it. Humans have and will continue to kill.

In case you missed biology in school, all life feeds off death. Be that plants, animals, solar systems, or universes.

It is called, "entropy".

I am sure your definition of must comes from a better dictionary than mine.

 

[koshergrl]

That's a maybe, yet that is not what followed.

I have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Moonglow]

Incorrect. There is no "Must" about it. Humans have and will continue to kill.

In case you missed biology in school, all life feeds off death. Be that plants, animals, solar systems, or universes.

It is called, "entropy".

Entropy is simply a measure of disorder and affects all aspects of our daily lives. In fact, you can think of it as nature's tax. Left unchecked disorder increases over time. Energy disperses, and systems dissolve into chaos. The more disordered something is, the more entropic we consider it.


https://fs.blog › Explore Farnam Street Articles

 

[Darkwind]

I am sure your definition of must comes from a better dictionary than mine.

I'm pretty sure My definition of "must" is not colored by partisanship.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm pretty sure My definition of "must" is not colored by partisanship.

Good for you..I am sure you have no bias in your intent either.

 

[MarathonMike]

What the decision did in the original intent was the liberty to do with one's body as one wishes. What the so-called conservatives did was take the liberty of the body to the individual away and gave it to the state.

Of course you ignore the other "body" in the equation. Oh wait, it's just a parasite to you "Liberals", never mind.

 

[Votto]

The left keep calling abortion a “reproductive right”, and any restriction on abortion an attack on “reproductive rights”.

The definition of reproduction is as follows:

Definition of reproduction​

1: the act or process of reproducingspecifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual
2: something reproduced : COPY
3: young seedling trees in a forest

So as you can clearly see, reproduction is the act of making offspring.

Conception of a new human is reproduction, the creation of life is reproduction.

Abortion is the exact opposite of that. It is the intentional killing of the life that has already been created. Ending life is not reproduction. Thus, abortion is not a “reproductive right”.

No one is disputing that women have a “reproductive rights”. In other words, no one is outlawing or persecuting women for creating life. But abortion is not a reproductive act, thus it is not a “reproductive right”.

A woman who has gotten pregnant has already exercised her “reproductive rights”. She does not have “the right” to end that life.

The issue is not that the unborn are not the same as what the mother is, the question is, is the mother human?

For many on the Left, they are just animals, not human. They even admit as much

 

[Lastamender]

What the decision did in the original intent was the liberty to do with one's body as one wishes. What the so-called conservatives did was take the liberty of the body to the individual away and gave it to the state.

Unless it is taking a vaccine that is killing people, then they make exceptions.

 

[Donald H]

The left keep calling abortion a “reproductive right”, and any restriction on abortion an attack on “reproductive rights”.

The definition of reproduction is as follows:

Definition of reproduction​

1: the act or process of reproducingspecifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual
2: something reproduced : COPY
3: young seedling trees in a forest

So as you can clearly see, reproduction is the act of making offspring.

Conception of a new human is reproduction, the creation of life is reproduction.

Abortion is the exact opposite of that. It is the intentional killing of the life that has already been created. Ending life is not reproduction. Thus, abortion is not a “reproductive right”.

No one is disputing that women have a “reproductive rights”. In other words, no one is outlawing or persecuting women for creating life. But abortion is not a reproductive act, thus it is not a “reproductive right”.

A woman who has gotten pregnant has already exercised her “reproductive rights”. She does not have “the right” to end that life.

It's not helpful from either of the POV to try to put a label on this corrupt ruling of the Scotus. It's impossible for the situation to stand as denial of a woman's rights.

At best it only increases the tension in America that's leading to a likely show of force with guns.

Far better that the anti-abortion side fall back and change their approach to a socially responsible position, to at least cut their losses.

Examples of how the question must eventually play out are available in all the world's democracies!

 

[Votto]

Yet, humans must kill the feed off the death.

I think that is just cartoons, but OK

 

[Rambunctious]

Anti-abortion Latinos look forward to future without Roe v. Wade

“So many other people have spent their whole lives in this movement,” said anti-abortion activist Maria Oswalt. “It does show that our hard work is paying off.”

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Donald H]

The issue is not that the unborn are not the same as what the mother is, the question is, is the mother human?

For many on the Left, they are just animals, not human. They even admit as much

View attachment 662918

In the proper perspective, humans are animals too.

For more normal countries' that question is irrelevant to the abortion issue.

 

[Votto]

Anti-abortion Latinos look forward to future without Roe v. Wade

“So many other people have spent their whole lives in this movement,” said anti-abortion activist Maria Oswalt. “It does show that our hard work is paying off.”

www.nbcnews.com

Go woke and go broke