Originally Posted by JoeyBananaz18
obviously I understand that. But it's the woman that carries that baby for 9 months. It's the woman that would go into labor with that baby, or would ultimately have the final say in having an abortion.
Please forgive me, I don't mean to criticize, I really don't. It's just that I read that line and took from it that a woman doesn't really have as much say in having an abortion as she should.
Not only that, but ~100% of the matter inside the body of the baby is supplied by the mother.
Personally I see it as a resource issue.
How can a 3rd party demand that a mother use her most personal resources (proteins/atp/etc) to build a child, for the 3rd party (as it's the 3rd party that wants it built) ... when the 3rd party will never have to raise that child or contribute to it in any way.
I might as well demand that my neighbor builds a separate garage ... because I feel like they should really have a separate garage ... even though I'll never use it, pay for it, or set foot in it.
It's a 3rd party capture of domain rights, property rights, etc.
Might as well sanction slavery... if you're already turning women into rightless state-controlled baby incubators.
Now I understand that the religious would consider the "make lots of babies" directive sacred, and their belief is that god's will applies to all believers and non-believers, and that it's their duty to shape society by god's will...
But really, mind your own business...
If we go down that path, we're headed for Levitican/Sharia law.
And we all know the "conception is life" assertion is just a way to recycle/leverage the law (murder) in order to promote the religious agenda to make more people.
After all, if a brick doesn't make a house, then a blastocyst doesn't make a person.
But if it does, then I've got a whole stack of houses to sell you...