Once again, a kidney, heart, lung, liver, eye, blood, etc... are ALL designed to be used by ONE PERSON. In order for THIS ProLife argument to stand you must be opposed to ALL forms of organ, tissue or blood donation, because, just like a uterus is designed to be used by two lives, organ, tissue AND blood are designed to be used by ONLY ONE PERSON. Oi. A woman has breasts and lactates, but she is not compelled to use them. Men get erections but they are not compelled to use them. Just like women are not (and should not be) compelled to use their uterus. Thanks for making my argument that the issue of abortion IS completely relevant to organ donation.
Good thing I have never claimed there IS a right to abortion, then, eh? Right to abortion implies that there is a law mandating abortion unless, in some cases, certain circumstances apply. I have, however, claimed there IS a right to CHOOSE whether to terminate OR continue a pregnancy. I really don't see what the UN has to do with anything, either. It is WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION that no one may force another to give up their body, in part or in whole, in order to sustain another's life. If that were not true, there would be nothing to stop organ donation from becoming mandatory. And, yes, it IS a premise that makes abortion permissible. Not one ProLife person can come up with a reasonable argument to dispute that fact.
I don't think you were ever really ProChoice. You were probably one of those people who believed that incest and rape were the only times they could exercise their right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Proving that it was all about punishment. If a woman has been punished enough for previously having consensual sex for purposes other than procreation, then she may be 'allowed' to have an abortion. If this is a sign of your debating skills, they've either really deteriorated over the years or you never really had any to begin with.
There is no right 'to' 'kill' a 'child', being discussed here, AT ALL, as I have told many ignorant ProLifers, including yourself, over and over, again. Again, a right to something implies that it is mandated by law, unless, in some cases, extraordinary circumstances apply. Killing refers to the cause of death. Cause implies responsibility. Women cannot be held responsible for the fact that their uterus SUSTAINS (not GIVES, but SUSTAINS) life. That fact only serves to IMPRISON them in their own bodies. (Something, I'm sure, ProLife salivates at.) The cause of death must also be direct. As is indicated by legal AND medical records. Abortion, ITSELF, is not direct, it affects the PLACENTA. One thing it does NOT do is affect the fetal body directly. However, some *methodologies* of abortion do, THUS killing the fetus. And a fetus is not a child. A child, AT THE VERY LEAST, is a baby that has been taken home from the hospital. THAT simple. REALLY.
So, abortion fits NONE of the definitions of murder. (Interesting to note that even when abortion was illegal, it was STILL not considered murder.) SO sorry.
AGAIN, biological design does not make one a man anymore than it makes one a woman. And you KNOW this, otherwise you wouldn't be letting men escape from their biological 'destiny' with impunity, as you HAVE. Doubtful? Case in point, then: A woman has a clitoris that is not needed in reproduction. A man needs to be erect in order to reproduce. Yet you are not claiming that a man is not a man if he doesn't engage in reproductive sex, let alone compelling him to do so.
Misogyny is anything that prevents women from becoming completely equal in society. You are seriously naive if you think women have not been passed over for promotions or simply not hired, because they can and do get pregnant. All of the laws in the world won't change that, unless attitudes change with them. But we are still living in an archaic patriarchy. And your policies would only serve to make the disparities between men and women that much more obvious.
You are not for defending life, as I have proven above. But here's something else for you to chew on, if that's still not enough for you: If a fetus DOES get the right to exist at all costs (anything else would be too arbitrary for what you are fighting for, after all), then a woman LOSES her right to life. Since pregnancy is the second leading cause of death in women worldwide. And, believe me, without those medical advancements that you ProLife fools always rail against, pregnancy would be even MORE life-threatening. Meaning that, according to ProLife's ideology that they know more than the medical or psychological professionals even with their advanced techniques, in a world where they wouldn't have to worry about such things, women would be dying FAR more frequently.
Women do accept their bodies. You want to force them to. But ONLY women, as, once again, I have proven above.
It is not a gift, if one does not want to get pregnant but wants to experience the SAME sexual freedoms that men can experience without similar fear of reprisal. How is that NOT obvious? A gift cannot be forced, after all. EsPECially when gifts elsewhere are only perceived when not forced. But that is what PROLIFE wants to do. Thus it is ProLife that wants to abuse a gift.
You obviously have no idea what the term force means. I suggest you look it up. If something is unwanted it is forced. Even if you believe that biology cannot be forced, (which is obviously not true, as, for the third time, I've pointed out above and as you believe that biology can be forced when women are mandated to get pregnant) since that is only your opinion and can only BE your opinion.
And, as *I* have pointed out that has no bearing on whether women are COMPELLED to use their uterus, just like men are not COMPELLED to use their sperm. It's that simple, really.
When you were attacked, you simply got lucky. There was a woman, in the news once, who was attacked by her sleepwalking son-in-law. She was killed. But she would still have been able to use deadly force to defend herself. She just would have been LUCKY if her attempts didn't result in the death of her son-in-law, in that case. Anyways, in most instances when one is attacked, don't you think an attacker is MORE likely to make sure there is no escape route for the victim? One reason, right there, why I doubt that victims of an attack would be forced to take even such MINIMAL precautions. It's the same thing when one is being raped. Rape is not life-threatening, in and of itself, nor is it as intimate a violation as unwanted pregnancy, but deadly force may still be used in this case. (Still though, the only difference between both pregnancy and rape and the examples you gave are the likelihood of an escape route being presented.)
You may thank me for your edumacation, now.
To see the full text of the post I'm responding to, follow the link, here.