Hornburger said:
Except with blood the people didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be forced to give their time and risk themselves for someone else...with abortion, they could have used preventative measures, but since they didn't they assumed the risk and had the baby, which then means they would have to follow through with the abortion (or they should have to, anyway).
So you are voting something in between, something like "ONLY IF THEY CAUSED THE NEED"?
We are talking about whether there is a right to life to use a person's body here. So you are voting "conditional," right?
Hornburger said:
in the bathroom, in a closet, in a ****ing dumpster. Just don't kill an innocent life. How can we not punish murderers? I don't get it.
So it is not about the life being saved, but rather about the behavior of the donor?
Hornburger said:
Because birth pills have extremely high success percentages.
But ye5t 58% of those who had abortions in the early 90s (latest data available) used contraception. When a lot of people have sex, a small percentage of "a lot" still can be a big number.
Hornburger said:
If they kill a baby...yes, they are doing something wrong.
And "baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth. Irrelevant rhetoric.
Hornburger said:
Because the baby isn't part of the woman! It's a separate entity that resides in the mother. Just because it is inside the mother doesn't mean it is the mother's...If I put my **** in a woman's ass then she doesn't OWN my ****.
This tissue is connected to the woman's blood supply, it has no independent existence, no independent homeostasis, it is no more independent than an organ is or a tumor is.
Hornburger said:
No. You can't kill someone just because you don't feel like following through with the pregnancy.
But you can cause the death of a kidney patient just because you selfishly want to keep your bodily resources for yourself. Hence, you are denying the "right to life" of the kidney patient.
So now comes second question. Why does an embryo have more "right to life" than a person, a sentient, sensate human being?
Hornburger said:
Birth Control pills 97% to 99.9% effective. Now, that is pretty damn likely to work.
Yet, it also means that for every 1000 couples having sex, one pregnancy is likely.
Hornburger said:
Use condoms in addition to the pill, and the success rating goes up even higher.
So in the 100 mill couples, we can allow at least 1000 episodes of non-procreational intercourse yearly?
Hornburger said:
If it does and she does get pregnant, it would be a very rare case. And we can't deal with these "very rare cases" but have to deal with the vast majority of cases.
Again, the last scientific reference per the CDC showed 58% of those who obtained an abortion had used contraception.
Hornburger said:
And we have to do something to reduce this vast number of abortions taking place.
Sure.
better sex-ed (more accurate, more scientific, earlier).
better use of contraception (Cheaper, better, more available),
better support of pregnant women (instead of the conservative "welfare reform" that forces them into poverty and makes them seek abortions),
and better support of parents with kids (25% of abortions are to married women).
Fix that, and the number of abortions will go way down.
Now, unfortunately, a bunch of prolifers are very much opposed to contraception and most are very opposed to sex-ed. And it so happens that they see pregnant women as sluts who should be punished rather than "rewarded" for pregnancy. And the idea that poverty is being alleviated, that just makes those lazy welfare leeches lazier.
Yes, the conservative mindset DIRECTLY prevents a reduction in abortion. Instead of putting their wallet where their mouth is, conservative misogynistic theocrats try to dump the burden onto the woman instead.
YOU want to lower the abortion number, YOU pay instead of enslaving the woman because "you" (the conservative fundie) are too cheap and hate mongeringly misogynistic to take responsibility for yourself helping the problem you see.
And you know what? I bet that prolife and prochocie could work together on the above points (If prolife finally can come on board), and the number of abortions almost immediately would drop A LOT.
The reason we have so many abortions is that the conservative fundies in their misogyny tries to dump the burden onto the woman instead of pitching in themselves.
The PROLIFERS are the ones who have caused such a large number of abortions in their zeal to oppress women.
Hornburger said:
They don't have to raise it, put it up for adoption.
That is a parenting decision, not a pregnancy decision. Regardless, if she gives birth when she didn't want to be forced to give off her bodily resources, then she was enslaved to do so. She was forced to do exactly what everybody voted against in the poll. Do you need to change your vote?
Hornburger said:
Because in one instance it is the act of murder and the other is the act of negligence. There is a difference.
"Murder" is the illegal killing of a person. Abortions are legal, and embryos are not persons. So that is pure nonsense.
And that aside, does the kidney patient have to die? Does he/she have a right to life? According to the poll, that answer is no. According to the poll, people can NOT be forced to give their bodily resources even to save a life.
Oh, that is, UNLESS the person is a woman and she carries tissue that doesn't think or feel anything, then suddenly she can be forced. How is that NOT flagrant misogyny?
Hornburger said:
As for donating blood, an innocent person shouldn't be forced to help someone else out if they don't want to take out the time out of their lives to do so.
And there it is again, the idea that the "donor is innocent or guilty, that the recipient's "right" is not a right but merely a consequence of the donor's guilt or innocence.
That shows the prolife argument to NOT be based on "life," but rather on "guilt," based on punishment and teaching the woman a lesson. Pregnancy as punishment for not living up to YOUR unique moral schema.
As such, prolifers who claim this is about the life of the embryo are making themselves liars. They are in it for the punishment of the woman. LIFE doesn't mean nearly as much, because otherwise the kidney patient could have the right to force the prolifer to donate bodily resources against their will.
And that, suddenly, would make the prolifer having to swallow their own medicine, and we can't have that, can we now. It is easy to assign duties to others and oppress them, but when it comes to yourself, then it is a completely different story, then the person can die for all you care, as long as you can't be forced like you insist the woman can.
Do you have ANY idea how hypocritical that looks?
Hornburger said:
In the cases where protection is used and the woman gets pregnant, those cases are very rare.
Yes, "very rare," only making up for 58% of all abortions:roll: (Per CDC data in "1997 Abortion Surveillance")
Hornburger said:
Nope, then she wouldn't have to, if other people shouldn't be forced to give up organs and blood everything, that would apply to the mother too.
So the abortion should not be restricted.
Hornburger said:
But in almost all cases, the mother would want to save the child, especially when little or no harm will come to the mother.
If there is a child, yes. And that happens at birth.
That aside, the woman doesn't seek an abortion to save an embryo, she seeks an abortion because she does not want to be pregnant.
And if harm is to come to the mother...then the mother should be allowed to save her own life...so yeah.
But if no "harm" comes to her other than enslavement, other than the much bigger risk of giving birth, then yes she should be forced to give her bodily resources against her will?
Hornburger said:
But with abortion, you are killing someone ELSE.
Nope. That aside, you have already showed that it is not about saving a life. because you are PERFECTLY HAPPY letting the kidney patient die. So your claim is bogus.
Hornburger said:
An innocent someone else.
What is the kidney patient guilty off? Being sick?
Hornburger said:
That is a huge difference. We can't just let people slip by the law in abortion when it is murder.
"murder" is the illegal killing of a person. Are you going to persist in that false hyperbole?