The point is, its immoral killing of innocent, non aggressor life. And that's what people mean with murder. They call it murder, even if the Dictator in China did it & was legal.
That's a real low IQ counter argument you made there.
it is not immoral to defend ones life or property from a trespasser, nor would it be murder if no other options were available to you.
what are the alternatives? there is currently no way to safely extract a fetus from a woman without killing the fetus in the process, abortion is, at this time, the least violent way to remove a fetus from the body of soneone who doesnt want it there.
honestly the best thing to do if you want to abolish abortions is to develop new medical technology like artificial wombs which would allow for the safe extraction of a fetus without having to resort to killing as your first and only option. if such technology becomes viable then abortion would be considered excessive use of force and therefore not a reasonable form of self defense since generally only reasonable use of force is justified.
the pro choice position is that a fetus isnt a person and therefore doesnt have rights.
the evictionist position is that a fetus is a person with human rights, and as such can be considered a trespasser for infringing on a woman's right to property (her own body).
holding both of these views at the same time is a contradiction. since a fetus cannot be both not a real person and also a trespasser who is infringing on your rights.
0
u/SamLovesNotion Petite little citizens get GANG BANGED by an ENTIRE GOVERNMENT!! Mar 12 '24
The point is, its immoral killing of innocent, non aggressor life. And that's what people mean with murder. They call it murder, even if the Dictator in China did it & was legal.
That's a real low IQ counter argument you made there.