| > belongs to the state? Oh please. Cool it with the strawman arguments. It's boring. They aren't owned by the state. They simply can't kill the human growing inside them. That's it, that's all it is. We don't need to drop to analogies and hyperbole, we have the language to describe what is happening. A woman, in most instances, chooses to have a baby grow inside of them. But regardless of how it got there, at a certain point that baby deserves human rights. That point is all that's up for debate. At what point does a baby become a human with rights to life. One side argues birth, one side argues conception. The vast majority decided viability 22 weeks (disturbing imo but neither here nor there). My human right to free speech stops at the point it harms someone else. I don't see why these rights would be any bloody different. If you want to debate this issue you need to be willing to define when a baby becomes a human, because THAT is the only thing being debated here. |
In particular, please edit out flamewar swipes like your first sentence here.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."