[Timon3]

Why does the protest have to be right in front? Isn't a march through the city just as, if not more, effective to get your voices heard? Of course you won't be able to terrify vulnerable young women, but it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing!

[fqyzj]

If you are mentally capable of doing something then you should be mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong - it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing, also.

Using the term "vulnerable young women" is trying to remove the agency from them, which is despicable.

[Timon3]

> If you are mentally capable of doing something then you should be mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong - it'd be great if we could all agree that's a good thing, also.

Would you be okay if, for the rest of your life, protesters stood in front of your home and shouted "die for breathing, die for breathing"? Presumably not, right? Although you're mentally capable of breathing, which should mean you're mentally capable of hearing that doing that is wrong?

> Using the term "vulnerable young women" is trying to remove the agency from them, which is despicable.

Can you explain why? I don't see how any agency is removed from them. Pregnancy itself makes women more vulnerable, and someone going through a very hard decision will be impacted even more. Whose agency did I just try to remove?

Or could it be that you're just projecting?

[fqyzj]

By definition, breathing and killing are complete opposites.

I wouldn't like it if people shouted slogans in front of my house but they have a right to it.

If women are in a vulnerable, hormonal state maybe they shouldn't be the ones making these decisions. Either they can make the decision and go through the consequences, or they can't. There's no middle ground of doing something and then having people who disagree with what you did silenced.

[Timon3]

> By definition, breathing and killing are complete opposites.

So? Did your earlier messages include anything on breathing or killing? There were no specifiers.

> I wouldn't like it if people shouted slogans in front of my house but they have a right to it.

Alright, awesome on you for consistency! I don't think they have the right, and I'm lucky to live somewhere that also wouldn't think so.

> If women are in a vulnerable, hormonal state maybe they shouldn't be the ones making these decisions.

Why are you trying to take agency away from women? Didn't you just say this kind of behavior is despicable?

[hypertele-Xii]

Who's more vulnerable, the young women having the abortion, or the baby being aborted?

It's absolutely bonkers that convenience murder trumps the terrors of motherhood.

[Timon3]

Obviously the woman, since the baby isn't a person yet that can be vulnerable.

Absolutely bonkers that the rights of a brainless clump of cells trumps the rights of half our population.

[hypertele-Xii]

So no thing that isn't a person (yet) can be vulnerable?

Pets can't be vulnerable? Trees can't be vulnerable? Buildings can't be vulnerable?

Perhaps the baby is extra vulnerable exactly because it isn't a person yet capable of defending itself. It will become one though, unless someone murders it out of selfish convenience.

[Timon3]

> Pets can't be vulnerable? Trees can't be vulnerable? Buildings can't be vulnerable?

Definitely not in the same way a human can! Or would you leave a person to bleed out after a car crash so you don't damage the tree more?

> It will become one though, unless someone murders it out of selfish convenience.

If we agree that the unborn fetus isn't yet a person, why are you talking about murder? Seems like it's all good to me.

[hypertele-Xii]

If you hit an animal with your car, do you leave it to bleed out because it isn't a person and thus can't be vulnerable?

We don't agree that an unborn fetus isn't yet a person. I was deconstructing your logic. I think a person is created the moment sex cells fuse. Sometimes I even think about the hypothetical potential of a person and what they'd want me to do, such that they could one day exist and tell me.

My use of the word 'murder' is for dramatic effect to emphasize my beliefs. I concede that it's an opinion counter to the current laws, and thus technically incorrect. Still gonna call it that though.

[Timon3]

> If you hit an animal with your car, do you leave it to bleed out because it isn't a person and thus can't be vulnerable?

I would treat an animal I hit with my car very differently from a human, since I'd call an ambulance for a human, but would bring the animal into an animal clinic myself. Would you not call an ambulance for a human, or would you call an ambulance for an animal? Which one is it?

> I think a person is created the moment sex cells fuse.

Are you trying to do anything about IVF clinics? If I were to follow your standards, that would be way worse for me, since IVF clinics produce a big surplus of inseminated eggs. Every couple might kill multiple "babies" instead of just one.

> My use of the word 'murder' is for dramatic effect to emphasize my beliefs.

Could you try to refrain from doing so for our conversation? I'm going to take what you write literally since I assume you're writing in good faith, so misrepresenting your own positions is just going to hurt the discussion.