tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post8022682412148068488..comments2024-03-24T12:20:39.636-04:00Comments on Lindsay's Logic: Demolishing Pro-Choice ArgumentsLindsay Haroldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-67381071024446988232015-02-24T15:18:37.675-05:002015-02-24T15:18:37.675-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-34841027805679093202015-02-24T15:10:17.605-05:002015-02-24T15:10:17.605-05:00Yes, I've studied sociology. I'm quite fam...Yes, I've studied sociology. I'm quite familiar with the terms.<br /><br />What people believe about morality changes from location to location, but morality doesn't. People can be wrong, you know. The standard isn't what we think about morality, but what is set by the morality giver - God. He made us and everything else, so He sets the rules.<br /><br />And actually, there are a number of things that are very consistently realized to be wrong across cultures. There might be exceptions and variations, but certain principles (like murder, incest, adultery, killing of children, and so on) are recognized nearly universally as being wrong. <br /><br />The Bible refers to this phenomenon of basic morality being so common as the "law written on the heart." Some people call it a conscience. But we all have an innate sense of right and wrong. We can sear our conscience or ignore it until we no longer have a sense of morality. We can be misled by the customs and laws of our culture. But we all start out with some innate sense of right and wrong. And people all over the world know that certain things are wrong, without having to be told.Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-39597953820754193192015-02-24T15:06:32.509-05:002015-02-24T15:06:32.509-05:00"You're changing what I said and then say..."You're changing what I said and then saying it's ridiculous when that isn't what I said. You're arguing against strawmen rather than actually engaging with the argument I'm making. What I said was that pregnancy does not involve removing an organ from a woman and that it doesn't take away any organ functionality. Those are both true. If anything, pregnancy forces her organs to work MORE, not LESS. Yes, it's a bit of a strain sometimes. I'm not denying that. But it isn't the same thing as taking an organ out of her body. You can't deny that fact."<br /><br />I never said that pregnancy is the exact same thing as taking an organ out of a person's body. I said that pregnancy involves a fetus using a woman's body against her will, just like if I forced you to donate one of your organs. And yes, pregnancy does force a woman's organs to work more, which means that they're more likely to be overworked and to suffer problems as a result of that. Why do you seem to want to ignore the negative consequences of pregnancy, anyways?<br /><br />"Again, that's not what I said or what I meant. Biologically, a woman's body (not her mind, her body) brings nutrition to her child in the womb. It's not a case of a parasite attaching to a body part and sucking out blood or nutrients. The mother's womb grows blood vessels to the child and her body changes its metabolism in response to the presence of the child in order to provide nutrition to the child."<br /><br />According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, the definition of the word "parasite" is "an animal or plant that lives in or on another animal or plant and gets food or protection from it." Seeing as a fetus is an animal, and so is a woman, that definition applies perfectly. So why pretend otherwise?Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-91507763121323887142015-02-24T14:57:18.581-05:002015-02-24T14:57:18.581-05:00"Pro-lifers think that morality is objective ..."Pro-lifers think that morality is objective and universal and doesn't depend on what people think about it. Wrong is wrong, whether anybody agrees it is wrong or not."<br /><br />How do you figure that morality is universal when morals vary from location to location? Again, I'll ask you, have you ever actually studied sociology? Do you know what mores, folkways, and taboos are?Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-48375034254687473582015-02-24T13:57:01.800-05:002015-02-24T13:57:01.800-05:00"That makes no sense at all. Morals don't..."That makes no sense at all. Morals don't come from your conscience. If they did, then everyone around the world would agree with what's right and what's wrong. Yet we don't. There are many different moral codes around the world, and none of them are superior to the rest. The only constant between all of those moral codes is that they were developed by each individual society. So therefore, morals come from society, rather than from within you. You should really study sociology. It goes really in-depth about this sort of thing."<br /><br />And now we come down to it. The real difference between abortion advocates and pro-lifers is subjective versus objective morality. Pro-aborts think morality is subjective and comes from society and varies from place to place, depending on what people believe. Pro-lifers think that morality is objective and universal and doesn't depend on what people think about it. Wrong is wrong, whether anybody agrees it is wrong or not. Murdering innocent children is wrong, regardless of how difficult it will make someone else's life not to and regardless of whether or not society thinks it's okay.Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-71193439379166568562015-02-24T13:33:33.049-05:002015-02-24T13:33:33.049-05:00"Are you being serious here? Do you really no..."Are you being serious here? Do you really not understand that a woman's organs are seriously stressed during pregnancy, since they're working to support two human beings? Even when a woman has a relatively easy pregnancy, she still has to deal with morning sickness, round ligament pains, severe fatigue, and the possibility of gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. To say that a woman's organs aren't affected by pregnancy at all is to outright lie. So, tell me, why are you lying to me?"<br /><br />You're changing what I said and then saying it's ridiculous when that isn't what I said. You're arguing against strawmen rather than actually engaging with the argument I'm making. What I said was that pregnancy does not involve removing an organ from a woman and that it doesn't take away any organ functionality. Those are both true. If anything, pregnancy forces her organs to work MORE, not LESS. Yes, it's a bit of a strain sometimes. I'm not denying that. But it isn't the same thing as taking an organ out of her body. You can't deny that fact.<br /><br />---<br /><br />"So you want to pretend that pregnant women always want to be pregnant, and that the fetus inside of a woman is never an unwelcome surprise? Wow. You really do live in a world all your own, don't you? It must be hard for you to be confronted with reality (like I'm doing now), huh?"<br /><br />Again, that's not what I said or what I meant. Biologically, a woman's body (not her mind, her body) brings nutrition to her child in the womb. It's not a case of a parasite attaching to a body part and sucking out blood or nutrients. The mother's womb grows blood vessels to the child and her body changes its metabolism in response to the presence of the child in order to provide nutrition to the child. <br /><br />---<br /><br />From just these examples, it's obvious that you're intentionally trying to misunderstand me and twist my words. You're not engaging my arguments. You aren't even trying to understand them. In such circumstances, you've made it impossible to have an honest and useful conversation. Please do not comment here any more. Your comments will only be deleted.Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-27104827374129885432015-02-24T12:06:20.408-05:002015-02-24T12:06:20.408-05:00"I'm not denying that it's a fact tha..."I'm not denying that it's a fact that tapeworms and tumors and young fetuses can't think. I'm saying it's not relevant. Not being able to think in this particular moment, if that's the criterion, would mean it was okay to kill lots of other people besides the unborn. Do you not get that?"<br /><br />The only other people who have as little brain function as a fetus does are the severely disabled and brain-dead. And if a parent (or caretaker) sees no possibility of recovery for a severely disabled or brain-dead person, it should be legal to kill them. They shouldn't have to live their entire life as a vegetable, nor should their parents (or caretakers) have to care for them forever as a vegatable.<br /><br />"I disagree. Women feel bad about getting an abortion because their conscience tells them it's wrong. They know it instinctively. They don't need me or anyone else to tell them it's wrong. Silencing pro-lifers won't make their pain go away. The way to stop women from having that pain of knowing they killed their child is to prevent them from making that bad decision in the first place."<br /><br />That makes no sense at all. Morals don't come from your conscience. If they did, then everyone around the world would agree with what's right and what's wrong. Yet we don't. There are many different moral codes around the world, and none of them are superior to the rest. The only constant between all of those moral codes is that they were developed by each individual society. So therefore, morals come from society, rather than from within you. You should really study sociology. It goes really in-depth about this sort of thing.Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-19809594390424654302015-02-24T12:01:32.425-05:002015-02-24T12:01:32.425-05:00"Oh, and I'm not moving any goalposts. I&..."Oh, and I'm not moving any goalposts. I'm demonstrating that no characteristic of the unborn makes them less human or have any fewer rights than born people. The only differences are not morally or logically relevant. So, whichever one you choose, I can show that it's not relevant and doesn't justify abortion."<br /><br />So basically, you're not willing to think through what I'm saying, and you want to keep your mind firmly shut on this issue? What's the point of having this discussion, then?Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-39049202236113677812015-02-24T11:59:16.006-05:002015-02-24T11:59:16.006-05:00"Nonsense. For one thing, giving up an organ ..."Nonsense. For one thing, giving up an organ is removing an organ from the body and permanently making it unavailable for that person to use anymore. No organs are removed from a pregnant woman when she is pregnant. In fact, her body doesn't lose functionality at all during pregnancy, but actually uses an organ of her body for what it was designed for. Completely different there."<br /><br />Are you being serious here? Do you really not understand that a woman's organs are seriously stressed during pregnancy, since they're working to support two human beings? Even when a woman has a relatively easy pregnancy, she still has to deal with morning sickness, round ligament pains, severe fatigue, and the possibility of gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. To say that a woman's organs aren't affected by pregnancy at all is to outright lie. So, tell me, why are you lying to me?<br /><br />"In addition, pregnancy doesn't involve a child stealing nutrients. The baby uses nothing that her body doesn't purposely bring to him. He doesn't take. She gives. Pregnancy is just the normal, natural way that women care for very young children."<br /><br />So you want to pretend that pregnant women always want to be pregnant, and that the fetus inside of a woman is never an unwelcome surprise? Wow. You really do live in a world all your own, don't you? It must be hard for you to be confronted with reality (like I'm doing now), huh?<br /><br />"Children have a right to normal, natural care from their parents. Before birth, this normal care involves using a woman's womb. After birth, this normal care doesn't involve a womb, but does involve a woman's hands (to hold the baby), her eyes (to watch the baby), her breasts (to feed the baby), etc. Giving up an organ of the body permanently is not normal care and is not analogous to pregnancy."<br /><br />Since when does a child have the right to "normal, natural care from their parents"? That kind of makes it seem like adoption is wrong, since adoption isn't "normal, natural care from [a child's] parents." Plus, who are you to say what "normal, natural care" is? Do you think it's wrong for parents to vaccinate their children, for example? After all, that's not exactly "natural," yet it's still what's best for a child.<br /><br />"So, no, I don't support forced organ donation - not even from parents to their children. No one has a right to take an organ out of someone's else's body. But children do have a right to be cared for in their own mother's womb, which was designed to care for her children, and which is the normal, natural way that children of that age receive care. Women have a responsibility to provide normal care to their children - born and unborn."<br /><br />You know, I'm curious, have you ever read My Sister's Keeper, by Jodi Picoult? It's about a mother who has a daughter with cancer, and the daughter needs blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants from donor with the same blood type as her. Her mother doesn't know of any suitable donors, so she decides to have a genetically-engineered child who will be a suitable donor. The book is the story of that genetically-engineered child (named Kate), and her struggles with having to be forced to donate blood and marrow to her sister. What do you think about that?Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-83862969066337144152015-02-24T11:58:38.345-05:002015-02-24T11:58:38.345-05:00" If pro-lifers didn't exist, then women ..." If pro-lifers didn't exist, then women wouldn't feel bad about getting an abortion."<br /><br />I disagree. Women feel bad about getting an abortion because their conscience tells them it's wrong. They know it instinctively. They don't need me or anyone else to tell them it's wrong. Silencing pro-lifers won't make their pain go away. The way to stop women from having that pain of knowing they killed their child is to prevent them from making that bad decision in the first place.Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-68184222389798888012015-02-24T11:56:41.036-05:002015-02-24T11:56:41.036-05:00I'm not denying that it's a fact that tape...I'm not denying that it's a fact that tapeworms and tumors and young fetuses can't think. I'm saying it's not relevant. Not being able to think in this particular moment, if that's the criterion, would mean it was okay to kill lots of other people besides the unborn. Do you not get that?<br /><br />If it's okay to kill human individuals who aren't currently, at this moment, able to think or feel, then it's okay to kill lots of disabled born people too. That's just the logical conclusion from your reasoning. You're either advocating for killing any human who can't think or feel, or you have to give up that criteria. Otherwise, you're not being logically consistent.Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-15183382283963739952015-02-24T11:51:30.263-05:002015-02-24T11:51:30.263-05:00Oh, and I'm not moving any goalposts. I'm ...Oh, and I'm not moving any goalposts. I'm demonstrating that no characteristic of the unborn makes them less human or have any fewer rights than born people. The only differences are not morally or logically relevant. So, whichever one you choose, I can show that it's not relevant and doesn't justify abortion.Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-85640804156478244682015-02-24T11:48:51.576-05:002015-02-24T11:48:51.576-05:00"There's no difference between a fetus us..."There's no difference between a fetus using a woman's body against her will and a person demanding to use another person's organs against their will."<br /><br />Nonsense. For one thing, giving up an organ is removing an organ from the body and permanently making it unavailable for that person to use anymore. No organs are removed from a pregnant woman when she is pregnant. In fact, her body doesn't lose functionality at all during pregnancy, but actually uses an organ of her body for what it was designed for. Completely different there.<br /><br />In addition, pregnancy doesn't involve a child stealing nutrients. The baby uses nothing that her body doesn't purposely bring to him. He doesn't take. She gives. Pregnancy is just the normal, natural way that women care for very young children.<br /><br />Children have a right to normal, natural care from their parents. Before birth, this normal care involves using a woman's womb. After birth, this normal care doesn't involve a womb, but does involve a woman's hands (to hold the baby), her eyes (to watch the baby), her breasts (to feed the baby), etc. Giving up an organ of the body permanently is not normal care and is not analogous to pregnancy.<br /><br />So, no, I don't support forced organ donation - not even from parents to their children. No one has a right to take an organ out of someone's else's body. But children do have a right to be cared for in their own mother's womb, which was designed to care for her children, and which is the normal, natural way that children of that age receive care. Women have a responsibility to provide normal care to their children - born and unborn.Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-69423739432046737452015-02-24T11:44:02.389-05:002015-02-24T11:44:02.389-05:00"It's not at all accurate to compare a hu..."It's not at all accurate to compare a human individual with a tapeworm or a tumor. Why would being currently able to think or feel be the defining characteristic that makes someone valuable?"<br /><br />It's not about what makes a person valuable (since that's entirely subjective and not a fact at all), it's about the scientific facts regarding fetuses. And those scientific facts are that a fetus cannot think or feel pain, just like a tapeworm or a tumor. Why do you want to ignore those scientific facts, anyways? Ignoring science just makes you willfully ignorant, you know. (And no, that's not an insult, so don't you dare try to say that I just insulted you. I was using the term "willfully ignorant" according to its dictionary definition, rather than using it as an insult.)<br /><br />"Why do they feel bad about it if there's nothing wrong with it?"<br /><br />Because people like you make them feel bad. If pro-lifers didn't exist, then women wouldn't feel bad about getting an abortion.Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-78698215511824800522015-02-24T11:41:08.726-05:002015-02-24T11:41:08.726-05:00"A first-trimester fetus isn't a person a..."A first-trimester fetus isn't a person any more than a tumor or a tapeworm are a person. After all, a tumor and a tapeworm both can't think, can't feel pain, and don't know they exist, just like a first-trimester fetus. You can yell at me all you want for making that comparison (and something tells me you probably will yell at me for that), but that doesn't make the comparison any less apt."<br /><br />It's not at all accurate to compare a human individual with a tapeworm or a tumor. Why would being currently able to think or feel be the defining characteristic that makes someone valuable? And if that is the criteria we should use - current ability rather than intrinsic value based on what you are - then that would mean that anyone who cannot currently, at this moment, speak or feel (perhaps because they're in a reversable coma or have a mental or physical ability) can be killed also. This rationale for abortion also allows all kinds of violence against disabled people.<br /><br />"And many of those women feel incredibly bad about having gotten an abortion, to the point where they seek counseling for it. "<br /><br />Why do they feel bad about it if there's nothing wrong with it? Maybe I'm just agreeing with them that it was wrong.Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-72779738013057120562015-02-24T11:37:13.776-05:002015-02-24T11:37:13.776-05:00Way to move the goalposts there. You asked me whic...Way to move the goalposts there. You asked me which characteristic from that list made it okay to kill a fetus, and I answered, so there's no reason for you to think that location isn't a relevant characteristic of a human being. But, since I want to have an honest discussion with you, I suppose I'll just ignore the moved goalposts. Anyways, are you seriously trying to say that human beings should be able to use each other's bodies against their will? I mean, if I needed a kidney, would it be okay for me to demand that you give me one of your kidneys, and refuse to let you say otherwise? That's what you're advocating for, you know. There's no difference between a fetus using a woman's body against her will and a person demanding to use another person's organs against their will.Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-27002231094843639472015-02-24T11:33:16.424-05:002015-02-24T11:33:16.424-05:00But location isn't a relevant characteristic o...But location isn't a relevant characteristic of a human being. I don't change who I am simply because I change location. If I move from one room of my house to another, I'm still the same person. My rights don't change. If I move to a new home or take a trip on an airplane or visit another country, I'm still the same person with the same rights. So how exactly does an 8 inch trip down a birth canal change a non-person into a person or confer human rights? It doesn't. The child is the same person before and after birth. The child's rights don't change because he changed location.Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-48224432086172533362015-02-24T11:23:12.756-05:002015-02-24T11:23:12.756-05:00The location makes a fetus worthy of being killed,...The location makes a fetus worthy of being killed, since no human has the right to use another human's body against their will.<br /><br />There, I answered your question. Now will you answer mine?<br /><br />(Please don't delete this and claim that it had profanity in it, like you did with another comment of mine.)Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-22106495487796381122015-02-24T11:21:23.827-05:002015-02-24T11:21:23.827-05:00When you respond to my question (which you avoided...When you respond to my question (which you avoided), I might think about answering yours.<br /><br />"The only differences between a child in the womb and a born child are:<br />Location<br />Size<br />Stage of development<br />Degree of dependency<br /><br />So, which of those do you think makes some humans worthless and able to be killed? Because it won't apply only to the unborn."Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-46220738411574756392015-02-24T11:18:29.926-05:002015-02-24T11:18:29.926-05:00I have better things to do with my time than respo...I have better things to do with my time than respond to your comments all day. It's not like you're asking honest questions and really wanting to understand my position. You're obviously just here to throw insults and be annoying. I've spent lots of time explaining my position. I'm done wasting my time on you.Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-2422264678609400962015-02-23T21:16:47.018-05:002015-02-23T21:16:47.018-05:00Hello? Are you ever going to respond to my most re...Hello? Are you ever going to respond to my most recent comment on here?Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-26870126961478729452015-02-11T20:42:19.814-05:002015-02-11T20:42:19.814-05:00A first-trimester fetus isn't a person any mor...A first-trimester fetus isn't a person any more than a tumor or a tapeworm are a person. After all, a tumor and a tapeworm both can't think, can't feel pain, and don't know they exist, just like a first-trimester fetus. You can yell at me all you want for making that comparison (and something tells me you probably will yell at me for that), but that doesn't make the comparison any less apt.<br /><br />Also, why do you keep insulting women who have gotten an abortion? You've already compared them to rapists and pedophiles, and now you're claiming that they're not loving at all? Are you completely incapable of showing love and compassion to those women? Those women are human beings just like you and they're not heartless nor do they lack morals. Many of them actually have children of their own, and are great parents to those children. And many of those women feel incredibly bad about having gotten an abortion, to the point where they seek counseling for it. Yet you don't care about that. No, you want to blindly hate those women, just because they made a choice that you disagree with. And you can't see how wrong that is? You really need to do some introspection and take a look at your personality and the way you treat others. Because if this is the way you act in real life (i.e., not online), then that's not okay. I feel for anyone who has to encounter you in real life if you would treat them this way. I really hope you're not the type of person who protests outside of abortion clinics.Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-14075449435543944442015-02-11T20:36:10.836-05:002015-02-11T20:36:10.836-05:00So you're okay with people having control over...So you're okay with people having control over their body when a fetus isn't involved, but when a fetus is involved, you don't want people to have control over their body? Seems to me like it's clear that you value the life of a fetus more than you value the health and well-being of a pregnant woman.<br /><br />Also, do you know what hyperemesis gravidarum and pre-eclampsia are? Do you know how epilepsy can affect a pregnant woman? Do you know all of the different ways that pregnancy can cause mental and emotional distress to a woman? Do you know what the maternal death rate (the death rate of women during pregnancy and childbirth) is here in the US? Do you know how emotionally scarring it can be to give a child up for adoption? Whether you like it or not, there are plenty of ways that pregnancy can cause a woman to suffer. Just because you've never known a woman who has suffered during pregnancy doesn't mean a thing.<br /><br />And at-home abortions can't be regulated, unless you want pregnant women to be monitored 24/7 to prevent them from killing the fetus inside of them. So why not just face the facts that women are going to perform at-home abortions on themselves, and those extremely unsafe abortions will often cause them to die? Is that really what you want? Because that's what will happen if abortion is made illegal.Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01555876441871279931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-63830290308639911832015-02-11T20:29:36.337-05:002015-02-11T20:29:36.337-05:00"A first-trimester fetus cannot even think, f..."A first-trimester fetus cannot even think, feel pain or emotions, or know that it exists. Slaves, on the other hand, felt immense amounts of pain, humiliation, anger, and fear."<br /><br />So you're saying it's okay to hurt people as long as they don't know you're hurting them?<br /><br />It's not loving to allow innocent children to be killed for the "crime" of existing. Maybe their existence is inconvenient, or even downright catastrophic, to their mothers. But that doesn't mean it's okay to kill them for something that isn't even their fault. How is that loving to kill a child just for existing when he didn't do anything to deserve that?Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5576985008275511255.post-56402017117430627712015-02-11T20:25:56.102-05:002015-02-11T20:25:56.102-05:00Whether or not someone has chemo is a choice they ...Whether or not someone has chemo is a choice they have a right to make about their own bodies. The choice of whether or not to kill a child in the womb is NOT a choice about a woman's own body. It's a choice about someone else's body and she doesn't have a right to make it. I can't believe I even have to explain this.<br /><br />And you keep speaking of going through pregnancy as if it is always such suffering. It's not, okay. It's not that terrible that it requires women to be able to kill their children to get out of it.<br /><br />I am just as opposed to home abortions as the kind where you pay someone to kill your child.Lindsay Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094965953749825163noreply@blogger.com