rabbleprochoice:

spiritwildheartofachild:

I wouldn’t personally kill Jews, but that was Hitler’s choice and I respect that.

Do you feel like punching me in the face? Yes? Good. You should.

Congratulations!

You have just demonstrated your complete lack of understanding about the legal justifications for…

Hitler wasn’t really pro-life.  A more accurate label I believe, would be anti-choice.  Aryan women’s bodies belonged to the state and so the government decided what to do with them. Like sending them to sex camps and forcing them to become pregnant and remain so.  Non-aryan women were forced to have abortions.

Also, Hitler had no legal justification to mass murder Jewish and non-aryan people.  Even if a fetus were to be legally considered a person then it would be granted rights all born persons enjoy as well as the legal implications we are all subjected to equally.  And I will inform you that there is no legal right to have another person provide their bodily resources for you, even for your survival.  Even if it was that persons fault that the individuals life is now dependant on that persons bodily resources.  Maybe you don’t know this, but mandatory organ donation is illegal.  Guess why that is?  Also this is demonstrated in the legal case Mcfall v. Shimp.
So your idiotic comparison to Hitler and a woman’s legal right to deny her bodily resources to anyone has no valid legal standing or valid comparison.  Just more non-sensical emotional dribble as expected from lifers like you.

queen—of—noise:

 accurate.

doubtingansley:

Without this assumption, all their arguments fall through.

This is why I have a problem with the pro-choice movement,

They are of course human by DNA but it is entirely different to consider it a person.  Of course this is subject to debate and there is no definite consensus of any kind.  But what I will say on the subject is give this example.  Take for example the movie Planet of the Apes, they are definetely not human by DNA but regardless, wouldn’t you consider the rest of their characteristics to have them qualify as persons non the less?  Or in simpler words, what makes you any different from a worm, a rock, or bacteria besides DNA?  What actually makes you a person?  That is what I think some people are trying to express when they say a fetus is not a human being.  But regardless, no human being has the right use anyone elses bodily resources against their will, EVEN for survival.  And as an example for this in the law, see Mcfall v. Shimp.  There is no valid legal argument on the lifers side.  Only emotional ones.