Newborn Baby with Ultrasound Picture

A woman does have control over her body, she doesn't have to become pregnant. In case you didn't know, there are many forms of birth control. Once pregnant, however, we are no longer just talking about her body; there is another body who has as much of a right to life as it's mother. The mother's uterus should not be the graveyard for her child.

The same relatively recently changed (in our society, others, as we know, still have loads of catching up to do) morality which has now determined women are not merely the property of men and subject to their whims.

The same which still treats women as second class citizens and children a very distant third.

The same which treats animals as property to be done with as one would (unless they're of the especially cuddly species or property of someone else) and treats plants as nothing more than literal kindle.

Aside from trying to decipher your poorly constructed sentences, Two consenting adults having sex does not mean that a woman has subjected herself to the whims of a man. Are you saying that women are incapable of consenting?

Does pregnancy relegate a woman to second class citizenship?

Killing a child in in utero is treating that child worse than "a very distant third." It treats that child as if it is nothing more than "property" that can be tossed out in the trash subject to the whim of the mother.

You object to how animals and plants are treated/used; is a child less than animals or plants? Are they "nothing more than literal kindle?"

Love how 'Conservatives' keep pretending they forgot what they're trying to conserve.

What is it that they DO stand for?
They keep not only backpedaling, but then claiming it was they that granted their divine permission for whatever oppressed people being discussed to be treated like humans. Last week some here were even going on about it re: women's right to vote!

Accusing the progressives who pushed for it being the ones who tried to halt the progress,,,

The number of Conservative women in leadership and elected positions proves you don't know what you are talking about. Quit using baseless, worn out, disproven talking points. Come back with facts not feelings and lies.

Check you out with the feigned reading comprehension limitations!
Hey, gotta earn them rubles somehow, eh, and if no one else is taking the bait, why not invent a fake 4 pronged argument that got what I said completely backwards 4 whole times!
Could have almost passed for satire if it weren't so drolly devoid of humor. Just too brazzingly blah for a parody,,,

Not my fault that your arguments were devoid of logic as well as any evidence. Sad!

Your reading limitations are yours and yours alone, and its shortcomings are on you.
But you keep trying to pretend that can't help but get it totally backwards, because the funny thing is, mission accomplished, it does appear to be exactly that, you can't help but get it totally backwards. As you carry on it becomes more convincing that your limitations are in the you-can't-help-it/not-by-design dept...

We're done yet?
Yeah, we're done.

Your inability to construct a coherent and properly punctuated sentence are "yours and yours alone." You are exhibiting the signs of suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect:
A cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is.

Not my fault you have the stunning ability to get what you read backwards.
But you keep hiding behind your hurled insecurities, that'll certainly cover up for them as it does every single time.

Now go grab them rubles, shill!

Just for fun, show someone what you've written and ask them to tell you what they think you are saying. Just for fun, I've shown your comments to three people. One said I she understood it the way I did; one said they think you are insane; the third person thought I was insane for wasting my time on you. Go ahead, I dare you to share your posts with your friends.

Been here since 2016, guy, so far everyone's reading comprehension skills have sufficed in doing more than having an extended multi-day hissy fit because - wait, what's the point you're not quite making again?

You use the word "terminate," call it what it is, you believe that a woman has the right to kill her child. Just curious, up to what point in the pregnancy is okay with you?

FYI fertilized egg and zygote mean the same thing. Although the zygote/egg contains all of the genetic information (DNA) needed to become a baby, without implantation, the woman's body sheds the egg. Once implantation occurs, in my opinion, the embryo is a child.

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn

Supreme Court ruled it's not a moral wrong.

Then according to your logic:
* Slavery is not a moral wrong;
* Segregation is not a moral wrong;
* Forced sterilization is not a moral wrong;
* Japanese Internment is not a moral wrong;
* Child Labor is not a moral wrong;
* Taking private property and giving it to another private individual is not a moral wrong;
according to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court has and does rule that all these things are moral wrongs.

Because they let the legalization of those things to continue in the first place. Nice try whippy-dip.

So your argument is with Kevin's use of tense?