View Single Post
Old 03-26-2012, 12:35 AM   #27
CuckooTuli
 
CuckooTuli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 708
Fruitbat - I get what you're saying. But the discussion in this thread is about women's ability to choose abortion, and whether or not the state has the right to prevent her from doing so based on its own definition of the foetus she is carrying and the equivalency of its life to hers. If a mother chooses to risk her own life to bring a foetus to term, however I or anyone else may feel about the logic of that decision, it's her choice. That's the whole point here.

So personally, I feel that within the context of this thread, that point's not strictly relevant to the debate at hand. This debate is about the state's right to choose for women; to outright tell them, "This is the value of your life as opposed to the life you're carrying, and no, you don't get a say in that."

For example, this poor woman did not lack mothering instincts; and indeed, her story only shows how the state is actually attempting to weaponize such instincts against women who aren't having abortions for "slutty" reasons (even by their narrow and religiously-oriented definition of such). Maternal instincts are, therefore, beside the point here.
__________________
"Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women's liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.” - Huey Newton
CuckooTuli is offline   Reply With Quote