🏳️‍🌈⃤ ℕ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕥𝕚𝕧𝕚𝕥𝕪 𝕚𝕟 𝔹𝕝𝕒𝕔𝕜

Science is not determined by consensus. The medical consensus was also that the brain was irrelevant to thought, and it all happened in the heart. People can be wrong in large groups

Well, for starters, a fetus doesn’t have the capacity to violate a woman’s will.

Yes. Unborn humans need their mother’s womb for survival. Born humans do not.

Yes! During the pre-natal phase of the human life cycle! Then by your rationale based on that question… Any human that is measurably human through DNA that was created at the moment of conception… Is deserving of human rights! But you deny that for some of your irrational reason! A hierarchy issue?

Premises 1. Human sexual reproduction is the product of evolutionary processes that selected for internal fertilization and prolonged gestation within the female body as the means of producing offspring. 2. As a result of this evolved reproductive biology, successful fertilization after sexual activity normally initiates pregnancy: the temporary dependence of a new organism on the maternal body is the designed outcome of the system, not an accidental or external imposition. 3. Full bodily autonomy, exercised through consensual sexual activity, therefore already includes the biological possibility and natural consequence of pregnancy; the pregnancy is not something that occurs outside or against that autonomy, but as its evolved result. 4. From the moment of fertilization, the human zygote/embryo/fetus is a distinct, living human organism: it possesses its own unique genome, its own developmental program, and its own integrated biological processes that are not merely a part or tissue of the mother. 5. As an independent living organism, the fetus has its own bodily integrity and, by the same logic of bodily autonomy applied to any organism, a claim not to have its body deliberately destroyed. 6. The mother’s bodily autonomy, however extensive, does not extend to the right to end the existence of a separate organism that is already living inside her as the natural result of her prior exercise of autonomy. 7. Claiming that abortion is itself an exercise of bodily autonomy therefore involves a double inconsistency: (a) it treats as an unwanted external intrusion what evolution and one’s own prior actions produced as the ordinary reproductive outcome, and (b) it asserts a right to destroy another organism’s body in the name of protecting one’s own. Conclusion: The bodily-autonomy argument for abortion is self-defeating. Pregnancy is the evolved consequence of sexual autonomy already exercised; the fetus is a separate living organism with its own bodily integrity; and one organism’s autonomy does not include the authority to extinguish another. This is why the position rejects abortion.

No one supports rape or assault, you trying to equate that to unwanted pregnancy is never going to work.

It includes the same exact rights you enjoy for yourself. The right to life. Playing dumb to that is no argument. The moment the right to life threatens the hierarchy, you abandon inherent rights and run to consensus, law, or preference That’s a tell.

That just means those organizations drank the Kool-Aid. It doesn’t make those statements true. Reproductive care and abortion are oxymorons.

I know enough here. Clancy planning invalidates any "psychosis" defense. Her calm coherent chat with her husband mid murder invalidates any psychosis defense. Shes a conniving nurse who tried to fake the perfect murders. Her "suicide" attempts a joke.

Human rights certainty should mean women cant kill their kids...wherever that child is located.

i have always vented on here about people who piss me off irl but i have never used anyones name so literally no one knows who tf i am talking about but i swear to cat i hear one more word about me telling the truth about someone “publicly” despite it being anonymous i will just start using actual names if i am going to be in trouble for something i might as well actually do what I’m being punished for 🤷‍♀️

The “If I” hypotheticals are not the basis or structure of my arguments. They are your reframing. My claim is narrower and rooted in biology, not a conditional you invented: A human organism begins at fertilization through the parents’ voluntary act. From that moment its continued existence and species-typical development require remaining inside the only environment nature designed for that stage of its life cycle—the mother’s body. That is not an arbitrary exception to a general rule. It is the natural process of human gestation. Ending that organism’s life by removing it from the only place it can continue is not equivalent to refusing to donate a kidney to an already-born person no longer in that developmental stage. Causation, dependency, parenthood, and the fact that death follows gain their moral weight from that continuous, species-specific developmental relationship. You treat the natural process as a circular add-on. It is why the analogy to forced organ use fails. Is pregnancy the morally relevant exception to the ordinary rule against forced internal bodily support? Yes, because pregnancy is the natural continuation of the human organism you helped create, not a random medical attachment of one independent person to another.

I don't worship the state actually.

Imagine if a man wrote a book like this about women

I'm merely withdrawing the use of my property from a separate individual using my house without my consent, it's very analogous.