@@persuasivebarrier2419 Aren’t there two bodies involved in the process? Why does the inhabitant of one body get to decide to end the life of the other? If a person’s rights do not extend to the violation of another’s rights why would bodily autonomy extend to harming the body of another?
@@jettslappy7028 the fetus is already in account. you can't have an abortion at any time you want because the longer you wait into a pregnancy, the greatest risk to the actual citizen in the equation. that's why doctors are already involved and it's only when the citizen's health is at risk is one allowed. you aren't paying their bills and until you account for forced pregnancies involving the cost of hospital bills and the next 18 years at minimum, then it's an "incomplete analysis."
Depends on when the abortion is carried out. Consciousness (or for the sake of my argument: personhood) doesn’t develop until about 20-24 weeks of gestation. Having an abortion prior to this time frame, in my opinion, doesn’t harm a “person”. When we talk about what’s worth caring for when it comes to persons it’s almost always the conscious experience that they exhibit. Killing someone in their 20s is wrong because there was a conscious agent involved in the matter. However, if you have an abortion at week 13, the fetus doesn’t have the necessary brain function to exhibit a conscious experience hence why some refer to it as “a clump of cells”. I don’t use that term because it just comes across as scummy but hopefully you understand my pro choice argument. I can explain further if needed.
The issue that a lot of people forget is there is another life at play, or at least what will become a life if not prevented from doing so, and that should really be considered. But even though I disagree with Harry on this, I still love his music.
You're comparing apples to oranges. One is contagious, the other is not. Anti-vaxxers defied them all the same and exploded American deaths over a million as a result.
@@adda1237what’s the current science in regard to that? From what I know, the vaccines didn’t stop or slow the spread and have actually increased COVID’s proliferation.
i’m not getting into arguments, but just want to say this. covid vaccines make the world so much safer, so he’s pushing them but obviously wouldn’t force it on anybody. there’s a difference 😊
I doubt you want to make this argument. If we follow this to it’s logical end than you should be against pushing vaccines AND abortion. To be fair idk your stance on abortion, you could be pro choice… but usually the people that make this argument think it’s okay for the government to tell women they can’t get abortions but they simultaneously argue that the government shouldn’t push vaccines because it’s your body and you should be able to do what you want with it. Long story short if you are against vaccine mandates then, in order to be logically consistent, you should be pro-choice too.
Good for you Mr Styles , ,a diplomat for progress and peace 👍 more celebs in 2023 should be public about this regime of bigots we keep electing , , 🤔🤔🦆
@@AS-yz2iz what if the family isn’t a state to take care of the baby ie what if they are poor and can’t afford to look after the baby! You haven’t seen the world for sure
@@studyonly9994for every one child born there are 36 parents willing to adopt in the United States , if anything it’s the reverse of what your saying where damand for babies is way too much for the supply
@@petegoddard4444you are just allowed for an abortion if it happens in the beginning. In the first 3 months. And in the first three months of a pregnancy, it's not a baby.
3 billion innocent bodies murdered premeditated first degree murdered by their mother's doctors and their wounds. Who's going to speak up for those innocent babies Harry Styles
