GirlChat #555034
Not really
Posted by qtns2di4 on 2012-May-19 07:16:06 EDT, Saturday
In reply to Re: More important, also posted by Markaba on 2012-May-19 05:01:51 EDT, Saturday
Female abortion is performed because it is fully legal (and often subsidized) in those countries; but if it wasn't, they would recur to post-birth killing, as they still do in the communities that don't have a modern hospital nearby, or when a fraternal twin pregnancy makes abortion impossible.
So no, I don't really need to assume personhood at conception, or even female personhood at all. Abortion is only a method that reveals itself extremely practical in context, more practical than post-birth killing; but the issue I am aiming at is the intentional suppression of females from existence, which I would have thought would tend to be a greater violation of girl rights than marrying her off even to an abuser. Same as I think cops that shoot family dogs are a greater violation of animal rights than zoophiles - without needing to assume personhood for dogs. But, you know, sex is worse than death, so child marriage (and zoophilia, but not dog-, cock-, or bull-fighting) must be eradicated.
This post is archived, preventing any new replies.
Responses
- Move the goalposts much?--NT - Markaba on 2012-May-19 20:32:46 EDT, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: Move the goalposts much? - qtns2di4 on 2012-May-19 22:38:28 EDT, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Not to joke, but.... - GL_in_lyrics on 2012-May-19 08:06:39 EDT, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: Not to joke, but.... - qtns2di4 on 2012-May-19 20:31:22 EDT, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 0)