three little sparrows

europeanlibertarian:

extremecapitalism:

opinionlizard:

emilye:

“Oh the joys of feeling your stomach expanding to carry a human being!”

— one of my pregnant, pro-choice relatives.

Not wanting to restrict other people’s bodies (being pro-choice) means you NEVER can want children nor can you enjoy being pregnant yourself,…

Honestly, I can’t comprehend pro-choicers at all. Their argument is literally “I’m pro-choice! I have personal autonomy! I have the right to kill people!” Like no that’s not how autonomy works.

I believe you have a right to life starting from the point where you can sustain your life. A woman doesn’t have a right to kill per se, but she surely can kick someone out. It’s not moral - like kicking someone else from your property when they need your water or food wouldn’t be- but it’s not murder, or else someone else’s needs would obliterate your property rights over yourself or your land.

What do you consider self-sustaining?  A newborn, left alone, will die.  A newborn cannot support itself, provide it’s own food, etc.  Yet, it is considered murder to end the life of a newborn.  Also, a baby who is born with medical problems might be dependent on oxygen or even a ventilator to sustain it’s life.  Does this person not have a right to life, because they are not independently sustaining their life?

Children need food, shelter, clothing, education, etc., which can cost the parents money while these children are living under their roof.  Yet it is not considered ethical, moral, or legally permissible to terminate the life of your children on the grounds that their needs are costing you.  Why do you feel it should be different for unborn children?

(via alzati-prometeo)