The pro-abortion party always uses de-humanizing language so they can feel justified removing the life of someone who had no say or consent in their creation purely for their own convenience.
That's why they call them "parasites."
It's literally no different from when the Ancient Romans would kill their infants and call them "plants." It's to remove the inherent humanity in order to decrease guilt and responsibility for taking an innocent life of which didn't need to be taken.
There's no difference---the only difference between those two mindsets is the aesthetics of the culture. But they used the exact same reasons that pro-abortionists use today.
While sure, the ancient romans mainly viewed things from a 'practical' stance whereas the pro-abortionists of today view things with a pretentious sense of false empathy that's never truly been there. Because they'll claim that it's to prevent suffering of disabled or quote unquote 'unwanted children,' but fail to understand that having GENUINE empathy means that we should desire to actively improve our world and resources for that demographic---not just remove their right to live simply because society deems it convenient.
I already went into detail about how abortion is literally just eugenics when you boil down the most common arguments. I don't say this out of superiority complex. I used to support abortion like crazy when I was younger---but I no longer do because I eventually came to realize just how bad abortion is and I can no longer support it or the institutions that allow for the practices.
At the end of the day, their common arguments often argue that some people have inherent less value in being alive than other people because of circumstances outside of their control. For example, in India, sex-screening is banned because of how often female children would be aborted in favor of having boys instead thanks to the misogynistic culture.
And sure, someone could try to say, "I disagree with abortion in those cases, but I still support abortion." But the problem with that statement is that you're still acknowledging the inherent human right for someone to exist in those regards. So this brings up another question.
When is a human a human and when does that human have the right to human rights? Because if you're claiming that abortion is wrong in certain contexts but not others, what difference could there possibly be to justify those other contexts from not being excluded?
A child doesn't ask to be made. A child doesn't ask to be created. So why is it that the child's right to live is dependent on situations they had no say in? Why are we the ones who say whether or not a child has the right to live? Out there, somewhere, there is someone who thinks that you shouldn't have the right to live because of what you are, who you are, and who + where you come from. Does their opinion suddenly have value and legitimacy over your existence? And if not, why does your opinion in that regard have value as well over a child's life?
Humans do not create anything else but human offspring with their bodies. Human women do not give birth to rabbits, donkeys, robots, etc. Human women give birth to HUMANS. It is not a parasite.
And if you support abortion, you are inherently opposed to human rights because you believe that one's humanity is contingent on circumstances they had no control over. And this ideology is all summed up in one word.
Eugenics.
If you don't know the word, search it up on Google. Do it.
Infants are human---whether in or out the womb. And America has a LOT of blood on its hands.
origamiaround
dailybridgerton
jbbartram-illu
germansingergirl
snowghoul
areudirty
blakekathryn
andulkaphoto
vaporwave
