Response To Chris Howell

sorry for the delay in my response to you. i've been very busy. i will attempt to pinpoint specifics in our exchange on twitter.

to begin, you stated i was putting too much focus on terminology. if memory serves me correctly, the terminology in question was the use of the word "murder". i focus on this word specifically because your equating abortion with murder results in your accusing all women who have had abortion of murder. when confronted with this you argued that you never actually called anyone a murderer. but let's look again: if you say someone is guilty of murder, what would that render them? a hamster? an acrobat? no. if one is guilty of murder, they would in fact be a murderer. despite what anyone else may have taught you in the past, words do indeed hurt. and making such hateful claims against women who have had to make this already difficult choice is nothing other than a deliberate verbal assault. changing that word to "killer", "demoness", "blood-thirsty harlot", "abortion whore", or any other in the colourful myriad of hateful names i've had the so-called prolife sling at me, is still the same thing - a deliberate attempt to cause hurt to the recipient of these words. and dancing around actually coming right out and saying it, as you have done, does not change the true intent of the statements.

so you didn't technically call me a murderer. hell, you technically didn't even say that i personally am guilty of murder. but what you said is that abortion is murder, thus women who have abortions are guilty of murder. there's not many conclusions this line of thinking can result in. A + B = C.

now stop waltzing away from the reality of your own statements, own it, own the fact that it is said to cause hurt (whether you're doing it deliberately or just parroting what you've been taught to do), and either opt to STOP it or at least have the jockey junk to admit to it.

regarding your comment about rape and abuse previously having no laws prohibiting them: both of those acts cause deliberate, malicious harm to the body of a sentient being. please notice that i am not refering to the individual as a "human being". that is honestly not important to me. i don't care if it's a human, a hamster, or a hedgehog. if it is sentient, thrives independently of some form of life support, and has the capacity to suffer, its bodily autonomy is to be protected. and therein lies the difference between a fetus and its host: the host has all of the above; the fetus has none. the needs of the host have to be placed above those of the fetus because of this.

this brings us back to the legality of assaults: rape and abuses DO violate the autonomy of a sentient, independent, and suffering being. the one who will suffer is the one we must protect. that's all there is to it. the host will be the one to experience illness, poverty, loss of job/income/housing/support, lack of medical care, severe depression, inability to provide for however many other children they already have, etc. the zygote will not experience this. nor will the blastocyst, the embryo, or the fetus. no, only the host and perhapse the other sentient beings in the host's immediate care.

that's all i've got for now. feel free to respond.