zlacker

>>puppyc+(OP)
The Open Rights Group - https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/ - is probably a reasonable place to start.

Curious about what is scaring you btw.

>>Freezi+Ad
Scaring me is getting to prison for expressing my opinion on a social platform.

>>p4trik+4E
Unless your opinion is that XYZ group of immutable characteristics is subhuman/has to be expelled/deserves less rights/has to be killed , you're safe.

>>sofixa+X11
I take it that you cannot be pro abortion in the UK, then?

"Oh, but they are not human that can have any rights. Of course they can be killed and expelled."

>>carlos+j51
You're comparing people saying "All people of a certain ethnicity should be removed" vs people saying "Women have a right to decide whether to abort a pregnancy".

>>n4r9+ch1
Which is worse: Being expelled from a foreign country or being killed because as a fetus you are considered subhuman? Historically newborns in Europe have also been considered subhuman, without any rights, and subject to the practice of "exposure" if the parents pleased.

Just as easily as upstanding citizens today consider the unborn to be subhuman, just as easy has it been in the past (and in the future) for upstanding citizens to consider certain groups of people as subhuman. It only depends on what the rulers consider convenient at the moment, and 90% of the population are ready to adopt any opinion at the drop of a hat if instructed so by their rulers. Especially intelligent people, who can take pleasure in mental games to justify following orders.

>>carlos+Ot1
I wouldn't say that a foetus is subhuman. I just think that a human's right to life does not extend to the right to use another's body for 9 months. Which is another reason why this doesn't compare to immigration.

>>n4r9+wm2
Then you're a step above, because many consider the fetus to be subhuman. You consider the fetus to be a human without the right to life. A newborn is also completely dependent on other people for survival – for a long time. In the past, the common opinion was that also the newborn and infants did not have the right to life if it was too inconvenient for the parents. Hence the practice of exposure, where they were put out to be killed by the elements or eaten by animals.

The fetus is not to blame for being within the womb. Yet the fetus should be without the right to life, because they are an inconvenience to the mother. What rights does the asylum seeker get, in comparison? They are quite extensive.

Within our life time, the practice of killing newborns and infants will return and will be celebrated by upstanding citizens as a natural and moral thing. People opposing it will be shunned as dangerous and ignorant brutes – a threat to society.

>>carlos+6D3
> You consider the fetus to be a human without the right to life.

Not quite. I'm saying that the right to life does not imply the right to use another's body. The same reason we don't make organ or blood donation enforceable by law even if it would save a life.

> A newborn is also completely dependent on other people for survival.

True, but not any one specific person. The parents can put a newborn up for adoption. The difference with an early stage pregnancy is that there is no way for the foetus to survive when removed from the womb.

> Within our life time, the practice of killing newborns and infants will return and will be celebrated by upstanding citizens as a natural and moral thing.

Definitely don't think this will happen.