A question for pro-lifers

[Logician Man]

Does being pro-choice equate to being pro-abortion ? YES or NO ? Make your case.

 

[nekrodev]

I'm not a pro-lifer, but I figure I'll get in on the ground level of this and go ahead and say the answer is "no" and anyone who says otherwise needs to have their head examined.

 

[AmNat]

Does being pro-choice equate to being pro-abortion ? YES or NO ? Make your case.

Yes. The law everywhere generally allows anyone to forcibly stop an act of illegal violence that is in progress (e.g. if I see someone stabbing a toddler, I'm legally justified in intervening). The "pro-choice" position not only entails that the government should refrain from stopping and punishing abortion, but that the government should actively prohibit anyone from trying to stop abortions by force. Since preventing a violent act that is in progress is generally legal, this means that abortion is not only tolerated but actively authorized by law.

When it comes to a question of violence being allowed or prohibited, there can be no neutral opinion. To legalize any species of violence is to endorse it. This is different from questions of non-violent vice, where legal prohibition might or might not be prudent.

 

[Logician Man]

Yes. The law everywhere generally allows anyone to forcibly stop an act of illegal violence that is in progress (e.g. if I see someone stabbing a toddler, I'm legally justified in intervening). The "pro-choice" position not only entails that the government should refrain from stopping and punishing abortion, but that the government should actively prohibit anyone from trying to stop abortions by force. Since preventing a violent act that is in progress is generally legal, this means that abortion is not only tolerated but actively authorized by law.

When it comes to a question of violence being allowed or prohibited, there can be no neutral opinion. To legalize any species of violence is to endorse it. This is different from questions of non-violent vice, where legal prohibition might or might not be prudent.

For clarification purposes,are you trying to make an argument that abortion is an act of 'illegal' violence ?

 

[AmNat]

For clarification purposes,are you trying to make an argument that abortion is an act of 'illegal' violence ?

No. Abortion is (currently in the US) a legal act of violence. What I'm saying is that it's impossible for the state to be neutral toward any type of violence. It must either prohibit or endorse.

 

[Logician Man]

No. Abortion is (currently in the US) a legal act of violence. What I'm saying is that it's impossible for the state to be neutral toward any type of violence. It must either prohibit or endorse.

The OP is addressing individuals, not states.

 

[Lursa]

Yes. The law everywhere generally allows anyone to forcibly stop an act of illegal violence that is in progress (e.g. if I see someone stabbing a toddler, I'm legally justified in intervening). The "pro-choice" position not only entails that the government should refrain from stopping and punishing abortion, but that the government should actively prohibit anyone from trying to stop abortions by force. Since preventing a violent act that is in progress is generally legal, this means that abortion is not only tolerated but actively authorized by law.

Do you believe that it is morally acceptable to use force to make women remain pregnant against their will?

When it comes to a question of violence being allowed or prohibited, there can be no neutral opinion. To legalize any species of violence is to endorse it. This is different from questions of non-violent vice, where legal prohibition might or might not be prudent.

It's not illegal, so your actions would be completely illegal instead. So much for your moral High Ground presumption there.

And since we have other types of justified killing, like self-defense, war, assisted suicide, etc your opinion on the immorality of 'violence' is still merely that. No one 'endorses' those things, they are justified out of necessity.

OTOH, it's not very rational to consider the flushing of a pea-sized unborn painlessly and unaware from the womb as 'violence.' And that is the case in 97.5% of all abortions. The rest would be medically necessary...do you object to medically necessary abortions on the basis that you find that 'violence' immoral?

 

[Waddy]

Do you believe that it is morally acceptable to use force to make women remain pregnant against their will?



It's not illegal, so your actions would be completely illegal instead. So much for your moral High Ground presumption there.

And since we have other types of justified killing, like self-defense, war, assisted suicide, etc your opinion on the immorality of 'violence' is still merely that. No one 'endorses' those things, they are justified out of necessity.

OTOH, it's not very rational to consider the flushing of a pea-sized unborn painlessly and unaware from the womb as 'violence.' And that is the case in 97.5% of all abortions. The rest would be medically necessary...do you object to medically necessary abortions on the basis that you find that 'violence' immoral?

Why not? Is it non-violent simply because it's only pea sized? Or is it non-violent because it's painless? Flushing a human life down the toilet would always seem to be a violent act. In fact, taking any human life is a violent act.

An abortion to save the life of the mother is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. Flushing a human life down the toilet for the sake of convenience is a very violent act.

 

[Lursa]

Why not? Is it non-violent simply because it's only pea sized? Or is it non-violent because it's painless? Flushing a human life down the toilet would always seem to be a violent act. In fact, taking any human life is a violent act.

An abortion to save the life of the mother is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. Flushing a human life down the toilet for the sake of convenience is a very violent act.

That's right...it suffers no violence at all. It's not aware, it suffers, knows nothing.

What other medical procedures are 'violence?' When an appendix is removed? Removing healthy tissue during a rhinoplasty (plastic surgery)?

Again with the hyperbole, just like the 'extremes' which you dropped like a hot potato.

And I see you didnt touch the bolded question at the top of the post you responded to:
Do you believe that it is morally acceptable to use force to make women remain pregnant against their will? I hope you've considered what that would mean in reality for women and society, when you just violate Constitutional rights of people...what that would require? Please give some examples.

 

[Waddy]

That's right...it suffers no violence at all. It's not aware, it suffers, knows nothing.

What other medical procedures are 'violence?' When an appendix is removed? Removing healthy tissue during a rhinoplasty (plastic surgery)?

Again with the hyperbole, just like the 'extremes' which you dropped like a hot potato.

And I see you didnt touch the bolded question at the top of the post you responded to:
Do you believe that it is morally acceptable to use force to make women remain pregnant against their will? I hope you've considered what that would mean in reality for women and society, when you just violate Constitutional rights of people...what that would require? Please give some examples.

So a baby is equivalent to an appendix? That's a stretch. But then again, the art of warfare teaches that you must first de-humanize the enemy.
Removing an appendix isn't violence because it isn't a human life.

Yes, I think it is reasonable to expect a pregnant woman to carry to term.

Could you kill an innocent adult?

 

[Lursa]

So a baby is equivalent to an appendix? That's a stretch. But then again, the art of warfare teaches that you must first de-humanize the enemy.
Removing an appendix isn't violence because it isn't a human life.

Yes, I think it is reasonable to expect a pregnant woman to carry to term.

And you avoided the answer, which may indeed have had you dehumanizing the woman as a broodmare! LOL Ah the irony. Even more irony: I accurately debunk your mischaracterization of violence, and you completely avoid accurately answering my question, which had nothing to do with 'reasonable expectations,' but actual govt force.

Your posts are becoming increasingly desperate and dishonest.

 

[Waddy]

And you avoided the answer, which may indeed have had you dehumanizing the woman as a broodmare! LOL Ah the irony. Even more irony: I accurately debunk your mischaracterization of violence, and you completely avoid accurately answering my question, which had nothing to do with 'reasonable expectations,' but actual govt force.

Your posts are becoming increasingly desperate and dishonest.

I haven't avoided any question. Killing is a violent act. Most people must de-humanize before they can kill.

 

[Lursa]

I haven't avoided any question. Killing is a violent act. Most people must de-humanize before they can kill.

And they also de-humanize before they enslave...:mrgreen:

Which is something you'd have to confront if you answered my questions:

And I see you didnt touch the bolded question at the top of the post you responded to:
Do you believe that it is morally acceptable to use force to make women remain pregnant against their will? I hope you've considered what that would mean in reality for women and society, when you just violate Constitutional rights of people...what that would require? Please give some examples.​

 

[Waddy]

And they also de-humanize before they enslave...:mrgreen:

Which is something you'd have to confront if you answered my questions:

And I see you didnt touch the bolded question at the top of the post you responded to:
Do you believe that it is morally acceptable to use force to make women remain pregnant against their will? I hope you've considered what that would mean in reality for women and society, when you just violate Constitutional rights of people...what that would require? Please give some examples.​

Requiring women to carry healthy babies to term isn't enslavement. Inconvenient, maybe. Good for the babies.

 

[Lursa]

Requiring women to carry healthy babies to term isn't enslavement. Inconvenient, maybe. Good for the babies.

Of course it is. It would require laws. And laws require enforcement. Lack of compliance requires use of force like physical abuse and loss of liberty. Loss of self-determination.

You havent really thought this thru, have you? Or is it just that confronting reality makes your agenda look more de-humanizing?

There are many such links out there making the same point, Minnie has some, but I like this one:

Forced Servitude

Not allowing a pregnant woman a legal abortion choice during pregnancy is very much an involuntary servitude.

Forced pregnancy means risk of medical harm with no input from the woman.

Forced pregnancy reduces the status of a pregnant woman “autonomous adult citizen” to “lesser person.”

Forced pregnancy is a verdict or judgment, but without due process of law.*

Held to a fate against her will. Deprived of the right to get out of the situation. Unable to refuse the work involved. Receiving no compensation. That's the very essence of slavery.
Author Kent Pitman

netsettlement: I am not Pro-Slavery. Are you?

Again: How do you morally justify forcing women to remain pregnant against their will? Dont deny the force it would require, that's dishonest.

 

[vegas giants]

Requiring women to carry healthy babies to term isn't enslavement. Inconvenient, maybe. Good for the babies.

And it could kill you

 

[southwest88]

Grandstanding

Why not? Is it non-violent simply because it's only pea sized? Or is it non-violent because it's painless? Flushing a human life down the toilet would always seem to be a violent act. In fact, taking any human life is a violent act.

An abortion to save the life of the mother is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. Flushing a human life down the toilet for the sake of convenience is a very violent act.

No, that's not what happens. Medical waste - blood, tissue, bones, etc. - is handled separately from the typical sewage system. If you ever see medical waste being handled that way, please notify the local health department - it's likely a crime to do so.

Medical tissue is always considered a health risk - as it's organic & possibly contaminated with diseased tissue, & therefore treated as being contagious. The state regs vary from state to state, & so you would have to check on your particular state's requirements for the disposal of that waste. Typically, if the hospital/clinic/etc. has its own incinerator (& it burns hot enough), the properly identified tissue may be incinerated, & the ashes may be hauled away & landfilled.

Otherwise, the tissue is put into distinctive tagged containers, & transported offsite for either incineration & then landfilling, or possibly for direct landfilling. There may be separate requirements for the landfilling of medical waste, whether incinerated or not.

 

[southwest88]

Considerable violence to language here

So a baby is equivalent to an appendix? That's a stretch. But then again, the art of warfare teaches that you must first de-humanize the enemy.
Removing an appendix isn't violence because it isn't a human life.

Yes, I think it is reasonable to expect a pregnant woman to carry to term.

Could you kill an innocent adult?

TMK, no one walks around with an exposed appendix. It isn't possible, if simply because the operating field would shortly be contaminated, & you'd run the risk of sepsis & a gruesome death. Even if the appendix were exposed, & the field relatively clean, you would still have to tie or clamp off the appendix & physically sever & remove it from the torso. Some trauma is implicit there, as well as closing up the wound & administering antiseptics & antibiotics all around.

It might be reasonable to expect a pregnant woman to carry to term - if we were all still in a state of nature. That hasn't been true for quite some time now, & medicine/technology has freed us from many of those previous constraints. (But bear in mind that midwives, for one, knew how to induce abortions, if the birth was inopportune. & doctors, & druggists, & so on also knew.)

kill an innocent adult - This is the wrong question. Roe v. Wade holds that the fetus - before viability, @ least, is not a person @ all, in the legal sense. & so the categories - fetus & adult - are very different, & specifically in this regard: the adult has been born, & is legally a person (barring some other impediment). A fetus before viability has no rights.

 

[Waddy]

Re: Considerable violence to language here

TMK, no one walks around with an exposed appendix. It isn't possible, if simply because the operating field would shortly be contaminated, & you'd run the risk of sepsis & a gruesome death. Even if the appendix were exposed, & the field relatively clean, you would still have to tie or clamp off the appendix & physically sever & remove it from the torso. Some trauma is implicit there, as well as closing up the wound & administering antiseptics & antibiotics all around.

It might be reasonable to expect a pregnant woman to carry to term - if we were all still in a state of nature. That hasn't been true for quite some time now, & medicine/technology has freed us from many of those previous constraints. (But bear in mind that midwives, for one, knew how to induce abortions, if the birth was inopportune. & doctors, & druggists, & so on also knew.)

kill an innocent adult - This is the wrong question. Roe v. Wade holds that the fetus - before viability, @ least, is not a person @ all, in the legal sense. & so the categories - fetus & adult - are very different, & specifically in this regard: the adult has been born, & is legally a person (barring some other impediment). A fetus before viability has no rights.

Got to de-humanize the enemy before killing them.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Does being pro-choice equate to being pro-abortion ? YES or NO ? Make your case.

No. That would be a purely biased distortion of fact.

 

[southwest88]

Re: Considerable violence to language there

Got to de-humanize the enemy before killing them.

No, that's not truly necessary.

But are you arguing that the US Supreme Court that held in Roe v. Wade in 1973 CE was declaring war on fetuses? All the US fetuses begotten & to be engendered, forever & ever, World without end? Most of the SC @ that time had been nominated by conservative GOP presidents, as I recall.

Does that mean that everybody - every political party & president in the US - was in on the conspiracy?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Why not? Is it non-violent simply because it's only pea sized? Or is it non-violent because it's painless? Flushing a human life down the toilet would always seem to be a violent act. In fact, taking any human life is a violent act.

An abortion to save the life of the mother is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. Flushing a human life down the toilet for the sake of convenience is a very violent act.

Using “non-violent” in a discussion of abortion is an obvious, and intellectually disingenuous attempt at distorting the fact that a fetus is not a person. It isn’t. It is an it.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Requiring women to carry healthy babies to term isn't enslavement. Inconvenient, maybe. Good for the babies.

Forcing by threat of incarceration or other penalty. Following your twisted logic, that would involve violence because the woman would be physically forced to endure loss of freedom and Constitutional rights.

 

[Waddy]

Waddy;

Got to de-humanize the enemy before killing them.

Using “non-violent” in a discussion of abortion is an obvious, and intellectually disingenuous attempt at distorting the fact that a fetus is not a person. It isn’t. It is an it.

Thanks for making my point.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Waddy;
Thanks for making my point.

Your “point” wasn’t. A fetus, in fact, is not a person. There is nothing to dehumanize.