I’m Pro-Choice: Change My Mind Without Calling Me A Baby Killer

[Highlanders]

If that’s the party of your body where you feel your pro life arguments come from, I’ll take you at your word.

I have no doubt!

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Not at all, I agree the futility of discussing a complex issue when, there can be no discussion!

And let's keep the discussion out of the sewer, please. I'm not really interested if my opinion makes you mad, it's my opinion, it's my democratic right to express this opinion. That's what makes you mad!

If you would like to discuss the issue in an adult manner, I’ll be there!

 

[Highlanders]

If you would like to discuss the issue in an adult manner, I’ll be there!

I have no doubt you will be there......! But how can I discuss it, I'm not a "woman" ....... you want to discuss common decency, humanity, morality honour, duty, and all those things that make human society, I'll be there..... we will never meet.

 

[Highlanders]

So far: abortions should be legal cause JORDAN PETERSON.

I mean, I guess it’s something?

No that's not what I said, one can develop ones self, to mitigate ones foolishness or stupidity, if one opens avenues of learning, is all I'm saying. Replacing the darkness and entering enlightenment.
If the cap fits...... and it belongs to one, one should wear it.

 

[HonestJoe]

I stated fetuses have as much value as those who wish to have them place on them. To the rest of us, there is no value. I am not opposed to HEALTHCARE, so no, I do not wish to strip people who choose to have children of access to it.

You unilaterally declared foetuses have zero value to society though, that's distinct from value any individuals may give them. My point remains that if you think they have zero value to society, why would you support society investing any resources in to protecting or supporting them?

This also raises the question of when you think an individual does gain value? I see no societal value difference between a nine-month foetus and a new-born baby. I feel that both have value due to their potential but if you're saying foetuses have zero value but (presumably) people have value at some point, there must be a point or process where you're saying that changes. As I said, I think this raises more questions than it answers.

My position isn’t extreme. Pro life folks wish to control women’s bodies. I’m unclear as to why this is “complex” other than folks have a superstitious attachment to fetuses usually based on religion.

I still don't really know what your position is. Why not drop the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" political trash and actually explain what you believe the legal, moral, social and practical situations should be in your own words. Note that can't be covered in a single sentence, let alone a single phrase.

 

[DarkWizard12]

It’s a financial term that means no worth. I extrapolated it on to an item that meets that definition.

Ok well, medical companies obtain financial value from fetuses all the time. I really think it's shallow to only look at financial value. Not everything is about money.

You would be factually incorrect. I am a person on this planet contributing to this society in any number of tangible, quantifiable means.

Well, if your definition of intrinsic value is money, then sure, i guess...I personally don't think money is everything, and certainly shouldn't be only metric to ascertain value.

Same cannot be said of fetuses. Who add nothing.

I think there's plenty of intrinsic value in them, just as there is intrinsic value in planting a seed, and watering it, and watching it grow to become a tree.

 

[calamity]

I'm pro choice because I am pro-freedom. Born people have rights. Fetuses do not, as is right.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Ok well, medical companies obtain financial value from fetuses all the time. I really think it's shallow to only look at financial value. Not everything is about money.

Well, if your definition of intrinsic value is money, then sure, i guess...I personally don't think money is everything, and certainly shouldn't be only metric to ascertain value.

I think there's plenty of intrinsic value in them, just as there is intrinsic value in planting a seed, and watering it, and watching it grow to become a tree.

Okay. Then you should do those things. Nothing I’ve said imparts my values on you or demanded same.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You unilaterally declared foetuses have zero value to society though, that's distinct from value any individuals may give them. My point remains that if you think they have zero value to society, why would you support society investing any resources in to protecting or supporting them?

This also raises the question of when you think an individual does gain value? I see no societal value difference between a nine-month foetus and a new-born baby. I feel that both have value due to their potential but if you're saying foetuses have zero value but (presumably) people have value at some point, there must be a point or process where you're saying that changes. As I said, I think this raises more questions than it answers.

I still don't really know what your position is. Why not drop the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" political trash and actually explain what you believe the legal, moral, social and practical situations should be in your own words. Note that can't be covered in a single sentence, let alone a single phrase.

Because we are an advanced nation of resources, thus having medical infrastructure to support a number of options is beneficial. I’m not arguing against pregnancy or birth. That’s your strawman. You go figure it out.

When they’re born.

I’m pro-choice! Choice. Options. Abortion should be available in every state, and any “justification” for its use should be limited to a discussion between the woman who is host and her doctor.

What part of that confuses you or is unclear? Cause I”m unclear on what you’re unclear on at this point.

 

[HonestJoe]

Because we are an advanced nation of resources, thus having medical infrastructure to support a number of options is beneficial. I’m not arguing against pregnancy or birth. That’s your strawman. You go figure it out.

I'm talking about resources specifically for foetuses though. For example, there might be government-funded research seeking to reduce instances of miscarriage but if foetuses have zero societal value, why should government money be spent on that?

When they’re born.

I don't see what changes in relation their value to society in the moment of birth though. Why exactly would a nine-month foetus have any less (or more) value than a new-born baby?

I’m pro-choice! Choice. Options. Abortion should be available in every state, and any “justification” for its use should be limited to a discussion between the woman who is host and her doctor.

Life isn't that simple though. You have underage and mentally incompetent patients to address, questions of who and where can perform abortions at different stages, whether medical professionals can refuse to perform abortions, in general or specific cases, questions around funding, both public and private, and around what obligations there would be to fund abortion services.

Then there are the wider social questions. Someone can accept the concept of choice for individual women but still hold that abortion is a bad thing, a least worst option in some situations that should be reduced where-ever practical. Would you accept efforts on that basis, both in general or focused on individuals or would you argue anything like that would be an undue imposition on women's free choice.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I'm talking about resources specifically for foetuses though. For example, there might be government-funded research seeking to reduce instances of miscarriage but if foetuses have zero societal value, why should government money be spent on that?

I don't see what changes in relation their value to society in the moment of birth though. Why exactly would a nine-month foetus have any less (or more) value than a new-born baby?

Life isn't that simple though. You have underage and mentally incompetent patients to address, questions of who and where can perform abortions at different stages, whether medical professionals can refuse to perform abortions, in general or specific cases, questions around funding, both public and private, and around what obligations there would be to fund abortion services.

Then there are the wider social questions. Someone can accept the concept of choice for individual women but still hold that abortion is a bad thing, a least worst option in some situations that should be reduced where-ever practical. Would you accept efforts on that basis, both in general or focused on individuals or would you argue anything like that would be an undue imposition on women's free choice.

Those resources are for *pregnant women*. Not fetuses.

Nope. The “social questions” you’re asking hinge on religious/spiritual/moral belief, not law or science or constitution. If someone is pro=life because they believe its a life, they by that definition can give no quarter on any of this. I agree with those folks’ logic wholeheartedly. It’s why *I* do not agree that a woman’s right to privacy is to be “allowed within reason” based on someone else’s superstitions about these things.

And: *I* am not forcing my beliefs on anyone. People are free to never have abortions, speak out against abortions, condemn those who participate in abortions to hell to their heart’s content.

 

[soylentgreen]

Why, a closed book, is a closed book. It's not going to open of its own volition. Her bitterness and hypocrisy are in every word she writes.
Perhaps the lady should listen to a few Jordan Peterson videos, who most eloquently, will explain her dilemma her tribalism, and her tyranny.
Have a nice day.

Again I saw none of the emotional pleading that you pretend is there. Again I understand you making such claims as you have nothing to offer that could be convincing and therefor need to brush her off with a pretense of emotion. And of course, your failure to actually point out what you claim.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Okay. Then you should do those things. Nothing I’ve said imparts my values on you or demanded same.

so to make this clear, your idea is that fetuses have no intrinsic value, because they have no financial value?

unless, of course, they're being sold for organ tissue.

 

[soylentgreen]

ok, but why do they have no intrinsic value? What if i said you have no intrinsic value?

But to be fair would you not also have to add the same qualifier she used? that of, " (or I should say outside of the respective person(s) intimately involved with a given fetus. ".

 

[Aunt Antifa]

so to make this clear, your idea is that fetuses have no intrinsic value, because they have no financial value?

unless, of course, they're being sold for organ tissue.

No, that’s not my definition of these things. I have several posts int his thread outlining what I believe fairly unambiguously.

You keep asking me the same question in different ways. Dunno what to tell you.

 

[DarkWizard12]

No, that’s not my definition of these things. I have several posts int his thread outlining what I believe fairly unambiguously.

I'm simply responding to what you responded to me. i care little for how you respond to others.

You keep asking me the same question in different ways. Dunno what to tell you.

You tell me how you define, or clarify 'intrinsic value' in this case. So far you only offered it in the financial sense, but you just said no, so.... go on then. You invited this debate, so no need to keep me waiting further.

 

[DarkWizard12]

But to be fair would you not also have to add the same qualifier she used? that of, " (or I should say outside of the respective person(s) intimately involved with a given fetus. ".

Not really. She can define it any way she wants, the second question would still hold water, as I will demonstrate when she actually does it.

but she invited the debate, and rather poorly outlined her position. It is impossible to debate a position that he has failed to clarify. What does she mean by intrinsic value? it's a simple question.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I'm simply responding to what you responded to me. i care little for how you respond to others.

You tell me how you define, or clarify 'intrinsic value' in this case. So far you only offered it in the financial sense, but you just said no, so.... go on then. You invited this debate, so no need to keep me waiting further.

What is it you are still confused by? Be specific.

 

[soylentgreen]

Not really. She can define it any way she wants, the second question would still hold water, as I will demonstrate when she actually does it.

but she invited the debate, and rather poorly outlined her position. It is impossible to debate a position that he has failed to clarify. What does she mean by intrinsic value? it's a simple question.

The problem here seems to be yours. Either a lack of concentration that you did not bother to read all she said or a comprehension problem that you did not understand what she said. Because she clearly gave an example of intrinsic in her op.
To quote; " (or I should say outside of the respective person(s) intimately involved with a given fetus. Clearly they value and cherish, to which I certainly say bless!). "

The intrinsic value of a fetus belongs only to those personally involved with that fetus. Nor does she appear to question that value instead with the word bless she implies an acceptance of that value.

It is obvious that you need to ignore what is said in order to make an argument.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

But to be fair would you not also have to add the same qualifier she used? that of, " (or I should say outside of the respective person(s) intimately involved with a given fetus. ".

eh, my guess is this is just a troll of the thread. I’m not using the words he wants me to use, so he cant slam his dominos on the table like he expects to.

It’s just stupid sea lioning gotcha stuff. Zzzzzzz

 

[soylentgreen]

eh, my guess is this is just a troll. I’m not using the words he wants me to use, so he cant slam his dominos on the table like he expects to.

It’s just stupid sea lioning gotcha stuff. Zzzzzzz

As I said before this thread is going down that same old road where the pro choice is called either a baby killer or they simply apply emotional pleading.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

As I said before this thread is going down that same old road where the pro choice is called either a baby killer or they simply apply emotional pleading.

Which was my point, right? Even Dark’s argument pretty much hinges on *me* rather than the issue itself. I’m waiting for just one of them to justify invading my privacy with something stronger than “cause jesus told me so”

 

[soylentgreen]

Which was my point, right? Even Dark’s argument pretty much hinges on *me* rather than the issue itself. I’m waiting for just one of them to justify invading my privacy with something stronger than “cause jesus told me so”

This type of argument has been given and failed a few times. There simply is not a secular reason to be an anti abortion.

 

[Highlanders]

Again I saw none of the emotional pleading that you pretend is there. Again I understand you making such claims as you have nothing to offer that could be convincing and therefor need to brush her off with a pretense of emotion. And of course, your failure to actually point out what you claim.

The word according to Saint Soylentgreen!

 

[DarkWizard12]

What is it you are still confused by? Be specific.

What do you mean by intrinsic value? I thought you meant monetary value, but you rejected that yourself, so what did you mean? By what did you use to measure that a fetus has 0 intrinsic value?