If you are against abortion, why?

[Aunt Antifa]

I've made a slight alteration to your argument, and I'd like to know why it's wrong.

I would ask that you edit it as it’s against TOS to do that and you don’t get to speak for me. If you want to quote it and summerize to your liking, fine.

I’ll answer your q if you phrase it in a proper format that doesn’t rely on changing my words.

 

[AGENT J]

If you could be convinced that the unborn was a human being, would you oppose abortion?

did you not read anything i wrote to you lol
I already answered this

all fetuses are human (noun), theres scientific consensus for that, for me thats meaningless in the equations but thats reality

Now when using the acronym of ZEF that's not settled because there's not scientific consenses on all the stages (zygote, embryo, fetus) being "a" human (noun) . . but of course its human (Adj)

No convincing needs done, facts are facts, facts don't care about my feelings or if im convinced

 

[Atreus21]

I already did answer your question.

The question was:

If you could be convinced it was a human being, would you oppose abortion?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Depends on if that egg is fertilized or not.

Are you implying that a fertilized egg is a chicken?

 

[NatMorton]

why did you drop the adjective "on demand" for this statement? lol no on demand abortion happens in the 3rd trimester. Thanks for giving another example of that i was talkign about
its less than that, only about 1% happen after 21+ weeks so naturally 7 weeks later(28) is even less if at all really

correct the second trimester is 13 to week 28wees
88% happen 12 weeks or less
6.3% happen 13-16 weeks
4.1% 16-20 weeks
1.2% 21+ weeks

Yep

theres no such thing as equal rights on this topic because one life is inside the other

SO no matter where a person stance is EVERYBODY picks and choose when they value one life over the other and see it as a lesser or rights not 100%

SO yes in the third trimester (28+ weeks) I support abortions being limited

24 weeks which RvW is based on is about as equal as it gets,, 24 weeks is basically in the middle (40 weeks) and based on 50% viability. . about as equal as it can be on this issue. But again like i said we could move RvW to 20/21 weeks based on dead middle and earliest viability at 21 weeks but that would just be cosmetic.

Ill never support it before then because i cant bring myself to violate a womens rights and treat her as a lesser for an entity thats not even viable yet, not a legal person yet, not a citizen yet etc etc and could even abort itself.
Later on im open to very specific and rare reasons why could

Which brings me to the larger point I usually bring up in these debates. To argue that abortion is really about a woman's right to choose is talking past the issue. Most agree there is a point where a woman's right to choose becomes a secondary priority. You say 24 weeks. Others might say something earlier in development, but it's ultimately the same, central issue: a legal definition of human life, and that definition is the crux of the matter. "Choice" is a bit of a sideshow.

 

[Maccabee]

Why would it be obsolete? It’s just a medical procedure.

Obsolete in the same way amputating limbs for relatively minor injuries became obsolete.

 

[Atreus21]

I would ask that you edit it as it’s against TOS to do that and you don’t get to speak for me. If you want to quote it and summerize to your liking, fine.

Okay, I'll do that.

"A slave is owned by humans, it is not an individual. It is not a person. If you value blacks as much as whites, that would make sense. You don’t. Makes no sense."

I'd like to know why that variant of your argument is wrong.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Which brings me to the larger point I usually bring up in these debates. To argue that abortion is really about a woman's right to choose is talking past the issue. Most agree there is a point where a woman's right to choose becomes a secondary priority. You say 24 weeks. Others might say something earlier in development, but it's ultimately the same, central issue: a legal definition of human life, and that definition is the crux of the matter. "Choice" is a bit of a sideshow.

Says someone whose own body will never be at risk based on someone else’s morals.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Obsolete in the same way amputating limbs for relatively minor injuries became obsolete.

A fetus and a damaged limb arent’ the same thing. A damaged limb belongs to a person. A fetus is a parasite until the host says otherwise.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Josie]

A fetus is produced by humans, it is not an individual. It is not a person. If you value semen as much as fetuses, that would make sense. You don’t. Makes no sense.

Yes, a fetus is produced by humans. That fetus is an individual human with it's own unique DNA, complex nervous system, organs, eyes, fingers, toes, etc. Semen isn't an individual human - it's part of a human.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The question was:

If you could be convinced it was a human being, would you oppose abortion?

You’d first have to convince me that a known scientific fact is wrong. That isn’t going to happen.

 

[Atreus21]

did you not read anything i wrote to you lol
I already answered this


No convincing needs done, facts are facts, facts don't care about my feelings or if im convinced

I'm not asking whether you think it's a human being. I'm asking if it would any difference to your position if you did. That's a yes, no, or I don't know question.

 

[Josie]

Are you implying that a fertilized egg is a chicken?

Of course. Just like a human, that's the beginning stages of a developing chicken.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Yes, a fetus is produced by humans. That fetus is an individual human with it's own unique DNA, complex nervous system, organs, eyes, fingers, toes, etc. Semen isn't an individual human - it's part of a human.

Ohhh it’s not an individual at all. It’s a fetus. Your superstitious attachments to these little things isn’t relevant.

The woman carrying the thing is an individual though, with greater claim to this Earth than the little thing inside of her.

 

[Josie]

Ohhh it’s not an individual at all. It’s a fetus. Your superstitious attachments to these little things isn’t relevant.

The woman carrying the thing is an individual though, with greater claim to this Earth than the little thing inside of her.

Individuals have their own unique DNA, don't they? Unless they're identical twins, of course.

 

[Atreus21]

You’d first have to convince me that a known scientific fact is wrong. That isn’t going to happen.

I'm not yet trying to convince you of anything. I just want to know if it would make a difference to your position.

If a rock-solid argument convinced you that the fetus is in fact a human being, would you abandon your support of abortion?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Okay, I'll do that.

"A slave is owned by humans, it is not an individual. It is not a person. If you value blacks as much as whites, that would make sense. You don’t. Makes no sense."

I'd like to know why that variant of your argument is wrong.

Because this isn’t my argument. I dont’ consider a fetus a person. I don’t define down Black people to compare them to fetuses.

Fetuses aren’t slaves, they aren’t refugees, they aren’t the great huddled masses yearning to be free.

Just fetuses. But because this country is obsessed with the bible and all the bullshit that comes with it, women still have to live in this Taliban like obsession with taking control of our bodies.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Individuals have their own unique DNA, don't they? Unless they're identical twins, of course.

That’s not what makes an individual in the context we are discussing. These are not people.

To you, sure. And you’re entitled to that superstition.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Of course. Just like a human, that's the beginning stages of a developing chicken.

That’s not what’s being challenged.

Whether or not a fetus is a human is.

By scientific, fetuses aren’t “humans”.

 

[Atreus21]

Because this isn’t my argument. I dont’ consider a fetus a person. I don’t define down Black people to compare them to fetuses.

Fetuses aren’t slaves, they aren’t refugees, they aren’t the great huddled masses yearning to be free.

Just fetuses. But because this country is obsessed with the bible and all the bullshit that comes with it, women still have to live in this Taliban like obsession with taking control of our bodies.

It was word for word your exact argument, except for substituting blacks and slaves for fetuses.

The point is that "personhood" and "individuals" are meaningless terms. All that matters is whether or not the target of abortion is a human being, scientifically. And if it is, we are deliberately killing human beings. The question is what justifies that.

 

[Maccabee]

A fetus and a damaged limb arent’ the same thing. A damaged limb belongs to a person. A fetus is a parasite until the host says otherwise.

Apples and oranges.

But if we create safer, more accessible, and more effective ways of preventing pregnancy in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for abortion. Ironically, the countries with more access to birth control have less abortions.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

But if we create safer, more accessible, and more effective ways of preventing pregnancy in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for abortion. Ironically, the countries with more access to birth control have less abortions.

Sounds good, so long as women have the option to get an abortion.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'm not yet trying to convince you of anything. I just want to know if it would make a difference to your position.

If a rock-solid argument convinced you that the fetus is in fact a human being, would you abandon your support of abortion?

A “rock-solid argument” doesn’t exist. Your question is a moot point.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

It was word for word your exact argument, except for substituting blacks and slaves for fetuses.

The point is that "personhood" and "individuals" are meaningless terms. All that matters is whether or not the target of abortion is a human being, scientifically. And if it is, we are deliberately killing human beings. The question is what justifies that.

Yup. The “except” part is kinda important, bud.

Nope.

 

[AGENT J]

Which brings me to the larger point I usually bring up in these debates. To argue that abortion is really about a woman's right to choose is talking past the issue. Most agree there is a point where a woman's right to choose becomes a secondary priority.

Correct based on the sake of TRYING for equal rights even though thats impossible and giving a nod to the second life eventhough it resides INSIDE another. something very unique and not analogous to anything else.

You say 24 weeks. Others might say something earlier in development, but it's ultimately the same, central issue: a legal definition of human life, and that definition is the crux of the matter. "Choice" is a bit of a sideshow.

Not at all, rights (based on free choice) is the absolute foundation of debate. Without the choice and respect of rights then the woman is nothing and there are not rights

just like if religious rights or gun rights or self defense were just reduced to your home and choice was taken away, it dramatically changes the discussion and is key to those things being real or not.

a legal definition of life wouldnt change that simply because one life is INSIDE the other, because of that reality theres no way to grant equal rights . . one life will ALWAYS have to be a lesser in situations. It factually cant work any other way.
Say tomorrow the legal defintion of person was at conception . . now what . .. there is no factual way to grant full personhood rights to the ZEF withouth taking them away from the woman and vice versa
IN other situations thats possible but since one life is inside the other its not here.

Thats what I said eariler EVERYBODY simply chooses when and why they value one life over the other. The only difference is who has the honesty and integrity to admit that fact? many can from both sides . . . can you? DO you admit to that facts?yes or no?