PRO-CHOICE IN A NUTSHELL

[Doug64]

No....that's your personal choice to use a colloquial term ...

Do you call pregnant women gravida #, or do you call them pregnant women?

... and then use the emotionally loaded term to make an argument.

There is nothing "emotionally loaded" about the terms "baby" or "child" until you want to kill them without guilt.

No matter what you call it, if it is inside a woman, no authority can morally demand a woman remain pregnant without her consent. Nor is entitled to remove her rights to her own health, self-determination, bodily autonomy, moral agency, including the risks to everyday life as a member of society.

And what about the right of the baby to live?

The last "authorities " that were entitled to demand that of other people were slave owners. Right? If you disagree, please explain specifically how?

If you're going to bring slavery into this, I have to point out that the ones that want the right to kill their fellow human beings are the supporters of abortion, not its opponents.

Once born, the state or other authorities may protect or act on the unborn without immorally violating her as an individual and moral agent.

And that's where we differ. I believe that babies have their own right to protection that society is honorbound to recognize from the moment they come into existence, not just when they are born.

 

[Teatime]

Compassion for others is a positive human trait.

That's why I don't understand why they were coming unglued.

 

[Irredentist]

I would point you back to the previous point where I already stated that the defense of abortion requires that you place pregnancy on a level of offense equal to murder.

People die from pregnancy related illnesses all the time. The world is a harsh place.

The rights of others will always involve limiting what other people can do. "Your right o swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose."

One's own health and safety always has to come first. Secure your own oxygen mask before helping others, as they say.

Imagine a world where the inconvenience of those in power takes precedence over your right to life. That is the pro-choice position.

So, like, the world we currently live in now?

 

[Gordy327]

Do you call pregnant women gravida #, or do you call them pregnant women?

Gravida is just how many pregnancies a woman has, including any current pregnancy status. Then there's Para. What's your point?

There is nothing "emotionally loaded" about the terms "baby" or "child" until you want to kill them without guilt.

Of course it's an emotionally loaded or appealing umbrella term. The correct terminology is embryo or fetus.

And what about the right of the baby to live?

No such right exists, especially since the unborn do not have any right. Neither is an unborn a "baby."

If you're going to bring slavery into this, I have to point out that the ones that want the right to kill their fellow human beings are the supporters of abortion, not its opponents.

The ones that want to enslave a woman to a fetus by restricting or denying her Constitutional rights and autonomy are opponents of abortion.

And that's where we differ. I believe that babies have their own right to protection that society is honorbound to recognize from the moment they come into existence, not just when they are born.

Your beliefs are your own. Babies are already protected under the law as born persons. The unborn have no legal rights or personhood, especially over that of the pregnant woman, and therefore do have such protections.

 

[BabaVoss]

There is nothing "emotionally loaded" about the terms "baby" or "child" until you want to kill them without guilt.

Oh but there is. Just saying "no it isn't' doesn't change that. Also emotionally loaded is the word 'kill'. The reality of our biology is that fertilized eggs are aborted all the time. Something like 25-30%. Failure to implant correctly or at all, rejection for unknown reasons, etc. That is part of our natural biology. No one would describe that as a 'killing'. Why would a voluntary abortion be any different?

And what about the right of the baby to live?

It's not a baby. Moreover, whatever rights you want to confer onto an ovum cannot supercede the rights of the woman involved. That makes no sense if your premise is that personal liberty should be valued. A fertilized egg is not a person. Such a decision is one that only the woman involved can make, and not one that the government should have any say in whatsoever.

 

[jmotivator]

There is no baby in an abortion.

There is a baby in an abortion.

And again, I have made no mention of belief. Your presumption to that effect is flawed and disingenuous. I already addressed the organism issue. But it is also completely irrelevant to the abortion issue or law and is nothing more than a smokescreen.

I know you believe that a cancer cell is a living human and it is a belief you espouse to counter my argument that the unborn are living humans. It doesn't take much to deduce what your other beliefs are when your underpinning belief is that stupid.

Wrong. The pro choice position is just that, allowing one to choose for themselves what is best for them. Abortion is not murder nor is equated as such, especially under the law. Neither do the unborn have any rights and certainly none over the pregnant woman who does gave rights and autonomy. There is simply no way to provide rights to both equally either.

You are not allowed to end another human life as a matter of convenience in any other aspect, and the only way that pro-Choice has found to make that palatable is to pretend that the life they are ending isn't a human, or a life at all.

 

[jmotivator]

People die from pregnancy related illnesses all the time. The world is a harsh place.

Yes, people do die, and had you been following the argument you'd realize that my argument is that abortion should be legal when the woman's life is in danger. If she dies while pregnant then both mother and baby are lost. Saving both lies is optimal, but in the case where both would die, saving one is optimal.

One's own health and safety always has to come first. Secure your own oxygen mask before helping others, as they say.

Sure, but that analogy falls apart when you are using the child's air mask to strangle them to death because having a kid might be a drag.

So, like, the world we currently live in now?

The existence of such miscarriages of justice is not justification for more such injustices.

 

[Irredentist]

Yes, people do die, and had you been following the argument you'd realize that my argument is that abortion should be legal when the woman's life is in danger. If she dies while pregnant then both mother and baby are lost. Saving both lies is optimal, but in the case where both would die, saving one is optimal.

But the woman's life is always in danger. Pregnancy and childbirth are inherently risky. So therefore, abortion should always be legal. There's no sense waiting until the woman's already half dead. Intervene early.

Sure, but that analogy falls apart when you are using the child's air mask to strangle them to death because having a kid might be a drag.

I'm sorry, weren't we just talking about how women can potentially die from being pregnant and giving birth? That sounds a bit worse than "a drag" to me.

The existence of such miscarriages of justice is not justification for more such injustices.

Does it need a justification? That's just how the world is. Life isn't fair.

 

[Gordy327]

There is a baby in an abortion.

No, there is not. There is only an embryo/fetus in an abortion.

I know you believe that a cancer cell is a living human and it is a belief you espouse to counter my argument that the unborn are living humans. It doesn't take much to deduce what your other beliefs are when your underpinning belief is that stupid.

Clearly you do not know. Is a cancer cell alive? Does it have human DNA? Does it have cellular functions and processes? All the criteria for an organism, much like it is for bacteria too. You just want to argue semantics, which is disingenuous and irrelevant to the issue.

You are not allowed to end another human life as a matter of convenience in any other aspect, and the only way that pro-Choice has found to make that palatable is to pretend that the life they are ending isn't a human, or a life at all.

No, one is not allowed to end the life of a person, which is not applicable to the unborn. That's why abortion is still largely allowed and carries no legal penalty for having an abortion. Whether abortion is for convenience or not is irrelevant. It's for the pregnant woman to decide that for herself. And it's certainly no one else's business or concern. And who cares if its "human" or not? Human is a scientific designation, not a legal one. Neither is anyone arguing if it's a "human" embryo/fetus being aborted. So your emotional projection or appeal is meaningless.

 

[BabaVoss]

There is a baby in an abortion.

Wrong. No "babies" are present when a fertilized egg fails to implant, or when any other kind of typical abortion occurs.

 

[Lursa]

I would point you back to the previous point where I already stated that the defense of abortion requires that you place pregnancy on a level of offense equal to murder.

The rights of others will always involve limiting what other people can do. "Your right o swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose."

Imagine a world where the inconvenience of those in power takes precedence over your right to life. That is the pro-choice position.

Imagine a world where the state can take away your right to consent to your own bodily autonomy, your health, to your own life--the course of your life, your ability to work, to provide, to fulfill your responsibilities to others in life, to avoid poverty, etc.--to your choice in reproducing, to due process, to your own moral agency?

Remember when slave owners could do exactly that to their slaves? Please tell me how the state denying women abortion is different? Please dont ignore the examples I gave.

 

[Lursa]

Do you call pregnant women gravida #, or do you call them pregnant women?


There is nothing "emotionally loaded" about the terms "baby" or "child" until you want to kill them without guilt.

Non-responsive semantic deflection. You prove me correct when you associate their use with guilt. Thanks.

And what about the right of the baby to live?

Please address my argument before asking questions to avoid it:

No matter what you call it, if it is inside a woman, no authority can morally demand a woman remain pregnant without her consent. Nor is entitled to remove her rights to her own health, self-determination, bodily autonomy, moral agency, including the risks to everyday life as a member of society.​

Since you seem to disagree with this , please use some argument to justify your view? How do you morally justify doing all that to a woman just for the unborn? Why should it receive that respect and rights when you are taking those exact same things from the woman?

If you're going to bring slavery into this, I have to point out that the ones that want the right to kill their fellow human beings are the supporters of abortion, not its opponents.

Please answer the question first before moving the goal posts. Then I'll address yours.

"The last "authorities " that were entitled to demand that (see above) of other people were slave owners. Right? If you disagree, please explain specifically how?"

And that's where we differ. I believe that babies have their own right to protection that society is honorbound to recognize from the moment they come into existence, not just when they are born.

That's a statement of belief, not an argument. Please address my arguments with actual debate, not your beliefs and not your feelings. So far, all we have are your feelings. Apparently you believe the woman immediately ceases to exist as an individual human being with rights as soon as she conceives. So...we're back to my arguments...which you are avoiding like the plague.

 

[trixare4kids]

View attachment 67539955

That's exactly why I am pro-choice. When I was a Democrat I fought for womens' rights so I'm not about to change what I believe should remain the choice for women.
However, personally, I am pro-life. Yes, you can be both, but not according to those who are so closed minded, they won't allow themselves to admit it because of their own "politics".

For now, this will be a battle for women who live in states where abortion is not a legal right.
It may never change for them until congress codifies choice as a legal right for all women.
At this point in time, no president can make a law which either bans or allows abortion, though some partisans like Kamala Harris and her base will lie to the collective in order to advance their own power.

 

[Lursa]

That's exactly why I am pro-choice. However, personally, I am pro-life. Yes, you can be both, but not according to those who are so closed minded, they won't allow themselves to admit it.

People, including myself, write that individuals can be both all the time here, so spare us the victimization

 

[trixare4kids]

People, including myself, write that individuals can be both all the time here, so spare us the victimization

If you could only learn that other women aren't competing with you. Not everything that I write requires your constant one-upmanship or is even about anything you've written before. Insecure much?

 

[Lursa]

If you could only learn that other women aren't competing with you. Not everything that I write requires your constant one-upmanship or is even about anything you've written before. Insecure much?

You posted something that needed to be put in perspective. Too bad you have issues accepting that.

 

[jmotivator]

Imagine a world where the state can take away your right to consent to your own bodily autonomy, your health, to your own life--the course of your life, your ability to work, to provide, to fulfill your responsibilities to others in life, to avoid poverty, etc.--to your choice in reproducing, to due process, to your own moral agency?

Remember when slave owners could do exactly that to their slaves? Please tell me how the state denying women abortion is different? Please dont ignore the examples I gave.

Your arguments argument always rely of the premise that nobody knows where babies come from.

 

[Lursa]

Your arguments argument always rely of the premise that nobody knows where babies come from.

Snark wont get you far. If you cant think outside the emotional aspects, no wonder you dont make any headway in your debate.

Having sex is normal social behavior. What other legal normal social behaviors to we punish by denying participants the safest medical procedures when they have accidents?

Do we deny skiers or drivers the safest medical treatment when they have accidents? No. So why should women be denied abortions? And no, it's not a BS question...unless your arguments are only based on your feelings

 

[jmotivator]

Snark wont get you far. If you cant think outside the emotional aspects, no wonder you dont make any headway in your debate.

Having sex is normal social behavior. What other legal normal social behaviors to we punish by denying participants the safest medical procedures when they have accidents?

Do we deny skiers or drivers the safest medical treatment when they have accidents? No. So why should women be denied abortions? And no, it's not a BS question...unless your arguments are only based on your feelings

It's not snark. To pretend that abortion is the way to give agency to the pregnant woman assumes that she didn't know where babies come from in the first place. If she DID know where babies come from then that agency came before the pregnancy.

 

[Lursa]

It's not snark. To pretend that abortion is the way to give agency to the pregnant woman assumes that she didn't know where babies come from in the first place. If she DID know where babies come from then that agency came before the pregnancy.

Your argument is based on the premise that abortion is wrong. Who says so? Your argument doesnt work unless you can support your position that it is. If you believe it is.

 

[jmotivator]

Your argument is based on the premise that abortion is wrong. Who says so? Your argument doesnt work unless you can support your position that it is. If you believe it is.

That argument is no different than an antebellum Southern Plantation owner saying "Your argument is based on the premise that slavery is wrong. Who says so?"

The rights that we all have should apply to us at every stage of our lives. To say otherwise presumes that the state has the ultimate authority on rights which isn't true.. that presumption would lead to the conclusion that, for instance, slavery is moral when the state says so.

 

[Lursa]

That argument is no different than an antebellum Southern Plantation owner saying "Your argument is based on the premise that slavery is wrong. Who says so?"

The rights that we all have should apply to us at every stage of our lives.

Who says? "Who" that women that dont believe the same are obligated to obey?

To say otherwise presumes that the state has the ultimate authority on rights which isn't true.. that presumption would lead to the conclusion that, for instance, slavery is moral when the state says so.

Of course the state does. The federal govt "state." How do you think our rights are recognized? Rights are a man-made concept, recognized in the Const, and protected/enforced by the govt.

Why should we exchange "slavery" for the unborn for "slavery" by the state for women?

...No authority can morally demand a woman remain pregnant without her consent. Nor is entitled to remove her rights to consent to her own health, self-determination, bodily autonomy, reproduction, moral agency, including the risks to everyday life as a member of society and her responsibilities to others.​

"The last "authorities " that were entitled to demand that (see above) of other people were slave owners. Right? So you are fine allowing the state to treat women the same way? Please explain how you justify that?

Because that's what these red state laws are doing to women right now. And some are even dying. (And btw, the ones dying/almost dying are women that WANTED to have babies but medical emergencies occurred requiring abortions that they were denied. They are punishing, killing, women that wanted to be mothers.)

 

[jmotivator]

Who says? "Who" that women that dont believe the same are obligated to obey?

So is someone doesn't believe you are human, do they have the right to end your life?

Of course the state does. The federal govt "state." How do you think our rights are recognized? Rights are a man-made concept, recognized in the Const, and protected/enforced by the govt.

No, right are not a man made concept, they are the natural state to which men have given a word.

Why should we exchange "slavery" for the unborn for "slavery" by the state for women?

Because the woman isn't enslaved. At worst it would be seen as a state imposed penalty derived from a willful action.

...No authority can morally demand a woman remain pregnant without her consent. Nor is entitled to remove her rights to consent to her own health, self-determination, bodily autonomy, reproduction, moral agency, including the risks to everyday life as a member of society and her responsibilities to others.​

"The last "authorities " that were entitled to demand that (see above) of other people were slave owners. Right? So you are fine allowing the state to treat women the same way? Please explain how you justify that?

Also no. The issue is with the life of the person that she is pregnant with, and whether she can deny them the ultimate right in order to satisfy her right temporarily. This temporary right is then balanced against the fact that she chose to engage in the act that got her pregnant.

Because that's what these red state laws are doing to women right now. And some are even dying. (And btw, the ones dying/almost dying are women that WANTED to have babies but medical emergencies occurred requiring abortions that they were denied. They are punishing, killing, women that wanted to be mothers.)

*sigh* That is patently false, or malpractice by the doctor.

The woman who made the news recently who died and was sold as "killed by abortion law" actually died from a complication after taking an abortifacient.

Was there likely medical malpractice involved in her death? Yes. But would pro-abortion laws have saved her? No. Had she chosen to keep the baby she'd be alive.

 

[Lursa]

So is someone doesn't believe you are human, do they have the right to end your life?

Please answer my question before asking more of your own. The unborn are human...who's denying that? Show where unborn humans have rights recognized in the Const? The 14th A specifically shows they dont. So who says abortion is wrong. Dobbs did not. The Const does not.

No, right are not a man made concept, they are the natural state to which men have given a word.

Yes they are. If there were natural, all other higher animals would have them too. Do they? If they arent biological...where did they come from?

Because the woman isn't enslaved. At worst it would be seen as a state imposed penalty derived from a willful action.

If you are punished for doing something or denied safer care when you've done nothing wrong...that's a form of enslavement, involuntery servitude. Where is the due process needed to punish women by removing her consent to all those things?

Did you forget this already?

Having sex is normal social behavior. What other legal normal social behaviors to we punish by denying participants the safest medical procedures when they have accidents?​

​

Do we deny skiers or drivers the safest medical treatment when they have accidents? No. So why should women be denied abortions? And no, it's not a BS question...unless your arguments are only based on your feelings​

So dont play semantics.

Also no. The issue is with the life of the person that she is pregnant with, and whether she can deny them the ultimate right in order to satisfy her right temporarily. This temporary right is then balanced against the fact that she chose to engage in the act that got her pregnant.

Who says? This is your opinion, I get that. However you'll need to make some moral or legal argument.

Who says a right to life supersedes "everything" in her life? That life, that 'everything,' includes OTHER people. Others dependent on her. Others she has obligations to. And as we are seeing, the govt cant protect women from dying...so they have no right demanding women risk their lives in pregnancy/childbirth. THe harm from pregnancy can lead to a lifetime of loss and debilitation. And the federal govt respects that.

Name one other instance where the govt demands a person risk their life without their consent? The draft is the only one and that is in the name of national security.

*sigh* That is patently false, or malpractice by the doctor.

Nope. There are several threads with links to these right now.

The woman who made the news recently who died and was sold as "killed by abortion law" actually died from a complication after taking an abortifacient.

There are many others. This one is current.

Was there likely medical malpractice involved in her death? Yes. But would pro-abortion laws have saved her? No. Had she chosen to keep the baby she'd be alive.

You completely ignored this: Most of the women dying/near dying are from medical issues later in the pregnancies...these were wanted pregnancies. That were not treated promptly or properly because of new laws. The laws are punishing women that wanted to be mothers. Even killing them. Why didnt you address this?

 

[jmotivator]

Please answer my question before asking more of your own. The unborn are human...who's denying that? Show where unborn humans have rights recognized in the Const? The 14th A specifically shows they dont. So who says abortion is wrong. Dobbs did not. The Const does not.

My question would answers your question.

Your argument that nobody has rights unless recognized by the Constitution puts us back at square one. You and I don't even agree on what rights are, and your belief will lead you into accepting any atrocity so long as it's codified.

By the way, I've never argued other than that the real resolution would need to come through any means other than a Constitutional amendment, but not because I think it's necessary, but because people like you do.

Yes they are. If there were natural, all other higher animals would have them too. Do they? If they arent biological...where did they come from?

If rights come from the Constitution then there is no argument to be had against Slavery when it is supported by the COnstitution.

The primary argument against your premise is to present the scenario where there is a Constitutional Amendment that recognizes that the unborn are human beings with rights. Would that be the end of it for you, or would you fight to have that amendment abolished? If you argue that your position wouldn't change with the law then you accept that right and wrong, and rights, exist outside of the state dictate. You would have to admit that the state does not determine rights.

If you are punished for doing something or denied safer care when you've done nothing wrong...that's a form of enslavement, involuntery servitude. Where is the due process needed to punish women by removing her consent to all those things?

It's not a form of enslavement. Nothing in that statement constitutes servitude.

Interestingly, your argument in this passage accepts that right and wrong exist outside of the state, and that the state can do wrong even when the wrong is legal.

Deep down you understand what rights are...

Did you forget this already?
...
So dont play semantics.

There are a laundry list of normal human behaviors that can get you into trouble, and rarely is killing someone else the proper resolution of the trouble.

Who says? This is your opinion, I get that. However you'll need to make some moral or legal argument.

Willfully ending a human life that is no threat to you is an amoral act.

Who says a right to life supersedes "everything" in her life? That life... federal govt respects that.

Life is a prerequisite for all other rights.

Name one other instance where the govt demands a person risk their life without their consent? The draft is the only one and that is in the name of national security.

That depends on the state. Any state that limits the ownership of weapons, and denies the individual the right to self defense are placing the citizen in danger, often against their will.

Requiring vaccinations puts a person at risk of adverse reactions for the sake of their fellow citizens.

Nope. There are several threads with links to these right now.

There are many others. This one is current.

Like I said, that is a case of medical malpractice. It doesn't even say in that article that the patient in question was seeking an abortion.

But had the doctors in the ER done their job and properly diagnosed her condition the Texas state law would allow for an abortion of the baby because the mother wouldn't survive the pregnancy.

That you, by way of the media, try to shoehorn that into the abortion debate is just plain nonsense.

You completely ignored this: Most of the women dying/near dying are...

And you ignore that the law doesn't proscribe abortions in that case, and in the case you have provided the woman wasn't even seeking an abortion.