Refute this pro-choice argument

[trouble13]

Probably because tumors are a threat to ones life.
For government/legal purposes life begins at birth and ends at death.

That's actually inaccurate because a dead persons rights are preserved after they pass. For example we have a legal right to decide who our assets are given to when we are dead.

The question of anortion is a matter of deciding at what point does the government begin to protect someone's right to life. Some believe it should be at conception while others believe it should not be until the umbilical cord is cut. Most people believe it's somewhere between the two extremes.

The uproar over the SCOTUS ruling is pretty dumb imo. The only thing it changed was that the feds no longer decide where the line is drawn instead of the feds. It gives people more of a say in what the law should be.

 

[Individual]

That's actually inaccurate because a dead persons rights are preserved after they pass. For example we have a legal right to decide who our assets are given to when we are dead.

The right to life ceases once dead.

The question of anortion is a matter of deciding at what point does the government begin to protect someone's right to life. Some believe it should be at conception while others believe it should not be until the umbilical cord is cut. Most people believe it's somewhere between the two extremes.

I go with post cord cutting AND examination by both the Woman and her Doctor.

The uproar over the SCOTUS ruling is pretty dumb imo. The only thing it changed was that the feds no longer decide where the line is drawn instead of the feds. It gives people more of a say in what the law should be.

Elections to be held soon, what would you expect.
And the people should begin making their voice heard by their local and State government representatives. In the end politicians respond to what gains enough votes to win an election, otherwise the toe the party platform.

 

[Lursa]

The problem with this argument always rests with the bolded portion of your position.

One could equally argue that a baby born cannot exist without the care of someone, be it parent, or surrogate, or whatever.

That a baby human being is pretty much helpless for years after birth. Yet it is still a thinking, feeling, human being.

So, the issue is not when does a Human LIFE begin, as that actually begins for a human being when a sperm successfully fertilizes the egg and begins to grow.

The real question is when does a group of developing human cells begin to develop "sentience."

IMO that occurs at some point during the process when the fetus can sense its own existence, even if it does not recognize what that means. Just as a born baby doesn't know what is going on and has to experience and learn.

Why is 'sentience' your criteria? Lots of other species are sentient and we kill them at will.

No, the real question is when a human life has individual legal status and rights. According to the 14th Amendment, it's once you are born. At that point, outside (societal) influence sustaining and acting on that life does not violate the rights of the woman gestating it (without her consent).

Born and unborn cannot be treated equally under the law, one's rights would always supersede the others. Unless you can explain how? Do you think the unborn should have rights that supersede womens'?

 

[Lursa]

So, the right to life has to be rationed out by law?

Er, if you want there to be laws against or allowing abortion, uh, yes It's even addressed in your example of the 5th Amendment.

That is absurd. The 5th amendment states that no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. Abortionists don't qualify as due process.

The 5th only applies to persons. The unborn are specifically, legally not recognized as persons. And per the 14th Amendment, one must be born to have their rights, esp. to due process, recognized.

 

[Lursa]

For me DNA is not a factor.

But not a single one of us exists without first being a fertilized egg in the mother's womb, without being a 'clump of cells', without being a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, and a fully formed unborn person. No woman who knows she is pregnant speaks of her zygote or embryo. It is a baby, a developing human being with potential for good, for evil, for accomplishing wondrous things or not as was the case with all of us.

The morality of ending the life of that developing human being I leave to others. I do believe there are valid reasons that abortion is necessary and the moral choice. But those situations are rare, and in my heart I believe we should never ever do that casually and without consideration that it is a human life that we are ending.

IMO that (bold) is a common conclusion by many (mostly pro-life) people and it's insulting to women as a blanket assumption. No woman has an abortion casually, they're costly and painful and every single woman that has one needs it. It's not for others to judge her need...you dont know her life and circumstances and responsibilities to others in life. And strangers wont pay her consequences.

 

[choiceone]

Brain death means it is no longer able to function at all, despite being completely developed. Brain development in a fetus never ends.

This is not true. If a fetus is removed from the woman's body before it attains viability, it dies. It completely stops developing.

That is because it isn't developing by itself: the woman is developing it, and before viability, she isn't finished enough for it to survive. Once she is sufficiently finished for it to survive, it can be born, because the later things she does to it can occur outside of her, though it's better for the future child if she does them instead.

The notion that an embryo or fetus just develops by itself and the woman's body is a mere environment is so much of an insult to the woman that, if anti-choicers don't stop asserting that, it would serve them right if women just gave up sex and refused to get pregnant and carry on the human race ever again.

 

[choiceone]

sperm or eggs have no capacity to develop into a human being ON THEIR OWN. Thus there is no moral reason to protect the life of a sperm or an unfertilized egg.

An embryo or fetus has no capacity to develop into a human being ON ITS OWN. The notion that you can so trivialize the woman by turning her into a "host" is ridiculous.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

This is not true. If a fetus is removed from the woman's body before it attains viability, it dies. It completely stops developing.

That is because it isn't developing by itself: the woman is developing it, and before viability, she isn't finished enough for it to survive. Once she is sufficiently finished for it to survive, it can be born, because the later things she does to it can occur outside of her, though it's better for the future child if she does them instead.

The notion that an embryo or fetus just develops by itself and the woman's body is a mere environment is so much of an insult to the woman that, if anti-choicers don't stop asserting that, it would serve them right if women just gave up sex and refused to get pregnant and carry on the human race ever again.

Show me where I said the brain is fully developed during a premature abortion.

 

[choiceone]

Agreed, people have a right to their own bodies including unborn children. Abortionists would have the unborn reduced to a subhuman no better than a tumor. It's a brutal concept harkening back to the Democrat institution of slavery where the subhuman only lives at the pleasure of the master.

You want to give the unborn their own bodies? Then get them out of the women's bodies, because they only have the right to their own bodies and not those of the women. If you claim that women have to continue pregnancies, you are claiming that they have to be slaves of the unborn and you, working 24/7 to support the unborn, who do nothing whatever for the women and can cause terrible harm to them, including permanent injury and death.

The notion that an embryo is a slave is ridiculous. When women get abortions of embryos they never consented to, all they're doing is removing them. The embryos die on their own, whereas slaves who left their slave situation thrived.

And FYI, not everyone in the slave states of the US South was a Democrat: slave owners could be and were Democrats, Republicans, and Independents there. The notion that all Democrats were supporters of slavery is equally ridiculous, as the northern states had Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Slavery was far from a single party issue. And since the 1960s, it is the Democratic Party that has most strongly supported the equal civil rights of African Americans, Native Americans, etc. That's the reason so many Southerners left the Democratic Party and became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

 

[choiceone]

Show me where I said the brain is fully developed during a premature abortion.

You said "Brain development in a fetus never ends." I simply refuted this.

And FYI, there's no such thing as "a premature abortion," whatever that may mean.

 

[MamboDervish]

That is awesome!

Thank you!

Indeed. You’re welcome.

The anti-choice mob of misogynists totally lack perspective on what actually defines their lives. They need to be continuously shown pictures of gravestones, where the date of birth and death appear - literally carved in stone - and to be reminded that those are the two dates that have always, and will always, define the beginning and end of their lives. Along with our names on the headstones, those two dates are the bookends of our existence, with no dates before, and no dates after.

A stroll through any cemetery should be all it takes. It is the only honest perspective to have for any adult mind.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Indeed. You’re welcome.

The anti-choice mob of misogynists totally lack perspective on what actually defines their lives. They need to be continuously shown pictures of gravestones, where the date of birth and death appear - literally carved in stone - and to be reminded that those are the two dates that have always, and will always, define the beginning and end of their lives. Along with our names on the headstones, those two dates are the bookends of our existence, with no dates before, and no dates after.

A stroll through any cemetery should be all it takes. It is the only honest perspective to have for any adult mind.

You are ignoring all the grave markers that only have birth and death years, not full dates. This is common for cremated people.

 

[choiceone]

The problem with this argument always rests with the bolded portion of your position.

One could equally argue that a baby born cannot exist without the care of someone, be it parent, or surrogate, or whatever.

Nope. A baby receives non-biological care from people who can replace each other, giving each other time for sleep, meal, and bathroom breaks, people whose biological bodies do not have to be significantly invaded.

That a baby human being is pretty much helpless for years after birth. Yet it is still a thinking, feeling, human being.

Any baby, even a premie, can breathe oxygen, and until one can, one lives parasitically on another's body. And I don't know of any non-viable fetus that could possibly be capable of thought or feeling. They're not human beings, just human fetuses.

So, the issue is not when does a Human LIFE begin, as that actually begins for a human being when a sperm successfully fertilizes the egg and begins to grow.

A zygote is a biological blueprint for making a baby. An embryo implants 8-10 days after fertilization because it has no more capacity for self-sufficient life. During the time it is implanted, the woman's body gives part of her own life to the embryo to sustain it, and if she dies before it's viable, it will automatically die. How dare you claim that the implanted embryo has its own life: that's part of HER life.

The real question is when does a group of developing human cells begin to develop "sentience."

IMO that occurs at some point during the process when the fetus can sense its own existence, even if it does not recognize what that means. Just as a born baby doesn't know what is going on and has to experience and learn.

That point during the fetus's development does not occur before viability.

 

[choiceone]

Nope. That pregnant person is always called the mother.

Actually, that may be the choice of some, but while I was growing up and in many circles today, the pregnant person is called a "mother-to-be," just as an engaged woman is called a "bride-to-be,"and pregnant women say they're "going to have a baby," not that they already have one.

 

[MamboDervish]

You are ignoring all the grave markers that only have birth and death years, not full dates. This is common for cremated people.

I’m not ignoring anything. There are reasons those exists, foremost among them the cost of the carving. There are gave markers with nothing but a name, too! Who cares?

But what you are ignoring is the fact that none of them have the date of viability - let alone the date of conception. NONE of them.
Nor will they ever, because those dates don’t define their lives.

 

[choiceone]

For me DNA is not a factor.

But not a single one of us exists without first being a fertilized egg in the mother's womb, without being a 'clump of cells', without being a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, and a fully formed unborn person. No woman who knows she is pregnant speaks of her zygote or embryo. It is a baby, a developing human being with potential for good, for evil, for accomplishing wondrous things or not as was the case with all of us.

The morality of ending the life of that developing human being I leave to others. I do believe there are valid reasons that abortion is necessary and the moral choice. But those situations are rare, and in my heart I believe we should never ever do that casually and without consideration that it is a human life that we are ending.

I actually disagree with this. When my mom and dad were first dating, a fortuneteller told them their fortunes, and every word he said, though some were incredibly unlikely, came to pass - and because they told others about the fortune at the time, there were a number of witnesses to the truth of his words. My sister and I and basic information about us were among the words.

Later, after they were married, my mom and dad used contraception except when they wanted to have kids, and they decided and prayed to God each time.

So my sister and I existed as true words for years before our conceptions and as blessings asked of God for at least days before any eggs were fertilized. Before any eggs were fertilized, we existed in the minds of the fortuneteller and our mom and dad. So when I consider myself, I don't identify myself with a biological zygote, but mind. And my mom did not tell people when she was pregnant that she was a mother, but that she was a mother-to-be. She didn't say she already had a baby, but that she was going to have a baby.

I don't think it's proper to treat people as merely biological entities, but that's what you do when you treat them as coming from fertilized eggs.

 

[Gaius46]

That's actually inaccurate because a dead persons rights are preserved after they pass. For example we have a legal right to decide who our assets are given to when we are dead.

That is not correct. Wills etc are made while living and the document remains in force after death. That does not imply that the deceased has any rights.

Legally the dead are not persons. If there is a lawsuit, for example, it is against the estate and not tbe deceased.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Nope. A baby receives non-biological care from people who can replace each other, giving each other time for sleep, meal, and bathroom breaks, people whose biological bodies do not have to be significantly invaded.

Any baby, even a premie, can breathe oxygen, and until one can, one lives parasitically on another's body. And I don't know of any non-viable fetus that could possibly be capable of thought or feeling. They're not human beings, just human fetuses.

A zygote is a biological blueprint for making a baby. An embryo implants 8-10 days after fertilization because it has no more capacity for self-sufficient life. During the time it is implanted, the woman's body gives part of her own life to the embryo to sustain it, and if she dies before it's viable, it will automatically die. How dare you claim that the implanted embryo has its own life: that's part of HER life.

That point during the fetus's development does not occur before viability.

Missed the point entirely.

Which is that while a developing fetus "depends entirely on the (internal) support of the mother," so does a born baby depend on the support of someone, anyone, in order to survive too.

So if one wants to make an argument about "viability," I argue that this applies right up to the point where a child can literally take care of itself.

The fetus is a living human lifeform, developing as we all do right up until we end up dying of whatever causes.

Meanwhile, as I am constantly forced to remind people, I do support the right to abort up to a certain point in fetal development. My cutoff point would be where the developing fetus begins to react to its environment, indicating some form of awareness, even if just the ability to "feel" pain.

 

[choiceone]

That's actually inaccurate because a dead persons rights are preserved after they pass. For example we have a legal right to decide who our assets are given to when we are dead.

There are no dead persons. When a (live) person dies, all that remains is a corpse. The (live) person has a right to express his/her living will for what will happen to his/her corpse and assets after death, and others are supposed to carry out that living will. So what is preserved is the (live) person's rights.

The question of anortion is a matter of deciding at what point does the government begin to protect someone's right to life. Some believe it should be at conception while others believe it should not be until the umbilical cord is cut. Most people believe it's somewhere between the two extremes.

No, because no one has a right to life until they're born. The reason why is that, if you're living parasitically on the body of another, you don't have a life of your own. Rather, someone is giving you part of their own life until you are capable of having one. You don't have a right to the woman's life.

But it's been claimed that the state has an interest in protecting the future life as a child of the fetus, and people disagree on what point during the woman's pregnancy they can say the state interest can supercede the woman's basic personal rights to life, liberty, and property. The reason Roe v Wade said the state could assert such an interest at viability is between the extremes and at the point that, if a fetus is removed from the woman's body, it has a chance of having a life of its own.

The uproar over the SCOTUS ruling is pretty dumb imo. The only thing it changed was that the feds no longer decide where the line is drawn instead of the feds. It gives people more of a say in what the law should be.

This is not true. If the 14th Amendment applies to women as to men, they have rights as persons to life, liberty, and property as a unified package of rights, and no one can alienate them. If not, then any state can alienate any of a woman's rights.

In Idaho, after Dobbs, the legislature made an anti-abortion law without even an exception to save a woman's life. Dobbs almost came right out and said a woman wasn't a person if she was pregnant. It was an insult to human rights so great that I'm not sure the US can survive it. If I were a young woman, I'd plan on migrating and changing my citizenship if it's not fixed in the next couple of years.

This doesn't give people more of a say in what the law should be. It gives state legislatures more of a say. The majority of people in all but about one state (Mississippi) is pro-choice, even if they would like to choose an earlier point in pregnancy than viability for state regulation. No majority supports the more restrictive Republican positions of no exceptions, only an exception for the life of the woman, only exceptions for the woman's life/health and rape/incest, or only those exceptions and exceptions for serious fetal anomalies.

The only way people can have more of a say is if states offer referenda to assert state constitutional amendments about abortion to be voted on by all people in the state. When red Kansas did that, its voting result was blue.

 

[choiceone]

Missed the point entirely.

Which is that while a developing fetus "depends entirely on the (internal) support of the mother," so does a born baby depend on the support of someone, anyone, in order to survive too.

So if one wants to make an argument about "viability," I argue that this applies right up to the point where a child can literally take care of itself.

The fetus is a living human lifeform, developing as we all do right up until we end up dying of whatever causes.

Meanwhile, as I am constantly forced to remind people, I do support the right to abort up to a certain point in fetal development. My cutoff point would be where the developing fetus begins to react to its environment, indicating some form of awareness, even if just the ability to "feel" pain.

Nope, you're missing the point. Parasitically living on a specific woman's biological body continuously and socially depending for biological life on the social care of non-specific persons able to replace each other is a categorical difference because of what they require of the specific woman and/or non-specific persons.

The issue re abortion has never been whether the fetus is alive or not or whether it is dependent on another's support or not. Abortion isn't about a fetus: it's about woman's pregnancy, her right not to have to grow for a future child an embryonic/fetal body that will live parasitically in her body for months, especially if it is damaging to her body or she did not give prior consent. This is not about a fetus's support - it's about an embryo's or fetus's non-consensual violation of her internal sex organs with potential to do her harm.

So whether I would agree with your cut-off point or not on a personal basis, in law I support what Roe v Wade said because I am in complete legal agreement with it. That's because a woman is a person and an embryo or fetus isn't.

 

[Dayton3]

Actually, that may be the choice of some, but while I was growing up and in many circles today, the pregnant person is called a "mother-to-be," just as an engaged woman is called a "bride-to-be,"and pregnant women say they're "going to have a baby," not that they already have one.

semantics

 

[AZRWinger]

You want to give the unborn their own bodies? Then get them out of the women's bodies, because they only have the right to their own bodies and not those of the women. If you claim that women have to continue pregnancies, you are claiming that they have to be slaves of the unborn and you, working 24/7 to support the unborn, who do nothing whatever for the women and can cause terrible harm to them, including permanent injury and death.

The notion that an embryo is a slave is ridiculous. When women get abortions of embryos they never consented to, all they're doing is removing them. The embryos die on their own, whereas slaves who left their slave situation thrived.

And FYI, not everyone in the slave states of the US South was a Democrat: slave owners could be and were Democrats, Republicans, and Independents there. The notion that all Democrats were supporters of slavery is equally ridiculous, as the northern states had Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Slavery was far from a single party issue. And since the 1960s, it is the Democratic Party that has most strongly supported the equal civil rights of African Americans, Native Americans, etc. That's the reason so many Southerners left the Democratic Party and became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

Democrats held a hegemony in the antebellum South similar to contemporary Democrats in California. If you think there was significant support for abolition in the Confederacy, prove it. Before the civil war Democrats supported slavery and post war carried on with Jim Crow segregation. Abortionists carry on the Democrat tradition of degrading innocents into subhumans without rights while piously invoking "choice" as a means of masking latter day slavery.

 

[Gaius46]

Democrats held a hegemony in the antebellum South similar to contemporary Democrats in California. If you think there was significant support for abolition in the Confederacy, prove it. Before the civil war Democrats supported slavery and post war carried on with Jim Crow segregation. Abortionists carry on the Democrat tradition of degrading innocents into subhumans without rights while piously invoking "choice" as a means of masking latter day slavery.

You know you making this a "democrat" thing is the kind of partisan stupidity that completely undermines any point you are trying to make.

Lots of a Republicans and all real libertarians support abortions in varying degrees.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Nope. That pregnant person is always called the mother.

Haven't been watching the news lately have you?

 

[Scrabaholic]

So, the right to life has to be rationed out by law? That is absurd. The 5th amendment states that no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. Abortionists don't qualify as due process.

Balancing the life of the unborn child versus the inconvenience of child bearing ought to be an easy calculation unless you are a slavery loving Democrat.

Do let us know when you experience pregnancy and childbirth, k? It's so easy to be for forced gestation when you know you will never be pregnant, eh?