The Level 3 Pro Choice Argument

[Lursa]

then you're just a hypocrite and there's nothing to talk about lol.

there's no magic in child birth. Science....you like science right?...proves this. There is no magic at all.

Why didnt you address my points? All you did was call me a name.

Birth is not magic, who said otherwise? Men and women understand what causes births.

So to argue the woman has sole responsibility over her fetus, while at the same time arguing that man shares responsibility the minute it's born is beyond contradictory, while you maintain this idea with your tooth and nail, you cannot, and will not, explain why this notion should exist.

I explained it, why arent you addressing it directly? Here it is again:

No, she cant escape consequences. Why did you ignore it? Miscarriage, death, abortion, a kid...all are painful, costly consequences...and all even have the potential to kill but less likely. Why did you ignore this? That's why I asked if you think men should also have the right to demand what HER consequences are, when any one of them can damage her health or take her life? Yes, it's not likely, but it's possible. She cannot escape consequences if she gets pregnant. If you dont like her 'choice' of consequences...that's biology...and death and miscarriage arent even her choice. If men want to CHOOSE her consequences, that's just 'control' in THEIR best interests.​

SHe does have sole responsibility over her pregnancy...but if he knows that, why does he take the risk? If he chooses the risk, why shouldnt he be held accountable?

All you can do is repeat over an over "the man is responsible! the man has sperm! etc" while in the same breath, say "it's the woman's decision! it's her own body!" over and over like a chat bot, except most chat bots have better critical thinking skillls than this.

I didnt say that. Why not respond directly to my quotes?

So when you're ready to explain this clear contradiction(you won't); or admit that, maybe, you're actually wrong and this warrants some give and take on both sides, I'll be here.

There's no contradiction. Respond directly to my quotes and explain it.

Until then, I'm too busy to watch you run in a circles. I may be a troll, but I have a life too, you know.

You are just running off after being confronted with the facts, you didnt directly counter a single one of my arguments.

Well, here's where the rubber meets the road:

There are many women who just dont believe in abortion. They use birth control, it fails...they are willing to accept having a kid. That's not irresponsible. That's accepting a consequence. As is a painful, costly abortion. Or miscarriage, or death…all possible consequences but there's no escape…she'll be suffering at least one if not more.​

​

So why is it so unfair for men to do the same? They knowingly accept the risk and know they cant tell her what to do. If they sleep with her anyway, then they also should accept that consequence. It's equal. It's not equal outcomes but they knew that going in too.​

​

If men dont act in their own best interests and avoid that risk, that's their choice. Why have you completely ignored this fact?​

And It's not up to women, we dont decide. If there's a kid, the state does.

Child Support is, a "statutory right" that actually "belongs" to the child. If something is contracted for an illegal purpose - and "denying a child their statutory right" is a contract for an illegal purpose. NEITHER the egg donor nor the sperm donor can "contract out" of their liability under the laws that grant the statutory right to child support. (This isnt my explanation)​

​

So any arrangements 'pre-conception' or 'pre-birth' are useless...if there's a child, their statutory right supersedes some 'contract.'​

and

"No matter what situation gives rise to the need for child support, it might help to think of the legal right to child support as being possessed by a child (which it technically is), for his or her proper care and upbringing, regardless of who actually receives child support payments.​

​

The fact that the custodial parent has a high income does not itself justify deviation from the guidelines, because under the law children have the right to benefit from both parents' incomes."​

Child Support Basics - FindLaw

Because in the United States nearly half of all marriages end in divorce and almost one-fourth of all children are born to unmarried parents, the regulation of child support is an important social issue. Learn about the basics of child support, and more, at FindLaw's Child Support section.

www.findlaw.com

You just sound really angry at women...but you cant articulate a single direct counter argument to mine.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Birth is not magic, who said otherwise? Men and women understand what causes births.

And therefore.....both are taking a risk, and both should be held responsible....at least in a stable society.

I explained it, why arent you addressing it directly? Here it is again:

No, she cant escape consequences. Why did you ignore it? Miscarriage, death, abortion, a kid...all are painful, costly consequences...and all even have the potential to kill but less likely. Why did you ignore this? That's why I asked if you think men should also have the right to demand what HER consequences are, when any one of them can damage her health or take her life? Yes, it's not likely, but it's possible. She cannot escape consequences if she gets pregnant. If you dont like her 'choice' of consequences...that's biology...and death and miscarriage arent even her choice. If men want to CHOOSE her consequences, that's just 'control' in THEIR best interests.​

and why do you think a woman should dictate what HIS consequences are?

SHe does have sole responsibility over her pregnancy...but if he knows that, why does he take the risk? If he chooses the risk, why shouldnt he be held accountable?

for the same reason a woman takes the risk to have sex.

Since you won't apply that logic to a woman, I'd have to suggest you better not apply that logic to a man if you don't want to be a total hypocrite.

I already know what the state says. The whole point of this is to point that, not only the state, but society as a whole gets this wrong, so all you've demonstrated is that yes, the state gets it wrong. I already know that. Thanks for the tip.

You just sound really angry at women...but you cant articulate a single direct counter argument to mine.

Angry? At women? What's the use in that?

Being angry at a woman is like being angry at a dog. The dog shouldn't have bit your neighbor, but it's your fault for not training it right.

 

[mrjurrs]

if the fetus isn't alive, then why kill it??

I would suggest that killing the fetus is rarely the reason women have abortions.

 

[tshade]

I would suggest that killing the fetus is rarely the reason women have abortions.

???? didn't say it was.....but it is what happens, and it happens on purpose. But you are on the right track------to stop abortions we must first understand WHY they are done...

 

[Lursa]

And therefore.....both are taking a risk, and both should be held responsible....at least in a stable society.

I've been clear that she is being held responsible. What you want is for 'her accountability' to be the decision best for someone else, and disregarding her needs. If she has those choices to make in her own best interests, why shouldnt she? Wont the man do so if he can? More importantly, since he knows in this case, *he cannot* control her decision, why doesnt he act in his own interests and not sleep with her, *if he's not willing to be held accountable?*

and why do you think a woman should dictate what HIS consequences are?

She cant do that if he doesnt give her that control, can she? She cant force him to do anything, including to have sex with her. So again, since he knows in this case, *he cannot* control her decision, why doesnt he act in his own interests and not sleep with her, *if he's not willing to be held accountable?*

for the same reason a woman takes the risk to have sex.

What is that, specifically? I'm not at all sure the reasons are the same. Please provide your opinion for men, then I'll try to do the same for women. Note I wrote, 'your opinion.' Of course it's what you think, that's what we're discussing.

Since you won't apply that logic to a woman, I'd have to suggest you better not apply that logic to a man if you don't want to be a total hypocrite.

This is what you are commenting on: since he knows in this case, *he cannot* control her decision, why doesnt he act in his own interests and not sleep with her, *if he's not willing to be held accountable?

And once again, she is held accountable. This is the 3rd time I'm posting it.

No, she cant escape consequences. Why did you ignore it? Miscarriage, death, abortion, a kid...all are painful, costly consequences...and all even have the potential to kill but less likely. Why did you ignore this? That's why I asked if you think men should also have the right to demand what HER consequences are, when any one of them can damage her health or take her life? Yes, it's not likely, but it's possible. She cannot escape consequences if she gets pregnant. If you dont like her 'choice' of consequences...that's biology...and death and miscarriage arent even her choice. If men want to CHOOSE her consequences, that's just 'control' in THEIR best interests.​

I's hypocritical for men to expect her to act in the man's best interests when they dont want her to act in HER best interests. Since men know this...why do they give her that control by sleeping with her? And if they do...why do they expect to avoid their consequences?

I already know what the state says. The whole point of this is to point that, not only the state, but society as a whole gets this wrong, so all you've demonstrated is that yes, the state gets it wrong. I already know that. Thanks for the tip.

It's wrong for the child's rights to be the primary concern here? Well, I'm pretty sure most of society disagrees with that.

At least you own up to it tho. LOLOLOL and you wonder why society supports the child's and taxpayers' interests here? Because it would enable men to escape being held accountable for their decisions...and that's not a good trend for society at all.

(Dont bother with the 'women arent held accountable' bit again...I've proven that wrong. You're just pissed women's accountability differs from men's. Basically, you are pissed at biology )

And you're pissed because it means men are no longer entitled to sex without consequences Dont care. Women arent, never have been. Cant make it anymore 'equal' than that.

You're here trying to support something selfish and harmful to kids, taxpayers, and society...and 'you're pissed.'

Angry? At women? What's the use in that?

Being angry at a woman is like being angry at a dog. The dog shouldn't have bit your neighbor, but it's your fault for not training it right.

Thanks that's signature worthy, it raises the misogyny bar to new heights. It's laughable and a direct reflection on your 'training' inadequacies... but again, at least you own it.

 

[Lursa]

I also read this. But on the court's interpretation, someone on one of these threads corrected me when I thought TX helpers could get in trouble for helping TX women leave the state for an abortion. He/she referred to some part of the law, I think, so I went with his/her interpretation. I'll try to check it out.

Seems like many woman are successfully making it out of state. Sadly I'm sure the ones that dont are the ones that need it for the most severe financial reasons. Such stupid cruelty misguidedly imposed on women At least TX's law is not as successful as they've pretended. They've reported a big drop in abortions.

"Planned Parenthood clinics in the five states neighboring Texas saw a nearly 800% increase in abortion patients from the Lone Star State after a six-week ban went into effect in September, the organization said Thursday.​

​

Colorado and Oklahoma clinics saw some of the biggest surges in Texas abortion seekers, the organization said. Between September 1 and December 31, 2021, abortion patients with Texas zip codes made up more than half the total number of patients at Oklahoma Planned Parenthood clinics, in what was a 2500% increase in Texas traffic to those facilities. Texas patients amounted to less than 10% in Oklahoma clinics the same time the year before."​

Texas abortion seekers flooded out-of-state clinics after six-week ban went into effect, Planned Parenthood records show | CNN Politics

Planned Parenthood clinics in the five states neighboring Texas saw a nearly 800% increase in abortion patients from the Lone Star State after a six-week ban went into effect in September, the organization said Thursday.

www.cnn.com

 

[Deuce]

So a woman can kill the thing, but a man can't abandon it?

"Women who dont want to have the child: "my child".
"Women who want to have the child: "our child".

Correct.

 

[Fishking]

I get so sick and tired of most silly abortion arguments because they focus overwhelmingly on whether a fetus is a human life. It's not of course, but that argument is also largely irrelevant.
There are two other full levels of argumentation that demonstrate quite conclusively why a woman has a right to an abortion regardless of whether or not the fetus is alive.

Starting out your post with just obviously false statements doesn't bode well for the rest of what you post.

The second is of course the self-defense argument. Nobody has a right to cause you pain, sickness, bodily deformation, or live off of your body against your will. You are of course well within your right to use violent force to prevent someone from doing that if it is necessary.

It's a natural bodily function. It literally has to exist for humans to even be around, or any living organism, for that matter.

But tonight we're going to focus on the third. The third is the least heard argument, but it is also the one All women need to understand, and it is the primary reason for the Roe vs Wade decision in the first place. How would you begin to enforce a ban on abortion?

Not particularly complicated, despite your attempts to obfuscate it. Presumption of innocence remains in effect, just like anything else. If there is evidence saying that it is not natural, then it can be looked into. Medical personnel and medical facilities that performed elective abortions could have their licenses revoked.

 

[Gordy327]

if the fetus isn't alive, then why kill it??

Because the woman chooses too. That's reason enough. Besides, bacteria are alive too. Why kill it?

So, hold on. All the genes and chrom. are there = that is human. You must have a unique def. of "life"

"Life" isn't the real issue with abortion, despite some attempts to make it so. It's about when said "life" is a person with rights.

 

[tshade]

Because the woman chooses too. That's reason enough. Besides, bacteria are alive too. Why kill it?

Bateria are not human--a fetus is

"Life" isn't the real issue with abortion, despite some attempts to make it so. It's about when said "life" is a person with rights.

do you agree that unborn human life should have rights???

 

[Gordy327]

Bateria are not human--a fetus is

Your statement focused on something being alive. Bacteria are alive too.

do you agree that unborn human life should have rights???

No, I do not!

 

[MrWonka]

It's a natural bodily function.

So is getting cancer, so is getting the flu or COVID. You have a right to defend yourself against them all.
They are not allowed to cause you pain or suffering against your will, and you have every right to kill them.

It literally has to exist for humans to even be around, or any living organism, for that matter.

Irrelevant, eating is also necessary for life, but if a homeless person tries to hurt you and steal food from you, so-called Pro-Life people would argue they have a right to shoot the homeless person.
If you woke up in North Dakota on a freezing cold night in January to find a homeless man going through the fridge in your garage for food, you could shoot him, and there's almost zero chance you would face criminal charges. Even if you left your garage door wide open.

Not particularly complicated, despite your attempts to obfuscate it. Presumption of innocence remains in effect, just like anything else. If there is evidence saying that it is not natural, then it can be looked into.

Wrong, because in this particular case, you're the one who needs the evidence. So, how are you going to get it?

Medical personnel and medical facilities that performed elective abortions could have their licenses revoked.

First, we're not talking about medical facilities. We're talking about a woman using a coat hanger or taking some pills, drinking too much, or "falling down the stairs." How would you know whether she was telling the truth or not?

Second, how are you going to know whether they were elective? What right do you have to her medical records?
She has doctor-patient confidentiality. She has HIPAA. You don't even have a right to know whether or not she was ever pregnant in the first place.

But imagine if you did? That would give the government and the public the right to know about every woman's pregnancy whether they had aborted or not.

 

[Fishking]

So is getting cancer, so is getting the flu or COVID. You have a right to defend yourself against them all.

No it isn't. That's specifically when something is going wrong with your body or something is attacking it. Reproduction is the body working as intended. That's literally how we exist, and how everything that is alive exists.

Irrelevant, eating is also necessary for life, but if a homeless person tries to hurt you and steal food from you, so-called Pro-Life people would argue they have a right to shoot the homeless person.

It's not irrelevant. You want it to make it so but it simply isn't. A homeless person attacking someone isn't a literal necessity for life to exist. Reproduction is.

If you woke up in North Dakota on a freezing cold night in January to find a homeless man going through the fridge in your garage for food, you could shoot him, and there's almost zero chance you would face criminal charges. Even if you left your garage door wide open.

Same as above.

Wrong, because in this particular case, you're the one who needs the evidence. So, how are you going to get it?

Uhh...you said "wrong" but then agreed with me. That was ****ing dumb.

First, we're not talking about medical facilities. We're talking about a woman using a coat hanger or taking some pills, drinking too much, or "falling down the stairs." How would you know whether she was telling the truth or not?

Yes, yes we are. That's how most of it happens. Your example above is another example, but one that was overblown as to it's prevelance.

Second, how are you going to know whether they were elective? What right do you have to her medical records?
She has doctor-patient confidentiality. She has HIPAA. You don't even have a right to know whether or not she was ever pregnant in the first place.

That's silly. The government gets involved in regulating such things all the time. Literally all the time. How to laws exist to stop doctor assisted suicide, regulations in medical practices, refusal of certain types of treatments? Oh yeah, literally getting involved in the plethora of ways they do now.

But imagine if you did? That would give the government and the public the right to know about every woman's pregnancy whether they had aborted or not.

Why would the public have the right to know, or the government really be involved unless something was reported, just like how literally the entire legal system works. For example, it's not like the government is allowed to tap everyone's phone and just go looking for a crime. They have to have probable cause. Again, not complicated at all.

 

[MrWonka]

No it isn't. That's specifically when something is going wrong with your body or something is attacking it.

Tell a woman in labor who has been sick for 9 months and had her body stretched beyond belief that nothing is going wrong or that she's not being attacked.
Tell a woman who is about to have her life destroyed by a pregnancy she doesn't want that nothing is going wrong or that she isn't being attacked.

Reproduction is the body working as intended.

So is a headache. So is an upset stomach. You're allowed to take Advil to stop it. You're allowed to take Tums.

It's not irrelevant. You want it to make it so but it simply isn't. A homeless person attacking someone isn't a literal necessity for life to exist.

Yes, it is. The homeless person may starve or freeze to death if he can't find food or shelter. He is every bit as dependent on those things as an embryo.
As a homeowner, you could just let him take something out of your fridge. Sleep in your garage. Give him your wallet. But instead, you decide to shoot him, and the Republican party cheers!

Uhh...you said "wrong" but then agreed with me. That was ****ing dumb.

you should probably go back and re-read this argument so you know what you're saying before you keep making a fool of yourself.

Yes, yes we are. That's how most of it happens.

Today... because it's legal...Today...
We're talking about when and if you find a way to make it illegal. Because last time it was illegal, the same number of abortions happened. They just happened in back alleys with clothes hangers and black market drugs.
And that's how it will be again.
You people claim that banning guns won't eliminate guns. Bad guys will still get them, but good guys who need them won't.
Why is it so hard for you to see the same reality here?
If you ban abortions all the women you're trying to stop will still get them, but women who need them for legitimate reasons will struggle.

That's silly. The government gets involved in regulating such things all the time. Literally all the time. How to laws exist to stop doctor assisted suicide,

In a doctor's assisted suicide there is a dead body that needs an autopsy. There is a family who wants to know what happened. In abortion, there's no real body to speak of. The only family that knew it existed was what got rid of it in the first place.

regulations in medical practices,

These are enforced by patients or loved ones complaining when things go wrong.
But again, we're not talking about hospitals. We're talking about women in dark alleys using a clothes hanger and then throwing a clump of cells into a river or a dumpster.

refusal of certain types of treatments?

These again, require either a doctor or a patient to complain. Neither would in this case.

Why would the public have the right to know, or the government really be involved unless something was reported,

EXACTLY!!!

So who is going to report it? The only person who knows they are pregnant is the woman. She wants the fetus gone. If she doesn't report it who will?
Abortions will still happen at the exact same rate they currently do. The only difference is that they will be performed in a back alley with black market drugs instead of a medical facility under the supervision of a medical professional.
You have accomplished nothing. You have prevented nothing. And you will hold no one accountable.

just like how literally the entire legal system works.

The entire legal system only works if someone reports a crime. Who is going to report this one? Answer: Nobody...Ever!

For example, it's not like the government is allowed to tap everyone's phone and just go looking for a crime. They have to have probable cause. Again, not complicated at all.

So what is your probable cause going to be?

The government is not legally allowed to know if a woman is pregnant in the first place. So if she suddenly becomes unpregnant, you have no probable cause to question why or how?

A miscarriage is a natural thing that happens all the ****ing time. So even if you did manage to find out that a woman lost a pregnancy you have no probable cause to investigate why or how.

 

[Fishking]

Tell a woman in labor who has been sick for 9 months and had her body stretched beyond belief that nothing is going wrong or that she's not being attacked.
Tell a woman who is about to have her life destroyed by a pregnancy she doesn't want that nothing is going wrong or that she isn't being attacked.

Invalid argument, as it's not an argument at all.

So is a headache. So is an upset stomach. You're allowed to take Advil to stop it. You're allowed to take Tums.

Nope...that's when something is going wrong.

Yes, it is. The homeless person may starve or freeze to death if he can't find food or shelter. He is every bit as dependent on those things as an embryo.
As a homeowner, you could just let him take something out of your fridge. Sleep in your garage. Give him your wallet. But instead, you decide to shoot him, and the Republican party cheers!

No, it isn't. You missed the entire point. We literally HAVE to have reproduction happening for any life form to continue. Homeless people attacking someone isn't.

you should probably go back and re-read this argument so you know what you're saying before you keep making a fool of yourself.

Read it fine, you supported my statement.

Today... because it's legal...Today...
We're talking about when and if you find a way to make it illegal. Because last time it was illegal, the same number of abortions happened. They just happened in back alleys with clothes hangers and black market drugs.
And that's how it will be again.
You people claim that banning guns won't eliminate guns. Bad guys will still get them, but good guys who need them won't.
Why is it so hard for you to see the same reality here?
If you ban abortions all the women you're trying to stop will still get them, but women who need them for legitimate reasons will struggle.

In a doctor's assisted suicide there is a dead body that needs an autopsy. There is a family who wants to know what happened. In abortion, there's no real body to speak of. The only family that knew it existed was what got rid of it in the first place.

These are enforced by patients or loved ones complaining when things go wrong.
But again, we're not talking about hospitals. We're talking about women in dark alleys using a clothes hanger and then throwing a clump of cells into a river or a dumpster.

These again, require either a doctor or a patient to complain. Neither would in this case.

EXACTLY!!!

So who is going to report it? The only person who knows they are pregnant is the woman. She wants the fetus gone. If she doesn't report it who will?
Abortions will still happen at the exact same rate they currently do. The only difference is that they will be performed in a back alley with black market drugs instead of a medical facility under the supervision of a medical professional.
You have accomplished nothing. You have prevented nothing. And you will hold no one accountable.

The entire legal system only works if someone reports a crime. Who is going to report this one? Answer: Nobody...Ever!

So what is your probable cause going to be?

The government is not legally allowed to know if a woman is pregnant in the first place. So if she suddenly becomes unpregnant, you have no probable cause to question why or how?

A miscarriage is a natural thing that happens all the ****ing time. So even if you did manage to find out that a woman lost a pregnancy you have no probable cause to investigate why or how.

All this is summed up under mostly the same thing, and that is government involvement and regulation of medical care, and you're simply wrong in that they are only involved if the patient reports it. It's why there was intervention in providing Ivermectin to patients.

 

[minnie616]

All this is summed up under mostly the same thing, and that is government involvement and regulation of medical care, and you're simply wrong in that they are only involved if the patient reports it. It's why there was intervention in providing Ivermectin to patients.

Actually, when abortion was first banned by states it was unsafe procedure.

Ivermectin is an unsafe medication for humans today.

By the 1970s when Roe was decided a medical abortion is much safer for the woman than pregnancy and childbirth .

Therefore , states can no longer ban abortions before viability as an unsafe medical procedure.

 

[Lursa]

Actually, when abortion was first banned by states it was unsafe procedure.

Ivermectin is an unsafe medication for humans today.

By the 1970s when Roe was decided a medical abortion is much safer for the woman than pregnancy and childbirth .

Therefore , states can no longer ban abortions before viability as an unsafe medical procedure.

What most people dont realize is that RvW was based on protecting women.

 

[minnie616]

What most people dont realize is that RvW was based on protecting women.

I definitely agree.

 

[weaver2]

........... and Republicans would love nothing more than to put you on Trial.

Finding women guilty and controlling their decisions is the goal of the conservative men who created the anti-abortion movement and run the anti-abortion organizations.

 

[weaver2]

Now wait a minute. A fetus IS human. Basic science here.

"A fetus IS human." No, not if it is a zebra fetus. If you are really concerned about basic science then a zebra fetus has the DNA of a class of animals called zebras but a zebra fetus is not yet a born zebra: likewise, a human fetus has the DNA of a class of animals called human but a human fetus is not yet a human being. The difference between a human fetus and a human being is recognized by the Bible, by the law, by science, by the medical profession, by custom.

Anti-abortion advocate's maudlin talk about saving innocent little pre-born children is cynical, hypocritical and simply not true. Anti-abortion is about making unknown women living in unknown circumstances carry fetuses to term so that their time is limited to child care and not in decision making about the economic and political life of the country.

 

[soylentgreen]

no---they should be just as liable....................it takes two to have a pregnancy

In what sense are they liable?

 

[soylentgreen]

And therefore.....both are taking a risk, and both should be held responsible....at least in a stable society.

Again, such vague statements. What risks?

 

[Gordy327]

Yes, I see it. Why do you ask?? I do not like either.

Abortion must be avoided if humanly possible. She should not be able to abort, but if she does, then BOTH are liable (if whatever such law is passed...., etc)

A woman does not automatically lose her rights if she becomes pregnant. Telling her she should not abort I'd essentially treating her like a brood mare. That's Handmaids Tale level right there.

 

[tshade]

In what sense are they liable?

takes 2 to have sex...................duh

 

[soylentgreen]

takes 2 to have sex...................duh

That is just the sex. How are men liable in the way of a pregnancy which only a woman can be.