Originally posted by Firefly218
Yeah there's some truth to this
Which is the point Bently's been trying to make, but keeps getting ignored.
It's obvious reading the sci-fi writers words, as well as people here like Adam Poe or Tag, that this question isn't in good faith. They say outright there's only one correct answer, and one answer, that "everyone" knows to be true, and that answer destroys their position.
May as well flip them the bird while they're at it, as proof of their sincerity. 🙄
Originally posted by Scribble
I mean it is her body, she's carrying the life and is primarily responsible for it. She's the mother, for Christ's sake. If anyone has a right to take that life it's clearly the mother. I think that a father should have equal say in abortion, since the role of the father seems to be mentioned a lot less in arguments for abortion. But seriously, how could you not see the difference between the mother choosing to safely (for her) abort the child and some random person punching a pregnant woman? Do you have any sense of parenthood at all? The random person had no part in the creation of the life, they have no say in the extinguishing of it either.
It's not that I do not see the difference. What I'm saying though is that a lot of pro choice argument revolves around it not being an actual life.
So if it's not a life...it's not a life under any circumstances. It wouldn't matter who is responsible for destroying it if it's not a life. That is my point.
Originally posted by SurturRegardless of whether it’s a life or not, pro-choicers believe it’s a god-given right for women to have control over their own bodies. No government or man can make decisions about a women’s bodies, it doesn’t matter what their opinions on life and religion are.
It's not that I do not see the difference. What I'm saying though is that a lot of pro choice argument revolves around it not being an actual life.So if it's not a life...it's not a life under any circumstances. It wouldn't matter who is responsible for destroying it if it's not a life. That is my point.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Regardless of whether it’s a life or not, pro-choicers believe it’s a god-given right for women to have control over their own bodies. No government or man can make decisions about a women’s bodies, it doesn’t matter what their opinions on life and religion are.
Well yeah, I said I'm okay with abortion(in the first trimester).
The thing is that those who genuinely believe that a fetus is not just alive, but also an actual human being, will also naturally believe that a woman's body doesn't belong to just her alone once she's pregnant. They believe that the fetus deserves protection from abuse just like a child who's already out of the womb does.
Originally posted by SurturWell, personally, I disagree with those pro-choice arguments, we we're agreed there. It is a life... science back that up a fair bit. A life that sadly, due to our highly imperfect society, may have to be denied entry.
It's not that I do not see the difference. What I'm saying though is that a lot of pro choice argument revolves around it not being an actual life.So if it's not a life...it's not a life under any circumstances. It wouldn't matter who is responsible for destroying it if it's not a life. That is my point.
Honestly, saying it likes that almost makes me want to be pro-life, but I know it's not sustainable or feasible to have a pro-life country at the moment, so I gotta go with practicality on the matter.
You said that you're pro-choice too, right? It's just that you find some of the most mainstream pro-choice arguments to be flawed? If so, we are pretty much on the same page.
Originally posted by Scribble
Well, personally, I disagree with those pro-choice arguments, we we're agreed there. It is a life... science back that up a fair bit. A life that sadly, due to our highly imperfect society, may have to be denied entry.Honestly, saying it likes that almost makes me want to be pro-life, but I know it's not sustainable or feasible to have a pro-life country at the moment, so I gotta go with practicality on the matter.
You said that you're pro-choice too, right? It's just that you find some of the most mainstream pro-choice arguments to be flawed? If so, we are pretty much on the same page.
Indeed yeah, I'm pro choice. I just don't like the fact there are some pro choicers who seem to think whether or not it's a life depends on the circumstances of its demise.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The thing is that those who genuinely believe that a fetus is not just alive, but also an actual human being, will also naturally believe that a woman's body doesn't belong to just her alone once she's pregnant. They believe that the fetus deserves protection from abuse just like a child who's already out of the womb does.
If someone needs an organ, you can't volunteer someone for their kidney.
So it's hard to argue a woman should be forced to give herself over as an incubater.
Of course, the reality is more complex, with various agendas and "don't give a ****" finger pointing to go around (As a sexually active male, are you going to back the option that puts you on the hook, or that has a built in exit strategy?), but where's the fun in sublety?
Originally posted by cdtm
If someone needs an organ, you can't volunteer someone for their kidney.So it's hard to argue a woman should be forced to give herself over as an incubater.
Of course, the reality is more complex, with various agendas and "don't give a ****" finger pointing to go around (As a sexually active male, are you going to back the option that puts you on the hook, or that has a built in exit strategy?), but where's the fun in sublety?
What you described to me with the kidney is a false equivalency to most situations, because presumably the hypothetical person someone is trying to volunteer for their kidney is not completely responsible for the situation where this other person needs a kidney. The pregnant woman in this situation has much more of an ethical obligation, being both this child's mother and not just some person, and through being completely responsible for the situation (assuming lack of rape). Plus this would be an active killing of the child as opposed to just not being willing to help.
Men should be held to the same standard though IMO. If you get someone pregnant, then either help them raise the baby, pay child support, or the both of you put it up for adoption.
And I'm sorry this isn't the cheap easy answer some people want where they can go out and **** whoever they want with no consequences because there are always potential consequences for sex and people just have to deal with them. I morally disagree with casual sex, but this isn't me "wanting to punish people for having sex" (which is one of the stupidest accusations I've ever heard), and I actually long for the day when this no longer needs to be a debate because birth control has been perfected or something.
Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed yeah, I'm pro choice. I just don't like the fact there are some pro choicers who seem to think whether or not it's a life depends on the circumstances of its demise.
Well Surtur, if you take a hammer to your car's windows and smash em all out, that's not a crime. If someone else does it to your car, it's a crime(vandalism) and they can/will be charged.
By your logic, I should be able to smash up your car without repercussion simply because you can. But I can't, because we have legal factors like intent, lawful and unlawfulness in the real world.
Wow I didn't think pro-choice people would actually try to defend this stupid double standard.
I actually didn't. I actually thought, defending this is beneath them.
Kinda the same thing when Antifa got brought up, I was completely caught off guard when people actually jumped to their defense like "How could you be against antifascists?!"
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Wow I didn't think pro-choice people would actually try to defend this stupid double standard.I actually didn't. I actually thought, defending this is beneath them.
Kinda the same thing when Antifa got brought up, I was completely caught off guard when people actually jumped to their defense like "How could you be against antifascists?!"
Instead of just flapping your arms about, can you address the point? Intent factors in our legal system. It's why two people can kill and one person could be charged with Manslaughter while the other could be charged with First Degree Murder, despite each having killed another person
Originally posted by Robtard
Instead of just flapping your arms about, can you address the point?
The thing is, this dude even admits in his tweet storm that embryos have value, just that they don't equal the value of people who are already born, which completely undermines his point because in almost every case abortion isn't a decision on which life gets saved and which life gets terminated. It's a complete false equivalency to the actual ethical decision of abortion. Nobody dies by not getting an abortion (except for rare cases in which I think abortion is justifiable to protect the life of the mother if she'll die if she doesn't get one).
Originally posted by Robtard
Well Surtur, if you take a hammer to your car's windows and smash em all out, that's not a crime. If someone else does it to your car, it's a crime(vandalism) and they can/will be charged.By your logic, I should be able to smash up your car without repercussion simply because you can. But I can't, because we have legal factors like intent, lawful and unlawfulness in the real world.
A car is a piece of property. Do not come at me with another asinine example you're embarrassing yourself.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
The thing is, this dude even admits in his tweet storm that embryos have value, just that they don't equal the value of people who are already born, which completely undermines his point because in almost every case abortion isn't a decision on which life gets saved and which life gets terminated. It's a complete false equivalency to the actual ethical decision of abortion. Nobody dies by not getting an abortion (except for rare cases in which I think abortion is justifiable to protect the life of the mother if she'll die if she doesn't get one).
Originally posted by Emperordmb
If it counts as another human being with a right to life, both abortion and punching a pregnant woman and killing the fetus should be considered murder. If the fetus is just considered part of the woman's body or her property, it should not be considered murder to assault a woman and cause a miscarriage, even if it's still a crime.The thing is, this dude even admits in his tweet storm that embryos have value, just that they don't equal the value of people who are already born, which completely undermines his point because in almost every case abortion isn't a decision on which life gets saved and which life gets terminated. It's a complete false equivalency to the actual ethical decision of abortion. Nobody dies by not getting an abortion (except for rare cases in which I think abortion is justifiable to protect the life of the mother if she'll die if she doesn't get one).
You'd be correct if we ignored that intent is a HUGE factor in our legal system, otherwise there would be no separation between the crime of Manslaughter and First Degree Murder as an example. When in reality and because of intent, the later carries a very much heavier penalty.