Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Socialist Nordia]

...by controlling women's lives, bodies, bodily resources, etc. without consent...

Before we go any further, how does the pro-life movement seek to "control women's lives," and how is abortion a "necessity"? I hear that sort of rhetoric pretty commonly from pro-choicers in this thread.

If we acknowledge that a foetus is human, then clearly the pro life movement seeks to give that human the right to control the bodily resources of the woman. It receives all of its nutrients from the woman, uses the woman as waste disposal, and uses space within her body. If that foetus does not have consent from the woman, then she is having her body taken advantage of against her will. Any other human does not have the right to use another's body against their will, so naturally a foetus also does not have that right, due to the principle of bodily sovereignty.

[Mattopilos]

...by controlling women's lives, bodies, bodily resources, etc. without consent...

Before we go any further, how does the pro-life movement seek to "control women's lives," and how is abortion a "necessity"? I hear that sort of rhetoric pretty commonly from pro-choicers in this thread.

They control women's lives by limiting their choices through their moral bullshittery.
No one claims it is necessary all the time. They claim it is a choice they can make as an adult, and that removing that right is wrong. It isn't like they are going up to new-borns and stabbing them or anything: they are not yet babies, and very few abortions occur in the late stages.

[Neo Bavaria]

Before we go any further, how does the pro-life movement seek to "control women's lives," and how is abortion a "necessity"? I hear that sort of rhetoric pretty commonly from pro-choicers in this thread.

Let's see. For starters, you seek to force women who do not consent to being pregnant to give up nine months worth of their lives, bodily resources, and bodily space to a borderline parasitic organism, as well as expect the woman in question to do so with no qualms and no questions asked; whether it interferes in their lives or not.

Abortion is a necessity because it allows women to stop being pregnant if they do not consent to being such.

By that same token is it misandrists trying to seize "control of men's lives" if we ask men to pay child support even if they don't want a child?

[Neo Bavaria]

Before we go any further, how does the pro-life movement seek to "control women's lives," and how is abortion a "necessity"? I hear that sort of rhetoric pretty commonly from pro-choicers in this thread.

If we acknowledge that a foetus is human, then clearly the pro life movement seeks to give that human the right to control the bodily resources of the woman. It receives all of its nutrients from the woman, uses the woman as waste disposal, and uses space within her body. If that foetus does not have consent from the woman, then she is having her body taken advantage of against her will. Any other human does not have the right to use another's body against their will, so naturally a foetus also does not have that right, due to the principle of bodily sovereignty.

I will point out right now that I am pro-choice, just before this turns into a shit fest, but how is it even remotely possible to make a moralistic argument that one human's right to live is less important than another's right not to bear a child? I'm not a woman so I'll never be able to personally compare this, but I'm sure most women would, for themselves, certainly choose the pain of childbirth over being killed. If you're going to argue it is, let's just be frank with what you're hinting, rape for a child to "infest" a woman that doesn't want to keep it, aren't you basically arguing that even though a foetus is both alive (certainly a requirement of committing rape) and conscious enough to be aware of what it's doing (yet another requirement of rape), that it has no other rights we would assign to any other living creature that displayed both of those traits?

[Neo Bavaria]

Before we go any further, how does the pro-life movement seek to "control women's lives," and how is abortion a "necessity"? I hear that sort of rhetoric pretty commonly from pro-choicers in this thread.

They control women's lives by limiting their choices through their moral bullshittery.
No one claims it is necessary all the time. They claim it is a choice they can make as an adult, and that removing that right is wrong. It isn't like they are going up to new-borns and stabbing them or anything: they are not yet babies, and very few abortions occur in the late stages.

How is it "moral bullshittery"? They legitimately believe that abortion is murder, you don't. The fact that you have a difference of opinion in regard to this issue does not mean they're committing "moral bullshittery" for the sake of some kind of conspiracy to control the lives of all women everywhere through their uterus.

[The V O I D]

Let's see. For starters, you seek to force women who do not consent to being pregnant to give up nine months worth of their lives, bodily resources, and bodily space to a borderline parasitic organism, as well as expect the woman in question to do so with no qualms and no questions asked; whether it interferes in their lives or not.

Abortion is a necessity because it allows women to stop being pregnant if they do not consent to being such.

By that same token is it misandrists trying to seize "control of men's lives" if we ask men to pay child support even if they don't want a child?

I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.

[Neo Bavaria]

By that same token is it misandrists trying to seize "control of men's lives" if we ask men to pay child support even if they don't want a child?

I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.

Wow, that's actually a really rare position, good for you not being a hypocrite.

Since you're 100% on-the-level with this, I really have nothing else to argue about.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

By that same token is it misandrists trying to seize "control of men's lives" if we ask men to pay child support even if they don't want a child?

I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.

I agree, although I have a mix of both pro-choice and pro-life, the mother should have the right to an abortion, she has to make this decision before the child becomes sentient, around 18 weeks if I'm correct, if she can't make the decision by that time she has to keep it, if she can make it by that time then she decides whether to keep it or lose it, the Man in my belief should be given the choice of whether or not to pull out of the relationship with the child by the same timeframe the women has, without the consequences of child support or having to look after it.

[Godular]

I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.

Wow, that's actually a really rare position, good for you not being a hypocrite.

Since you're 100% on-the-level with this, I really have nothing else to argue about.

You might notice that in my portion of the OP I state that I support the same.

[Godular]

I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.

I agree, although I have a mix of both pro-choice and pro-life, the mother should have the right to an abortion, she has to make this decision before the child becomes sentient, around 18 weeks if I'm correct, if she can't make the decision by that time she has to keep it, if she can make it by that time then she decides whether to keep it or lose it, the Man in my belief should be given the choice of whether or not to pull out of the relationship with the child by the same timeframe the women has, without the consequences of child support or having to look after it.

24 weeks is when the fetus develops coherent synaptic patterns.

Sentience... probably several months into infancy.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I agree, although I have a mix of both pro-choice and pro-life, the mother should have the right to an abortion, she has to make this decision before the child becomes sentient, around 18 weeks if I'm correct, if she can't make the decision by that time she has to keep it, if she can make it by that time then she decides whether to keep it or lose it, the Man in my belief should be given the choice of whether or not to pull out of the relationship with the child by the same timeframe the women has, without the consequences of child support or having to look after it.

24 weeks is when the fetus develops coherent synaptic patterns.

Sentience... probably several months into infancy.

Lack of the words, just decided to use sentient, but I meant 24 weeks.

[Godular]

...by controlling women's lives, bodies, bodily resources, etc. without consent...

Before we go any further, how does the pro-life movement seek to "control women's lives," and how is abortion a "necessity"? I hear that sort of rhetoric pretty commonly from pro-choicers in this thread.

By denying women the right to control their own bodies, and it is a necessity in that it enables a woman to control her own body. And you never really have presented a satisfactory counterargument.

[Stellonia]

Before we go any further, how does the pro-life movement seek to "control women's lives," and how is abortion a "necessity"? I hear that sort of rhetoric pretty commonly from pro-choicers in this thread.

By denying women the right to control their own bodies, and it is a necessity in that it enables a woman to control her own body. And you never really have presented a satisfactory counterargument.

Why is it a necessity for women to be able to "control their bodies" at the expense of human lives? And if it is, then how does it outweigh the necessity of defending human life?

Mind you, I still believe that life trumps bodily sovereignty, and you'll need a pretty compelling argument to change my mind.

[Godular]

By denying women the right to control their own bodies, and it is a necessity in that it enables a woman to control her own body. And you never really have presented a satisfactory counterargument.

Why is it a necessity for women to be able to "control their bodies" at the expense of human lives?

Self-defense. We've been over this.

And if it is, then how does it outweigh the necessity of defending human life?

Self-defense.

Mind you, I still believe that life trumps bodily sovereignty, and you'll need a pretty compelling argument to change my mind.

You're wrong. Self-defense.

In any event, you don't need to ban abortion to reduce the number of abortions. That just attempts to slap a band-aid on the gushing artery wound.

[Neo Bavaria]

By denying women the right to control their own bodies, and it is a necessity in that it enables a woman to control her own body. And you never really have presented a satisfactory counterargument.

Why is it a necessity for women to be able to "control their bodies" at the expense of human lives? And if it is, then how does it outweigh the necessity of defending human life?

Mind you, I still believe that life trumps bodily sovereignty, and you'll need a pretty compelling argument to change my mind.

I'm just going to borrow an argument from the Pro-Gun Lobby and point out that they are called "Rights" and not "Needs" for a reason. You don't need to prove or disprove anything about a right, it is an inherent quality that all people have. You have the right to advocate for your political opinion without being censored, you don't need to prove anything about its necessity or lack thereof, it is your right.

[Nariterrr]

Why is it a necessity for women to be able to "control their bodies" at the expense of human lives?

A human fetus that has not developed fully does not have the same rights as a full human being.

And if it is, then how does it outweigh the necessity of defending human life?

Because it is a matter of choice.

Mind you, I still believe that life trumps bodily sovereignty, and you'll need a pretty compelling argument to change my mind.

True, but only when taking into account that the two humans beings are fully formed, living, and out of a women's vagina. In the case of the fetus, it lives off the women, and thus bodily sovereignty in this instance outweighs the right to life of a fetus.

[Stellonia]

Why is it a necessity for women to be able to "control their bodies" at the expense of human lives?

Self-defense. We've been over this.

And if it is, then how does it outweigh the necessity of defending human life?

Self-defense.

Mind you, I still believe that life trumps bodily sovereignty, and you'll need a pretty compelling argument to change my mind.

You're wrong. Self-defense.

I invoke Dictionary.com and its definition of self-defense: "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant." Said source defines "attack" as "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with." According to the latter definition, a fetus cannot attack its mother; ergo, "self-defense" is not a valid argument.

In any event, you don't need to ban abortion to reduce the number of abortions. That just attempts to slap a band-aid on the gushing artery wound.

I just want to reduce the number of abortions. I firmly believe in tackling the root causes of abortion, but if a ban would reduce the number of abortions, then I would support that as well.

[Wallenburg]

I invoke Dictionary.com and its definition of self-defense: "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant." Said source defines "attack" as "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with." According to the latter definition, a fetus cannot attack its mother; ergo, "self-defense" is not a valid argument.

Oooh, Dictionary.com offering a layman's definition for a legal term! So superior!

self-defense

n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery or homicide. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or use excessive force. Examples: an unarmed man punches Allen Alibi, who hits the attacker with a baseball bat. That is legitimate self-defense, but Alibi cannot chase after the attacker and shoot him or beat him senseless. If the attacker has a gun or a butcher knife and is verbally threatening, Alibi is probably warranted in shooting him. Basically, appropriate self-defense is judged on all the circumstances. Reasonable force can also be used to protect property from theft or destruction. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved, as is the case in most burglaries, muggings or vandalism.

I just want to reduce the number of abortions. I firmly believe in tackling the root causes of abortion, but if a ban would reduce the number of abortions, then I would support that as well.

Except it really won't. It will just make them far more dangerous.

[Stellonia]

I invoke Dictionary.com and its definition of self-defense: "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant." Said source defines "attack" as "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with." According to the latter definition, a fetus cannot attack its mother; ergo, "self-defense" is not a valid argument.

Oooh, Dictionary.com offering a layman's definition for a legal term! So superior!

self-defense

n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery or homicide. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or use excessive force. Examples: an unarmed man punches Allen Alibi, who hits the attacker with a baseball bat. That is legitimate self-defense, but Alibi cannot chase after the attacker and shoot him or beat him senseless. If the attacker has a gun or a butcher knife and is verbally threatening, Alibi is probably warranted in shooting him. Basically, appropriate self-defense is judged on all the circumstances. Reasonable force can also be used to protect property from theft or destruction. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved, as is the case in most burglaries, muggings or vandalism.

Thanks for finding me a better definition for my argument. Does the mother "have reason to believe she is in danger"? For most pregnancies, this is not the case.

[Godular]

Self-defense. We've been over this.


Self-defense.


You're wrong. Self-defense.

I invoke Dictionary.com and its definition of self-defense: "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant." Said source defines "attack" as "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with." According to the latter definition, a fetus cannot attack its mother; ergo, "self-defense" is not a valid argument.

Yes it is. Your inability to read your own definition does not count as support for your argument.

Let's start with the first bit:

self-defense: "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant."

As a fetus is causing physical harm to the woman by taking resources from her (particularly if such is without her consent), the woman is permitted to use whatever force she deems necessary to rectify the situation and prevent further harm from being inflicted upon her person.

attack: "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with."

Note the use of 'or'. In this situation, the fact that the fetus simply is taking resources from the woman within which it resides is a matter of force. So yes, a fetus can be deemed an attacker.

In any event, you don't need to ban abortion to reduce the number of abortions. That just attempts to slap a band-aid on the gushing artery wound.

I just want to reduce the number of abortions. I firmly believe in tackling the root causes of abortion, but if a ban would reduce the number of abortions, then I would support that as well.

It won't.

[Godular]

Oooh, Dictionary.com offering a layman's definition for a legal term! So superior!

Thanks for finding me a better definition for my argument. Does the mother "have reason to believe she is in danger"? For most pregnancies, this is not the case.

Absolutely. Remember that whole 'Pregnancy is a life-threatening condition' thing? If the woman decides she does not wish to experience the risks inherent to pregnancy at that time, it would be wrong to deny her the right to protect herself.

[Wallenburg]

I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.

Wow, that's actually a really rare position, good for you not being a hypocrite.

Since you're 100% on-the-level with this, I really have nothing else to argue about.

It really isn't that rare. Godular has pointed out he shares this position. I do as well. Several other pro-choicers on this thread do so as well.

[Quokkastan]

I just want to reduce the number of abortions. I firmly believe in tackling the root causes of abortion, but if a ban would reduce the number of abortions, then I would support that as well.

Encourage everyone you know to stop putting up billboards and start investing in fetal transplant and artificial womb research.

Then the issue will be solved forever.

[Wallenburg]

Thanks for finding me a better definition for my argument. Does the mother "have reason to believe she is in danger"? For most pregnancies, this is not the case.

Pregnancy inherently causes bodily harm, and most certainly poses serious risks of danger. So, actually, it is always the case for pregnancies.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Wow, that's actually a really rare position, good for you not being a hypocrite.

Since you're 100% on-the-level with this, I really have nothing else to argue about.

It really isn't that rare. Godular has pointed out he shares this position. I do as well. Several other pro-choicers on this thread do so as well.

I share the opinion, although reluctantly.