Look, I’m pro-choice enough to have done escort shifts, donated, written letters, whatever.
Do not do this. It is a complete dick move, and doesn’t accomplish anything aside from the petty thrill of tweaking Bricker’s nose.
I agree. So what? It is still infringing on the mother’s essential right to her own bodily autonomy.
I’ve said it in other threads: Every contract can be broken, with no more punishment than the penalties specified in the contract. Any act consented to can have consent revoked at any time, including in the middle of the act. Why should pregnancy be different?
So, if a fully grown person’s life is at risk, other people cannot be compelled to save it.
If a fetus’ life is at risk, another person CAN be compelled to support it.
Do you understand why this position can appear contradictory?
Let’s adjust the kidney analogy:
You agree to give me a kidney transplant. I make plans and preparations for this eventuality. On the day of the transplant, after a month of preparation on both our parts, you decide not to go through with it. Should you be forced to do so anyway?
I consider the above scenario exactly equivalent to a pregnancy ending in abortion. By having sex, you could make (I do not agree, but I am using your apparent axiomatic base) an argument that you consent to become pregnant and support the fetus. If you can withdraw your consent to support me in the above scenario, why can’t a mother withdraw her consent to support the fetus in a pregnancy?
Does it ever even give you pause, that such a large segment of your movement, share the intellectual capacity of classyladyph?
Heck, I figure if she and I were ever on the same side of an issue, I’d want to argue my case especially clearly out of concern that someone would assume that since she believed it, it was wrong.
Ad hominem fallacy.
Ad hominem fallacy.
Attack the poster not the argument. Exactly as I predicted.
Like I said. I am not the one who caused your kidney’s to fail and you are a stranger to me. I have no obligation to save your life.
So you are basing it on your own personal beliefs that you cannot prove.
Nice try. I asked you to prove that a fetus in not a human being. You can’t can you?
Ad hominem fallacy. Attack the person rather than the argument.
You do know when you talk like that you sound like a toddler right?
Should I stoop to your level as well. Idiot.
Just in case you’re missing the point, I’m making a reference to what you said earlier and anyone in general who FEELS, the “from the moment of conception” argument.
I don’t actually believe any such thing. I’m pointing out that groundless, fact free beliefs are easy to assert. At some point we have to decide that facts matter when we’re making decisions about how society will be governed and what our laws are.
You had an argument? When? As far as I can tell it was just “baby-killer” this and “baby-killer” that.
Bricker and Omg a Black Conservative, now they had arguments. Not especially good ones, I thought, but ones worth engaging. You’re just… lost.
It’s true. Abortion is baby killing. I wonder why that term bothers pro-choicers so much?
It’s more than a nice try. It’s the tradition of the SDMB, and logic in general. You made an assertion of something as fact. It’s up to you to prove it.
It’s like asking someone to prove God doesn’t exist. They can’t. But you don’t get to impose that belief on people as fact simply because they can’t prove God doesn’t exist. If you want to impose a law on people that don’t share your belief then you need something solid to convince them, more than your personal feeling and and asserting your right to believe it.
That’s kinda the point of pro choice. I don’t have to prove anything to assert a person’s right to choose either or. If you want to make a law that imposes your personal morality on others the bur don of proof is on you. It’s one anti abortion folks can’t meet.
What bothers me is the profound ignorance of people trying to pass off their opinion as fact. I feel a certain obligation to call that shit out.
What?? Then why do anti abortionists try so hard to interfere in the lives of strangers? Is it just arbitrary who’s lives they try to save, rather than a moral obligation? As always the arguments seem to lack consistency.
Argument from ignorance.I’ll give you an example: I assert that it is not sex that creates embryos, but a direct intervention from the Spaghetti Monster. Prove it isn’t. You can’t, can you ?
*You *made that blanket assertion that “science says a fetus is a human being” in the first place. It’s up to you to prove it is true, not to anyone else to disprove your nonsense.
cosmodan, you’re being remarkably civil towards this cretinous creature, but I don’t think your reason and logic is going to get through her gelatinous head.
Well done for trying though!! 
BTW, I’m happy to ask a mod to close this dumbed-down thread if anyone else agrees. I’m a bit over it now, seems like a good waste of the intraweb to keep it going.
Exactly, you have nothing beyond this attempt at spurring outrage. I’m not bothered by your use of the term. As far as I know it’s all you have.
Heck, for the sake of argument I’ll even agree - abortion is baby-killing. Now convince me abortion should be illegal, assuming you believe that. Tell me how the law will be enforced, what the penalty should be, what you think the consequences will be. Warn me what will happen if abortion continues as is in the U.S., or if restrictions are loosened. Tell what will happen if the million or so aborted fetuses per year in the U.S. are instead delivered and adopted out, then tell me what happens the following year when a million fetuses are delivered and not adopted out, because the demand for adoption was largely satisfied.
Basically, give me some sign that you’ve thought the issue through beyond “baby-killing.”
Don’t you think you’re being a bit demanding?