Sooooo, do Classy, Bricker, or OMG feel like telling me purple is blue? Or is everyone going to acknowledge that there are gradations in the real world?
…Because breaking a contract does not come with penalties?
…Except when it comes to abortion, and a woman not being able to revoke her consent for the fetus to “use” her body come a certain point in time. How many times have I said this?
Now this is a false statement. As I’ve pointed out an innumerable amount of times, if this were true, abortion would always be legal at any point in gestation, but it’s not. So, please, quit repeating this line, because it’s flat out inaccurate.
Wait a minute. You’re accusing me of begging the question. Aside from me being pretty sure you don’t know what it means to beg the question, how on earth are you going to accuse me of begging the question?
The point, which you somehow missed, is that pro-lifers are typically saddled with all sorts of labels, yet pro-choicers do not get labeled the opposite. If I can be anti-choice, you can be anti-life. If I can be anti-abortion, then you can be pro-abortion. As I say often, it’s quite simple.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You’re wrong. The term choice assumes nothing about the choices being equal in any way. You inserted that in your imagination. Not only that, since you liked to mention the technicalities of science earlier, one choice does not result in a dead baby. What pro choice indicates is that concerning this issue, pro choice supporters consider the individuals choice about their body to be the primary consideration. That is demonstrated by supporting full term or termination of a pregnancy."
[/quote]
I have one word for you; “no”.
Okay, so maybe I have more than just one word. No, I didn’t just imagine it. Choices are only choices because it’s assumed that there’s no qualitative differences between the two things being chosen. For example, the choice to eat macaroni or lasagna, the choice to wear red or blue or even the choice to watch TV or go to sleep. That is, these choices have minimal, if any, effect on others. They effect on your. “Choices” which negatively affect another individual, however, are not “choices”, because one is typically disallowed from choosing them. No one, for example, says that you have a choice between working for your money and mugging people for you money precisely because those two activities are qualitatively different. Sure, in the end, you get money, but one has an undeniable negative impact on another, and therefore is not allowed.
When pro-choicers start going on about choice, they assume that the choice to give birth has the same affect as choosing to have an abortion, yet this is not the case. The “choice” to have an abortion requires another forfeit his or her life. Simply going on about “choice” seeks to minimize, or even flat out ignore, this point. Just look at your post, as it’s an excellent example of this. Nowhere do you even mention the outcome, nor the effects, that “choice” has on the unborn. You just mindlessly state “choice, choice, choice” as if it means something. It doesn’t.
Let’s just cut to the chase. The correct term is pro-abortion. That’s what you really advocate for, and is the only difference between you and the pro-lifers, conveniently referenced as anti-abortion, in this thread, not some nebulous and aptly misnamed concept of choice.
Graduations of colors? Yes. Graduation of humans? No.
And fwiw, I’m still waiting for a response to post #1584, specifically the middle portion. I see heatmiserfl, so I should be getting a response real soon, I would think.
Please try to read for comprehension. We are discussing abortion. The words “Nowhere else” are not just decoration, they mean something. Abortion/pregnancy is the only place in law these concepts come up. Nowhere else in law do they come up. That is the inconsistency I’m trying to point out. When you read that, and then respond with, yes those things apply to abortion/pregnancy, that is my entire point.
You illiterate fuckwit.
Let’s go to your quote:
Begs the question. Has not been put to debate, and is put forth as a self-evident statement.
Begs the question. The definition of “choice” has not been agreed upon. The dictionary definition of choice is an act or instance of choosing; selection, and does not include ANY reference in any of its noun definitions as requiring the choices be qualitatively similar.
Begs the question. The definition of “baby” is, in fact, one of the subjects of argument here, and no definitive cite has been provided by anyone supporting a consensus view on that definition.
Begs the question. Not all pro-choicers support the action of abortion, because there is an important semantic distiction between “supporting an action” and “supporting the right to take an action”. For example, I support your right to be an idiot in this thread, but I do not support your idiocy.
There, in one paragraph, are four times you have assumed that your definitions/answers are proven, then gone to use them as though proven in future proofs.
Except I am not pro-abortion. I am neutral on the topic of abortion. I do not care if you have an abortion or not. The prefix “pro” means “in support of” in this context. I do not actively encourage abortions, therefore I am not pro-abortion. In the same vein, I do not actively fight the right to play cricket, and that doesn’t make me pro-cricket if I never go to a game and couldn’t tell you a thing about it.
You, by contrast, are against abortion. The prefix “anti” means “against”. You are anti-abortion.
If you weren’t an intellectual lightweight, you’d be smart enough to type ‘pro-abortion-rights’, which WOULD be an accurate statement, and is a distinct statement from ‘pro-abortion’.
So you’d support unrestricted driving, drinking, sexual, and voting rights for four-year-olds then? Either you’re a sick fuck, or you’re going to acknowledge that we do have graduations in the rights we allot humans by age, and then attempt to assert this has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.
For reference, I’m not responding to this, because it describes an axiomatic position I do not hold and have no interest in defending.
And in the case where she got pregnant after rape or incest, well I suppose she’s just a selfish bitch who was probably asking for it by being all slutty, right?
Anyways, if you think they are selfish bitches that’s your right. I think you are a sanctimonious, judgmental bitch, and that’s my right. Neither of us get to legislate against someone else being a bitch. Sound like a deal?
Murder as defined by the law is not a matter of opinion. But not all death is murder - in medical situations you can remove life support or apply a DNR to a patient, both of which will result in death. Causing someones death accidentally or in self-defence is not considered murder.
The fact that you choose to live in a black-and-white world and see abortion as murder *is *a matter of your personal opinion. Other people can see it as an act of compassion (no baby born into terrible circumstances), or an act of self-defence. Of course all of this depends on us agreeing with your opinion that the fetus is a person in the first place.
If she decided she could only afford to raise two children, she could give one of them to a relative to raise or surrender it to the state. Let me know when that applies to abortion, and you might have yourself a valid point there.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. What pro-choicers want is for women to be able to make the choice, NO MATTER WHICH CHOICE SHE MAKES. As an abortion clinic escort, I’ve helped women who were feeling pressured into abortions. That is, I helped them find resources so that they could continue with the pregnancy. I did not want them to have an abortion that they did not want. I wanted them to have the CHOICE of aborting or continuing the pregnancy.
It’s quite simple, really. It would be wonderful if nobody wanted or needed an abortion. Most women don’t want to have them, but are glad that they have a choice. I want women to have the choice, and I will help them with whatever they choose. I don’t want women to be slaves to their bodies.
Pregnancy is not the only place these concepts come up. Since you mentioneds contracts and consent, are you ignoring the existence of contract law? If you enter into a legal contract with someone and you break it, there are typically repercussions for doing so. In practice, no, you cannot break a contract once you enter into it. Furthermore, if you have a kid and take him/her home from the hospital, you are bound to take care of him/her for a set period of time. You can’t just up and say that you’re revoking your consent as it relates to your child to, say, live in your house, eat your food or just generally take care of them. If you tried to do so, you’d get thrown in jail for neglect, endangerment or even abuse. So I really don’t understand what you’re talking about, personally.
Before we even begin, a short lesson is in order to help you explain what begging the question is, because you’re just throwing out the term without any knowledge about what it means. To beg the question means that you assume as true in your premise what your conclusion states. Statements such as, “he’s mad because he’s angry” or, more in the vein of this thread, “sentience is important because it helps us prevent things like the unborn from being defined as sentient” would be examples of begging the question.
With that being said, two things. Number one, I would like to say that you, sir, as was stated by the cab driver in Coming to America, are one dumb fuck. Logically, if a statement which is made without being first put to debate (which is impossible, ftr) is begging the question, then every statement made has to be begging the question, as a statement must occur before it can be debated. Number two, who cares about defining what choice means? What part of my argument does that pertain to? The answer is no part. Since you clearly ignored it the first time, I’ll just restate it:
That’s an irrefutable point, as evidenced by your refusal to even acknowledge it. Begging the question my foot…
Ummm, no. Baby is a social construct, and it means what society wants it to mean. Much to your consternation, the majority of people do perceive the unborn to be as much as a baby as a born child (especially if they’re “wanted”!). Anyway, to play semantics, since you loved to do as much. Taken from the same website you took your earlier definition from:
You’re welcome.
Well, that’s it. When you devolve your argument to semantics, you’ve pretty much already lost. You very well know the point being made.
Yeah, I think you might be wanting to retry that. Only this time, with actual criticisms and an understanding of what begging the question is and isn’t.
You do realize that pro means proponent, correct? How, exactly, do you take proponent of abortion to mean you actively encourage abortions? How, exactly, do you take pro-abortion to mean you encourage abortions? Do pro-gun people encourage people to own gun? Do people who use the term pro-gay mean they encourage everyone to be gay? It seems your pro distinction you are making right now is not made anywhere else.
(And I swear this is a conversation we’ve had in the past.)
Haha! No, the correct statement is pro-abortion, much like the correct statement for me would be anti-abortion. Man, it’s funny to watch you take offense to being called pro-abortion.
Positive rights? Yes. Negative rights? No. The right to life is a negative right, and it’s not allotted based on age. A fifty year old doesn’t have a greater right to life than a forty year old; neither does a forty year old a thirty year old; a thirty year old a twenty year old; and so on and so forth. Again, please at least try to learn what you’re talking about. Of course, we all know this isn’t true and, indeed, it’s not true regarding any negative right.
Number one, learn what an axiom is and stop misusing the word. Number two, it doesn’t matter if you agree with someone else’s beliefs. If, as you and your fellow pro-choicers have asserted about a gajillion times in this thread, individuals have the right to define for themselves personhood, and that it’s wrong to force a definition of personhood unto someone who holds a different view of personhood. If this is true, then you must acknowledge that while you disagree with someone else’s definition of personhood, that they are entitled to their own beliefs and afforded the right to act in accordance to his or her beliefs about personhood.
So, please, answer the question. Don’t run away.
Great. So tell that to the guy I was responding to.
That’s great. But what’s that got to do with me asking when murder has even been a matter of personal opinion?
Again, murder is not a matter of opinion. If I have a kid and I shoot him because he’s suffering from some incurable and painful disease, whether or not I believe that to an act of compassion will be thoroughly irrelevant. I’ll be in jail. I don’t know why pro-choicers are always so quick to try to hide behind stuff like “personal opinions”.
Except, as you will see, I explicitly stated that killing it would generate a higher utility than any other action. If this is the case, then would you argue that she should be allowed to kill it? My point was very valid, especially since it was made to the guy talking about utility and utilitarianism, in general.
As negotiated, yes. Please show me the last fetus you negotiated contract-violation penalties with.
Certainly you can, at any time, provided you deal with the contracted penalties (if any, and there are not always penalties–especially, in my experience, in long-term service contracts where one person provides a service to another for a set consideration, which is a pretty close model to pregnancy. “In exchange for your support and use of your body, in return I the fetus agree to carry your genetic material forward into the next generation.”)
Safe haven laws, moron. And adoption.
You are an idiot. I have made no assertions regarding fetal personhood, because they are not relevant to my arguments for being pro-choice. I don’t have to defend the points that other people make.
The rest of your post proves you’re dumb as a box of hammers. Labeled “Hammers: One Box”. Stuck on a shelf in the back of the hammer store.
Your entire argument consists of bare definitional assertions and logical fallacies. When you’re not begging the question, you’re alternating argument from authority and argument from popularity.
I love this one too. It’s your tactic the whole time–get caught on a hook of your own argument? Just REDEFINE IT. It’s like magic!
For reference, this is the first place in the thread where you differentiated between positive rights and negative rights. Previously in the thread, you’ve only spoken of “rights”. It’s this kind of hard-nosed logical consistency we’ve come to expect from you.
And with that, I’m going to do what I should have done two dozen pages ago, and laugh my ass off at you two idiots, put yah both on the ol’ list, and stop bothering to respond to the thread unless **Bricker **graces it with a coherent pro-life post.
Still waiting for you to respond to post #1359.
That’s great. Now show me who mentioned anything about pro-choicers wanting women to have abortions? I mean, honestly. This is getting ever-so-slightly ridiculous.
I believe I should be asking you this, since you were the one who brought up contracts and consent.
All right then. In the same vein, a woman can have an abortion just so long as she agrees to the penalties involved in breaking the contract with her unborn child. Do you think jail time would be appropriate?
I didn’t forget about safe haven laws nor adoption. If you would have read, I specifically stated “if you have a kid and take him/her home from the hospital”, meaning that I’m assuming that when you take the kid home, you’ve explicitly consented to being responsible for that child’s welfare. Furthermore, the existence of adoption and safe haven laws do not render my point false. I guess it’s easier just to call me a moron than it is to have to respond to any points I make.
So you quote my posts directed towards said people who make specific claims, call my arguments fallacious, and then claim that you don’t have to defend what other pro-choicers say? Hah! Perhaps you all should get together and come up with one argument.
Your entire argument consists of bare definitional assertions and logical fallacies.
[/quote]
Again, no it’s not. You being completely unable to understand any argument being directed towards you doesn’t mean my argument is full of “bare definition assertions” (whatever the hell that means) and logical fallacies. It means you’re trying to argue a wee bit above your level. But such is the case in a debate between a pro-lifer and pro-choicer.
So aside from the fact that you still don’t know what it is to beg the question (no surprise there), you’re not accusing me of engaging in appeals to authority and arguments from popularity? Well now, that’s just dumb.
If quoting scientific textbooks/articles/scientists themselves to show that the notion that the unborn at all gestation ages aren’t humans is appealing to authority (which it isn’t), then I’ll gladly revel in that accusation. If pointing out to cosmosdan that he’s wrong when he thinks that “many of [my] fellow citizens” don’t think the way I do is making an argument from popularity, then I’ll also revel in that. Apparently, pro-choicers can make all sorts of claims without evidence, but the moment you provide evidence to the contrary, then you’re engaging in a fallacy. Makes sense if you don’t think about it too hard.
No, I haven’t mentioned them by name, but if you were to read my posts, you would have been seeing me talk about the right to act and the right not to be acted against, and how the right to act shouldn’t trump the right to be acted again, or even me asserting that arguing that the right to act to be greater than the right to not to be acted against to be ridiculous. But, hey, a cursory glance at my posts which have told you this, which leads me to believe you haven’t been. Either that, or you don’t understand them.
Oh, yeah. Can’t say I’ll the conversations. As the saying goes, don’t let the door hit ya’ where the good Lord split ya’
It strikes me that those protesting at women’s health clinics are doing that rather than actually helping the women because the former choice (heheh) provides the protesters the opportunity to publicly assail someone while the latter choice is a quite, even charitable, act.
I might be wrong, but sadly probably not far wrong on this.
Well, this is where you and I will have to stay at an impasse, then. I think consequences are important, you think they’re not.
Shouldn’t? No, only that if you tried to emancipate a slave society and there weren’t alternatives at the ready (such as mechanization), the effort would probably fail. I cheerfully admit I’m not an expert on the history of slavery. It’s my general understanding that it started to formally disappear with the rise of feudalism (though in some places slavery merely morphed into serfdom) and by the early days of mechanization, it was pretty much abolished across the western nations except the southern United States, which looks like quite the stubborn holdout and I think one of the few places in the west where it took an actual war to end the practice.
Anyway, I’ve answered the question as best I can without engaging in a lengthy self-education on the history of slavery (and note that I’ve said “in the west” a few times, i.e. Europe and the Americas, because I really don’t want to delve into slavery issues in Asia and Africa), something of (at best) questionable relevance to the abortion issue. I don’t know what you think I’ve tried to avoid.
Well, there certainly isn’t a universal legal definition for murder, what with various venues having their own definitions of first- and second-degree murder, and various definitions of manslaughter, voluntary and involuntary… and of course you can willfully and intentionally kill someone in some places and meet the standard for self-defense or justification… heck, in the U.S. alone, I assume there are 51 definitions for murder - one for each state and one for the Feds. They mostly overlap, I’m sure, but with a few subtle variations here and there.
Anyway, if in your personal opinion abortion is murder, good for you. I don’t agree with you, for the various reasons I’ve already spelled out at length. Fortunately, Canadian law doesn’t agree with you, either.
In fact, do any of the states have pre-Roe laws on their books that define abortion as murder? I don’t know, truth be told.
I’ll admit the possibility that there exists a woman who is so screwed up that this seems to her to be a good course of action, but why would I want to slap a restriction of millions of other women because one of them is nuts? That’s a piss-poor way to formulate policy. Besides, I don’t care if the woman has a good reason or a bad reason to seek an abortion - as far as I’m concerned, she has the right to seek an abortion, and she doesn’t have have to justify exercising that right, just like I don’t have to justify my right to freedom of expression when I paint something or write something.
I figure if you have to show a reason to exercise a right, then it’s not really a right - it’s something you have to get permission for.
Actually, on reflection, I can think of one fictional example - an early Law & Order episode in which a woman, at the prompting of her boyfriend or husband (I forget which) seduces her boss, gets pregnant, then has her husband assault her in a way that causes her to abort, framing the boss for the assault, all in a rather complicated scheme with the goal of a massive civil suit… checking… the episode was from L&O’s second season, broadcast in 1991, titled (heh) Misconception. The pregnant woman was played by Molly Price, very early in her career, a few years before she would go on to star in Third Watch.
I remember not being satisfied with how the episode ended, and it was a pretty weird and convoluted premise in the first place, but… no, it didn’t have any effect on my pro-choice views.
Fine, I’m responsible for its welfare. I also want the authority to withdraw my support for its welfare, i.e. the fact that I’ve created something doesn’t make me a permanent slave to its needs. Scientists in labs can consign their gene-spliced creations to the incinerator or even dissect them in the process of studying them. A pregnant woman can go to the clinic. I fail to see the contradiction.
If you’re about to claim that the above paragraph means I clearly believe parents should be allowed to kill their children… spare me.
Well, assuming this is true and anyone who does an action is not qualified to judge if that action is okay, who gets to decide if something’s okay “in actuality” ? Why should she take your word for it, or anyone’s word for it?
What you’re basically arguing is that nobody should do anything without checking with some authority to see if it’s okay, because if it’s something you want to do, your own ability to evaluate if it’s okay is hopelessly compromised.
I’ve never read or seen or used a definition of “choice” that casually assumed the results were similar or equal. The difference could be trivial, but this isn’t automatic.
Trivial Choice: Have Coke or Pepsi with your sandwich.
Not-so-Trivial Choice: Get a job or go to college.
Use fo the word “choice” is perfectly valid in both cases, even if the weight of the choice and the ramifications are far greater in the second case.
Basically, I’ve no idea where you’re getting this “equal outcome” stuff and I decline to indulge you further in discussing it.
It’s quite simply wrong, but I’m not indulging you in this, either.
Fine, think of the worst possible label you could put on pro-choicers and start using it. I don’t care - it won’t challenge my arguments or bolster yours.
No, I don’t find anything about you odd. This last bit of semantic nonsense fits in nicely with all your previous uses of semantic nonsense. I honestly don’t see the point in trying to follow your attempts at linguistic gymnastics while you remain aggressively indifferent to real-world consequences.
We are? I’m not comfortable making that assumption. The legality of abortion allows it to be regulated for safety. If it were aggressively banned, doctors jailed, safe abortifacients confiscated… women will still be getting pregnant and many will want very much not to stay pregnant and, deprived of safe methods, will resort to unsafe ones. Is that an illogical sequence?
Of course, if you’re indifferent to results, I guess it makes no difference.
Sure, she’ll end her pregnancy or she’ll continue her pregnancy. That’s her choice.
I don’t get your point. I’m not getting a lot of your points, actually.
Now you’ve got me curious what “recent history” you’re using as an example that suggests that sometime in the mid-2020s, some “group” in Canada is going to see its civil rights curtailed. Besides, you’ve claimed that real-world consequences don’t matter - do they matter if they’re bad in some vaguely-defined way? You can’t have it both ways and be taken seriously - you suggest something bad could happen in 15 years if Canada doesn’t recriminalize abortion, yet I get dismissed when I point out specific bad things that will almost certainly happen if the U.S. broadly bans abortion, because my suggested outcomes don’t matter but yours do?
I’m curious about what mysterious Canadian group is going to lose their rights soon. I wonder if **OMG **can tell us what to look out for so that we know when this dreaded event starts to happen, because I’m quite skeptical. I was assured that some mystical ill would befall Canada after we legalized gay marriage, and I’ve been sorely disappointed. I’m still waiting for people to start marrying dogs and cats and the fire and brimstone and whatnot.
I think the given timeframe for that was 40 years, so I guess we won’t see the negative effects (or even know what they’ll likely be) until ~2045.
Okay, that’s a valid point. Is it accurate to say that pregnancy is the only situation where we consider the possibility of one life demanding the physical enslavement of another?
It’s simple all right. It’s a nonsensical method of assigning a label.
This is obviously incorrect to anyone who spends 5 minutes {probably less} thinking about what choices people have to make in life.
It’s ludicrous and insulting for you to use mundane choices like this as a relevant example. They don’t apply in any way.
This is also clearly false to anyone who takes a few minutes to think about it.
We’ve already given several examples in this thread where people are allowed to make choices which have a great negative impact on others and are allowed.
Can I choose to not give my blood in a life saving transfusion? A kidney, bone marrow? Can a businessman decide to close a factory and put hundreds of people out of work, with no pay or benefits. Your argument obviously fails with just a little thought.
Unless you can establish some ability to read minds this is also obvious nonsense as an argument. It’s as I said. Pro Choice supporters believe that the ability to choose in this particular issue is of primary importance and it is the choice of the individual , yes or no, that they support.
It does neither, except in your personal opinion, which happens to be worth no more than any other. Your conclusions consistently assume that your perceptions of human life and rights are correct. You haven’t established that as the case. Pro choice only requires that someone believes that a woman has certain rights over the life that is growing within her, rather than the other way around. That’s exactly why viability and the health of the mother are relevant, not only to pro choice folks but pro life as well. There’s not an absolute that requires a pregnant woman who’s life is at great risk, to continue with the pregnancy is there?
Since choice and the associated concept of human rights and personal liberty permeates our legal system and principles, you’ll have to make a much better argument than this condescending drivel.
You have failed to make anything like a convincing argument for this and repetition of nonsense won’t cut it.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Shouldn’t? No, only that if you tried to emancipate a slave society and there weren’t alternatives at the ready (such as mechanization), the effort would probably fail. I cheerfully admit I’m not an expert on the history of slavery. It’s my general understanding that it started to formally disappear with the rise of feudalism (though in some places slavery merely morphed into serfdom) and by the early days of mechanization, it was pretty much abolished across the western nations except the southern United States, which looks like quite the stubborn holdout and I think one of the few places in the west where it took an actual war to end the practice.
[/quote]
And yet, this doesn’t answer the question posed to you, which I’m fairly sure you know. I don’t care about the history of slavery and mechanization and whatnot. My question was whether or not you would argue that in a society in which slavery is legal, that the slaves shouldn’t be emancipated if that society couldn’t cope with such a situation. It’s a simple question which requires a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, and possible a line of two of rationalization. So, please, answer the question instead of going of on unrelated tangents which I know you know are unrelated tangents.
You neither answered, nor attempted to address, the question. So try again.
That’s great, but it doesn’t answer my question. Since when is murder a matter of personal opinion?
Again, we’re not talking about abortion right now. We’re talking about murder. I want to know when murder is a matter of opinion. I want to know when you can just go “Oh, well, I don’t think it’s murder!” and engage in an action.
I don’t know. Lousiana is one, I think. It’s not relevant, anyway.
Yes, a woman like that possibly exists, but really that’s not the point looking to be addressed here. Again, there’s a question just begging for an answer that you ignored.
This is becoming quite the theme of this series of responses, but that doesn’t answer my question. Yes, we know what she can do. I’m asking you, both in the situation I provided you and the context of abortion, Why one shouldn’t be held responsible for the welfare of that which exists solely because of his/her actions?
The law does. And if the law fails to do so, then it’s inept. You wouldn’t argue that, say, me deciding to rob a couple of banks is a-okay because I found it to be a-okay, would you? You wouldn’t dare argue that the fact that I engaged in a bank robbery must mean it’s okay to rob a bank, would you? As I read somewhere, people are trusted with freedom because they are generally trusted not to do wrong as autonomous moral agents. When they do wrongs, like murder, robbery, rape, etc., we do not “trust” them by saying that an action is all right just because it was all right with them.
More or less, yup.
That’s probably because no one made that assertion.
You’re going to have to show me where I said anything about trivial or non-trivial choices.
You’re going to have to show me where I said it wasn’t.
I’ve said this many times, but how do you complain about a straw man while engaging in one yourself?
I said nothing about equal outcomes or the two choices being similar. I said, to play semantics, that choice is a misnomer because, as it’s used in abortion, it assumes the two choices are qualitatively similar or equal in this outcomes. Again, I’ll just quote myself (as I did for that other guy) since you ignored this:
Emphasis mine.
That’s… great? Who was trying to change or bolster an argument by pointing out that pro-choice is the incorrect term?
It amazes me how I, as as pro-lifer, can be labeled the opposite of what you are but you, as a pro-choicer, can’t be labeled the opposite of what I am. That is truly, as you put it, semantic nonsense and linguistic gymnastics.
It’s a very safe (hah!) assumption to make. One of the most common pro-choice arguments is that making abortions illegal would make them unsafe, though this is incorrect. Abortions do not become “safe” because they are legal; abortions are “safe” so long as the country in which they are performed has access to advances in modern medicine. For example, if you were to look at the number fof women who dies from illegal abortions in the U.S. dating back to the 1930’s, you would notice a clear downward trend long before the first state legalized abortion or even Roe v. Wade which coincides with advances in medicine, a fact reiterated in 1960 by the [then director of Planned Parenthood](then director of Planned Parenthood):
I’d be willing to bet it’s the same thing in any other country. Now, by virtue of having a sizeable population, you’ll always that one dumb woman who would do something stupid, but this does not make the aforementioned untrue.
That’s not an answer to why does it matter how she accomplishes becoming non-pregnant.
Oh, nothing. Just speaking out loud, mainly.