Right.
And now, thanks to me forcing you to, you’re beginning to confront his real argument instead of a straw man.
(And of course he’d simply repeat that none of your real-world stats justify the killing of children. And you’d offer more stats. And you’d both get nowhere, because you simply disagree on one fundamental point – whether a pregnancy contains a being worthy of legal protection similar to a person, or not – and that’s all that really matters in this debate. But whatever.)
And I don’t think you could possibly be more wrong about that.
Are you even listening to anything they have to say? Or just listening to what pro-choicers say about what they think?
I’m not sure how anyone could think that fetuses should have even more rights than people. That sounds like the complain that gays want “special rights” rather than simply equal rights.
Yes, and it is extremely clear nobody believes a fetus should have the “same protection” as a person.
A person has no right to camp inside your body, no right to sustenance from your body. Even if you were to go crazy and chop out a person’s kidneys, thus having full responsibility for their predicament, you would still not be required to donate one of your own.
On the other hand, the death of a person would be heavily investigated. Nobody advocates for miscarriages to spawn murder investigations.
Well, nobody hs the right to use your body without your permission. But anti-abortion people want to give the fetus that very right.
According to EVERY anti-abortion protestor I’ve talked with:
Having sex outside of marriage is wrong.
Getting pregnant outside of marriage is wrong.
Giving birth outside of marriage is right.
And they say two wrongs don’t make a right.
You need to stop posting and start reading, because that’s exactly what most pro-lifers believe.
Go tell them.
Well, actually, some do.
But this isn’t about miscarriage, it’s about deliberate abortion. It’s about abortion=murder. That’s the basic formulation of most of the pro-life movement. How did you miss that?
Yeah.
So what?
That doesn’t change their beliefs about the status of the fetus.
One can be pro-choice and believe all those things too.
You are? I am? The argument you’re presenting on behalf of the hypothetical pro-lifer is very unrealistic and touchy-feely and appeals to emotion and whatnot. Idealistic, even. Why I have to treat it with some kind of deference is unclear to me.
Well, where I “get” is a liberal democracy where abortion is legal. Mission accomplished, though I need to keep up the eternal vigilance to prevent idealistic reactionaries from fumbling it away.
And the legal status of the fetus is certainly not all that really matters (well, maybe that’s so for the pro-lifer, which is why his position is not a realistic one), but, whatever.
Depends.
The pregnancy may be very much wanted in the sense that the pregnant woman very much wants to have that particular child. And still that same pregnancy may become unwanted for various medical reasons. It is a horrid decision.
A single friend went through IVF and managed to conceive. She was elated. Further along the doctor advised her to abort due to complications which would likely result in the death of both my friend and her baby. Cruel decision to have to make.
No, it really isn’t. Many do consider abortion murder, yes. But they do not want to give a fetus the “same protection” as a person. They want to give it the right not to be aborted, a right that makes no sense for a person, and which conflicts with the closest parallel situations for a person.
Most wouldn’t care, because (wait for it)…
Never, at any point, did they believe a fetus should have the same rights as a person.
It was never their goal to give a fetus the rights of a person, so arguments along those lines are meaningless to them.
Exactly. And how do you know if it was a natural miscarriage or an abortion=murder?
How do we know the woman don’t do something that caused the miscarriage? Had a glass of wine, took an asprin, had some caffeine or even “thought bad thoughts”?
The point, I think, is that given all the OTHER things that anti-abortion folks generally believe, it’s reasonable to assume that their position DOES stem from woman-hating, even though you could THEORETICALLY derive a strong anti-abortion position from an abortion=murder stance.
Wow, the OP really poisoned the well right out of the gate. It’s easy to dismiss things as woman-hating when you define that to mean “anything the woman doesn’t like,” which is basically “anything not pro-choice.”
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! That’s it, you got it. I’m not sure what the other 60 posts in this thread were for, but we could’ve stopped right here.
Why should the acts be called ‘shameful’? There’s no shame in carrying your baby to term. There is shame in killing it because you don’t want it anymore.
Says you. Says me, sometimes murder is OK, like on the battlefield or in death row. Or when no one consented to helping the victim live.
The only thing shameful here is having an abortion when you already consented to birthing the kid, i.e. consented to sex. Consent to sex= consent to parenthood. That goes for both sexes.
Of course, when you think about it, pro-choicers are basically fetus-hating.
Again, says you. Says me, a fetus and a child are different. Killing a child is always wrong. Killing a fetus is sometimes wrong, depending on whether the child was conceived consentually.
What are you talking about?! The mother gave the fetus that right when she had sex! She can’t just revoke it because she feels like it.
And what have these abortion protestors said about the rape and incest exclusions? Pro-lifers like myself, who believe in those exceptions, do not think those first two things, nor are they meaningful to the viewpoint.
What a weird little moral knot you’ve tied yourself into.
So it’s okay to kill a person if no one has consented to take responsibility for that person? :eek:
Hmmm … here’s an orphaned child. There’s no one left who consented to helping him, therefore it’s okay for us to kill him!
The reasoning of the “pro-life” position, taken to it’s logical conclusion, turns people in monsters.
Okay, so the two sides are completely equal. Nothing to favor one over the other.
Except…one tries to regulate other people’s behaviors, and the other doesn’t. One intrudes on individual freedom, and the other allows people to choose for themselves.
(Well, if he can be simplistic, why can’t I?)
There is no “individual freedom” to murder someone.
First of all, it’s willful ignorance to keep saying “taken to its logical conclusion” when you’ve got the entire opposition saying “No, that’s not our logical conclusion. You’re misrepresenting our values.” You’re willfully ignoring us saying that.
Second, an orphaned child is not the same as a fetus. First of all, one is aware of its own existence. That’s just one factor, but I’m sure you already knew that. But the more important factor is that a mother can essentially say to the fetus “I do not agree to support you,” and yet so can anyone in society say that to the orphan. No one in society is obligated to support that child, and if he dies, he dies. We don’t actually make that decision, but we could, and we used to.
But now I’m sure you’re going “Chessic Sense, you’re a monster for suggesting that we refuse to support the life of this young orphan boy!” But think about a fetus, and think about that statement again.
“Pro-choice”, taken to its logical conclusion, turns people into monsters that kill babies. Plain and simple.
If that’s true, then a country with no abortion laws should be edging closer to legalized infanticide, no? Or if not, then what form does this “monsterhood” take?
Good points. Victim blaming is a way to feel you are not going to be a victim and gives a sense of control. But if you follow the rules that keep you from becoming a victim then the rapists have won. Why can’t a woman dress sexily? Why can’t a woman go to a dude’s place to see his etchings and expect that if any sexual stuff happens her consent will matter to the dude and they will have a hot and mostly safe time, and if it’s just not the right time and the right dude, dude will be chill? How hard can this be to understand?
Every time you start analyzing how a rape might have or have not occurred by focusing on the victim, the rapists have won.
Yep, that’s exactly where this is going. Thank you for reminding everyone.
I’m simply saying it is an accurate representation of their views. I don’t care if how you treat it. I’m not pro-life.
Yes, and your “eternal vigilance” will fail if you don’t get your argument right. And getting your argument right means knowing their argument.