The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[LeftyGunner]

Disagree with you. By your standards we can make slaves of anyone who doesn't know enough to give consent to be a slave.
Be it too young or just dumb.

I honestly don’t see how you get there from my position.

The only instance in the human experience where one person has full agency over another is during pregnancy...the moment pregnancy ends so does a woman’s full agency over her child.

A woman has legitimate full agency over her unborn because she is growing it inside her…you cannot sincerely apply this to any other situation in the human experience, especially slavery.

 

[DadSmith]

I honestly don’t see how you get there from my position.

The only instance in the human experience where one person has full agency over another is during pregnancy...the moment pregnancy ends so does a woman’s full agency over her child.

A woman has legitimate full agency over her unborn because she is growing it inside her…you cannot sincerely apply this to any other situation in the human experience, especially slavery.

You stated that if a person is unable to give consent to be a slave that they can be made a slave as long as they have no ability to consent.

 

[LeftyGunner]

You stated that if a person is unable to give consent to be a slave that they can be made a slave.

Oh, c’mon man…if you are going to play this game then bring the receipts.

Where did I say that?

 

[DadSmith]

Oh, c’mon man…if you are going to play this game then bring the receipts.

Where did I say that?

You stated that if a person is unable to give consent to be a slave that they can be made a slave as long as they have no ability to consent.

 

[LeftyGunner]

View attachment 311279
You stated that if a person is unable to give consent to be a slave that they can be made a slave as long as they have no ability to consent.

Omg, you directly quoted it and still misrepresent what I wrote.

That quote doesn’t support your argument, like…at all.

The only other people we have full agency over are those we grow inside ourselves…and only while they are growing inside us.

You are absolutely free to enslave any person you grow inside yourself and keep there indefinitely…that would, in fact, be consistent with my arguments.

Otherwise…man, you are missing the point by a country mile here.

 

[loudgroove]

To paraphrase what I said on another thread. " Abortion is not having a life with us that could be because it is simply too inconvenient to a selfish person. You can call it murder or you could call it reproductive rights, but it's still a life that could be here that isn't due to what's convenient."

 

[DadSmith]

Omg, you directly quoted it and still misrepresent what I wrote.

It definitely isn't misrepresented.
You are cornered, and are trying to fight your way out of the corner.

I know what you believe you're a Democrat. Who tried to control human life in the past in this country. Democrats always denying people's right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

 

[Route 45]

Margaret Sanger was born a Catholic.

Aside from the fact that one isn't born pre-programmed with nonsense, what does this even mean? Can you be born a Democrat, too? How does one receive communion or vote from the womb? Is this embedded in DNA, or is it a lifestyle choice like looking at another man's hairy ass and finding love?

 

[LeftyGunner]

It definitely isn't misrepresented.

Misrepresented or misunderstood…to arrive at your conclusion there is no third option.

You are cornered, and are trying to fight your way out of the corner.

I know what you believe you're a Democrat. Who tried to control human life in the past in this country. Democrats always denying people's right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

If I’m the one trying to fight my way out of a corner why are you the one resorting to ad hominem?

 

[Expat]

Aside from the fact that one isn't born pre-programmed with nonsense, what does this even mean? Can you be born a Democrat, too? How does one receive communion or vote from the womb? Is this embedded in DNA, or is it a lifestyle choice like looking at another man's hairy ass and finding love?

Someone above me had commented that abortions were caused by the Jews. I was pointing out that the American abortion industry was not started by them.

 

[DadSmith]

Misrepresented or misunderstood…to arrive at your conclusion there is no third option.



If I’m the one trying to fight my way out of a corner why are you the one resorting to ad hominem?

I'm not I'm pointing out the fact Democrats throughout history do not care about human life other than themselves.
Republicans fought to give human beings a right to choose life, and the freedom to choose where they wanted to go with it.
It's the same today with the life of an unborn child.
Democrats want to stop it and Republican want to defend it. Well they used to anyway.
Ohio you definitely seen Republicans siding with pro death people.

Why are you pro death? Because a woman has a right to kill another human being inside her correct?
Because you don't consider it a human being correct?
Just like many people in the south didn't consider black slaves as human beings.
Just like the Nazis and many Muslims don't consider Jews human beings.

Point is when you practice dehumanizing any human being you can do whatever you want to them.

 

[Tombs]

Incorrect. You misunderstand. The defining difference is consent…a slave is being denied their ability to consent…a fetus has no such ability at all.

So the thing here is I don't really have an issue with abortion in certain contexts but I have an issue with the way we arrive at justifying it. I can follow through the logic and say why the logic is bad and will result in unintended consequences.

If someone lacks the ability to consent, that does not make it okay to violate them. Pressuring someone into intercourse while they're passing out drunk is considered immoral because they are considered to not have the ability to consent.

A child can not consent, which is why pedophilia is immoral. An animal can not consent, which is why bestiality is immoral.

It's not that you can't articulate your point, it's that your point is poorly thought out and requires intellectual inconsistency.

 

[BugI02]

a fetus has no such ability at all.

Does not all life struggle to continue living? Can that not be taken as a lack of consent to be killed that that gestating human can not in any other way articulate?

If not, then what of a human in a vegetative state or coma? Is it OK to kill him/her because they cannot object?

The common thread to most pro-choice rhetoric appears to be the life being extinguished is inconvenient to the one bearing it

 

[AndreusMaximus]

You have built a straw man here, whether you meant to or not.

Yes, I see that now. I really did miss your point. My apologies.

What I am claiming is objective or undeniable is the fact that a fetus has no ability to consent.

You cannot deny agency to that which cannot posses it.

I make this point to contrast the difference between a fetus and a slave, which is the point Tombs was making.

A slave has the ability to choose for itself…to consent…but is artificially denied this right by others in no moral position to take them away.

The difference is not subjective. One group is denied agency, the other doesn’t have agency to begin with.

So, I think I see what you mean a bit better now: just that it's an undeniable fact that a fetus is physically unable to give consent to anything. And yes, that is true.

But now I'm left with the same question that others have asked above: how does this lend itself to your argument? If someone is physically unable to give consent to something that requires consent, we typically consider it immoral to do that thing to them, not the other way around.

Furthermore, even though I concede the point that an unborn child cannot give consent to things, I don't concede that this means that the child has zero agency. Especially during the later stages of pregnancy. The inability to give consent is the result of a communications barrier. But there are stages in pregnancy when a fetus literally has more agency than, say, a person in a vegetative state. If we had any interest, we have the medical technology to view what the fetus is indicating they like or dislike through gestures or facial expressions. There's literally ultrasound videos out there showing an unborn child making happy or grossed-out faces in response to food the mother just ate. The unborn can kick, squirm, dream, practice breathing, and suck their thumb, all without the mother being aware or giving consent. During a late term abortion, it isn't the will of the mother that makes the baby flail in pain and try to avoid the abortionist's tools; it's the baby's own will. Maybe we have a different definition of agency, but that sure makes it sound to me like the unborn have at least some, rudimentary agency.

Or, consider this from another perspective. What happens if a woman pregnant at 36 weeks gets shot in the head and dies instantly? The baby is alive, and if you cut it out fast enough, it will survive. Who has agency over the baby in this scenario, though? It can't be the mother, because she's dead. It can't be nobody, unless I misunderstand the definition of agency, because the baby is still living, and probably kicking and squirming, maybe even making a futile effort to escape on its own. So how do you claim that a fetus has no agency whatsoever?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Does not all life struggle to continue living? Can that not be taken as a lack of consent to be killed that that gestating human can not in any other way articulate?

If not, then what of a human in a vegetative state or coma? Is it OK to kill him/her because they cannot object?

Oh, lol you just made all my points with about 1/10th the words while I was in the middle of typing.

 

[loudgroove]

He is another fact that has not been brought up. There are numerous couples that can provide a good home to raise children, who can't have any of their own. Is it really moral to extinguish a life when that life could bless a different home? Is it really just as simple that it isn't too selfish but just convenient to just abort the baby instead of giving a different couple a chance to have a family? Why is abortions soooo much easier to do than adoptions?

 

[oze]

He is another fact that has not been brought up. There are numerous couples that can provide a good home to raise children, who can't have any of their own. Is it really moral to extinguish a life when that life could bless a different home? Is it really just as simple that it isn't too selfish but just convenient to just abort the baby instead of giving a different couple a chance to have a family? Why is abortions soooo much easier to do than adoptions?

My Anna and I agree 100%.

 

[BugI02]

He is another fact that has not been brought up. There are numerous couples that can provide a good home to raise children, who can't have any of their own. Is it really moral to extinguish a life when that life could bless a different home? Is it really just as simple that it isn't too selfish but just convenient to just abort the baby instead of giving a different couple a chance to have a family? Why is abortions soooo much easier to do than adoptions?

In all honesty, you are trivializing a substantial cost to the mother in terms of potential health, income and employment

It isn't like carrying a child to term is a walk in the park

 

[loudgroove]

In all honesty, you are trivializing a substantial cost to the mother in terms of potential health, income and employment

It isn't like carrying a child to term is a walk in the park

You mean trivializing that the new soon to be parents wouldn't be footing the bill?

 

[BugI02]

No, trivializing the fact that the 9 months of pregnancy costs the birth mother in terms of steadily diminishing capacity and capability in her professional and personal life as well as her overall health. To pretend that that is not a consideration in choosing not to carry to term and give up for adoption is disingenuous

I'm certainly not defending the decision, but neither am I pretending that everyone can afford to be progressively more limited in their personal and professional lives for most of a year and then at the end take weeks off in most likely unpaid maternity leave