Zone1 Abortion Debate: Come Clean and without fallacy

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My body my choice” is all or nothing. If she wanted to kill an 8 month fetus, it’s her choice.

Ah yes. The low IQ slippery slope strawman that always comes out.

 

[Chuz Life]

LOL.

“My body my choice” is all or nothing. If she wanted to kill an 8 month fetus, it’s her choice.

Most people would identify that as infanticide

The most ironic thing to me is how we anti-aborts care more about when a woman's right to her life and body "begins" than the pro-aborts (most of them women) care about when their rights begin, themselves.

We think a woman's right to her body should begin when her life and her body begins.

The pro-aborts don't think a woman's right to her body begins until she lives too long (at least 3 months in Hafar's example) and develops past some magical, arbitrarily decided point where their basic human rights can't be denied anymore.

And they have the gall to try to make us out to be the fascist monsters?!?

They are projecting.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We think a woman's right to her body should begin when her life and her body begins.

What nonsense.

 

[initforme]

The most ironic thing to me is how we anti-aborts care more about when a woman's right to her life and body "begins" than the pro-aborts (most of them women) care about when their rights begin, themselves.

We think a woman's right to her body should begin when her life and her body begins.

The pro-aborts don't think a woman's right to her body begins until she lives too long (at least 3 months in Hafar's example) too long and develops past some magical, arbitrarily decided point where their basic human rights can't be decided anymore.

And they have the gall to try to make us out to be the fascist monsters?!?

They are projecting.

Why arent you pushing for much higher contraception use and a call for less kids conceived?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why arent you pushing for much higher contraception use and a call for less kids conceived?

Because they dont actually give a shit about preventing abortions. They only care about self righteousness and punching their own tickets to the forever festival in the sky. That's why they literally do nothing.

"Pray": do nothing

"Fast": do nothing

"Diddle themselves on a message board": do nothing

This is all a little act for the sky daddy, for most of them.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why arent you pushing for much higher contraception use and a call for less kids conceived?

We should be doing that, absolutely!

But how would doing that address the governments systematic denial of or failure to defend the basic human rights of those who are conceived and are about to be aborted?

 

[Chuz Life]

What nonsense.

We think a woman's right to her body should begin when her life and her body begins.

Prove me wrong then.

You can't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Prove me wrong then.

Most of us learn as children that things that fall out of our mouths aren't "true forever", until someone else proves them wrong.

You unargued claims can be dismissed just as easily as they are uttered.

Tell us more that a woman having a right over her own body doesnt mean she can decide she doesnt want to gain weight and take on new, serious health risks that come with pregnancy.

So I can laugh.

 

[Chuz Life]

Most of us learn as children that things that fall out of our mouths aren't "true forever", until someone else proves them wrong.

You unargued claims can be dismissed just as easily as they are uttered.

Tell us more that a woman having a right over her own body doesnt mean she can decide she doesnt want to gain weight and take on new, serious health risks that come with pregnancy.

So I can laugh.

Children are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

All women were children before they matured into women.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Ah yes. The low IQ slippery slope strawman that always comes out.

How is it a strawman?

"My Body, My Choice"... it means, if it has to do with her body at all, she has the choice of what happens... correct?

You'll have to prove that's a strawman.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

As you indicated, killing can be justified in some cases, and in other cases, it can't be justified.

When you consider that every pregnancy is a (usually manageable) threat to a woman's life, we can examine abortions as a means of self-defense. (One of the justifications you mentioned earlier)

In the case of a non-rape pregnancy, a woman and her partner assume the risks for pregnancy. Even with protection they know (or should know) is not 100% effective, they assumed the risks. That amounts to an implied consent. (This is also inferred in the SCOTUS video I linked to)

The "child in the womb is only where it is because of the risks the woman and her partner assumed, and in doing so, their consent for the outcome of their assumed risk is implied. The child they created is entitled to the equal protection of law, and it then takes an even greater (atypical) threat to the woman's life, for an abortion as an act of self-defense to be justified.

In the case of a rape / criminally induced pregnancy, there was no assumption of risks by the woman, no "implied consent" for the pregnancy that has been forced onto her in a criminal act.

The child she is pregnant with is still just as much a child / human being. . . but they are a real threat to the woman's life/health and well-being that she in no way invited, assumed the risks for, or even implied consent for it being there.

She does not surrender her right to defend herself against that threat when she becomes a victim of rape.

All this being said, I think there is a reasonable expectation for the rape victim/woman to cooperate with authorities to (when justified) have the abortion if she chooses to do so, as early as possible in the pregnancy.

Because her failure to do so would look more and more like "implied consent."

I challenge anyone else to give you a more thorough answer than this. I would like to read it.

Challenged accepted. I view the stance you portrayed as being incongruent with a pure pro-life stance of life beginning at conception. If Life begins at conception, then rape and incest are included. Killing the created child on either case doesn't right any wrong in how they were conceived.

Now, what is the societal prescription here? Major resources and support for the parent/parents involved, and no expectation of custody. I'd look to churches first to take in these kids that were created from such an unfortunate or tragic circumstance, and it would pretty much be expected and guaranteed that the church would support and cherish the woman with support, care, and love as she would go through such a tough time, and likely gaining a new social foundation.

I think many in the pro-life camp who make exceptions for rape and incest are doing so to try to ease the message onto more moderate viewpoints, but at the end of the day, if you want to follow the morality of the message, you can't just cast these lives off.

Now, as far as societal change, I'm fine with making gradual advancements towards an end goal. While I believe life begins at conception, I'd gladly argue and fight for 14 week, 8 week, or 6 week cutoffs as first steps towards the end goal, as long as that end goal is stated and known with in the pro-life movement.

I just don't think your end justifications are sufficient in ultimately proving that we should value and protect life at conception. The intent doesn't matter when life if formed. If it's created, it's there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Children are entitled to the equal protection of our laws.

Women are entitled to make reproductive decisions. And early fetuses are not entitled to supersede the rights of their mothers.

You , however, are not entitled to enforce your fetishes and neuroses on 100 million women at the end of a gun.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Except there was no "legal precedent" prior to Roe. There were a patchwork of laws that were more recent than that, poorly enforced.

Before that, abortions were handled by midwives until male "doctors" took over the practice of women's health.

Before Roe it was a state issue. All of your narratives above are false.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The precedent was set because earlier laws were inconsistent, poorly enforced, and hazardous.

Again, it was a state issue, and all of your descriptors don't do anything to add to anything here.

Actually, if the government is paying for it, and you need a doctor's approval to get one after that, I'm actually fine with that.

So the government paying for it changes your moral stance? LOL I guess I shouldn't have expected anything else I suppose.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Before Roe it was a state issue.

Which didn't work.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How is it a strawman?

How is it not?

Show me the support for 8 month abortions.

Or admit those people dont exist and you crafted a strawman to diddle.

Two choices.

 

[Chuz Life]

Challenged accepted.

This should be interesting!

I view the stance you portrayed as being incongruent with a pure pro-life stance of life beginning at conception.

Understood.

I am not a "pro-lifer" just because I am anti-abortion.

I'm not religious and I don't hold the view that all life is "sacred."

So, there's that.

If Life begins at conception, then rape and incest are included.

True 100%!

Killing the created child on either case doesn't right any wrong in how they were conceived.

True again, 100%

Now, what is the societal prescription here? Major resources and support for the parent/parents involved, and no expectation of custody. I'd look to churches first to take in these kids that were created from such an unfortunate or tragic circumstance, and it would pretty much be expected and guaranteed that the church would support and cherish the woman with support, care, and love as she would go through such a tough time, and likely gaining a new social foundation.

This does not address the raped woman's right to defend herself against an ongoing threat that was forced on her in a criminal act.

I think many in the pro-life camp who make exceptions for rape and incest are doing so to try to ease the message onto more moderate viewpoints, but at the end of the day, if you want to follow the morality of the message, you can't just cast these lives off.

Not religious and i don't give a rat's ass about the "moral" aspects.

The Constitution (not the church) is the supreme law of the land. (U.S.)

Now, as far as societal change, I'm fine with making gradual advancements towards an end goal. While I believe life begins at conception, I'd gladly argue and fight for 14 week, 8 week, or 6 week cutoffs as first steps towards the end goal, as long as that end goal is stated and known with in the pro-life movement.

Then we should agree that the longer a woman waits to report a rape (assuming she isn't confined and restrained somewhere). . . the more of an implied consent argument can be made.

I just don't think your end justifications are sufficient in ultimately proving that we should value and protect life at conception. The intent doesn't matter when life if formed. If it's created, it's there.

In my view, a child in the womb that resulted from a rape has essentially been weaponized (by the rapist) and it (the child) unknowing presents and unsolicited threat to the raped woman's life. For me, it's not that different than an enemy in war, strapping grenades to innocent children and making the children go into a group of soldiers and blow them all up.

There are recounts of U.S. Soldiers having to shoot and kill Vietnamese children for that very reason. (My neighbor a Vietnam vet informed me of this and a lot more)

In my view, it is the Rapist who is responsible for the child's creation, weaponization and ultimately for the child's death.

So, I support the death penalty for those convicted of rape. Especially for those rapes that result in pregnancy.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Show me the support for 8 month abortions.

Google "organizations that support abortion until birth" and you'll see many leftist NGO's on there, some quite prominent in the pro-abortion community.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Which didn't work.

Cool opinion bro, and I agree. Putting such a central definition to states is completely insane.

We need to address the definition of the very first part of the very first amendment in the US Constitution, and make it federally protected.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Google "organizations that support abortion until birth" and you'll see many leftist NGO's on there, some quite prominent in the pro-abortion community.

No I won't.

I won't find anyone who supports that, unless under very special circumstances where the child is not viable and keeping it to term endangers the mother.

Not a single one.

You keep piling up the lies, and I will keep squashing them.

But, if youre feeling froggy, tell me how abortion is murder, except when the fetus is from incest or rape.

Your game isn't smart or complicated. Anyone can play it.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No I won't.

I won't find anyone who supports that, unless under very special circumstances where the child is not viable and keeping it to term endangers the mother.

Not a single one.

You keep piling up the lies, and I will keep squashing them.

You say you won't find what you won't search for LOL. It's there. They aren't shy about it. They think they're virtuous for advocating for unrestricted access to abortion.

Do you disagree with them?