Abortion and Bodily Autonomy

[NorrinRadd]

The only place bodily autonomy really stops is when liberals want to mandate vaccines. Then they support everything short of holding you down.

What makes you think they would not be completely in favor of even that? I believe there's a sizable portion that would support putting people like me in a gulag.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That is irrational, of course it is a life, a human life.

Do you eat commercially/industrially produced meat?

[seer]

Do you eat commercially/industrially produced meat?

Yep, though I prefer locally raised beef and pork.

[EvoUK]

If it is not a human life, what is it? A plant?

It's really weird- there's lots of abortion threads currently going on, and I know full well that most, if not all of the pro forced-birthers have had several discussions on this topic in the past.

Given that fact, it's utterly astounding that almost none of you can actually articulate what the pro-choice position even is. I vehemently disagree with you, but I can at least articulate what your argument and position is, even though I think it's bonkers.

The above comment works when you're preaching to the pro forced-birth choir, but not when you're actually speaking to a pro choice person. If you actually understood their position, you'd know the above is irrelevant, and you'd know why- even if you disagreed with it.


I'm not picking on you in particular, it's very common on here. I wonder if you've all spent this entire time not understanding or grasping the opposing position, or if strawmen and obtuseness is a result of the right wing echo chamber in here.

[seer]

It's really weird- there's lots of abortion threads currently going on, and I know full well that most, if not all of the pro forced-birthers have had several discussions on this topic in the past.

Given that fact, it's utterly astounding that almost none of you can actually articulate what the pro-choice position even is. I vehemently disagree with you, but I can at least articulate what your argument and position is, even though I think it's bonkers.

The above comment works when you're preaching to the pro forced-birth choir, but not when you're actually speaking to a pro choice person. If you actually understood their position, you'd know the above is irrelevant, and you'd know why- even if you disagreed with it.


I'm not picking on you in particular, it's very common on here. I wonder if you've all spent this entire time not understanding or grasping the opposing position, or if strawmen and obtuseness is a result of the right wing echo chamber in here.

What are you talking about - the pro-death position is that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy.

[EvoUK]

What are you talking about - the pro-death [sic] position is that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy.

But can you explain why, and outline it in more detail- and why therefore your point about 'human life' isn't relevant? I can sum up the pro forced birth position in a simplistic sentence like you have done, but that's all it'll be- overly simplistic and unhelpful.

[seer]

But can you explain why, and outline it in more detail- and why therefore your point about 'human life' isn't relevant? I can sum up the pro forced birth position in a simplistic sentence like you have done, but that's all it'll be- overly simplistic and unhelpful.

I have no idea what you are asking. Please rephrase...

[EvoUK]

I have no idea what you are asking. Please rephrase...

If you fully understood the pro-choice position, you'd understand that the 'it's a human life' argument is irrelevant, and you'd understand why - even if you disagreed with it.

'A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy' is technically correct, but is too simplistic and leaves out all the nuance.

For example, I can say your position is simply 'abortion is immoral', but that too is overly simplistic and leaves out any nuance.

A longer form version of the pro-birth position would be:

• The terms human life and human being are essentially synonymous. They mean an alive, genetically distinct human organism.
• Human life is of value and worth protecting in almost all circumstances.
• Human life by the above definition begins at conception.
• Left alone, an embryo in the womb will develop into a baby, and is just a human life at early stages of development, morally equal to a human life any any other stage of development.
• There is no real moral difference between a zygote, embryo, early foetus, late foetus, new-born, toddler, adolescent, adult, pensioner.
• Therefore it is equally morally abhorrent to abort/kill an embryo as it would be to kill a toddler.
• Spontaneous abortion or miscarriage is just nature and doesn't count.
• Because we know that there is a non-zero chance of pregnancy occurring due to sex - regardless of any protection used - by deciding to have sex, the woman opts into accepting that a pregnancy is possible, and therefore she is morally required to carry it to term, regardless of any cost to herself.
• Most often, the discussion revolves around single women having sex. The situations of women in stable long term relationships including marriage not wanting to become pregnant don't often come up in examples given for the above point, but the argument remains the same regardless - she opted to have sex, so is morally required to carry it to term.
• The risks, both mental and physical of pregnancy largely aren't discussed unless pushed in discussion, but in any case is a 'lesser evil' than deciding to abort.
• There are often exceptions made for pregnancies at major risk to the woman (where it could result in death, 'regular' risks during pregnancy don't count), and often but not always exceptions are made for rape and incest, though this varies depending on the individual.
• Once the baby is born, if the woman does not want it, she can give it up for adoption. Details on this process are largely vague. State provided assistance to women and unwanted children are largely frowned upon, but again this varies by individual.
• Positions on war, death penalty, police shootings, etc. etc. vary by individual, though a distinction is often made with zygotes to foetuses that they are 'innocent', so different to other killings of human beings which they might find acceptable.

Obviously, I disagree with the above position, but I can at least articulate it dispassionately. Can you do the same for the pro-choice position, without straw manning it?

[Mountain Man]

The only place bodily autonomy really stops is when liberals want to mandate vaccines. Then they support everything short of holding you down.

And they would happily support even that, if they thought the state could get away with it.

[Mountain Man]

This whole discussion would be funny if the topic were not so serious.

We can't agree on the most basic of first principles -- what is "life," what is a "person," etc. -- so we are parsecs away from a resolution.

It was "settled science" for centuries that life begins at conception. We only started hearing the "lump of cells" and "personhood" nonsense when liberals wanted to rationalize the horror of abortion.

[seer]

If you fully understood the pro-choice position, you'd understand that the 'it's a human life' argument is irrelevant, and you'd understand why - even if you disagreed with it.

'A woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy' is technically correct, but is too simplistic and leaves out all the nuance.

For example, I can say your position is simply 'abortion is immoral', but that too is overly simplistic and leaves out any nuance.

A longer form version of the pro-birth position would be:

Right and most of those distinctions have been discussed on this board.

Obviously, I disagree with the above position, but I can at least articulate it dispassionately. Can you do the same for the pro-choice position, without straw manning it?

I don't know any single pro-death position, do you? Except that it should be legal to terminate, pretty much at will. But go ahead and school us.

[EvoUK]

I don't know any single pro-death [sic] position, do you? Except that it should be legal to terminate, pretty much at will. But go ahead and school us.

You mean, can I articulate my own position on abortion? Yes, obviously.

It is genuinely surprising and shameful that after so long discussing it, you're unable to do so. You honestly cannot articulate any pro-choice arguments or positions in an honest and dispassionate way? I've been on these boards for many years - back to Bush Jnrs first term, so I know for a fact that you've had a huge number of discussions over the years with many different pro-choice posters, so none of this should be news to you, and you should know all the arguments back to front.

That you don't know any pro-choice positions other than an over simplified position merely shows your own lack of intellectual curiosity. No wonder you go through the same tropes again and again. I thought (obviously generously) that you were merely trolling, not that you genuinely had no idea at all.



Can anyone else lay out the pro-choice position as I have done for the pro-life one, or are you all equally unable to do so?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yep, though I prefer locally raised beef and pork.

Then you engage in consuming sentient creatures that have a degree of what we term intelligence, and can feel pain and fear.

[seer]

You mean, can I articulate my own position on abortion? Yes, obviously.

No, I just don't care. Don't you think that over the years that I haven't heard every justification? If you have something new to add feel free.

[seer]

Then you engage in consuming sentient creatures that have a degree of what we term intelligence, and can feel pain and fear.

Yes and they are tasty! So?