Current Events > The indisputable pro-choice argument

(+) Yeah! (+)

It does not matter if a fetus is a person. Irrelevant to the argument. The simple argument is that you cannot force a human to give bodily resources to another.

Example:

You cannot force a mother to donate blood to save her own child. Even if it were her fault (eg. She was driving recklessly and her child incurred massive blood loss)

Or:

Child needs a kidney, mother refuses to donate one of hers.

This infringes on her bodily autonomy, as would the examples given here if it were forced on the mother.

Now you may disagree and feel the fetus deserves special rights to prevent abortions, and that's fine. But imo the pro-choice argument has nothing to do whether a fetus is a person and it's annoying af to hear these liberals try so hard to convince people it's not a baby until the second it's born.
---

So if humans laid eggs abortion would be wrong
---

it comes down to

do you value the life of the mother or the baby above the other?

and most people are designed to feel sympathy for children

C_Pain posted...

So if humans laid eggs abortion would be wrong

Bruh
---

Anti-Choice proponents will say:

You made the choice (outside of cases of rape) to take an action that could potentially lead you to having to give up your autonomy to another living being. Even if a condom breaks or other potential actions you take just don't work, YOU made a decision that could lead you to being in that position.

Outside of rape, you are responsible for YOUR actions.

NOTE : I'm pro-choice and this argument boils my blood, but it is what they would say.
---

It's essentially trespassing.

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Anti-Choice proponents will say:

You made the choice (outside of cases of rape) to take an action that could potentially lead you to having to give up your autonomy to another living being. Even if a condom breaks or other potential actions you take just don't work, YOU made a decision that could lead you to being in that position.

Outside of rape, you are responsible for YOUR actions.

NOTE : I'm pro-choice and this argument boils my blood, but it is what they would say.

You act life pro lifers are okay with the case if rape was the cause
---

C_Pain posted...

So if humans laid eggs abortion would be wrong

Thats completely irrelevant and not the case. The answer is still no until a certain point.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Anti-Choice proponents will say:

You made the choice (outside of cases of rape) to take an action that could potentially lead you to having to give up your autonomy to another living being. Even if a condom breaks or other potential actions you take just don't work, YOU made a decision that could lead you to being in that position.

Outside of rape, you are responsible for YOUR actions.

NOTE : I'm pro-choice and this argument boils my blood, but it is what they would say.

The counter argument for that would be one of the examples I gave.

You cannot force a mother to donate blood to save her own child. Even if it were her fault (eg. She was driving recklessly and her child incurred massive blood loss)

In this example the mother willingly drove recklessly despite her child in the car. It is her fault her child will die without blood transfusion but she may still legally refuse to donate blood. Her bodily autonomy Trump's her child's need for bodily resources.
---

Zikten posted...

it comes down to

do you value the life of the mother or the baby above the other?

and most people are designed to feel sympathy for children

And yet polls show 60% of Americans are pro choice.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Anti-Choice proponents will say:

You made the choice (outside of cases of rape) to take an action that could potentially lead you to having to give up your autonomy to another living being. Even if a condom breaks or other potential actions you take just don't work, YOU made a decision that could lead you to being in that position.

Outside of rape, you are responsible for YOUR actions.

NOTE : I'm pro-choice and this argument boils my blood, but it is what they would say.

The counter argument for that would be one of the examples I gave.

You cannot force a mother to donate blood to save her own child. Even if it were her fault (eg. She was driving recklessly and her child incurred massive blood loss)

In this example the mother willingly drove recklessly despite her child in the car. It is her fault her child will die without blood transfusion but she may still legally refuse to donate blood. Her bodily autonomy Trump's her child's need for bodily resources.

sure you can't force her

you can still consider her a shit person for it
---

Bodily autonomy is one of the most important human rights we have even if a lot of people don't necessarily understand what that means
---

what the pro-choice argument ultimately boils down to is a devaluing of human life, basically stating that life is only valid when it's desired & convenient for us all
---

Romulox28 posted...

what the pro-choice argument ultimately boils down to is a devaluing of human life, basically stating that life is only valid when it's desired & convenient for us all

So, you won't mind when I crash on your couch for the next several months, and raid your fridge in the meantime?

DarthAragorn posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Anti-Choice proponents will say:

You made the choice (outside of cases of rape) to take an action that could potentially lead you to having to give up your autonomy to another living being. Even if a condom breaks or other potential actions you take just don't work, YOU made a decision that could lead you to being in that position.

Outside of rape, you are responsible for YOUR actions.

NOTE : I'm pro-choice and this argument boils my blood, but it is what they would say.

The counter argument for that would be one of the examples I gave.

You cannot force a mother to donate blood to save her own child. Even if it were her fault (eg. She was driving recklessly and her child incurred massive blood loss)

In this example the mother willingly drove recklessly despite her child in the car. It is her fault her child will die without blood transfusion but she may still legally refuse to donate blood. Her bodily autonomy Trump's her child's need for bodily resources.

sure you can't force her

you can still consider her a shit person for it

Sure. We're talking about legality though.
---

Zikten posted...

it comes down to

do you value the life of the mother or the baby above the other?

and most people are designed to feel sympathy for children

Well, in this country/culture. That is not a universal feeling.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Romulox28 posted...

what the pro-choice argument ultimately boils down to is a devaluing of human life, basically stating that life is only valid when it's desired & convenient for us all

So, you won't mind when I crash on your couch for the next several months, and raid your fridge in the meantime?

airtight argument, i support abortion now
---

Sariana21 posted...

Zikten posted...

it comes down to

do you value the life of the mother or the baby above the other?

and most people are designed to feel sympathy for children

Well, in this country/culture. That is not a universal feeling.

That and polls show MOST Americans are pro choice
---

Romulox28 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Romulox28 posted...

what the pro-choice argument ultimately boils down to is a devaluing of human life, basically stating that life is only valid when it's desired & convenient for us all

So, you won't mind when I crash on your couch for the next several months, and raid your fridge in the meantime?

airtight argument, i support abortion now

Whoo hoo!
SUCCESS!!

Questionmarktarius posted...

Romulox28 posted...

what the pro-choice argument ultimately boils down to is a devaluing of human life, basically stating that life is only valid when it's desired & convenient for us all

So, you won't mind when I crash on your couch for the next several months, and raid your fridge in the meantime?

You wont mind him murdering you?
---

Wolf_J_Flywheel posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Romulox28 posted...

what the pro-choice argument ultimately boils down to is a devaluing of human life, basically stating that life is only valid when it's desired & convenient for us all

So, you won't mind when I crash on your couch for the next several months, and raid your fridge in the meantime?

You wont mind him murdering you?

Would it really be his concern that I'm almost certain to die if forcibly evicted?

ChainedRedone posted...

You cannot force a mother to donate blood to save her own child. Even if it were her fault (eg. She was driving recklessly and her child incurred massive blood loss)

There is a difference though that not donating blood would be the child dying due to inaction where as an abortion would be taking a direct action.

And I would say whether or not the child is considered human does matter. If it's okay to to have the child removed on the basis thay it has no inherent right to the mother's bodily resources, I still don't see that naturally extending to the particular aspects of the abortion procedure where the child's own body is maimed/destroyed.
---

Ah shit I realized it was DE. Response deleted. When a non-troll wants to legitimately debate, I will respond.
---

The mothers body is willingly providing nutrients to the fetus
---

Rika_Furude posted...

The mothers body is willingly providing nutrients to the fetus

Not sure if this was directed at me or DE. I'm guessing DE
---

There is a difference between a mother not donating blood to save a child and abortion.

The former is an act of omission, while the latter is an overt act.

From pro-life prospective, you are essentially saying that because a mother doesn't have to donate blood to save her child, she is equally justified in taking a knife to it.

Zikten posted...

it comes down to

do you value the life of the mother or the baby above the other?

and most people are designed to feel sympathy for children

only like 3% of abortions are done due to the mother's life being at risk with a pregnancy.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Romulox28 posted...

what the pro-choice argument ultimately boils down to is a devaluing of human life, basically stating that life is only valid when it's desired & convenient for us all

So, you won't mind when I crash on your couch for the next several months, and raid your fridge in the meantime?

What did the baby do that would deserve being killed? Just because you made a series of shit life choice and need to live on someone else's couch is no one else's fault but your own.
---

C_Pain posted...

So if humans laid eggs abortion would be wrong

but a lot simpler in that case. Like, "opps, I dropped it" or "my dog ate it!"
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Ah shit I realized it was DE. Response deleted. When a non-troll wants to legitimately debate, I will respond.

You apparently thought the argument I made was worth responding to. Did the argument somehow change when you realized that I was the one who I posted it?
---

BillyKidd posted...

What did the baby do that would deserve being killed?

invading someone else's body and being a mooch basically. the fetus needs to take some personal responsibility for its own livelihood and wellbeing. No more handouts. bootstraps anyone?

why should the mother be forced to provide free housing and food? isn't that theft?
---

Abyssea posted...

invading someone else's body and being a mooch basically. the fetus needs to take some personal responsibility for its own livelihood and wellbeing. No more handouts. bootstraps anyone?

why should the mother be forced to provide free housing and food? isn't that theft?

It's nature, its how humans come to exist
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Abyssea posted...

invading someone else's body and being a mooch basically. the fetus needs to take some personal responsibility for its own livelihood and wellbeing. No more handouts. bootstraps anyone?

why should the mother be forced to provide free housing and food? isn't that theft?

It's nature, its how humans come to exist

so? they're still mooching.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Ah shit I realized it was DE. Response deleted. When a non-troll wants to legitimately debate, I will respond.

You apparently thought the argument I made was worth responding to. Did the argument somehow change when you realized that I was the one who I posted it?

Yes. You have your specific motives behind your posts, so those would apply if the poster is you, but would not apply if a different user had posted the same content.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Abyssea posted...

invading someone else's body and being a mooch basically. the fetus needs to take some personal responsibility for its own livelihood and wellbeing. No more handouts. bootstraps anyone?

why should the mother be forced to provide free housing and food? isn't that theft?

It's nature, its how humans come to exist

That in and of itself doesn't make it okay
---

Funny how the same people that talk about emotional arguments literally base their entire pro-life argument around one

This is such a bs argument, it's just being intellectually dishonest.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

It does not matter if a fetus is a person. Irrelevant to the argument. The simple argument is that you cannot force a human to give bodily resources to another.

So parents should be able to kill their kids then?

Like, my sister has a toddler and has to devote TONS of bodily resources to him. She loses sleep, she carries him around everywhere, buys food and toys for him...so she should be allowed to murder him if she decides she doesn't want to do any of that after all, right?
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

It does not matter if a fetus is a person. Irrelevant to the argument. The simple argument is that you cannot force a human to give bodily resources to another.

So parents should be able to kill their kids then?

Like, my sister has a toddler and has to devote TONS of bodily resources to him. She loses sleep, she carries him around everywhere, buys food and toys for him...so she should be allowed to murder him if she decides she doesn't want to do any of that after all, right?

She doesn't have to, actually. That's what foster care is for.
---

Axiom posted...

Funny how the same people that talk about emotional arguments literally base their entire pro-life argument around one

Also funny how the party of statistics are statistics ignore that statistics have shown that areas with abortion drastically reduces crime rates and increases development.
The party of supposed long term thinking is also too eager to spite women to realize the huge flaw in forcing a supposedly murderous and hateful woman to give birth to a "child she was going to kill".

ChainedRedone posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

It does not matter if a fetus is a person. Irrelevant to the argument. The simple argument is that you cannot force a human to give bodily resources to another.

So parents should be able to kill their kids then?

Like, my sister has a toddler and has to devote TONS of bodily resources to him. She loses sleep, she carries him around everywhere, buys food and toys for him...so she should be allowed to murder him if she decides she doesn't want to do any of that after all, right?

She doesn't have to, actually. That's what foster care is for.

Hold up, that would require having other people being forced to give resources to her child. I thought you couldn't do that!
---

KhanJohnny posted...

There is a difference between a mother not donating blood to save a child and abortion.

The former is an act of omission, while the latter is an overt act.

From pro-life prospective, you are essentially saying that because a mother doesn't have to donate blood to save her child, she is equally justified in taking a knife to it.

Thats a moot point. Providing for the baby during pregnancy is an overt act. It is actively giving bodily resources to the baby. One could say abortion is, in fact, inaction. During pregnancy a mother is intrinsically giving blood to her child. She can terminate that.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Hold up, that would require having other people being forced to give resources to her child. I thought you couldn't do that!

Other people who make the decision to adopt the child / go into social work.
Unless you're talking about the state / taxes, but that's not really relevant to most people who are pro-choice.
---

02fran posted...

Axiom posted...

Funny how the same people that talk about emotional arguments literally base their entire pro-life argument around one

Also funny how the party of statistics are statistics ignore that statistics have shown that areas with abortion drastically reduces crime rates and increases development.
The party of supposed long term thinking is also too eager to spite women to realize the huge flaw in forcing a supposedly murderous and hateful woman to give birth to a "child she was going to kill".

Or maybe they just don't think it's ok to kill people regardless of how old they are.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

It does not matter if a fetus is a person. Irrelevant to the argument. The simple argument is that you cannot force a human to give bodily resources to another.

So parents should be able to kill their kids then?

Like, my sister has a toddler and has to devote TONS of bodily resources to him. She loses sleep, she carries him around everywhere, buys food and toys for him...so she should be allowed to murder him if she decides she doesn't want to do any of that after all, right?

She doesn't have to, actually. That's what foster care is for.

Hold up, that would require having other people being forced to give resources to her child. I thought you couldn't do that!

The state =/= the mother.
---

prince_leo posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Hold up, that would require having other people being forced to give resources to her child. I thought you couldn't do that!

Other people who make the decision to adopt the child / go into social work.
Unless you're talking about the state / taxes, but that's not really relevant to most people who are pro-choice.

But that choice necessitates there being people willing to take your kid in

Just as a hypothetical, let's say there were no option to send a kid into foster care. Would you then say it would be ok to kill your infant if you decided you didn't want to take care of it anymore?
---

ChainedRedone posted...

The state =/= the mother.

Your OP didn't specify that only mothers couldn't be coerced into giving up resources for kids.
---

i want to blow up and destroy fetuses with explosive weaponry
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

Ah shit I realized it was DE. Response deleted. When a non-troll wants to legitimately debate, I will respond.

You apparently thought the argument I made was worth responding to. Did the argument somehow change when you realized that I was the one who I posted it?

Yes. You have your specific motives behind your posts, so those would apply if the poster is you, but would not apply if a different user had posted the same content.

What are my specific motives?
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

02fran posted...

Axiom posted...

Funny how the same people that talk about emotional arguments literally base their entire pro-life argument around one

Also funny how the party of statistics are statistics ignore that statistics have shown that areas with abortion drastically reduces crime rates and increases development.
The party of supposed long term thinking is also too eager to spite women to realize the huge flaw in forcing a supposedly murderous and hateful woman to give birth to a "child she was going to kill".

Or maybe they just don't think it's ok to kill people regardless of how old they are.

lol the party that dismisses police brutality and supports the death penalty? Are you really this obtuse?

Sephiroth1288 posted...

prince_leo posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Hold up, that would require having other people being forced to give resources to her child. I thought you couldn't do that!

Other people who make the decision to adopt the child / go into social work.
Unless you're talking about the state / taxes, but that's not really relevant to most people who are pro-choice.

But that choice necessitates there being people willing to take your kid in

Just as a hypothetical, let's say there were no option to send a kid into foster care. Would you then say it would be ok to kill your infant if you decided you didn't want to take care of it anymore?

Or what if humans laid eggs? What abortion be okay then? We're working with reality. The entire point of foster care is because the state realizes they cannot force a human to care for their child (as I have been saying since the OP). Sometimes they're even incapable. That's the entire reason for it's existence.
---