• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Forced pregnancy is enslavement.[W:607]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

WCH said:
Sick ...in a new way.
Click to expand...

Easy to say for a male who doesn't have to ever worry about a parasitic creature growing inside of them. Maybe if you could find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy, your opinion would carry more weight.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

JayDubya said:
Add "parasite" to that long list of words you don't know and need to look up.

What you just said is incredibly stupid and objectively scientifically false.

A mother is not a host; her offspring is not a parasite. They are both members of the same species.

Any harm caused by pregnancy is caused by the parents, not the kid.
Click to expand...

It's an unwanted creature growing inside them--parasite.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

calamity said:
Easy to say for a male who doesn't have to ever worry about a parasitic creature growing inside of them. Maybe if you could find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy, your opinion would carry more weight.
Click to expand...

Misandrist bull****.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

calamity said:
It's an unwanted creature growing inside them--parasite.
Click to expand...

No, that is not the definition of parasite. There's no excuse for ignorance like what you just stated in the age of the internet.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

JayDubya said:
No, that is not the definition of parasite. There's no excuse for ignorance like what you just stated in the age of the internet.
Click to expand...

AN unwanted fetus is clearly parasitic. Hence, a parasite.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

JayDubya said:
Misandrist bull****.
Click to expand...

Not nearly as much as denying women control of their own body is misogynic.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

calamity said:
AN unwanted fetus is clearly parasitic.
Click to expand...

What species are the parent organisms?

What species is the offspring organism?

If the answer is the same species, it ****ing ain't parasitism by the ****ing definition of the ****ing word.
 
Last edited:
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

calamity said:
Not nearly as much as denying women control of their own body is misogynic.
Click to expand...

Telling everyone equally that they're not allowed to kill other human beings save for in self-defense is not any form of gender bigotry.

You and your peers being radical man-haters telling men they're not allowed to have opinions on a political topic is actual gender bigotry.

Glad to help clear that up for you.
 
iangb said:
Removing yourself from the contraption is killing the violinist. You have already defined aggression in previous posts as 'the initiation of force' - and you will need force in order to remove yourself. As such, you are killing the violinist in aggression, by initiating a force which causes their death.
Click to expand...
Except in the scenario, the person with the healthy kidneys does not *initiate* force by unplugging him/herself; force was initiated by whomever kidnapped him/her. *That* is the force that is initiated in that scenario. By way of contrast, unless there is a rape involved, women are not *forcibly* attached to their unborn child. They choose the actions that result in that conception. The only force initiated in the case of a pregnancy is when the woman chooses to use force to kill her child.

If you had not acted, he would not have died. This means that your actions directly caused his death - you will have killed him. Whether you are responsible for his dependence or not is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
But *I* (or whoever has healthy kidneys) didn't act in the first place. The kidnappers acted, forcing the situation to an unnatural place to begin with, one which I have every right to extricate myself from. In contrast, a pregnant woman's actions caused a natural situation - a pregnancy. She should not have the right to kill to overturn the natural consequences of her actions.

-AJF
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

Removable Mind said:
Wake up. Its not too late. To deny access to abortion is to force gestation and giving birth...aka "pregnancy".
Click to expand...

I'm wide awake. Nobody forces anyone to get pregnant. I realize some libs want to live in a world where the destruction of human life holds no more significance than an ingrown hair, but normal people understand this is sick.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

Henrin said:
Yes, that was my point.
Click to expand...

Ah, I misread your post, I thought that you were inferring that there would be some lesser rights by winning the 13th argument than is currently held via R v W.

Sorry about that Henrin.
 
iangb said:
If you come across a climber dangling from a rope above a 500ft drop, would you cut the rope and then say "I didn't kill him y'honor, it was the ground at the bottom!"

Your actions led directly to his death; that is, if you had not taken those actions, he would not have died. You killed him.

It is aggressive because you are enacting it against the violinist, who did not initiate any action against you in the first place. The society is no longer part of the equation.
Click to expand...
Lol, no. I would not cut a rope with a climber dangling from it. That sounds more like an abortion to me.

The violinist himself may not have initiated any action against me, but whoever kidnapped me and attached me to him certainly did. My decisions did not lead to being attached to him. Force was used on me. I am in that situation through no fault of my own, and I have every right to extricate myself from it. A pregnant woman, unless she was raped, is in her situation because of actions she took. She has the right to try to escape that situation, but she shouldn't have the right to kill to do so.

This is such a colossal logic fail, I'm not sure where to start - but I think my climber meta-analogy is the best way.

Your actions directly caused his death. The fact that the circumstances were not favourable to you does not change this fact.

I'm not saying that the society is blameless or putting you in the position in the first place. I'm saying that once you are in the situation, it is perfectly valid to judge your actions within that situation.
Click to expand...
But it is also perfectly valid to consider how I got into that situation in the first place in judging my actions within that situation. There is a difference between being kidnapped and forcibly attached to an unhealthy human to be his walking kidneys, presumably for the rest of his life; and choosing to initiate an action that you know carries a risk of attaching yourself to a healthy human who will need your body for life support for a few months.

'tearing their body apart'?

89% of abortions happen sooner than 12 weeks into pregnancy. At 12 weeks, the foetus is about 5cm long.

I'm not sure there's much point in debating abortion with you if you have such a wildly distorted view of how it works.
Click to expand...
Is your point here that something 5cm long cannot be torn apart? :-/

-AJF
 
minnie616 said:
I disagree.
As pointed out in the blog I posted:
Click to expand...
Ownership of a person as chattel is also a necessary component of slavery, one conspicuously missing in the case of pregnancy without an abortion option.

-AJF
 
applejuicefool said:
Ownership of a person as chattel is also a necessary component of slavery, one conspicuously missing in the case of pregnancy without an abortion option.

-AJF
Click to expand...

Then call it involuntary servitude if you do not think the word slavery fits. It is still wrong and is unconstitutional.

As Removable Mind pointed out:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Click to expand...

—The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution
 
iangb said:
You are confusing moral permissibility with the notion of 'killing'

Yes, disconnecting yourself from the violinist is entirely permissible, morally. However, it is still killing.
Click to expand...
Nope. The disease is killing him. Old Healthy Kidneys got somehow forcibly thrown into the mix. Without Old Healthy Kidneys, the violinist's disease would have killed him anyway. Old HK should never have been forced into that situation to begin with. Removing himself from that situation isn't killing the violinist; it's returning the situation to the way it should have been pre-kidnapping.

Conversely, an unborn didn't exist before the woman chose to engage in a behavior that could create it. She knowingly risked actions that could create a life and attach it to her for life support. The unborn isn't enslaving her; if she is enslaved, then she enslaved herself through *her own actions*. As I said earlier, she absolutely has the right to try to undo her own mistakes to avoid the consequences...*but* she shouldn't have the right to *kill another human* to avoid the consequences of her own actions.

-AJF
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

JayDubya said:
What species are the parent organisms?

What species is the offspring organism?

If the answer is the same species, it ****ing ain't parasitism by the ****ing definition of the ****ing word.
Click to expand...
:naughty
Being of a different species is not a necessary requirement of all or the majority of definitions.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

joG said:
Here. Maybe this will help you: Lass mich das für Dich googlen
Click to expand...

You're still asking me to do the research for your claim. But I will placate this time only.

The mistake here is that you refer to religious dogma, which I find the Pope's opinion and Canon Law to be no more meaningful than I do Homer Simpson's.

But the BBC reported the following:

The president of Germany's Central Council for Jews, Paul Spiegel, linked the remarks to statements by Roman Catholic Cardinal Joachim Meisner in January comparing abortions to the repressions of Hitler and Stalin. "The Catholic Church does not understand or does not want to understand that there is an enormous difference between mass genocide and what women do with their bodies."

BBC - Religions - Christianity: John Paul II
Click to expand...

But I have to say that you are consistent with your beliefs regarding the meaning of mass murder. I could spend a bit of time proving my prove my point from a non-religious perspective. The following is why:

Pope writes that the faithful have 'obligation to defend those whose basic right to life is under attack'

Defending human dignity and protecting society’s most vulnerable necessarily means protecting the unborn and defending their right to life, Pope Francis said in his apostolic exhortation.

CatholicHerald.co.uk » ‘Church’s opposition to abortion not subject to modernisation,’ says Pope in new document
Click to expand...

You have to understand that their is no right to life established in nations that live by the rule of law. The reason being is it's not enforceable.

I will always look to a mathematical correlation and the circumstances in which mass deaths occur.

A single event in which a MASS number of victims were simultaneously involved - is in no way the same as a single event in which there is a single victim - then individual numbers are collectively tallied to generate a MASS SUM.

We'll obvious continue to needlessly go back and forth since you can't grasp my last sentence above. We do math differently as well as how we interpret the results of such a math problem.

Thanks, JoG...
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

countryboy said:
I'm wide awake. Nobody forces anyone to get pregnant. I realize some libs want to live in a world where the destruction of human life holds no more significance than an ingrown hair, but normal people understand this is sick.
Click to expand...

LIBs? Ah...you are a political astrologist. You create political horoscope in which you see all people who subscribe to a political philosophy to all be subject to react to life and social issues the same way. That's a shame.

You didn't grasp what I posted. I didn't say force someone to get pregnant. My comment was to force someone to stay pregnant.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

JayDubya said:
What species are the parent organisms?

What species is the offspring organism?

If the answer is the same species, it ****ing ain't parasitism by the ****ing definition of the ****ing word.
Click to expand...

As always, your narrow definition of things distorts reality.
 
applejuicefool said:
Conversely, an unborn didn't exist before the woman chose to engage in a behavior that could create it. She knowingly risked actions that could create a life and attach it to her for life support. The unborn isn't enslaving her; if she is enslaved, then she enslaved herself through *her own actions*. As I said earlier, she absolutely has the right to try to undo her own mistakes to avoid the consequences...*but* she shouldn't have the right to *kill another human* to avoid the consequences of her own actions.

-AJF
Click to expand...

Consent to sex is not consent to gestation and give child birth.
Especially when birth control was used.
Being a passenger in a car and wearing a seat belt is not giving consent to having the seat belt break during an accident.
Birth control fails sometimes too.

No women should be forced through gestation and childbirth because there was a accident/mistake.

Women should have a choice

And least you forgot ...most women choose to the continue the pregnancy.
 
minnie616 said:
Consent to sex is not consent to gestation and give child birth.
Especially when birth control was used.
Being a passenger in a car and wearing a seat belt is not giving consent to having the seat belt break during an accident.
Birth control fails sometimes too.

No women should be forced through gestation and childbirth because there was a accident/mistake.

Women should have a choice

And least you forgot ...most women choose to the continue the pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Well, Minnie, for Apple, women are insignificant in relationship what he perceives to be the end results of conception. Apple believes women are to be obedient to ideology of other people rather than be allow to access their life situation and how a pregnancy would impact their long-term obligations, which are linked to their abilities or capacities to take on those daily challenges.

Those who claim the unborn are chemically (DNA) equal to or superior to the born - are therefore entitled to override the life goals and liberties of the born - are being so dishonest in their motives for believing such. Extremely dishonest.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

calamity said:
As always, your narrow definition of things distorts reality.
Click to expand...

Parasitism is a specific type of symbiosis.

Symbiosis refers to interactions between two or more different species.

You might not know that because you didn't take any or didn't pay attention in the biology classes you were in.
 
Re: I'm not pro-slavery. Are You?

The title of this thread is most puzzling to me. How can a pregnancy be forced when a woman has consensual sex?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom