• 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!

A Question To Pro-Choice People

T

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
35,139
Reaction score
5,607
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If your only main argument supporting the legalized murder of the unborn, is that the woman has the sole right to her body......

.....why does it matter to you if the baby is human, or not?


In other words, why do you go out of your way trying to prove the unborn is not a human being?
 
tosca1 said:
If your only main argument supporting the legalized murder of the unborn, is that the woman has the sole right to her body......

.....why does it matter to you if the baby is human, or not?


In other words, why do you go out of your way trying to prove the unborn is not a human being?
Click to expand...

"Legalized murder" is an oxymoron. "Murder" is a legal term.
 
First, a hair splitting. No such thing as legalized murder. Those are contradictory terms.

Now that the hair has been split...

I think pro choice folks, like the pro life folks, or even pro and anti gun folk....use whatever argument they think will be most effective on any given audience.

Some are arguing against this who claim human right to life...so the zeff isn't human argument is wielded.

Some claim that abortion are only OK in the event of rape, or risk of injury or death to the mother...and then, its more effective to use the bodily sovereignty argument.
 
The unborn are not citizens. They do not have a birth certificate. They do not have a picture ID. Given that they are undocumented aliens, our President, AG, and DHS have the policy of separating these kids from their parents. It seems consistent to me.

:lol:
 
tosca1 said:
If your only main argument supporting the legalized murder of the unborn, is that the woman has the sole right to her body......

.....why does it matter to you if the baby is human, or not?


In other words, why do you go out of your way trying to prove the unborn is not a human being?
Click to expand...
Quite honestly, when it comes to the issues of bodily autonomy, it doesn't matter even if what a person wants removed is part of their own body. It's their body. No one else has any right to say what stays or goes.

Now that is not an argument that anyone is owed such a procedure. If there is no one willing to remove whatever it is, the rights of the person wanting whatever it is removed is not violated. The same bodily autonomy that allows them to have it removed also allows another the choice of whether or not to provide any given service.

As far as arguments as to whether or not the ZEF is a being (human or otherwise), anti-abortion supporters hinge almost all their arguments on that concept, and thus when such arguments are brought up, of course they need to be countered. Ultimately, bodily autonomy is the number one reason as why they get to have an abortion.

A major point needs to be made here. The right has nothing to do with terminating the ZEF. That is the just the most likely outcome. A mother's right only extends to her own body. So if her genetic baby is in a surrogate's womb, the mother has no right to have that offspring aborted should she change her mind later.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
tosca1 said:
If your only main argument supporting the legalized murder of the unborn, is that the woman has the sole right to her body......

.....why does it matter to you if the baby is human, or not?


In other words, why do you go out of your way trying to prove the unborn is not a human being?
Click to expand...

I don't. I just think it shouldn't be controlled by the government.
 
Thorgasm said:
"Legalized murder" is an oxymoron. "Murder" is a legal term.
Click to expand...

The unborn are not citizens. They do not have a birth certificate. They do not have a picture ID. Given that they are undocumented aliens, our President, AG, and DHS have the policy of separating these kids from their parents. It seems consistent to me.
Click to expand...


Now that you've gotten that off your chest.........what's your answer to the question?
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
I think pro choice folks, like the pro life folks, or even pro and anti gun folk....use whatever argument they think will be most effective on any given audience.

Some are arguing against this who claim human right to life...so the zeff isn't human argument is wielded.
Click to expand...

Of course, pro-lifers are saying the fetus is human - that's their main argument why they oppose the killing of the unborn. To them, it is murder!
And because they see the fetus as a human being, it only follows that they see him as deserving
of human rights!

But, why can't the pro-choice stand on their main argument that the woman has sole rights to her body?



maquiscat said:
Quite honestly, when it comes to the issues of bodily autonomy, it doesn't matter even if what a person wants removed is part of their own body. It's their body. No one else has any right to say what stays or goes.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Why should it matter to pro-choice whether the fetus is a human, or not?
Why? Can't their sole argument stand alone on its own?
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Of course, pro-lifers are saying the fetus is human - that's their main argument why they oppose the killing of the unborn. To them, it is murder!
And because they see the fetus as a human being, it only follows that they see him as deserving
of human rights!

But, why can't the pro-choice stand on their main argument that the woman has sole rights to her body?

Why should it matter to pro-choice whether the fetus is a human, or not?
Why? Can't their sole argument stand alone on its own?
Click to expand...
So your question is why don't pro-choice supporters only have one argument?
 
rocket88 said:
I don't. I just think it shouldn't be controlled by the government.
Click to expand...

So, whether the unborn is human or not, your position is that the government shouldn't be controlling.
You've never used the argument that the fetus is not human?
 
tosca1 said:
So, whether the unborn is human or not, your position is that the government shouldn't be controlling.
You've never used the argument that the fetus is not human?
Click to expand...

I want to know what pro-choice advocate on this board has ever denied the fetus is human.

Please list and quote.
 
tosca1 said:
If your only main argument supporting the legalized murder of the unborn, is that the woman has the sole right to her body......

.....why does it matter to you if the baby is human, or not?


In other words, why do you go out of your way trying to prove the unborn is not a human being?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 'legalized murder'. You antis are the ones who bring up the term human being, we are just correcting you.
 
MrPeanut said:
So your question is why don't pro-choice supporters only have one argument?
Click to expand...

I'm asking if that main argument can't stand alone on its own.
 
Scrabaholic said:
There is no such thing as 'legalized murder'. You antis are the ones who bring up the term human being, we are just correcting you.
Click to expand...


To pro-lifers, that is such a term.

Pro-lifers' main argument is that the unborn is a human, deserving of every rights any human have.

And since the unborn is considered human by pro-lifers, therefore they see abortion - which is sanctioned by the government, as "legalized murder."
 
year2late said:
I want to know what pro-choice advocate on this board has ever denied the fetus is human.

Please list and quote.
Click to expand...


One popular argument is about "personhood," which actually is defined as being a human.
As to who among pro-choicers here, you'll have to review other threads for that.
 
tosca1 said:
So, whether the unborn is human or not, your position is that the government shouldn't be controlling.
You've never used the argument that the fetus is not human?
Click to expand...

Nope, I've never used that argument. I find abortion to be morally reprehensible, but find the government trying to regulate moral behavior reprehensible also.
 
tosca1 said:
So, whether the unborn is human or not, your position is that the government shouldn't be controlling.
You've never used the argument that the fetus is not human?
Click to expand...

tosca1 said:
One popular argument is about "personhood," which actually is defined as being a human.
As to who among pro-choicers here, you'll have to review other threads for that.
Click to expand...

I asked if you could point to a prochoice poster that denied the fetus is human.

Does that mean the answer is no?
 
tosca1 said:
To pro-lifers, that is such a term.

Pro-lifers' main argument is that the unborn is a human, deserving of every rights any human have.

And since the unborn is considered human by pro-lifers, therefore they see abortion - which is sanctioned by the government, as "legalized murder."
Click to expand...


That's more of an opinion than a definition, my friend. :) If you want to have an intellectual discussion on this, you might want to consider dropping the pro-life talking points, as they are not designed to encourage discourse, but rather shame people into the ground. Not many talks worth having come out of that.

I don't think pro-Choice folks say that fetuses aren't "human"...I mean, what else would they be, raccoon? Martian? :)

Rather, they have not developed far enough to be considered to be a person. That definition will vary from person to person, and forms a good chunk of the debate - when do we go from a mass of genetic blueprints and "starter goo" to a person with rights? That part of the discussion is used to make decisions about how late an abortion can take place, if at all. This is why, currently, we see late term abortions only done when the mother is in danger.

I wouldn't expect you to agree with a pro-choicer on that definition, but it should demonstrate why this is an important part of the conversation.
 
OlNate said:
That's more of an opinion than a definition, my friend. :) If you want to have an intellectual discussion on this, you might want to consider dropping the pro-life talking points, as they are not designed to encourage discourse, but rather shame people into the ground. Not many talks worth having come out of that.

I don't think pro-Choice folks say that fetuses aren't "human"...I mean, what else would they be, raccoon? Martian? :)

Rather, they have not developed far enough to be considered to be a person. That definition will vary from person to person, and forms a good chunk of the debate - when do we go from a mass of genetic blueprints and "starter goo" to a person with rights? That part of the discussion is used to make decisions about how late an abortion can take place, if at all. This is why, currently, we see late term abortions only done when the mother is in danger.

I wouldn't expect you to agree with a pro-choicer on that definition, but it should demonstrate why this is an important part of the conversation.
Click to expand...

Using accurate words and legal definitions would help.
 
tosca1 said:
To pro-lifers, that is such a term.
Click to expand...

That is not reality, though. If I said that killing animals for meat is murder, you'd take issue w/ that.


And since the unborn is considered human by pro-lifers, therefore they see abortion - which is sanctioned by the government, as "legalized murder."
Click to expand...

You are using human and human being interchangeably. That is incorrect to do so. The zef is genetically human but it is not a human being (which is a social construct).
 
tosca1 said:
Of course, pro-lifers are saying the fetus is human - that's their main argument why they oppose the killing of the unborn. To them, it is murder!
And because they see the fetus as a human being, it only follows that they see him as deserving
of human rights!

But, why can't the pro-choice stand on their main argument that the woman has sole rights to her body?





Exactly.

Why should it matter to pro-choice whether the fetus is a human, or not?
Why? Can't their sole argument stand alone on its own?
Click to expand...
I already noted that. When a anti-abortionist presents an argument based on either opinion or non fact, their error will be pointed out to them.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
tosca1 said:
To pro-lifers, that is such a term.

Pro-lifers' main argument is that the unborn is a human, deserving of every rights any human have.

And since the unborn is considered human by pro-lifers, therefore they see abortion - which is sanctioned by the government, as "legalized murder."
Click to expand...
Since murder is an illegal killing, how can you have a legalized illegal killing?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
tosca1 said:
One popular argument is about "personhood," which actually is defined as being a human.
As to who among pro-choicers here, you'll have to review other threads for that.
Click to expand...
Personhood has nothing to do with being a human. Right now, humans are the only real world example we have. But we have repeatedly visited the concept of personhood with regards to non human races and artificial intelligence. Personhood is not limited to humans.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
year2late said:
I asked if you could point to a prochoice poster that denied the fetus is human.

Does that mean the answer is no?
Click to expand...
He's trying to say that in denying personhood in a ZEF, that is the same as denying it is human.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom