The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[Zero Day Defense]

Fucking virgin.

Ah, you know-- I always forget to verify someone's "had sex" status before we talk viewpoints.

What a fucking joke.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Fucking virgin.

He's a confirmed incel who hates women because they won't fuck him, so yeah.

 

[TheRetardKing]

What’s the best thing about abortion jokes?

They never get old.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Ah, I'll just go ahead and not pay my taxes because I don't want to.

What was that? I have to go to prison for tax evasion?

Taxation isn't a violation of bodily autonomy. The government creates the money you earn and use, and by law, they are entitled to a percentage of it in return. By concealing this from the government, you are committing a form of fraud against the government, and fraud is a crime.

If you don't want to pay taxes, you actually don't have to: you can choose to live on the streets and refuse to earn money. In most free societies, there is no law against making this choice.

You were making a point about legality. It's legal for the state to conscript. I can hardly do anything about that, as a private citizen. This is a violation of my bodily autonomy as the state supposedly understands, but that's only because the concept only applies to women trying to kill their kids-- except not even consistently so.

Except the concept doesn't only apply to women and abortion; it's a fairly consistent legal standard. Laws which prevent abortion or allow conscription are very much the exception to the rule; hence my argument for why they should be struck down.

Let's put aside that there's no explanation as to why the standards for sex have to apply to pregnancy as blindly as you apply them-- aside from the aforementioned, states can still make restrictions on late term abortions.

What is "blind" about the comparison? Both scenarios involve a conflict between the right to bodily integrity and the right to life, and my point is that you can't have it both ways. You either have to argue in favor of setting a new precedent (and thus, accept the consequences of applying it beyond the issue of abortion and pregnancy), or you have to find a way to argue that a fetus' right to life is somehow more legally compelling than that of anyone else (such that the usual precedent does not apply). I have not seen you convincingly make either argument, and I'm fairly confident that you can't.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I'm starting to think you have an agenda.

Yeah it's a topic of political discourse (shitflinging). Everyone who posts in this thread probably has an agenda.

 

[Mile High Club]

you have to find a way to argue that a fetus' right to life is somehow more legally compelling than that of anyone else

This is the kicker for me. The morality of abortion has more to do with bodily autonomy/right to life arguments than anything else and putting all specifics of pregnancy and abortion aside, no one should have a legal obligation to be bodily life support for another person. Not that I couldn't see points to the other side. One could argue our wishy washy laws surrounding "right to life" is keeping the USA from free universal healthcare, for example.

Here's how it was explained to me. If I was hooked up to some guy who needed a blood transfusion RIGHT NOW NOW NOW in order to stay alive and I chose to walk away and let him die because I like my blood where it's at, that's my right. It would be morally wrong to force me to give blood. You'd be hard pressed to convince many people otherwise, which is why things like blood donation are opt-in. Donating your whole body to a fetus for 9 months should also be opt-in.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Taxation isn't a violation of bodily autonomy.

The actions taken in retaliation to acts such as tax evasion fundamentally are. But, please-- don't get hung up on (the consequences of evading) taxation, since it's but one of many examples where the government violates "bodily autonomy" that we accept as natural or otherwise deserved, such as drug possession/use.

The government creates the money you earn and use, and by law, they are entitled to a percentage of it in return. By concealing this from the government, you are committing a form of fraud against the government, and fraud is a crime.

What does this have to do with bodily autonomy or its violation? Fraud is bad but doesn't infringe on bodily autonomy. If the implied argument is "violation of the law is forfeiture of bodily autonomy, regardless of the nature of the violation", then you've only supported an argument adjacent to mine: "bodily autonomy is violable, and we selectively permit it to be".

Except the concept doesn't only apply to women and abortion; it's a fairly consistent legal standard.

Laws which prevent abortion or allow conscription are very much the exception to the rule

You start by appealing to legality ("the courts and laws are in support of bodily autonomy as they say that you don't owe others your body"), I point out (after pointing out that Judith Butler is a pseudointellectual hack) that this is hardly respected outside justifying women killing their kids (and go further to point out that the very legal sources you use as support also allow states to still place restrictions on the practice in favor of a "balance" between this concept and protecting prenatal life), you say that's morally wrong and needs to be rectified.

Put aside that conscription is older than Roe, and the general concept is much older-- what does this have to do with your legal appeal? What even is the point of a legal appeal, if you're still arguing that the laws need to be changed? They don't need to be changed for legal reasons-- they're not in contradiction of some other law, but rather some alleged principle. We're still regressing to an argument of morality.

You've literally made the argument that Muh Vagina has been making since the conception of this thread writ large, except that you're explicitly illustrating the flaws that said argument had.

What is "blind" about the comparison? Both scenarios involve a conflict between the right to bodily integrity and the right to life

Sex itself most certainly does not involve the concept of "right to life".

Here's how it was explained to me. If I was hooked up to some guy who needed a blood transfusion

How many more times are we going to regurgitate Butler, even after having it called out, even after having it explained that the analogy is nonsense because you're not in any way responsible for such a man because you weren't ever responsible for such a man, much less by way of conceiving him?

Maybe I was misunderstood about biology-- maybe fetuses are actually aliens that hail from some other planet and they decide to take refuge in the wombs of women into which they fly into, so the mother isn't responsible for creating them at all and that hag's analogy is actually applicable.

 

[Mile High Club]

How many more times are we going to regurgitate Butler, even after having it called out, even after having it explained that the analogy is nonsense because you're not in any way responsible for such a man because you weren't ever responsible for such a man, much less by way of conceiving him?

So, what if that man was my son that I had a hand in conceiving? I don't have any obligation to donate blood to my kids either, the fuck does being responsible for their conception have to do with that and why does it negate bodily autonomy?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

So, what if that man was my son that I had a hand in conceiving?

Better yet: what if your son was literally inside you because you did the one thing capable of conceiving him and causing him to be there, and the only way to "get him out" would be to actively kill him through euthanization and ejection rather than letting him expire because you were too stingy to do something as simple as donating blood to your own flesh and blood?

Are there any duties you have to take on for your children's sake by virtue of being their parent?

 

[Marika]

Better yet: what if your son was literally inside you because you did the one thing capable of conceiving him and causing him to be there, and the only way to "get him out" would be to actively kill him through euthanization and ejection rather than letting him expire because you were too stingy to do something as simple as donating blood to your own flesh and blood?

Are there any duties you take on for your children's sake by virtue of being their parent?

Whether or not someone takes on the duties of gestating and subsequently raising a human being, in my opinion, is entirely up to the parents (mother pre-birth and both parents afterwards). How much a potential parent should or will care about their potential kid is something no one can realistically or reliably measure. You obviously know more about the legalities of this than I do, so I'm not trying to argue with you on that, but I do want to understand what your solution to this issue would be.

 

[Mile High Club]

Better yet: what if your son was literally inside you because you did the one thing capable of conceiving him and causing him to be there, and the only way to "get him out" would be to actively kill him through euthanization and ejection rather than letting him expire because you were too stingy to do something as simple as donating blood to your own flesh and blood?

Are there any duties you take on for your children's sake by virtue of being their parent?

How is "ejection" of a fetus any more* active of a kill than removing an IV from my arm? Both are a medical choice, post conception, to no longer support the life of one's kid with one's own body. Your standards are emotionally influenced by the innocent life of a child and dirty sluts who commit what feels like murder to you, but if removing my body as life support for an external person is okay, internal ones can get yeeted, too. There is no difference.

*Edit: more not less.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Whether or not someone takes on the duties of gestating and subsequently raising a human being, in my opinion, is entirely up to the parents (mother pre-birth and both parents afterwards). How much a potential parent should or will care about their potential kid is something no one can realistically or reliably measure. You obviously know more about the legalities of this than I do, so I'm not trying to argue with you on that, but I do want to understand what your solution to this issue would be.

I'm unclear about the issue you're posing.

How is "ejection" of a fetus any more* active of a kill than removing an IV from my arm? Both are a medical choice, post conception, to no longer support the life of one's kid with one's own body.

Again, there's a difference between killing someone and allowing them to expire for want of a resource you were unwilling to give.

Think about it mechanically, and even put the very distinct realities of pregnancy versus a blood transfusion aside-- the fetus develops normally absent any abnormal event, and merely deciding that you don't want to continue to provide it resources doesn't do anything because you can't stop that from happening unless you remove the fetus from your body or kill yourself. You have to take an action.

In contrast, all that would need to be done for person B to die is... nothing. You would have to not do anything. You let someone die (as you had the means to keep them from dying), but that's different from killing someone and this reality still needs to be balanced against the responsibility you had for that person. For a random person, that's close to nothing. For your own child, that's something.

Your standards are emotionally influenced by the innocent life of a child and dirty sluts who commit what feels like murder to you, but if removing my body as life support for an external person is okay,

That's not okay, either, if it's your child. You're still a failure of a person for that, but for different reasons, because they're not the same thing no matter how much you try to force an equivalence. Butler's analogy is just inherently bullshit because the person you're spontaneously hooked up to (a fucking improbable situation, for the record, unsuitable for her purposes and multifariously impossible for humans) is a person you don't know from Adam, and owe nothing to.

 

[Mile High Club]

merely deciding that you don't want to continue to provide it resources doesn't do anything because you can't stop that from happening unless you remove the fetus IV from your body arm or kill yourself. You have to take an action.

Hmm, nope, still not seeing the difference.

You know, I'm starting to think your aside about alien fetus womb refugees was more about your own mystical magical feelings about pregnancy than mine. It's not sacred, it's a Plan B pill the morning after the condom broke for a lot of women.

That's not okay, either, if it's your child. You're still a failure of a person for that, but for different reasons, because they're not the same thing no matter how much you try to force an equivalence. Butler's analogy is just inherently bullshit because the person you're spontaneously hooked up to (a fucking improbable situation, for the record, unsuitable for her purposes and multifariously impossible for humans) is a person you don't know from Adam, and owe nothing to.

It's interesting that you hinge your moral argument on how well acquainted you are with the person, wouldn't it make more sense to argue that everybody has a right to live, and we should all be obligated to do everything we can to keep us all in good health? Myself, I couldn't pick a fetus with my DNA out of a lineup. "Knowing" them is a bad qualifier for your moral guidelines, and you should feel bad.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Hmm, nope, still not seeing the difference.

Sorry, I incorrectly presumed that, in your analogy, you made a choice to get an IV stuck in your arm in the first place.

Can you blame me, though? "Suddenly (magically) having an IV in your arm to transfuse your blood into another person for their survival" doesn't analogize anything in reality unless you're a pedophilic second-wave feminist hag.

It's interesting that you hinge your moral argument on how well acquainted you are with the person,

You have a particularly poor grasp of my argument and everything it hinges upon-- which is to be expected from someone who keeps trying to brute force a false equivalency of what's clearly a difference of activity and passivity.

"Being a direct cause of someone's being" isn't a matter of "acquaintance". "Being naturally and legally responsible for their well-being on account of parentage" isn't a matter of "acquaintance".

 

[Mile High Club]

Such a detail analogizes nothing, because through the act of our one reproductive method, you are choosing to become pregnant should a pregnancy occur.

You might like for that to be the case, but no. There are several layers of choices and incidents beyond your choosing that can happen to cause a pregnancy. I even mentioned one for you in my last post, which you conveniently skated over. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy in the same way that consent to putting an IV in my arm and giving blood is not consent to continued blood giving until the alien refugee breaches the wall. This has been true as long as humans have been around to fuck and flush the leftovers.

What do you think the driving force for sex is? Not everyone subscribes to Quiverfull Weekly, they just like how it feels. It's great for social bonding, exercise, and stress relief! And before you say it's the hindbrain seeking to spread its seed, gays cross that point off the list for you. Having sex just to enjoy it with somebody no babystrings attached is good for you man, you should give it a shot. No one likes a Repressed Russel.

"Being a direct cause of someone's being" isn't a matter of "acquaintance". "Being naturally and legally responsible for their well-being on account of parentage" isn't a matter of "acquaintance".

Getting autistically laser-focused on the dictionary definition of one word has me concerned about your reading comprehension as well. Don't worry, we can misunderstand each other together.

If I donate my sperm to a bank, how do I know the resulting kids from Adam? And speaking of legal responsibilities, do you think adoption should be illegal if the natural parents are fit to raise their kid but don't want to for whatever reason?

If you could, what would you change about the law to more closely align it with your point of view that all sex is consent to pregnancy and child rearing? (Even gay sex?) Would it be best if no one ever fucked unless it was specifically to make a baby? Porn bans, intercourse permits? Just spitballing here.

Edit: Dude, wrap your thoughts up before you hit post. Going back and changing your entire argument after I already quoted the first draft is faggotry.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

There are several layers of choices and incidents beyond your choosing that can happen to cause a pregnancy.

Like rape? You are alluding to rape, right? I have no idea what you're referring to since you didn't seem to mention any such thing.

IIRC, abortions due to those account for... ~1% of abortions, according to Guttmacher.

You're more likely to get an abortion because your life is in danger due to the pregnancy.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy in the same way that consent to putting an IV in my arm and giving blood is not consent to continued blood giving until the alien refugee breaches the wall.

You're comparing two different scenarios with two different collections of dynamic frameworks. Sex leads to pregnancy. Sex is performed, primarily, to reproduce. Sex is the unilateral and direct cause of pregnancy. If you think that consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy (let's put aside the matter of birth control employed), you likely have a poor grasp of responsibility.

What do you think the driving force for sex is?

Reproduction. The purpose of sex is to reproduce. It is the only way that any sexually dimorphic species propagates and persists. When you have the urge to have sex, you have the urge to reproduce. Everything else (the pairbonding, the pleasure) is secondary.

The purpose of birth control as a family of drugs is to decouple the pleasure of the gratification from sex, from its natural consequence (successful copulation). You have to contend with the ethics and morality of that, because you are doing that when engaging in casual sex. It's profoundly foolish to argue otherwise.

And before you say it's the hindbrain seeking to spread its seed, gays cross that point off the list for you.

Homosexuality is very much rare, so there's no value in using it as a support for your argument. Sexual orientation is a social construct a few centuries old at best-- prior to, homosexual behavior was only recognized for itself. At "best", it was recognized as part of an "effeminate" mindset, but nobody would think the homosexual was biologically incapable of having sex with a woman. This is also why conversion camps are themselves a recent innovation.

This isn't to mention that at best, homosexuality is the cause of some uncertain interaction between biological predispositions and environmental factors. There is no "gay gene", there is no brain structure norm deviation that would promote homosexuality that we've been able to point to with certainty. There's no hormonal deviation we're presently aware of. Even being molested isn't a surefire way to grow up a homosexual. In short, there's no identified definitive cause. Any claim of any such thing has been a conclusion from a correlation at best and complete conjecture at worst.

Getting autistically laser-focused on the dictionary definition of one word

That's not the problem here. You're not stretching the definition of a word-- you have failed to understand the concept of parenthood, because you haven't even considered the concept of parenthood. It's the only reason why one would only consider it in the same spectrum as acquaintanceship, as though you could choose who birthed or sired you the same way you choose people with whom you associate.

If I donate my sperm to a bank, how do I know the resulting kids from Adam?

If the mother's hunting for child support, you'll likely learn soon enough.

And speaking of legal responsibilities, do you think adoption should be illegal if the natural parents are fit to raise their kid but don't want to for whatever reason?

The reason that adoption exists as a process is in fact because other people, regardless of whether they are evidently better parents than the actual ones, do not have a natural and automatic right to children who are not their flesh and blood. Legally, it is a process by which these parental rights are transferred (willingly or otherwise) or conferred (in the case there are no living parents to transfer such rights).

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

What does this have to do with bodily autonomy or its violation? Fraud is bad but doesn't infringe on bodily autonomy. If the implied argument is "violation of the law is forfeiture of bodily autonomy, regardless of the nature of the violation", then you've only supported an argument adjacent to mine: "bodily autonomy is violable, and we selectively permit it to be".

You should be asking yourself this question, because you're the one who seems to think that laws against tax evasion somehow violate bodily autonomy. I have made no such claim, and in fact completely reject it. When people speak of bodily autonomy (or more specifically: bodily integrity), we're talking about a person's right to not have their physical person violated against their will.

Generally speaking, the only instances in which this right can be infringed upon is when practical circumstances make not doing so impossible (like when armed police search a terror suspect who is believed to be carrying a deadly weapon, for example). Conscription and prohibitions upon abortion do not live up to this standard, and as such, I argue against them.

Your example of people being imprisoned for tax evasion is tangentially related to this practical point, although here I would argue that there is a broader debate to be had about the purpose prisons serve more generally. I am of the view that prisons should exist to segregate us from those who pose a danger to society, and as such, I generally think that non-violent crimes (like tax evasion) should ideally not carry prison terms.

You start by appealing to legality ("the courts and laws are in support of bodily autonomy as they say that you don't owe others your body"), I point out (after pointing out that Judith Butler is a pseudointellectual hack) that this is hardly respected outside justifying women killing their kids (and go further to point out that the very legal sources you use as support also allow states to still place restrictions on the practice in favor of a "balance" between this concept and protecting prenatal life), you say that's morally wrong and needs to be rectified.

Put aside that conscription is older than Roe, and the general concept is much older-- what does this have to do with your legal appeal? What even is the point of a legal appeal, if you're still arguing that the laws need to be changed? They don't need to be changed for legal reasons-- they're not in contradiction of some other law, but rather some alleged principle. We're still regressing to an argument of morality.

You've literally made the argument that Muh Vagina has been making since the conception of this thread writ large, except that you're explicitly illustrating the flaws that said argument had.

Morality undoubtedly informs my perspective, but principally, I view this as a debate which centers on legal philosophy. My point was never to defend the law as it is, but to argue for what I believe the law ought to be, using the various precedents which have been set as a guide.

If a particular law clearly violates an accepted precedent, then I think it should have to justify itself, and if a particular precedent violates all reason, then I think there is a very strong case to be made in favor of establishing a new one. This is how law evolves, and I think I am being very clear about which side of this debate I am on. I find it interesting how you don't seem to want to elucidate what informs your legal perspective, much less cite examples which would clearly support your case.

Sex itself most certainly does not involve the concept of "right to life".

Sex itself doesn't, but the specific example I gave clearly does.

 

[Mile High Club]

Like rape? You are alluding to rape, right? IIRC, abortions due to those account for... ~1% of abortions, according to Guttmacher.

You are capable of scrolling up and reading what I actually said instead of fighting strawmen, I believe in you.

Homosexuality is very much rare, so there's no value in using it as a support for your argument.

But if gay people can have sex without it being about making babies and there's nothing in the natures or nutures that make them clearly different from straight people, why is it so impossible for you to think that a decent chunk if not the majority of the population also has sex purely for fun?

Sex is performed, primarily, to reproduce.

Source(s): lmao just trust me bro.

If you think that consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy (let's put aside the matter of birth control employed), you likely have a poor grasp of responsibility.

Why would we put aside birth control when talking about consent to sex and pregnancy when it's gone hand in hand for centuries in all types of societies? Birth control has been in active use since at least the 1500s, because people don't always want to get pregnant when they fuck. This is a normal, healthy outlook on sex. Thinking of sex as only a vehicle to children is narrowminded and more importantly, unrealistic.

I asked you some questions in my last post that you've elected to completely ignore. Why is that? I'd like to know where this reasoning takes you when you try to apply it to the real world instead of this circlejerk.

If you could, what would you change about the law to more closely align it with your point of view that all sex is consent to pregnancy and child rearing? (Even gay sex?) Would it be best if no one ever fucked unless it was specifically to make a baby? Porn bans, intercourse permits? Just spitballing here. < - You missed all this, try answering some of it this time instead of sperging about homos or practicing wit. If it's just you spilling your wastoid feels all over this thread, that's boring as hell.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

You should be asking yourself this question, because you're the one who seems to think that laws against tax evasion somehow violate bodily autonomy. I have made no such claim, and in fact completely reject it. When people speak of bodily autonomy (or more specifically: bodily integrity), we're talking about a person's right to not have their physical person violated against their will.

I don't think tax evaders want to go to jail, and they only comply because the government is effectively/literally pointing guns at them.

My point was never to defend the law as it is, but to argue for what I believe the law ought to be

That may have been your intent, but that's not what's actually happening. You appealed to the law as it was to make your case. When provided with cases where the principle that you defended with legal precedent did not apply despite a clear contradiction, you marginalized them as outliers and gave a moral statement. Rather than arguing "legal philosophy", you've been vacillating between arguing from legality and from morality.

I find it interesting how you don't seem to want to elucidate what informs your legal perspective, much less cite examples which would clearly support your case.

You never asked, and it's unnecessary to make my original point ("'bodily autonomy' is a principle that's only legally applied when women want to kill their kids, and it's not even consistently applied there").

Sex itself doesn't, but the specific example I gave clearly does.

If it's the one about sex, then no, it doesn't.

You are capable of scrolling up and reading what I actually said instead of fighting strawmen,

Actually, that's a steel man. If it wasn't anything I mentioned up there, I would have straight up said "sucks to be a dumbass".

But if gay people can have sex without it being about making babies and there's nothing in the natures or nutures that make them clearly different from straight people, why is it so impossible for you to think that a decent chunk if not the majority of the population also has sex purely for fun?

What does "what people do" with a tool have to do with the evident purpose of said tool?

Source(s): lmao just trust me bro.

Go outside, read a biology textbook, study history, etc.

I could only imagine that you're trying to perform a Socratic thought experiment but you chose the worst hill to pretend to die on and now you look like your awareness of history is localized to the United States and non-existent prior to 1975.

Why would we put aside birth control when talking about consent to sex and pregnancy when it's gone hand in hand for centuries in all types of societies?

Because the only thing to be said to "birth control can fail" in this discussion is "that sucks".

It wasn't worth the effort of branching the conversation.

This is a normal, healthy outlook on sex.

What's not healthy is deliberately trying to render yourself barren with drugs and vacuuming out any kids you do end up conceiving, which people back then weren't wont to do.

If you could, what would you change about the law to more closely align it with your point of view that all sex is consent to pregnancy and child rearing? (Even gay sex?) Would it be best if no one ever fucked unless it was specifically to make a baby? Porn bans, intercourse permits? Just spitballing here.

I didn't bother answering this question because I found it fairly pointless. For me, my concern has always been with culture rather than law, since law is a product of politics, which is a product of culture. It wouldn't matter if you were legally allowed to kill your kid five seconds before birth if nobody thought that that was moral, and it would only be a matter of time before such law was stricken as a matter of ceremony. In contrast, just changing the law doesn't change the hearts of the people-- not enough, anyways, and not by default. Laws established against the will of the people are usually liable to be stricken whenever the opposition takes back power.

Accordingly, I'd say that there wasn't anything worth doing legally. You say "sex is consent to pregnancy and child rearing". I just say "take responsibility". Whether pregnancy occurs, whether it doesn't.

 

[Mile High Club]

What does "what people do" with a tool have to do with the evident purpose of said tool?

Loooool. Sorry, I was trying to genuinely get into this with you but I can't take it seriously anymore after this one. Tools are defined by how we use them. If the vast majority of us use sex more often for pleasure than children, that is its evident purpose. You might not feel the same way as everyone else, that's cool, but you should stand by that instead of trying to rewrite history. You come off like an asexual tard and nobody relates to that. You can't change the hearts of people you fundamentally don't get. Unlucky.