Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Arizona abortion law and personhood

Page 3 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,840
Location: London

18 Jul 2022, 3:40 pm

It’s really telling that the anti-abortion crowd have to resort to lies in order to support their arguments. “Baby killing” indeed :roll: No babies are ever killed by abortion, because abortion doesn’t relate to babies. That’s all the proof you need that there’s nothing wrong with abortion. If there was then the pro-life crowd would be able to construct intelligent arguments that non-religious people would take seriously, but instead they just lie about what abortion is. I guess it might be satisfying to them, but it undermines the credibility of their religious cults.

I particularly like the “sex is consent to pregnancy” line because it’s so obviously batshit. By that logic, having property is consent to theft. By that logic, a zygote which implants in a womb has consented to abortion. Everything in life has risk, but that doesn’t mean that everyone deserves everything that ever happens to them.

Ultimately, the only person who is ever harmed by an abortion is the person who chooses to undergo it. Anyone who values human liberty will therefore trust the person to decide what the best thing for them is. The state should have no basis in determining whether having children is the right thing for someone to do - unless, of course, you’re a fascist.



TwilightPrincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,065
Location: Hell

18 Jul 2022, 3:42 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
It’s really telling that the anti-abortion crowd have to resort to lies in order to support their arguments. “Baby killing” indeed :roll: No babies are ever killed by abortion, because abortion doesn’t relate to babies. That’s all the proof you need that there’s nothing wrong with abortion. If there was then the pro-life crowd would be able to construct intelligent arguments that non-religious people would take seriously, but instead they just lie about what abortion is. I guess it might be satisfying to them, but it undermines the credibility of their religious cults.

I particularly like the “sex is consent to pregnancy” line because it’s so obviously batshit. By that logic, having property is consent to theft. By that logic, a zygote which implants in a womb has consented to abortion. Everything in life has risk, but that doesn’t mean that everyone deserves everything that ever happens to them.

Ultimately, the only person who is ever harmed by an abortion is the person who chooses to undergo it. Anyone who values human liberty will therefore trust the person to decide what the best thing for them is. The state should have no basis in determining whether having children is the right thing for someone to do - unless, of course, you’re a fascist.


I kind of hope that they keep to silly arguments. (They probably don’t have much choice.) They are good for a chuckle.



Ettina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,971

18 Jul 2022, 8:08 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
It’s really telling that the anti-abortion crowd have to resort to lies in order to support their arguments. “Baby killing” indeed :roll: No babies are ever killed by abortion, because abortion doesn’t relate to babies. That’s all the proof you need that there’s nothing wrong with abortion. If there was then the pro-life crowd would be able to construct intelligent arguments that non-religious people would take seriously, but instead they just lie about what abortion is. I guess it might be satisfying to them, but it undermines the credibility of their religious cults.


Ironic that you can't see how ridiculous your own arguments are.

I was recently pregnant, and everyone, including medical professionals, referred to my child as a "baby" throughout the whole process. I've never seen anyone object to calling an unborn child a baby in any context other than making a pro-life argument. By the "language is defined by common usage" standard typically used by linguistics, an unborn child is a baby. And biological science says they're an immature human. Furthermore, even the most vehement pro-choice people are willing to call a fetus a baby if they're fighting for their life in the NICU instead of residing in a womb.

And I see you're pretending that secular pro-life people like me don't exist. Way more convenient to pretend it's something only religious people think, right? Even though science backs the pro-life interpretation of reality better.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

18 Jul 2022, 8:36 pm

Twilightprincess wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Pregnancy can have significant physical and emotional effects on a person. This is just one factor among many why abortion should be legal.

Being passed over for pay raises and promotions can have significant physical and emotional effects on a person. This is just one factor among many why killing your boss should be legal.

Being called names on the playground can have significant physical and emotional effects on a person. This is just one factor among many why shooting up schools should be legal.

Judges and policymakers make decisions and pass legislation that can have significant physical and emotional effects on a person. This is just one factor among many why killing lawyers should be legal.


False equivalency and misrepresenting my argument. Two in one. Congrats.

I'm not sure how I misrepresented anything. I'm going to slightly paraphrase. I realize changing words can alter meaning, so I'm going to do my best to stay within the intent of our discussion:

Babies cause mental/emotional stress. Kill 'em.
Bullies cause mental/emotional stress. Kill 'em.
Politicians cause mental/emotional stress. Kill 'em.
Bosses cause mental/emotional stress. Kill 'em.

Or we can just condense all of these into a single phrase:
PEOPLE cause mental/emotional stress. Kill 'em all.

There is no false equivalency here. The problem with your assertion that if babies cause mental/emotional stress we can just kill them is it's incompatible with a worldview that values human life enough to protect it. If you can kill babies because they cause mental/emotional stress, then you can kill anyone for any reason given that they cause mental/emotional stress.


Aborting a collection of cells is not the same thing as killing a human.

We are all collections of cells, so the collection of cells argument is absurd. If you mean babies being no more than collections of cells means they aren’t human, I’d be curious to know what exactly they are. Fish? Frogs? Giraffes?

But no…humans come from humans. So that argument doesn’t work, either.

Besides, this is all rather OT. The question here is whether it is possible to legislate personhood at fertilization. Ok, we’ll…it’s POSSIBLE to legislate pretty much whatever you want. Washington and Oregon could vote to enslave Asians if they wanted to. But is the personhood law something that Arizona really can put any force behind? What are the consequences of legally defining personhood as starting at fertilization.