oh my god this is why we lose all the goddamn time. why do pro choice people have to make the fucking worst arguments? this comparison is dumb for multiple reasons. viability is arbitrary and irrelevant, and most importantly could be subject to change. some people talk about the fetus technically being a parasite; that makes you sound psychotic.
there’s one argument here: freedom over your own body. you shouldn’t be legally forced to undergo an operation for someone else’s benefit. yes even if the fetus is a person, it’s viable, can feel pain, whatever. there’s literally no other situation where that is even remotely legal. you can’t be forced to donate an organ or blood to your own child. the only reason one is forced and one isn’t is because of the general idea that men will be in one of those situations.
there’s no reason to accept their framing on any of this and try to beat them in some sort of logical trap. they’ll move the goalpost. they’re not serious about any of this. this is and has always been about controlling the woman, and the counter therefore should be about the woman.
everything about the fetus is just bullshit. if they cared about the fetus they’d argue for its wellbeing literally at any point after the first moment of its birth but they don’t. THEY DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANY BABY. why would they care about a goddamn chick? no it’s always only about women. the baby stuff is a smokescreen to get you to argue mind numbingly stupid shit like this.
oh my god if I were arguing with an anti choice moron and someone “on my side” would butt in with “but we kill chicks though” I would smack them across the face. stop being weird.
why do pro choice people have to make the fucking worst arguments?
It’s an ongoing struggle and essentially everybody hates you when you point out just how many pro-choice arguments are either just fucking dumb and ineffective or try to argue for being pro-choice as an application of a broader principle that doesn’t get treated as half as important in most other cases where it’s application would be controversial.
It’s even worse when you yourself are pro-choice and it’s just pointing out that bad or inconsistent arguments are bad or inconsistent.
there’s one argument here: freedom over your own body. you shouldn’t be legally forced to undergo an operation for someone else’s benefit. yes even if the fetus is a person, it’s viable, can feel pain, whatever. there’s literally no other situation where that is even remotely legal.
Freedom over your own body is really only sold as some kind of highest principle specifically in pro-choice arguments and blood and tissue donations. Usually the counter arguments rely on the notion that there’s a point where you’ve agreed to the thing and can’t demand it be undone (you can’t for example donate a kidney and then demand it back), which for pregnancy brings it back around to things like whether or not a human being in the earliest stages of its life counts as a person that you’ve presumably consented to create by engaging in the reproductive act.
Also, by all appearances the line for when the bodily autonomy argument is seen as acceptable is specifically when the process involved is wholly biological - the moment it can be abstracted from that even a little bit suddenly bodily autonomy no longer applies.
A fun hypothetical to throw out there is this - artificial wombs are currently in development for agricultural use because they could potentially increase yields and reduce emissions (once the tech is mature, it’s hypothetically cheaper and cleaner to run an artificial womb than maintain a whole cow per head of beef per season). This tech could probably be adapted for human use. So, in a hypothetical where artificial wombs are perfected for human use, would you support banning abortion in favor of transplanting to an artificial womb if the prognosis for the woman was the same, knowing that she will of course be responsible for the resulting child? If no, are you really arguing from bodily autonomy since the part involving the woman’s body has been removed from the equation?
it’s fine; I was expecting dumb fucks who make dumb arguments all the time to not read into all that. most of the downvotes probably assume I’m pro life despite the fact that I’m pro choice. not only that but I support abortion without restrictions. don’t care about viability as I think it’s a weak basis, I don’t care if it’s the tenth month.
I don’t think your example removes the woman from the equation. the transfer is still related to bodily autonomy. the fetus is part of the mother, and forcing someone to transfer it and keep it alive is still against that. you can’t force me to ejaculate into a cup, what makes it ok to force someone to transfer their fetus anywhere?
nah maybe if you’d have the baby conceived inside the artificial womb from the start…?
then you’d have other questions like is it ok to force a baby to be born without any parents in their life… whole other can of worms which is about the baby’s welfare, which is why this hypothetical will never be discussed by anti choice people because they don’t give a shit about the baby and aren’t the least bit interested in what would happen to them if you remove the woman from the equation.
oh my god this is why we lose all the goddamn time. why do pro choice people have to make the fucking worst arguments? this comparison is dumb for multiple reasons. viability is arbitrary and irrelevant, and most importantly could be subject to change. some people talk about the fetus technically being a parasite; that makes you sound psychotic.
there’s one argument here: freedom over your own body. you shouldn’t be legally forced to undergo an operation for someone else’s benefit. yes even if the fetus is a person, it’s viable, can feel pain, whatever. there’s literally no other situation where that is even remotely legal. you can’t be forced to donate an organ or blood to your own child. the only reason one is forced and one isn’t is because of the general idea that men will be in one of those situations.
there’s no reason to accept their framing on any of this and try to beat them in some sort of logical trap. they’ll move the goalpost. they’re not serious about any of this. this is and has always been about controlling the woman, and the counter therefore should be about the woman.
everything about the fetus is just bullshit. if they cared about the fetus they’d argue for its wellbeing literally at any point after the first moment of its birth but they don’t. THEY DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANY BABY. why would they care about a goddamn chick? no it’s always only about women. the baby stuff is a smokescreen to get you to argue mind numbingly stupid shit like this.
oh my god if I were arguing with an anti choice moron and someone “on my side” would butt in with “but we kill chicks though” I would smack them across the face. stop being weird.
It’s an ongoing struggle and essentially everybody hates you when you point out just how many pro-choice arguments are either just fucking dumb and ineffective or try to argue for being pro-choice as an application of a broader principle that doesn’t get treated as half as important in most other cases where it’s application would be controversial.
It’s even worse when you yourself are pro-choice and it’s just pointing out that bad or inconsistent arguments are bad or inconsistent.
Freedom over your own body is really only sold as some kind of highest principle specifically in pro-choice arguments and blood and tissue donations. Usually the counter arguments rely on the notion that there’s a point where you’ve agreed to the thing and can’t demand it be undone (you can’t for example donate a kidney and then demand it back), which for pregnancy brings it back around to things like whether or not a human being in the earliest stages of its life counts as a person that you’ve presumably consented to create by engaging in the reproductive act.
Also, by all appearances the line for when the bodily autonomy argument is seen as acceptable is specifically when the process involved is wholly biological - the moment it can be abstracted from that even a little bit suddenly bodily autonomy no longer applies.
A fun hypothetical to throw out there is this - artificial wombs are currently in development for agricultural use because they could potentially increase yields and reduce emissions (once the tech is mature, it’s hypothetically cheaper and cleaner to run an artificial womb than maintain a whole cow per head of beef per season). This tech could probably be adapted for human use. So, in a hypothetical where artificial wombs are perfected for human use, would you support banning abortion in favor of transplanting to an artificial womb if the prognosis for the woman was the same, knowing that she will of course be responsible for the resulting child? If no, are you really arguing from bodily autonomy since the part involving the woman’s body has been removed from the equation?
it’s fine; I was expecting dumb fucks who make dumb arguments all the time to not read into all that. most of the downvotes probably assume I’m pro life despite the fact that I’m pro choice. not only that but I support abortion without restrictions. don’t care about viability as I think it’s a weak basis, I don’t care if it’s the tenth month.
I don’t think your example removes the woman from the equation. the transfer is still related to bodily autonomy. the fetus is part of the mother, and forcing someone to transfer it and keep it alive is still against that. you can’t force me to ejaculate into a cup, what makes it ok to force someone to transfer their fetus anywhere?
nah maybe if you’d have the baby conceived inside the artificial womb from the start…?
then you’d have other questions like is it ok to force a baby to be born without any parents in their life… whole other can of worms which is about the baby’s welfare, which is why this hypothetical will never be discussed by anti choice people because they don’t give a shit about the baby and aren’t the least bit interested in what would happen to them if you remove the woman from the equation.