Neither the government nor a woman can claim that the woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy because the child in her womb is dependent on her for survival, due to the fact that the sole reason the child exists for it to depend on her was due to the woman's decision to engage in sexual intercourse.
The above is what is known as a logically sound statement. I understand if those in the pro-"choice" camp are unfamiliar with the concept.
56 comments
Yes, but once that umbilical cord is cut, all bets are off, right? Until he has a car accident and becomes a vegetable, then suddenly his life matters to you again.
The vast majority of abortions do not involve anything that is recognisable as a "child". The logic in your statement falls short because you assume that the definition of a child is absolute. Technically it's not a child before it's born, it's a foetus. And before that, it's what's called a blastocyst. If the doctors are to abort a fully developed foetus, there must usually be a very good reason for it; like the fact that it's threatening the mother's life. Where does the law stand there then? Let both die, or abort the foetus to save the mother? Plus, if people like you advocated more for safe sex, rather than ignoring it exists until your forced to marry your pregnant cousin, there would likely less need for abortions...
"the sole reason the child exists for it to depend on her was due to the woman's decision to engage in sexual intercourse. "
So the filthy sluts are bad for having sex? And their punishment is to suffer the consequences and go through with childbirth?
Typical fundy. You don't really care about the "children", it's just about punishing those you see as below you. And about finding ways to elevate yourself above others.
Fuck you and your "rules", Geronimo. Besides, if the child only exists because of the mother then surely she should be able to destroy it? After all, that's the usual fundie argument for why their God can use and abuse humanity in general.
So, the state has no right to terminate a life either? God has no right to terminate a life?
Isn't there some man somewhere, who also decided to engage in sexual intercourse?
A pregnancy is a dangerous thing, for both mother and fetus. Mostly for the fetus; one in four is spontaneously aborted by God before the end of the first trimester.
Every child has the right to be born to parents who look forward to its birth, who will love and cherish it more than their own lives. This Earth is already dangerously overpopulated, we really ought to reduce the rates of births to only the ones who will really be appreciated and loved by their parents.
So are tumors, and they can clearly go on to live long lives outside of the person they came from, so why aren't you lobbying to stop cancer treatment?
Ooooh right, because a) you lack empathy with non-human-shaped masses even though they have about the same amount of self-awareness as fetuses, and b) your religion doesn't tell you to.
...the woman's decision to engage in sexual intercourse.
Rape, bitch. May you someday be on the receiving end of it.
Well, this is telling. It isn't the "cute baby" the fundies are interested in--it's punishing the woman who would dare to enjoy her own sexuality. Babies are punishment, you know!
I'd hate to go through life as the kid who was born to punish the mother. Can you imagine the child's quality of life, and the misery they'll cause to others later as they take out their unhappiness on innocent people?
All right. So by those standards, if I go outside in the middle of a blizzard in bare feet and without a coat, then I made that decision so I don't have any right to any treatments to help cure my pneumonia?
As a woman, I say when YOU can become pregnant by rape or incest, when YOU can see your educational dreams dashed by an unplanned pregnancy, when YOU are looking at possibly losing your own life in your twenties due to unforeseen pregnancy complications, then YOU can talk about it all you want. Until then, YOU need to shut the fuck up and let those of us who may be actually affected by those scenarios make the decisions for ourselves.
Logic. You're doing it wrong.
Because an unwanted pregnancy is supposed to be a punishment for having sex.. now we know how you anti-abortionists REALLY feel about the fetus.
If you think I am wrong, then tell me what would you do if your daughter was raped? Will you care about the fetus, or will you terminate it?
So much for "innocent unborn".
Once we get these millions of children out of foster homes and orphanages, and feed all the hungry in the world, then we can start talking about making non-life saving abortion illegal. Until then, shut up.
You know that doesn't really make sense for either camp. The pro abortion crowd didn't buy this the first hundred times and the pro life crowd wouldn't be happy about it either. I think the implication that the primary reason is that it's the woman's fault, not that it's killing a baby, would make them a little angry with you.
What part of "my body, my choice" is so difficult for you to comprehend?
My body is under my doctor's control right now (complications of pregnancy mean I'm on strict bed rest [only 5 more weeks to go]). I HATE it and it's made me even more vehemently pro choice. You sir ('cause OF COURSE you're a man!) can go fuck a cactus TYVM.
"The above is what is known as a logically sound statement."
It is not a sound logical argument you dumb ass.
Funny how the man also decided to have intercourse yet he is able to eschew responsibility if he wants.
An embryo has to be alive in order to have it's survival protected by law. And any sane person knows that that does not begin at conception.
Making abortion illegal would be a catastrophe in the United States and the funniest thing is that it will NEVER happen. The Republicans don't even want that. First off, they know how bad that would be for our economy, crime rate etc., but the promise to try and make it illegal is what gets your vote and your money.
Genesis 3:16
It's right there in the Bible. Pregnancy and childbirth really is punishment in God's eyes. For women who enjoy something she was told she wasn't supposed to.
So why are we surprised when fundies come out and say it?
Maybe we're too used to the crocodile tears they usually shed for the child, to cover up the fact that they know how ridiculous and cold their core belief is.
Logically sound? That isn't even a syntactically sound statement!
Also, the woman doesn't always decide to have sex--if she is raped, your argument falls apart.
For that matter, if she chooses to use a contraceptive to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, and she turns out to be one of the 2% or so whose chosen method fails, your argument is pretty significantly weakened.
Most people have sex for reasons other than simply, "You know, I'd like to have a child right now." Even when this is A reason for sex, it is never the ONLY reason.
This only (doesn't) work as an argument because the woman is the one that gets pregnant. Guys have "free sex" all the time because they know they can't get pregnant themselves. If they could, there would be 24-hour abortion clinics on every block, and every health care plan would cover it.
And that didn't really explain what I wanted to say but... eh.
I understand where you're coming from, people saying 'what about rape?'...but rape or incest shouldn't even be brought into this. It's up to the woman, and ONLY the woman, to decide what to do with her body, regardless of the circumstances around the pregnancy. Whether she chose to have sex or not, is beside the point, because then you still imply that a woman should be made to suffer the consequences for daring to have sex.
Yet no man is ever asked to pay the "price" for sexual intercourse by putting his health, sanity, emotional wellbeing, economic stability, education, career, home, or existing family in jeopardy by being forced to bear an unwanted child, is he? Interesting how only women should be made to "pay" for having sex. Why do you have these revenge fantasies, GR?
I think for any unplanned pregnancy where the guy insists the woman not have an abortion, he should have a pregnancy belly strapped to him for the entire duration of the pregnancy, be given ipecac every few days to mimic morning sickness, and should have the doctors repeatedly kick him in the balls during the actual delivery, to mimic childbirth.
If he's up for that, then it's up for discussion.
If I choose not to wash my hands when I could have washed my hands, I am directly responsible for the existence of thousands of bacteria, that would not have existed if I had washed my hands at that time.
According to this logic, that makes me directly responsible for their life, and means that I am never allowed to wash my hands again, because that could mean the death of these bacteria, that only exist because I made a choice.
Sorry buddy, but no. That's NOT a "logically sound statement." But I understand if you didn't have the mental capacity to grasp that.
@ Andre, that's a GREAT idea! Can we also have three months of that treatment for every person who wants to prohibit or restrict abortions? After all, they certainly want to share the sacred state that is motherhood, right?
@ Saika, similar ideas can also be argued when a person needs a new kidney, spinal fluid, a bit of liver or something. The person deemed to be a good donor does not, from now on, have any right to refuse. If his kidney can help someone else, then that someone else has the right to that kidney.
"and should have the doctors repeatedly kick him in the balls during the actual delivery, to mimic childbirth."
I love it--I'd so like to see that, every single one of the fuckers sitting out there telling me that I can't do what I want to with my own fucking body. I think when they get prostate cancer we should tell them it's God's will, suck it up, bitches!!!
Even if one were to agree with your line of resonning (which I do not) you will have to place some exceptions to stay consistent. You can not object to abortion in cases of rape (the foetus does not exist because of any decision by the mother) or in cases where the woman's health is endangered by the pregnancy (that would make the abortion "self-defence" )
Now my opinion on the subject is that as long as the kid cannot survive outside of the womb, the choice should be the woman's. Her body. And I say that as a man. If I were to get someone pregnant, I knoww the decision would ultimately not be mine to make, even if I probably would try to influence it towards keeping the kid, since I am well-to-do enough to support ant raise a kid.
However, I would push for any laws that make it easier for women who do not want to be mothers to
b) give their babie up for adoption.
c) have their medical bills covered if they elect to do so.
d) I'd also push for laws that give more funding to neonatal care research, so that the point at wich the foetus is no longer dependant on its mother's body is pushed up as much as possible. Ideally, I'd like to see a fully functionnal artificial womb. That would render the whole adoption debate moot.
@ frenchstudentd) I'd also push for laws that give more funding to neonatal care research, so that the point at wich the foetus is no longer dependant on its mother's body is pushed up as much as possible. Ideally, I'd like to see a fully functionnal artificial womb. That would render the whole adoption debate moot.
You just failed Logic 101.
See also: Judith Jarvis Thomson.
not wanting to be pregnant . Pretty big gap in the solution, I'd venture.
"Neither the government nor a woman can claim that the woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy because the child in her womb is dependent on her for survival, due to the fact that the sole reason the child exists for it to depend on her was due to the woman's decision to engage in sexual intercourse.
The above is what is known as a logically sound statement. I understand if those in the pro-"choice" camp are unfamiliar with the concept."
No it's not, and we are. Oh, and the law, based on the precedent set by Roe vs. Wade in 1973, says otherwise.
But keep living in that river in Egypt, 'Pro-Lifers'. PROTIP: Until you Moonbatshithead men (and, speaking as a Pro-Choice male myself, I use that term in the loosest possible sense) can conceive, gestate, carry for nine months and give birth yourselves, you are in no position to dictate the rights & wrongs of what an individual woman does with her body. Because you have no right to.
Ohh!! Looks like he's inviting us to play "Name that Logical Fallacy" ala Skeptic's Guide to the Universe!
"...can claim that the woman has the right..."
"...because the child in her womb..."
"...is dependent on her for survival..."
"...was due to the woman's decision to engage in sexual intercourse."
@ I Read About The Afterlife"Because pregnancies only occur if the woman consents" is basically what he just said. What a moron.
(This according to the book Portrait of a Killer - Jack the Ripper: Case Closed by Patricia Cornwell, chapter 16.)
By your "sound logic": If it was the WOMANS CHOICE to engage in sexual activity and run the risk of getting pregnant... then the child (fetus more appropriately) growing inside of THE WOMANS body and surviving is thusly THE WOMANS child/fetus and THE WOMAN alone has consent and CHOICE as to whether or not the child/fetus lives or dies and if SHE WILL CHOOSE to carry it to full term or not. So by your own "sound logic" you defend nothing short of the WOMAN and HER RIGHT TO CHOICE and not the child/fetus.
Luckily for the rational world however, we have laws that protect life in the sense that abortions are NOT CARRIED OUT unless the woman is POSITIVE of her decision, if she is going to have a birth which will END HER LIFE (and or possibly the fetus too and there is no saving it, or if the child/fetus is already dead inside of her, and these procedures are NOT PERFORMED once the stage of nerve endings, a brain, a heart/heartbeat, and thusly the child/fetus might feel PAIN during the procedure, because that is INHUMANE AND THUSLY UNLAWFUL.
Why cant you fucktards understand this shit????
Still pissed off that women are no longer slaves to their reproductive organs, aren't you? Tell ya what.. If you get pregnant, you have my permission to carry it to term.
As for me, my body, my uterus, MY choice!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
