Pro abortion or not

[Esquilax]

Framing the situation by calling Pro-Choice people "Pro-Abortion" or "Pro-Murder" is a pretty disingenuous tactic to undermine your opposition before they even have a chance to make their case. Why even bother wasting the effort with people like you?

It's tantamount to me calling Pro-Life proponents, "Anti-Choice fascists".

When you don't care about facts or science, what else is left to you but emotive appeals to ignorance?

[Mystical]

[Esquilax]

I think personhood begins when the two genomes from parents mix.

Let's assume this to be true, and let's therefore give the fetus every right that a human being has, from that moment forth. Under those premises, abortions are still entirely consistent.

Let me ask you, if you were dying of something, do you have the right to hold another person captive and use them, in any medical capacity, to sustain your life against their will?

The answer is an unequivocal no: you could be on the brink of death and you'd still have no right to use anyone else as a bank of functioning organs. So why would we afford that right to a fetus, even if we accept that they're human?

I also don't understand (Esquilax) how you could dismiss these so easily as just 'bundles of cells'. You were all these little bundles, once.

Yes, we were. And then our mothers consented for us to grow and develop to the stage where we became people. The argument you've just made applies equally to my toenails or hair. For the longest time, the little zygote has no organs, no brain, no nervous system, nothing that could support a consciousness or a personality... they are, for all intents and purposes, a bundle of cells. Where's the cost in getting rid of that if it's not wanted? You might be tempted to say it's in the potential life there, but I'd remind you that nobody applies that logic consistently; you aren't saying I should never jack off for that reason, and you should never ovulate. That logic, dearest, means no blowjobs or protected sex.

Not to mention, this appeal to the past that you've used... it's not very compelling, is it? What I used to be doesn't entail some form of preferred state of being, after all.

[No_God]

Maybe we should treat the symptoms of the disease instead of fighting the disease itself.

The people who want to completely abolish abortion don't have any back-up plan for women... and they don't care either.

Keep abortion available but make birth control and plan B easier and cheaper to get.

[NoraBrimstone]

Birth control and the MAP should be free. It's disgusting that some countries make women pay for their reproductive rights.

[Minimalist]

Framing the situation by calling Pro-Choice people "Pro-Abortion" or "Pro-Murder" is a pretty disingenuous tactic to undermine your opposition before they even have a chance to make their case. Why even bother wasting the effort with people like you?

It's tantamount to me calling Pro-Life proponents, "Anti-Choice fascists".

I prefer the term "meddlesome shitheads" but, to each his own.

[fr0d0]

@ Esq

Do I have the right to harvest another persons body to feed my own? Why not? What defines their rights? Their personhood? How are they then different to the fertilised cells?

Wow the toenail argument is still going? I'm sorry I must just lol at that one. Yeah flakes of dandruff have rights as people too!

[pocaracas]

I wonder... whatever happened to the fish argument?
Oh yeah... catfish got banned!

[Bad Wolf]

You don't have the right to harvest someone else to save your life because no one has the right to live at the expense of someone else. I've always thought personhood involved being conscious, fully self aware, intelligent, able to assess the world around them, able to plan for the future and able to look back on the past. That way, my definition excludes all animals but doesn't exclude intelligent aliens that we may one day find.
How is a person different from fertilised cells? Well firstly, the person has a nervous system, they can feel pain. They would be fully aware of what you are doing to them, causing terror and stress. Killing them would break all social and emotional bonds with that persons friends and family and would damage possibly hundreds of people in the process.

[fr0d0]

I wonder... whatever happened to the fish argument?
Oh yeah... catfish got banned!

Cat was the anti fish argument. His inner paradox defeated him.