"Your rules forces all women to undergo pregnancy and abortion whether they want to or not."

[Authentic Nouveau]

Your rules forces all women to undergo pregnancy and abortion whether they want to or not.

The left can't define "woman"
Can the left define "all"?
all means all.

Unless we introduce standard left winger word games.

Warning to virgins.
This is a popular example of how leftists fabricate and misquote into a strawman.
Where was having sex forced?

 

[BMS]

Yep good post!

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Yep good post!

How do women that don't want to get pregnant and do not want to have sex for that reason get forced? asking for a friend.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

forces all women to undergo pregnancy and

Nope

abortion whether they want to or not.

That is a new argument. Pro-lifers Never force abortion. Never means never.

 

[BMS]

How do women that don't want to get pregnant and do not want to have sex for that reason get forced? asking for a friend.

You helpfully point out the word games the left play all the time

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Clearly there are some cases where a woman had sex against her own volition. But the vast majority of times a woman has sex, its consensual. She *chooses* to have sex.

Now, she may not wish to be pregnant, and so she may take steps to reduce the risk of getting pregnant - i.e., various forms of birth control. But she is choosing to engage in the ONLY act that will get her pregnant. It's like saying "I don't want to get drunk" while going out to a bar and having a dozen cocktails.

 

[Backup]

The left can't define "woman"
Can the left define "all"?
all means all.

Unless we introduce standard left winger word games.

Warning to virgins.
This is a popular example of how leftists fabricate and misquote into a strawman.
Where was having sex forced?

I’m surprised how few right-wingers call you out.

I would be embarrassed if you were on my team.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Now, she may not wish to be pregnant, and so she may take steps to reduce the risk of getting pregnant - i.e., various forms of birth control. But she is choosing to engage in the ONLY act that will get her pregnant.

If a woman crosses the road, she is engaging in "the only act" that will result in her being hit by a car.
Do we leave her out to dry, if she gets hit by a car?

A woman that is denied the right to abortion may not be forced to get pregnant, but she is forced to remain pregnant.

 

[BMS]

If a woman crosses the road, she is engaging in "the only act" that will result in her being hit by a car.
Do we leave her out to dry, if she gets hit by a car?

A woman that is denied the right to abortion may not be forced to get pregnant, but she is forced to remain pregnant.

One must expect that if a couple dont take precautions with sexual intercourse the woman has a reasonable chance of getting pregnant. Similarly, if one doesnt take reasonable precautions crossing the road one has a reasonable chance of being hit and killed.
In both cases the result cant be undone.

And lets be clear about this, one hit by the car or pregnant, one cant say they werent hit or they didnt become pregnant

 

[Crazy Ivan]

If a woman crosses the road, she is engaging in "the only act" that will result in her being hit by a car.
Do we leave her out to dry, if she gets hit by a car?

No, we certainly ought not leave her out to dry. We ought to help her. But we don't solve her issue by shooting the driver of the car. We get her the help she needs to get through this difficult time. Let's say it takes a random amount of time to get through the ordeal... I don't know, let's call it...nine months.

A woman that is denied the right to abortion may not be forced to get pregnant, but she is forced to remain pregnant.

And the reason she is "forced", if you want to use that language, is the same reason we "force" parents to care for their children, whether they want to or not. Because there is now another human being in the equation. And because the only option that exists to becoming "un"pregnant is to kill the human being in the womb.

 

[Eightcrackers]

No, we certainly ought not leave her out to dry. We ought to help her. But we don't solve her issue by shooting the driver of the car.

That's not analogous to abortion.

We get her the help she needs to get through this difficult time.

Abortion saves a woman from having to experience the difficult time, at all.
You don't see pregnancy as a thing to be treated? Who cares? The woman might see it that way, and I see no reason to consider your opinion over hers.

Let's say it takes a random amount of time to get through the ordeal... I don't know, let's call it...nine months.

If there were a way to treat her and get her back to normal in nine minutes, wouldn't that be preferable?

And the reason she is "forced", if you want to use that language, is the same reason we "force" parents to care for their children, whether they want to or not.

Forcing parents to carry their children inside them would be abominable.

There is a difference between financial/material support, and biological support. The latter is akin to forcing a parent to donate an organ to their child, but even worse.

Because there is now another human being in the equation.

"Now" being the key word - the "now" shouldn't be until the moment the child is born.

And because the only option that exists to becoming "un"pregnant is to kill the human being in the womb.

Not everything that's aborted is a human being.
That's like saying that an acorn is an oak tree.

 

[BMS]

That's not analogous to abortion.
That's like saying that an acorn is an oak tree.

An acorn.is an oak tree at its seed stage. Thats like saying the human being isnt a person

 

[Crazy Ivan]

That's not analogous to abortion.

Well, nothing is analogous to pregnancy, really. It's a most natural outcome, biologically speaking, of two people having sexual intercourse. It's how our species reproduces. And so when people don't want to be pregnant but do the one thing that can get them pregnant, to liken that to some sort of parasite or unwelcome guest or whatever other analogy pro-choice people use, is ludicrous.

Abortion saves a woman from having to experience the difficult time, at all.
You don't see pregnancy as a thing to be treated? Who cares? The woman might see it that way, and I see no reason to consider your opinion over hers.

If there were a way to treat her and get her back to normal in nine minutes, wouldn't that be preferable?

Not if the way to do it is kill another human being.

Forcing parents to carry their children inside them would be abominable.

Not in the case of pregnancy, which is, you know, natural and normal and how biology works.

There is a difference between financial/material support, and biological support. The latter is akin to forcing a parent to donate an organ to their child, but even worse.

See? This is what I meant above. You criticize my analogy, but this one is even worse. Forcing a parent to donate an organ is nothing whatsoever like a woman bearing a child in her womb that she helped create.

"Now" being the key word - the "now" shouldn't be until the moment the child is born.

Ah, well, that's the question, isn't it? That's what the WHOLE debate REALLY is about. If the fetus is just a blob of tissue and not a human being, then nobody would have a problem with abortion. It would be like getting liposuction. Nobody cares about that. It's because the unborn IS a human being while still inside the womb that we have a problem.

Heck, even VIBISE of all people understands this, which is why she says that at 24 weeks, even SHE doesn't favor abortion. Because she recognizes that in the womb, at some point at least, it's a human being whose life needs to be taken into consideration. And this is VIBISE we're talking about.

Not everything that's aborted is a human being.
That's like saying that an acorn is an oak tree.

Another ridiculous analogy. And, I mean, you started with the "that's not analogous" stuff, not me. Just saying....

 

[Eightcrackers]

Well, nothing is analogous to pregnancy, really.

Parasite.

"An unborn baby is not a parasite!!!"

I will ask the pregnant woman what she thinks about her pregnancy; nobody else.

And so when people don't want to be pregnant but do the one thing that can get them pregnant, to liken that to some sort of parasite or unwelcome guest or whatever other analogy pro-choice people use, is ludicrous.

Heh - read my mind.

Not if the way to do it is kill another human being.

Not everything that's aborted is a human being, but my pro-choice position applies even if all abortees are human beings.

Abortion is worse than forced organ donation, IMO.

See? This is what I meant above. You criticize my analogy, but this one is even worse. Forcing a parent to donate an organ is nothing whatsoever like a woman bearing a child in her womb that she helped create.

Yes, it is - you are forcing a woman to provide biological support to another person.

And it's real-time support, which is what makes it worse - imagine being forced to be connected to another person while they make use of your kidneys...

Ah, well, that's the question, isn't it? That's what the WHOLE debate REALLY is about. If the fetus is just a blob of tissue and not a human being, then nobody would have a problem with abortion. It would be like getting liposuction. Nobody cares about that. It's because the unborn IS a human being while still inside the womb that we have a problem.

Not to me - no human should be forced to play host to another.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Parasite.

Awful, terrible analogy.

"An unborn baby is not a parasite!!!"

Uh.... it isn't. It's a woman's offspring, not a separate species that has entered the body.

I will ask the pregnant woman what she thinks about her pregnancy; nobody else.

You won't ask a doctor or scientist about reproduction and pregnancy?

Heh - read my mind.

You figured I'd know you'd use an absurd analogy like a parasite?

Not everything that's aborted is a human being,

Well, in an abortion, other tissue is excavated from the uterus too, so you're right. BUT....the fetus IS a human being.

but my pro-choice position applies even if all abortees are human beings.

Abortion is worse than forced organ donation, IMO.

That's absurd. Patently absurd.

Yes, it is - you are forcing a woman to provide biological support to another person.

What a bastardization of the normal, natural biological process.

Look.... it's not "natural" to cut out someone's organ and give it to someone else. Only in recent years has such a thing even been technologically possible. You have to go in and UNDO nature in order for that procedure to work.

Pregnancy itself is perfectly normal and natural and is the natural course of biology.

TOTALLY different.

And it's real-time support, which is what makes it worse - imagine being forced to be connected to another person while they make use of your kidneys...

Not to me - no human should be forced to play host to another.

Yeah, absurd analogy. Like....godawful. You really ought to be a little embarrassed to use it, to be honest.

 

[Eightcrackers]

You won't ask a doctor or scientist about reproduction and pregnancy?

Not unless they are the one that's pregnant, no.
Why would I? They are not the ones who'll have to carry it, so their opinion means nothing to me.

My pro-choice position is about forced carriage.

Look.... it's not "natural" to cut out someone's organ and give it to someone else.

Nor is it natural to zap tumours with radiation.

Pregnancy itself is perfectly normal and natural and is the natural course of biology.

So is cancer.

"We shouldn't do anything about it because it's natural" is a double-edged sword.

 

[BMS]

Not unless they are the one that's pregnant, no.
Why would I? They are not the ones who'll have to carry it, so their opinion means nothing to me.

My pro-choice position is about forced carriage.

Nor is it natural to zap tumours with radiation.

So is cancer.

"We shouldn't do anything about it because it's natural" is a double-edged sword.

Its not forced carriage, that is the reproduction process. If you dont think realirlty is fair, you will forever be umhappy or worse angry

 

[vibise]

No, we certainly ought not leave her out to dry. We ought to help her. But we don't solve her issue by shooting the driver of the car. We get her the help she needs to get through this difficult time. Let's say it takes a random amount of time to get through the ordeal... I don't know, let's call it...nine months.



And the reason she is "forced", if you want to use that language, is the same reason we "force" parents to care for their children, whether they want to or not. Because there is now another human being in the equation. And because the only option that exists to becoming "un"pregnant is to kill the human being in the womb.

You cannot "force" abusive parents to become caring parents, and in many cases the children have to be removed from such homes.
Your analogy is a big fail.

 

[vibise]

An acorn.is an oak tree at its seed stage. Thats like saying the human being isnt a person

But destroying your neighbor's acorns is not remotely the same as destroying his oak tree.
The stage of development makes a difference.

In a burning building, would you save a rack of frozen embryos or a toddler?

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Not unless they are the one that's pregnant, no.
Why would I? They are not the ones who'll have to carry it, so their opinion means nothing to me.

The opinion of doctors and scientists doesn't interest you when it comes to a matter of medical science? That's a strong take right there.

My pro-choice position is about forced carriage.

Yes, you are making that plain.

Nor is it natural to zap tumours with radiation.

So is cancer.

"We shouldn't do anything about it because it's natural" is a double-edged sword.

That's not my argument of course. We do lots of things that aren't "natural". Flying in a plane isn't "natural". The point, since you missed it and I'll repeat it now, is that likening pregnancy to forced organ donation is absurd. Doesn't mean we don't donate organs or zap cancer cells. It's just that as an analogy to pregnancy, it's hilariously off base.