[Politiks]

I'm pro choice, in a perfect world every country would give women the total control over their own bodies. I don't know how I feel about women doing abortions when the fetus is over 5 months tough.

I think men should be heard on this topic, have a opinion but we shouldn't be the ones doing the final decision simply because isn't our bodies, we don't get pregnant.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I think men should be heard on this topic

Sexist pig.

[B0ycey]

Oh boy, lets go down that road to the "mythical state of nature," where almost any heinous act can be justified by the "law of the jungle."

Tell me VS, why should your feelings be superior to that of the "law of the jungle"?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Tell me VS, why should your feelings be superior to that of the "law of the jungle"?

What feelings? I'm pointing out that you are questioning western definitions of rights on the basis of a speculative period in human development that can be used to justify pretty much everything.

You lefties are so excited to try to turn your whole snow-flake status back on the right that you will almost say anything no matter how fucking retarded.

[Politiks]

Sexist pig.

Why? I think we should be heard but not the ones to tell women what to do. Honestly, I don't think the final decision if abortion is legal or not should be up to men to decide, which is what usually happens as the majority of most Governments is made by men.

How that makes me sexist?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Why? I think we should be heard but not the ones to tell women what to do. Honestly, I don't think the final decision is abortion is legal or not should be up to men to decide, which is what usually happens as the majority of most Governments is made by men.

How that makes me sexist?

I'm being facetious bro. Chill.

[B0ycey]

What feelings? I'm pointing out that you are questioning western definitions of rights on the basis of a speculative period in human development that can be used to justify pretty much everything.

I have done no such thing. All I have done is pointed out that in both nature and legally there is nothing wrong with abortions. Only personal moral opinion can dictates whether there is anything wrong with abortions.

You then cried with your feeling about "the law of the jungle" without any rational reason why your feelings is superior to that of nature.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You then cried with your feeling about "the law of the jungle" without any rational reason why your feelings is superior to that of nature.

I made no appeal to my feelings.

The fact is, the "law of the jungle" can be used to justify rape, theft, genocide, gender roles, etc, etc. This is besides the fact that using a description of what man did in nature to infer a moral obligation among man now is a logical fallacy: The naturalistic fallacy. Observation does not imply obligation. Just because something is/was the case does not mean we ought to do it/believe it.

How 'bout them feelings now?

[Pants-of-dog]

This seems almost like a tautology its so unprofound, its almost a mere defining of the pro-choice position that it doesn't really add anything to the conversation. In sum, how this any different than just saying "my body, my choice"?

Because it points out how the fetus has the same rights as everyone else.

Besides, a Pro-Lifer is just going to saying that consent is implicit in sexual relations and therefore the responsibility for the potential child is a mere consequence assumed as possible in that initial consent with the right to life being inalienable under such circumstances.

And that would be consistent with their idea that the women should be held responsible for her sluttiness, but inconsistent with the fact that we do not require other people dealing with medical issues to live by outdated moral norms.

Once again, nothing being profoundly advanced in either of these positions, its just repeating what we already know about both sides.

Yes, which is why it is surprising that @SolarCross was not aware that there was already an equality argument for choice.

Ultimately, only humans have rights to equality, and fetuses are not regarded as legal humans by most leftists....I suppose its that simple for most of them...you know, the whole "just a cluster of cells" line.

Let us assume that a fetus has all the same rights as any born person.

Born people do not have the right to use another person’s body as a life support system without their consent.

So, fetuses should not have this right either if we grant fetuses the same rights as born people.

——————————

No that is the liberty / libertarian argument for abortion.

No. It is an equality argument that presupposes the whole idea that people are allowed to choose who gets to use thier body.

Leftists don't care about liberty they care about equality. They don't care about consent, they mostly don't even believe in freewill. They are completely comfortable with forcing one person the (rich and successful) to be the life support system for another (poor and unsuccessful) without the consent of the former person, because to them equality is paramount and liberty matters nothing at all.

This is all a caricature and strawman of leftism that is not actually consistent with what leftists or progressives believe.

It is completely feasible then to make a leftist argument against abortion by simply identifying the mother as the privileged exploiter and the baby as the oppressed and vulnerable and thus an inequality that must be equalised at the expense of the privileged exploiter's liberty.

Lol. Except the fetus is using the woman’s body as a life support system and the woman does not get anything out of it. This is basic biology.

The question remains how can a leftist use their equality idealism to make an argument for abortion? I can't see any way to do it hence why they plagarise the libertarian argument even though they don't care about liberty.

Lol.

[B0ycey]

The fact is, the "law of the jungle" can be used to justify rape, theft, genocide, gender roles, etc, etc. This is besides the fact that using a description of what man did in nature to infer a moral obligation among man now is a logical fallacy: The naturalistic fallacy. Observation does not imply obligation. Just because something is/was the case does not mean we ought to do it/believe it.

And yet people do justify rape (Trump), theft (tax havens), genocide (war), gender roles (you!).

The difference is the laws that governments decide we live by. Currently there is no illegal act in having an abortion. So there is no legal reason to be against them. So it comes down to personal moral opinion. And that is personal. You can make you opinion known but you must understand that it has as much foundation to it as the person who has the opposite one to yours.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Let us assume that a fetus has all the same rights as any born person.

Born people do not have the right to use another person’s body as a life support system without their consent.

So, fetuses should not have this right either if we grant fetuses the same rights as born people.

Once again, this is a rhetorical redundancy. You don't believe a child has right to life over the mother's choice....You have advanced nothing.

Solarcross correctly pointed out that this argument, even in its best articulation, is Libertarian and not Leftist, Libertarians hold to the position of inherent equality just as Leftists do, but deny that a person has a right to any one else's person or property. I don't see how this is a "Leftist" argument against abortion as Leftists don't necessarily believe that rights to one's person or property are inalienable in any sense whatsoever. For instance, in order to guarantee the wellbeing of others, we may institute a progressive tax in order to pay for those who are poor or needy by taking it from those who are wealthier. Likewise, we may draft a person for military service, force them to get vaccinations, etc.

None of this is contrary to the Leftist notion of equality (supposedly), so why would forcing a woman to use her body on behalf of someone else be opposed to such in principle? Indeed, why can't we use someone else's body as a life support system if we need to under the Leftist ethic? When progressivism requires people to forfeit their general rights all the time regarding property, taxes, and persons, why should this case be any different?

Once again, this argument makes more sense from a libertarian perspective, not from a progressive perspective. Please demonstrate otherwise.

[Victoribus Spolia]

And yet people do justify rape (Trump), theft (tax havens), genocide (war), gender roles (you!).

But I don't argue such, nor do most of these other examples, from a mythical and highly speculative state of nature. That is all i am saying.

The difference is the laws that governments decide we live by. Currently there is no illegal act in having an abortion. So there is no legal reason to be against them. So it comes down to personal moral opinion. And that is personal. You can make you opinion known but you must understand that it has as much foundation to it as the person who has the opposite one to yours.

Not all western nations for all of time have been pro-choice, and they certainly were not so and did not become so because of some recourse to a "state of nature" argument. Hell, doesn't Northern Ireland still ban abortion?

Please cite me an example of where a federal court in the united states or great brtiain argued for a pro-choice policy on the basis of the law of the jungle?

[Pants-of-dog]

Once again, this is a rhetorical redundancy. You don't believe a child has right to life over the mother's choice....You have advanced nothing.

...except show that the fetus already has just as many rights as a born person.

Solarcross correctly pointed out that this argument, even in its best articulation, is Libertarian and not Leftist, Libertarians hold to the position of inherent equality just as Leftists do, but deny that a person has a right to any one else's person or property. I don't see how this is a "Leftist" argument against abortion as Leftists don't necessarily believe that rights to one's person or property are inalienable in any sense whatsoever. For instance, in order to guarantee the wellbeing of others, we may institute a progressive tax in order to pay for those who are poor or needy by taking it from those who are wealthier. Likewise, we may draft a person for military service, force them to get vaccinations, etc.

If you are pointing out that this is not a Marxist belief, sure.

It is just that you and @SolarCross tend to use the US meaning of leftist, which is anyone who is not right wing and is progressive.

None of this is contrary to the Leftist notion of equality (supposedly), so why would forcing a woman to use her body on behalf of someone else be opposed to such in principle? Indeed, why can't we use someone else's body as a life support system if we need to under the Leftist ethic? When progressivism requires people to forfeit their general rights all the time regarding property, taxes, and persons, why should this case be any different?

If you can name a leftist country that banned abortion and show how they support it with Marxism, go ahead.

Cuba supports a woman’s choice.

Once again, this argument makes more sense from a libertarian perspective, not from a progressive perspective. Please demonstrate otherwise.

Not really, I don’t care about that.

The right wing libertarian argument is about owning your own body. The progressive one is almost exactly the same, but does not require self-ownership, instead it requires a recognition of body autonomy.

Neither of these are leftist (i.e. Marxist) arguments.

[B0ycey]

Please cite me an example of where a federal court in the united states or great brtiain argued for a pro-choice policy on the basis of the law of the jungle?

Why would they? It is legal to have an abortion in the UK (even in NI under strict circumstances and obviously the women can travel to the rest of the UK to have treatment too). It isn't up for pro-choice to defend their right, it is for pro-life you make their point why they shouldn't have that right be more supierior. And currently apart from "personal opinions" I don't think they have a strong argument at all.

[Finfinder]

Fetuses are not human beings so joking about them is just fine. You pro-lifers are the ones who truly have no respect for the sanctity of life. You'd rather sacrifice the life of a mother for an embryo.

Canada(as an example) has no limit on when the abortions can take place, but you will not find a doctor willing to do so, after the 3rd trimester, unless the woman's life is at risk. Your asinine claim of people supporting late term abortions, is trash. Please provide a source or candidate running on such a platform. Such people have no support even from the pro-choice people.

I never said that post up where I said that. You actually have no idea what my beliefs are. You political partisan hacks, just jump on anybody who dare make a comment because you want to shut down a discussion about it. Have you forgotten the the topic, take a deep breath it will be ok
, think about your replies based on the topic, and BTW do your own research.

[Victoribus Spolia]

except show that the fetus already has just as many rights as a born person.

The pro-choice does not make that argument either way, only that the right to choice is overriding. That is why nothing was advanced.

If you are pointing out that this is not a Marxist belief, sure.

It is just that you and @SolarCross tend to use the US meaning of leftist, which is anyone who is not right wing and is progressive.

Besides the fact that I don't see how a Brit like Solarcross would make that mistake, you are correct in assuming that this argument of yours is not marxist, nor do I see how it can be held consistently within a Marxist moral paradigm.

If you can name a leftist country that banned abortion and show how they support it with Marxism, go ahead.

Cuba supports a woman’s choice.

Don't shift the burden of proof, you are the one making the claim and just because Marxist countries banned abortion that does not mean they did so consistently with their worldview and so this would prove nothing. I am asking YOU how your argument is consistent with Marxist moral philosophy regarding rights and their forfeiture, I am not asking the Castro family.

Neither of these are leftist (i.e. Marxist) arguments.

This is my point, if you do not believe that one's rights are absolute, whether regarding your body or property, how can appeal to such a right against life-support systems and therefore for the right of abortion? If a person does not have a right to do with their body whatever they wish or their property in other circumstances, why this one?

It isn't up for pro-choice to defend their right, it is for pro-life you make their point why they shouldn't have that right be more supierior. And currently apart from "personal opinions" I don't think they have a strong argument at all.

Well this is all quite irrelevant and is, ironically, an appeal to your opinion/feelings regarding the arguments of others. Please note, you have dropped the whole appeal to nature and the law of the jungle, which was my entire point. I accept your implicit concession.

[jimjam]

OTHER: it's a beautiful sunny day down here in the tropics.

[Victoribus Spolia]

OTHER: it's a beautiful sunny day down here in the tropics.

yeah, but we get to sled-ride.

[B0ycey]

Well this is all quite irrelevant and is, ironically, an appeal to your opinion/feelings regarding the arguments of others. Please note, you have dropped the whole appeal to nature and the law of the jungle, which was my entire point. I accept your implicit concession.

I didn't drop anything VS. I didn't use the term "law of nature", you did when rebutting my point that nature doesn't concern itself with morals. I have not changed my opinion on that. In fact, I stand by it!

As for opinions, you have yet to show why your belief is supierior to that of a pro-choice opinion, and as the law is on their side you haven't really made any good arguments at all in this thread. I have been half expecting to see memes - the choice of weapon to use when you have no argument left to make.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As for opinions, you have yet to show why your belief is supierior to that of a pro-choice opinion, and as the law is on their side you haven't really made any good arguments at all in this thread. I been half expecting to see memes - the choice of weapon to use when you have no argument left to make.

Thats probably because I haven't been making any pro-life arguments....

Hard to be convincing when you aren't trying to convince. lol

In fact, I stand by it!

Oh good. Then please address the fallacy with appealing to nature for moral obligation that I pointed out.