Pro-Choicers Are Modern Slaveholders

#1
They use all the same arguments.

Argument from ownership: “This slave/baby is my property/body. You can't tell me what to do with it.”

Argument from privacy: "No one is forcing you to have slaves/abortions. Mind your own business!"

Argument from superseding rights: “My property/body rights come before the rights of a slave/fetus.”

Argument from inevitability: “Slavery/abortion has been around for thousands of years, it’s never going away. We might as well have a safe and legal system in place for it.”

Argument from pseudoscience: “Slaves/fetuses aren’t really people. They aren’t like us. Look at them — they’re physically different, therefore we are human and they are not.”

Argument from socioeconomics: “If slavery/abortion ends, most of these slaves/babies will end up on the street without a job.”

Argument from the courts: “Slavery/abortion was vindicated by the Supreme Court. It’s already been decided, there’s no point in arguing it.”

Argument from the Bible: “Slavery/abortion isn’t specifically condemned in the Bible. If it’s wrong, Jesus would have specifically said so.”

Argument from faux-compassion: “Slavery/abortion is in the best interest of Africans/babies. The world can be a cruel place. It’s best to protect them from it by keeping them enslaved/killing them.”

Argument from the assumed hypocrisy of the other side: "You say you want to end slavery/abortion, but you don't want to live with freed blacks/adopt unwanted babies yourself. Therefore your position is invalid."
- https://www.dailywire.com/news/26097/wal...matt-walsh



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMdN69mgMzQ
"Abortion feeds a narrative that women are victims. That they have no control over their sexual impulses."

And they promulgate their policies largely on lies.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson was co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws — NARAL — later renamed the National Abortion Rights Action League. He was also the former director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, then the largest abortion clinic in the world....responsible for 75,000 abortions.
...
[in his words]
We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.

We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200 - 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.
...
We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform.” And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favor of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions.
...
A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. [source]


"Before 1989 abortion was legal in Chile; after 1989 it was illegal....A groundbreaking study of abortion in Chile published last week in the scientific journal PLoS One found that illegal abortion is not associated with maternal mortality. At a time when access to legal abortion is deemed absolutely necessary for women’s health, this shatters long-standing assumptions." - https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie...um=twitter

"After abortion was prohibited, the MMR [maternal mortality ratio] decreased from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births (−69.2%). The slope of the MMR did not appear to be altered by the change in abortion law." - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0036613
Reply
#2
Wow...that's a stretch. So now eight inch long nonconscious meatsacks are persons with rights? Are you goin to campaign for their right to vote next?
Reply
#3
Science shows it's human life. All human life has inherent value and natural rights.

Denying that is EXACTLY how people justified slavery.

Do 15-year-olds have the right to vote? No, because voting is not a natural right, and historically came with adult responsibilities (which is why women initially didn't even want the vote).
Reply
#4
Quote:Science shows it's human life. All human life has inherent value and natural rights.

Your appendix has human life. But I doubt it has inherent value and natural rights.

Hey I know. Let's remove all fetuses at 20 weeks and issue them social security cards and give them apts to live in. They're persons with the right to a life aren't they?
Reply
#5
(Jan 20, 2018 05:07 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Science shows it's human life. All human life has inherent value and natural rights.

Your appendix has human life. But I doubt it has inherent value and natural rights.

My appendix has life and human DNA. That doesn't mean it is human life, as a human is defined as the entire organism. Your beliefs impair your intellect...or your intellectual honesty.

Quote:Hey I know. Let's remove all fetuses at 20 weeks and issue them social security cards and give them apts to live in. They're persons aren't they?

You only say that because you don't even understand the difference between negative (natural) rights and positive ones. Not even adults are guaranteed housing or social security without working for them.


Notice all the hyperbole without a single credible rebuttal to any point in the OP.
Reply
#6
Quote:My appendix has life and human DNA. That doesn't mean it is human life, as a human is defined as the entire organism.

Human life exists in every organ and part of you. There is no distinction between it and the human life of the whole. They are one and the same. Hence a fetus has life in the same sense as your liver does, as part of the life of the mother. It doesn't have any inherent right to life in itself because it isn't a whole conscious person.

Quote:Not even adults are guaranteed housing or social security without working for them.

You're the one treating it like an independent conscious person. So why not let it live as one? Take it out and let it twitch around for awhile. See how long that independent conscious person lives. Oh it won't will it? That's because it isn't a person.
Reply
#7
(Jan 20, 2018 07:10 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:My appendix has life and human DNA. That doesn't mean it is human life, as a human is defined as the entire organism.

Human life exists in every organ and part of you. There is no distinction between it and the human life of the whole. They are one and the same. Hence a fetus has life in the same sense as your liver does, as part of the life of the mother. It doesn't have any inherent right to life in itself because it isn't a whole conscious person.  

Having life and human DNA is not, itself, equivalent to being human life. It's a scientifically illiterate or intellectually dishonest categorical error.

Or do you really think your appendix is "characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion; high manual dexterity and heavy tool use compared to other animals; and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies"? Rolleyes
A human is an organism, not an organ. Equivocating the two just goes to show the mental gymnastics necessary to justify abortion/slavery.

When does a fetus/slave magically become a "whole conscious person" deserving of rights?
A fetus has its own unique DNA, and often blood-type. Even in microchimerism, such cells do not display the human characteristics that a fetus does.

Slaveholders denied such science too.

Quote:
Quote:Not even adults are guaranteed housing or social security without working for them.

You're the one treating it like an independent conscious person. So why not let it live as one? Take it out and let it twitch around for awhile. See how long that independent conscious person lives. Oh it won't will it? That's because it isn't a person.

I'm treating it as it is scientifically defined...a human life. It's not a growth, cancer, parasite, organ, etc. It's scientifically classified as a living human organism.

A 3-year-old cannot survive without constant care either. Hardly independent.
They said slaves wouldn't be able to survive on their own as well. Are your advocating for child euthanasia too?

Immoral beliefs lead to immoral justifications.
Reply
#8
Quote:When does a fetus/slave magically become a "whole conscious person" deserving of rights?

After it turns into a baby and gets born. That's a good time to start thinking personhood. Oh and look. That's exactly what happens.

Quote:I'm treating it as it is scientifically defined...a human life. It's not a growth, cancer, parasite, organ, et.

Oh it's living and human alright. But only in the sense that your liver is living and human. It's a human fetus, not a human being. That's what it is. It's part of a human being. And it's certainly not a person with rights.

Quote:It's scientifically classified as a living human organism.

So is a zygote. Does that mean it has the right to life. Nope.
Reply
#9
(Jan 20, 2018 08:57 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:When does a fetus/slave magically become a "whole conscious person" deserving of rights?

After it turns into a baby and gets born. That's a good time to start thinking personhood. Oh and look. That's exactly what happens.
So the vagina/cesarean section is a magical portal through which human life is suddenly imbued with this mystical thing called "personhood", huh?
Even though there is no discernible change in behavior. What characteristic defines this supposed transition to personhood?
There is no objective point at which a fetus suddenly takes on that one extra characteristic that fundamentally changes its entire nature.
Quote:
Quote:I'm treating it as it is scientifically defined...a human life. It's not a growth, cancer, parasite, organ, et.

Oh it's living and human alright. But only in the sense that your liver is living and human. It's a human fetus, not a human being. That's what it is. It's part of a human being. And it's certainly not a person with rights.
Still denying science, huh? Rolleyes
Quote:
Quote:It's scientifically classified as a living human organism.

So is a zygote. Does that mean it has the right to life. Nope.

No, a zygote is only a cell that will become both intraembryonic and extraembryonic tissues. Humans are not single-cell organisms, nor extraembryonic.


If you can't admit this is human life, you're either blind or heartless:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG2BAC8E07A
Reply
#10
Quote:What characteristic defines this supposed transition to personhood?

The event of becoming a conscious being, thus activating the brain and beginning the journey of experience and personhood. That's why they spank the newborne infant.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)