Pro-Choicers Are Modern Slaveholders

[Syne]

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.

LOL! How idiotic!

We have all probably seen those films when the mother labors through a delivery and is rewarded by the sight of her new baby, whom the doctor then promptly proceeds to slap. So why does the doctor slap or spank the child in this way when he or she is born?

Well fact is doctors don’t do this anymore. In earlier days it was done in order to clear the lungs and the airways as also the mouth of liquid. Since the baby has spent nine months in amniotic fluid its lungs are full of it.

Therefore the airways and lungs have to be cleared of fluid and mucus to enable the baby to take its first breath.

So this slapping or spanking of babies that was done in the old days was done not only to clear the air ways but also to stimulate a baby to cry.

What is done now is, the baby is rubbed down with a towel and if required, suction is applied to clear the airways and start the baby of his or her first breath of life.

Since now more gentle ways are available, spanking is not common.
- http://www.newbornbabyzone.com/newborn/w...rn-babies/

Not only was crying induced to help clear the airways, since it's not commonly done anymore, I guess you think many people walking around today still lack the magical smack of personhood.

LOL!

[Magical Realist]

Not only was crying induced to help clear the airways, since it's not commonly done anymore, I guess you think many people walking around today still lack the magical smack of personhood.

Sure..they rub them with towels to get them to wake up and start breathing. Breathing is intimately connected to consciousness in case you didn't know. As is personhood.

[Syne]

Not only was crying induced to help clear the airways, since it's not commonly done anymore, I guess you think many people walking around today still lack the magical smack of personhood.

Sure..they rub them with towels to get them to wake up and start breathing. Breathing is intimately connected to consciousness in case you didn't know. As is personhood.

Complete nonsense. Please, try to cite any reputable source on that.

[Magical Realist]

I was early on my estimate. Consciousness in babies is discovered to begin around 5 months. The dawning of personhood is more gradual than I had thought. Perhaps it begins with the "awakened sentience" of the toweled newborne.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/04/w...-conscious

[Syne]

Brain activity correlates of visual acuity is not consciousness.
Are you arguing for post-birth ("5 months")abortion?

"However, the work, although well executed, is not the last word, he says. "I expect we'll find several different neural activity patterns to be correlated with consciousness."

Comparing infant brain waves to adult patterns is tricky, says Charles Nelson, a neuropsychologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston. "ERP components change dramatically over the first few years of life," he writes in an e-mail. "I would be reluctant to attribute the same mental operation (i.e., consciousness) in infants as in adults simply because of similar patterns of brain activity."" - http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/04/w...-conscious

And your vague "toweled"-on personhood is ridiculous. What, couldn't find anything to support your nonsense about "Breathing [being] intimately connected to consciousness"? LOL!

[RainbowUnicorn]

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-nocookie.com/embed/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

ok
so im going to point out the single point that invalidates this arguement and shows how clearly morally corrupt this pro-life concept & its supporters are.

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

if the child is free and a legal citizen with equal rights, it should have equal rights to
free food
free housing
free health care
free education
free sex education and free contraceptive and free re-productive medical services.

...children would not be legally forced to go to church

arguement finished
morally bankrupt clearly defined & outlined.

next subject

[Syne]

ok
so im going to point out the single point that invalidates this arguement and shows how clearly morally corrupt this pro-life concept & its supporters are.

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

if the child is free and a legal citizen with equal rights, it should have equal rights to
free food
free housing
free health care
free education
free sex education and free contraceptive and free re-productive medical services.

...children would not be legally forced to go to church

arguement finished
morally bankrupt clearly defined & outlined.

next subject

Adults aren't even guaranteed:
"free food
free housing
free health care
free education
free sex education and free contraceptive and free re-productive medical services."

Children have limited freedom because they also have limited abilities, accountability, and responsibilities.
Just like how we can't trust convicted criminals or the mentally ill to be wholly responsible.
Or do you think children are equal to adults? Do you think they can give consent? O_o

So you completely failed to make any cogent moral argument at all. Too bad.

[Syne]

First, CNN:

An anti-abortion rights bill passed in the House Friday morning ahead of the March for Life, the biggest yearly event for anti-abortion activists in Washington.
The bill, passed 241-183 in the House, would require doctors to provide medical care to a fetus who is born alive during an abortion or attempted abortion procedure.

Having zero added restrictions to abortion access is somehow an "anti-abortion rights bill". Is neglecting an infant, you failed to successfully abort, until it dies a "right"?

The House of Representatives has just voted to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, by a vote of 241-183. Every Republican representative voted in favor of the bill, and all Democrats voted against it, with just six exceptions - http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/455...-democrats

So the overwhelming majority of Democrats do want to kill babies outside of the womb. We all knew they were lying if they claimed otherwise. Solidarity in moral depravity.

[Magical Realist]

"For 2009 (Table 7), the majority (64.0%) of abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation, and 91.7% were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation. Few abortions (7.0%) were performed at 14–20 weeks' gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation." ---https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm

In the vast majority of abortions the fetus will not survive outside the womb anyway. It just underscores the reactionary hysteria of the anti-abortion right to pass a law to protect the less than 1% of fetuses surgically aborted after 21 weeks. Seems more compassionate to me to put it out of its misery if we are supposing it has any consciousness, which it doesn't.

[Syne]

"For 2009 (Table 7), the majority (64.0%) of abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation, and 91.7% were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation. Few abortions (7.0%) were performed at 14–20 weeks' gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation." ---https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm

In the vast amount of abortions the fetus will not survive outside the womb anyway. It just underscores the reactionary hysteria of the anti-abortion right to pass a law to protect the less than 1% of fetuses surgically aborted after 21 weeks.

You obviously didn't even bother to read up on it. We already had the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. It already defined such as a legal "person" with human rights. And 16 years ago, Democrats weren't despicable enough to oppose it. How times have changed.

The new bill just adds penalties for failing to provide the "person" medical care. IOW, no live-birth abortions. If it dies with all possible medical care, the doctor has done their duty.

Seems more compassionate to me to put it out of its misery if we are supposing it has any consciousness, which it doesn't.

"The House Select Panel found evidence that whole-baby cadavers of a viable age have been transferred from some abortion clinics to researchers. In the undercover videos that prompted the congressional investigation, Planned Parenthood medical directors admitted to not injecting fetuses with the fatal drug digoxin prior to abortion procedures because tissue untainted by feticidal agents is much more helpful to researchers and therefore worth more money." - http://www.nationalreview.com/article/45...ass-it-now

"Viable" means it could have survived. So you're obviously continuing to make excuses for your modern slave trade.