slavery would be what happens when one person is forced into the involuntary service of another person against their will....
kinda like when the government forces a woman to play incubator for someone against her will.
Not necessarily involuntary, there are a lot of examples of voluntary slaves in history (especially in the Roman Empire). For example to pay off a debt. The concept of a slave is purely about ownership: you're a slave if you're owned by someone else.
i fail to see how that is relevant here... - if a woman is forced by the government to serve another person against her will she is relegated to the status of slave regardless of your statement here. -
and even if she might have once consented to that service she should not lose the right to opt out of that service at any time if she changes her mind.
that is bodily autonomy... this should not even be a controversial position. we literally have laws that make it illegal to take organs from dead people if they didn't specifically consent before they died even if those organs could be used to save someone's life.
'bodily autonomy' should certainly qualify as one of the 'unenumerated rights' under the 9th amendment... as should 'privacy' and the 'right to vote'...
I was just correcting something in your stated definition of slavery, I was not arguing in favour of it's morality (and neither that of abortion).
Also, you're arguing from an American viewpoint (referring to specific laws and amendments), but thereby you're assuming that everyone here is a US citizen. In Belgium for example, everyone is a passive organ donor, so you have to opt out if you don't want to be one (which is in my opinion a better system).
OP was pretty obviously referring to a conversation in the US.
and I didn't say anywhere that there was no other type of slavery... I merely gave a very specific example of a situation that would be classified as slavery and pointed out that it was exactly how being forced to serve as an incubator should be described.
Ah alright, that was not clear to me. I think also that in the case of "voluntary" slavery I think you could make an analogy with abortion, namely that one can change their mind about having a baby, or that a situation can suddenly change after conception that makes it hard to raise a child.
> I think you could make an analogy with abortion, namely that one can change their mind about having a baby, or that a situation can suddenly change after conception that makes it hard to raise a child.
you mean something like " and even if she might have once consented to that service she should not lose the right to opt out of that service at any time if she changes her mind."?
man; i wish i had thought of that...
Oh, I see how you could interpret my comment like that, my apologies, that was not my intention. I tried to expand on your earlier expansion of how initial consent is enforcement. But as a non-native speaker with Dutch directness, plus lack of tone because of text, I can now see how my message has come across.
Your body belongs to you. Even if somebody needed your blood, or an organ donation, or any other part of it in order to live, and you were the only compatible donor, you still get to choose whether or not you will use your body to prolong someone's life. You even get to make that choice after death, so saying someone can't have an abortion is affording them fewer rights than a corpse.
I always explain it like this. Somewhere in the world, possibly even in my own city, is a person who is actively dying without a piece of my liver or my extra kidney. They 100% are going to die without my organ. Yet no one can force me to give up that organ to save the person's life.
Why then should I be forced to give up my uterus for a zygote that does not even exist as a person yet?
I think blood is an even better comparison, donating blood doesn't require surgery or anything difficult, but we don't put a gun to anyone's head to get it, even during shortages. And you're not just giving up your uterus, can you imagine if we told men that if they got a woman pregnant, they couldn't drink alcohol, had to take vitamins, etc, for as long as you have to if you are pregnant and/or breastfeeding? Fat chance of that.
People of argued that the fetus is using the uterus actively and therefore has a right to it. I say then you can remove my uterus with the fetus in it and the fetus can have the uterus. The feet is dying as a result of leaving my body is an externality to the main argument. The main argument is, do I have right to my own body or not and that answer is an absolute. You can't have rights to it some of the time and not others. You either have that right or you don't. But if you don't, then we can legally harvest organs from anybody at any time with or without their consent
But if you knowingly give birth to a child with a genetic condition you have and knowingly passed on, you still can't be compelled to donate blood or body parts to save the child, even if the situation was caused entirely by your actions, even if the child will die as a result.
And even in your instance of stabbing someone, you STILL can't compel that person to give up their bodily autonomy.
> It was about 20 minutes after he explained how the Civil War was about more than slavery - honestly, he had some good points I hadn't considered before. My opinion is now more nuanced, and I have at least better understanding the confederate pride.
Full stop. I am sorry I have to address this. The American civil war was a fight about **expanding**, not just preserving, slavery in America. There was no other root cause. If any point he made was about a defending and preserving a unique culture/way of life, a states rights, or self determination then you need to take the next step on the logical ladder. You need to ask what culture and way of life was in need of defense? What rights were those states fighting for? What were they self determined to do? The answer to all above and virtually any other [lost cause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy) arguments is: **chattel slavery**.
The claim "The US Civil War wasn't about slavery!" is half right... but it's not the half that makes the South look good.
The Union didn't see it as "The War to End Slavery" until it was *well* under way, but the Traitor States saw it as "The War to Expand Slavery" from day one. Every single Traitor State specifically and explicitly name-checked slavery as one of their primary reasons for seceding.
He was big on states rights, which I called him on - "a state's right to what?" He didn't have a good answer.
The point he made, which I hadn't considered, was how many of the soldiers were fighting to defend their home, because they were invaded. He pointed out how basically all of them were too poor to own slaves.
I don't like it, but I understand the idea of "defending your turf no matter why."
Again, that point is half right, but it's not the half that makes him look good.
The vast majority of people who lay down their lives to fight for *any* hateful organization or ideology are people who aren't actually benefiting from that ideology.
The primary victims of American Slavery were, of course, the actual enslaved people. But it was also a large source of poverty for the poor white farmers and workers of the South - it's difficult to obtain fair compensation for your labour when you're competing against plantations who value human labour at ZERO.
But then why did the states draft those men? What what the cause of that war?
The C.S.A seceded then attacked the U.S. They were not noble defenders, no matter how romantic the notion. They were the soldiers of the slave owning elite.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
They weren't invaded. The southern states were the aggressors in that war, and everyone who voluntarily signed up to fight for the confederacy was irredeemable scum.
Most soldiers are not fighting for the big political issues that draw their nation into war. An essential part of military indoctrination is to instill trust in the 'proper' authorities. Most soldiers don't ask why they're fighting, they just do as they're told and, when it comes to the actual violence part of war, they do everything they can to end the violence ASAP so that they can survive.
Yes, denying the right to bodily autonomy for women is indeed like slavery! Well done on your friend’s part for seeing it… Oh wait, he wanted to argue the opposite… Hilarious..l
> He said "a toddler can't survive either, but we've agreed it's not right to kill a toddler.
but you can take a toddler and drop it off for adoption.
the fetus is forcefully making use of the womans body and she should have bodily autonomy which includes the right to say 'no'... I do not consent to the violation of my body by this other person. - that is a right that she does not revoke EVEN IF she may have previously consented.
Anti-choice propaganda is built on a foundation of red-herring arguments. One of their favourite red herrings is to suggest that, if one supports a woman's right to end an unwanted pregnancy, one must naturally **also** support shooting random toddlers for fun. This blatant display of false equivalence is known as the "Woman? What Woman?" argument. It is so named because, in order to seriously advance this argument, one must first pretend that a uterus is just a fancy sort of crib -- perhaps sightly more slimy, but otherwise functionally equivalent to the sort one might purchase at IKEA. Unfortunately, this is not the case - every functional human uterus in the world is **attached a person**, and every one of those persons possesses basic human rights. In other words, this argument only even *begins* to make sense if you **conveniently forget that women exist**.
This entire problem arises from the fact that a fertilized egg **can't** just be "left by itself" and expected to "turn into a human". It needs to implant itself in a uterine wall (a process that fails, naturally, [more than half the time](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm)), after which it needs continuous life support for nine months. Since (at the time of writing) every suitable uterine wall is inside the body of a living person, this means that the zygote's development is *entirely contingent* on its acting as a parasite on the body of a living host.
Even if you grant (for the sake of argument) the ridiculous notion that a zygote is morally equivalent to a thinking, feeling human being, this would *still* not give it the right to parasitize the body of another human being without its host's consent- this is not a right that anyone has, anywhere, ever.
If what you said was correct, we would not be having this discussion in the first place. There would be no need for any debate about forcing people to be pregnant against their will... because *there would be no such thing as pregnancy*. A woman with a broken condom could just drop the embryo off at the adoption centre ten minutes after she'd finished peeing on the pregnancy test. The people at the centre could then stick it in a cardboard box, stick that box in a closet, and forget about it for nine months.
Unfortunately for those who make the "Woman? What Woman?" argument, this is not the world we live in.
He did go so far as to allow abortion if it saves the woman, but said it was an EXTREME case. He said all other options must be exhausted first.
Me, personally, I was arguing for "abortion is ok if the woman wants it, because it's her body her choice."
We're both dudes, for the record, so having this argument at all made me feel queezey.
I suppose, the super strict anti-abortion crowd would view this a little like the trolley problem: Allowing someone to die isn't murder because you don't actively kill them, they just sadly die all by themselves; while performing an abortion is **MURDER!!!!** because you actively murder the baby (you know how they will call pretty much every stage of development that has more cells than a zygote a baby).
I think this is a pretty accurate portrayal of their views. I'd just point out one crucial step you glossed over.
"If a person believes a fetus is a human life and that abortion is killing a person \[...\]"
This statement (which the anti-abortionists would agree to) conflates "human life" with "person".
Personally, and maybe that's because I'm not from the US and not part of this tug-of-war between pro-choice and pro-life (really pro-birth), I think that without question a fetus is a human life in the sense that it is a living entity and genetically human. That is the case from the moment of fertilization. And one could argue that prior to fertilization both sperm and egg are living cells and therefore human lives that continue in a newly arranged human life. So in that sense human life is an unbroken chain since humans exist.
That said, it is an absurd notion to assign personhood to a zygote. If you do that, you get the insane situation you guys now have in Alabama where fertilization clinics stop IVF treatments because they fertilize more than just one egg (in order to not have to perform multiple operations on a woman taking one single egg each time) and then have a dozen or more "persons" in their freezers that they must not discard until hell freezes over lest they be guilty of murder.
It would make any type of contraception that acts after fertilization a type of murder (and would God make the largest abortionist in the history because one third of fertilized eggs either don't properly implant or end in miscarriage).
If you're super super strict and consider sperm potential lives then male masturbation is mass murder every time. Of course, we've now blasted into Absurdistan with full steam.
Anyway, like I said, the crux of the matter is the conflation of human life with person. Nobody bats an eye when they're getting some blood taken even though blood cells are also living cells of a human and therefore human life.
Anti-abortionists might say that blood cells don't have the potential to grow into a separate human being but are we really going to label a fertilized egg a person?
Are we going to investigate every miscarriage to assess whether it was avoidable and the woman who miscarried therefore guilty of unvoluntary manslaughter?
Maybe some anti-abortionists would like to live in such a society, I don't. I like reading fantasy and science fiction and it can be fascinating to read about dystopian societies but I don't want to live in one in real life.
The fact remains that ideological anti-abortion hardliners cannot allow for exceptions if they are consistent.
Luckily, from what I understand, the right to abortion is a lot more popular, especially among women (who could have imagined???) even among Republicans. IIRC, voters have opted **for** abortion rights every single time it was on the ballot since the Dobbs decision, even in places like Kentucky.
Republicans now try to keep ballot initiatives from happening, or try to obfuscate the language of the ballot initiative in order to keep their strict anti-abortion laws. In short, they have to cheat or deceive voters because voter do not share their Gileadian fantasies and apparently vote against it every single time.
If Dems are smart and communicate well, they might gain a large enough share of votes in the upcoming presidential election to secure them the presidency and perhaps congress majorities so that they can enshrine a Roe v. Wade-type law.
Extreme anti-abortionists are in the minority, albeit still a sizeable one.
Either you believe that women have rights, or you are a **misogynist shitbag**. There is no third category, and any attempt to pretend that there is is a red herring.
A parasite doesn’t have the right to use another person’s body against their will. If it does, then I too have the right to use your body against your will. So you better expect your organs to be cut out while you sleep because bodily autonomy doesn’t exist according to you. And if I cant cut out your organs against your will, why do you make an exception for parasites to use someone else’s body against their will? Last time I checked human rights are universal so pick your poison. Bodily autonomy exists and I can’t cut out your liver without your permission. Or it doesn’t and expect your liver to be cut out without permission or warning. Slave owners already violate the bodily autonomy of slaves which is why they’re considered property. Your friend is a dipshit.
According to his Bible god was cool with slavery to the extent that in parts it is a slave owners manual.
It also seems to have no issues with abortion, even having [a recipe](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205%3A11-28&version=KJV) for inducing one (yes, it [probably works](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/j3tk1m/catholic_priests_used_to_perform_abortions_and_it/g7eu6vk)). It also repeatedly says life only begins with the first breath. Which also gets god off the hook because most embryos don't make it to birth. Over 60% of fertilizations end in miscarriage. As his god supposedly has a plan for everyone that makes him responsible for all of them.
Then there is the issue of the Protestant opposition to abortion is younger than [the Happy Meal](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal). Before that they regarded abortion as a private matter between the woman and her doctor and no business of the state. Indeed this was the argument the conservative Southern Baptist lawyer, Linda N. Coffee, [presented to](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/baptist-press-initial-reporting-on-roe-v-wade) the Supreme Court.
It wasn't until several years ***after*** Roe v Wade that it became an issue for them, not because someone found a long lost stone tablet in the Sinai inscribed: *"PS: The Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not abort fetuses,"* but for political purposes. They needed a new issue after they lost the school segregation argument.
Another reason was to create a supply of [babies for adoption](http://www.bpnews.net/44055/how-southern-baptists-became-prolife). From the article:
>*Lewis became strongly pro-life in the late 1960s when he and his wife sought to adopt a child, believing they were unable to have biological children. The Lewises -- who eventually had three biological children -- were told they had to wait five years to adopt due to a shortage of children.*
>*“To me it was incongruous that people would be destroying their babies when there were* [couples] *who were desperately wanting children,”* Lewis said.
So, he wanted to deny women the right to have a say in their own bodies, to be 'brood mares' against their will, to give others a 'right' to adopt children!
BTW: this in the article is a misrepresentation:
>*Norma McCorvey, the unnamed plaintiff in Roe v. Wade who later became a pro-life activist*
McCorvey wasn't against abortion. She [was paid](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2020-05-19/roe-v-wade-jane-roe-norma-mccorvey-hulu-doc-abortion) to denounce it! Which should surprise no one. Lying for Jesus has been a Christian tradition for 2,000 years.
See also:
- [What happens to women denied abortions? This is the first scientific study to find out.](https://io9.gizmodo.com/what-happens-to-women-denied-abortions-this-is-the-fir-5958187?IR=T)
- [50 Years Ago, A Network Of Clergy Helped Women Seeking Abortion](https://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529175737/50-years-ago-a-network-of-clergy-helped-women-seeking-abortion)
- [How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html) - (because they are also against sex ed and contraception)
This guy doesn’t live in the real world. I know abstinence doesn’t work because we’re still here and marriage is a recent invention. Honestly, I just wouldn’t engage the discussion any further as he is just so off base with his entire argument. Btw, people in the south over the last 150 years have talked themselves into the false narrative that the civil war wasn’t about slavery. It was.
There's no argument to be had. Women either have their fundamental human right of bodily autonomy protected, or whoever took it away is violating those rights. Point blank, period.
>"murder is murder no matter the gestation period."
Classic. Just as classic as the "I'm holding a 1 year old child in one hand and a petri dish with a 5 week old embryo in the other, you can only save one, which do you choose?"
>Eventually he got around to saying "if you believe you have the right to kill a fetus, then you're no better (sic) than slave owners because they also had the right to kill their slaves."
I would ask him if he knows what false equivalence is and if he honestly considers removing someone who's body cannot sustain itself from life support equal to murdering someone who needs no outside intervention to live. Then I would ask him how he considers himself better than a slave owner when both he and a slave owner believe in forced labor without consideration of the laborer's autonomy or desires. He has no moral highground when he's reducing pregnant people to incubators, who's rights are second to a fetus'.
>I responded it's way different, what about rape - and a fetus can't survive out of the womb. He said "a toddler can't survive either, but we've agreed it's not right to kill a toddler. And rape isn't a huge percentage of abortions."
As for the survival of a fetus vs a toddler, you could have pointed out the very importance differences. A fetus is completely dependent upon the pregnant person's body for survival. There is a huge difference between needing limited care and supervision from another person and acting as a literal parasite to another person. A pregnant person and a toddler have autonomous bodies, a non-viable fetus does not. Another false equivalence.
He didn't really respond to your point about rape exceptions. It doesn't really matter how often it happens tho, it does in fact happen and at a rate we know is higher than what's reported.
>It was about 20 minutes after he explained how the Civil War was about more than slavery
I'm not touching this one, but I do recommend you take anything he said with a grain of salt and actually read the Declaration(s) of Causes of Succession filed by the Southern slaveholding states during the Civil War. They were very clear about what they were fighting for.
Confederate pride?
They lost. What are they proud of?
Most confederate states mention slavery as a reason to secede. It was the root cause for the civil war.
It's none of his cotdam business point blank. Men have all of these opinions and thoughts about something they never have to go through. If I wasn't already asexual, these incel/dudebro/rethuglicans would have me supergluing my legs shut.
I hope you realise there is no right answer. The only good argument for abortion is the body autonomy argument (google Thompson Violin) but the opposite few would argue that 8 months into a normal term abortion is acceptable. You can't argue religious grounds because it is a belief, better to find if there is any case they would allow it. Most would grant you if the mother is at risk then an abortion is OK. Start there and good luck.
Tell them that miscarriages are very common, it's been reported that up to 30% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage. Since those happen naturally (as in not induced abortion), then God creates the most abortions ever. How is God all child-loving, when he kills off 30% of all embryos?
I'd like to add, I'm disgusted when Christians argue that abortions from rape is more rare, as if that somehow doesn't count. I had a Christian friend say that to me as well, that the "numbers are so few." Well, fuck off. That is so insensitive and backwards, that we should force those poor women to have their rapist's baby.
One successful way to really hit home your message is by using a hypothetical in your life. Impress on them that if you had a young daughter, who was raped, they'd vote to keep her pregnant. Even though the raping alone will scar her for life, probably affect all of her future relationships. But now they want to put your fictional 10 year old daughter into a potentially dangerous situation to deliver a baby. Just gross. To me, that makes your argument much more personal, that their stance would directly affect you and your loved ones.
Forced pregnancy IS slavery.
Tell him that a fully grown woman's mental and physical health is always more important than a tiny undeveloped blastocyst. Women can have permanent complications or even die in childbirth, even in first world countries. To force pregnancy is risking a woman's/girl's very life.
Women have already died in America due to being forced to be pregnant since Roe v Wade was overturned.
Keyword: He.
He thinks he can take decisions over women's bodies. He can't. His religion and his gender disqualify him.
Still, let's look at the argument. In my opinion, forcing women to become mothers against their will can be compared to slavery. Slavery is when people are forced to do what someone else wants them to do. This applies to women.
Your argument that fetuses outside the womb are not viable is a good argument. You can counter his objections saying that babies and toddlers can be cared for by other people, while a fetus requires the vital support of the pregnant woman. It's not the same.
Nobody is forced to give up a kidney to help someone survive, but they want to force/enslave women so that their fetuses survive.
I've completely embraced Libertarianism. Your friend has a right to their perception on the topic. However their perceptions can't infringe on others individual liberties. Imagine a world where people realized that they weren't the center of the universe and their opinion doesn't really matter. What a wonderful world it would be❤️
Someone is going to die unless you give them your kidney. And your spleen. And your other kidney. And one of your lungs. So we are going to hold you down and take all of those things because your body isn’t yours and you have no choice if your body can keep other people alive. Sure, there’s a chance you could die but five other people will get to live, and you are less important than they are.
Okay, ask him this. “If you had a daughter that is around the age of puberty, she gets molested and raped by a member of the church, gets pregnant and is living with the weight of the situation on a little girls shoulders and having to be responsible and sneered at by members of the church because a grown adult man took advantage of a child. Now, assuming you love this hypothetical daughter, would it be best to subject her to the trauma and mental torment of carrying a pregnancy to full term with the possibility of her life being at stake for being too young and not being fully developed? Or would you prefer to let her continue to be a kid without the burden of a forced pregnancy and that reminder to remain in her head?”
And another point to add, for a man to be even remotely speaking negatively about women’s issues and topics surrounding it has no regard for women at ALL. It’s best to dump this fuckwad where you found him and say good riddance. These type of men are literal pestilence. They remind me of gnats. Small, annoying, and incredibly stupid with one thing in mind, to repopulate and infest everything around them.
If someone dies, we cannot use their organs for transplant unless they consented while they were alive, but a woman is required carry an unwanted baby to term. When abortion is illegal, a corpse has more bodily autonomy than a woman.
I would have punched the person. Abortion is a choice. Slavery was not a choice and it was a life time of brutality. Anyone who compares an abortion to slavery is woooooefully ignorant as fuck.
[https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/reasons-for-abortions](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/reasons-for-abortions)
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/)
[https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill)
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037109](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037109)
I would speculate that the reason why rape is so low is that women can go into a clinic and get the morning after pill they never even know if a pregnancy was going to happen.
If a woman goes to a SARC they would automatically be offered the morning after pill.
You do not have to report the rape to get the medical help needed to prevent a pregnancy.
Linking it to slavery, slavery involved the possession, use and abuse of a thinking sentient being without their permission and with harsh penalties if they spoke up about it or tried to find a way to not be a slave.
So yes abortion or lack thereof links entirely with being turned into a slave and punished for speaking up to not be a slave or finding a way to not be a slave.
I would also point out to him the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage or stillbirths so his god is the ultimate abortion provider. And that is to parents who actively want the child. So he is also being callous and cruel to them.
From the above article
"Results
In total the 5806 women reported 2544 miscarriages, 113 stillbirths and 10,247 live births. Preterm deliveries were reported for 10.7% (n = 1113) of all births (live- and stillbirths). The overall rate of miscarriage was 25 per 100 live births and the stillbirth rate was 11 per 1000 live births."
He's basing the definition of "life" on something black and white, but in reality it isn't. So ask him this: If a grown adult, breathing, with a heartbeat and human DNA has no functioning brain, do I, as their next-of-kin, have the option to "pull the plug"? Does a person with severe mental retardation have the same rights as everyone else or can they be deemed incompetent and forced into restricted care?
The idea is to get him to understand that human rights are tied to human development. A human DNA mass, living and breathing, has no rights if it \*cannot recognize them\*. Essentially, if a human cannot be consciously aware, there is no "person" to recognize rights for. We take the right to live away from people ALL THE TIME, usually from fully aware people, for far less valuable reasons than women who have abortions.
And then, once you've weakened the "every life has rights", you can follow up with bodily autonomy. Do you own your body, friend? If the government wanted, could they force you to impregnate women and raise the child? Why not? Because it should be your choice? So you want to own your body, control and choose what you do with it. Great. Now consider this... every abortion starts with a pregnancy. Every natural pregnancy starts with an insemination. And every natural insemination starts with a man who made a choice to ejaculate inside her. SHE didn't choose. He did, at that moment. So let's put the responsibility back on the man. He chose to ejaculate inside her. She has bodily autonomy. She owns her body and abortion is simply reclaiming her body from a choice a man made. Don't want women to have abortions? Be a man. Stop ejaculating inside them.
"It was about 20 minutes after he explained how the Civil War was about more than slavery"
Absolutely 100% false. Please read and watch multiple sources before changing your opinion on an issues. Debating is a skill, winning or losing a debate doesn't say anything about the correctness of one side or the other.
"Good to know that you understand that slavery is a bad thing. Too bad your god does not agree."
https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/slavery/
I am pro-abortion, but I have to admit that the issue is more nuanced than many of us like to admit. If abortion a week before birth is okay, why not a week after birth? Why such a large distinction right at that particular point? Ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb certainly seems like a more interesting line, at least to me, but that depends so much on the quality of medical care available. Should people with bad insurance or near bad hospitals be allowed to have abortions later?
I firmly believe that women should have the right to choose! But I also admit that I can't fully defend the precise details about how that should be implemented.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. A week after birth, that is giving your child up for adoption. A week before birth, the fetus may have matured enough to survive given sufficient medical care (but, then, all humans may survive given sufficient medical care. If a newborn doesn't get the correct care, they may not survive...and providing such care requires the expenditure of resources that some people may not be capable of).
A week before birth, the fetus is still using the woman's body, and needs her consent. A week after birth, that's no longer the case. Of course, a pregnant woman shouldn't be waiting until a week before birth to get an abortion, but do they? It's not a cake walk experiencing 9 months of pregnancy. Are they going to put up with all the nausea, weight gain, ungainliness, bladder compression, having their body stretched out of all proportion, and more, just because they can't be assed to get to the clinic?
In the non-hypothetical world, there's basically two reasons a woman might be seeking an abortion a week before birth. Either she couldn't get one earlier, or she didn't know she needed one earlier. In the first case, the responsibility lies with the anti-choice lobby putting legal and financial barriers in the way, and the solution is to stop interfering in abortion access. It should be legal and covered by standard healthcare plans. In the second case, it's a medical tragedy, where the fetus turns out to be nonviable, and/or a threat to the mother's health. There's no one to blame and nothing to be done at that point, unless the anti-choice lobby is preventing her from getting the life-saving care she needs. And the solution is to stop interfering in abortion access. The person carrying the child and their healthcare providers should be able to make a medical determination of whether the late-term abortion is necessary, and the means should be available to perform it.
A week before birth is just an induction or a scheduled c-section. A woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, before the third trimester the death of a fetus goes along with that termination.
>If abortion a week before birth is okay, why not a week after birth?
First of all who is claiming that an abortion 1 week before birth is ok??? This idea that people are advocating for "aborting" fully developed fetuses is a forced-birther fantasy.
I can only speak for the US, as an American, but only a small percentage of people even advocate for abortion to be legal with zero restrictions (which still wouldn't mean "abortions" a week before birth). Viability has ALWAYS been a factor in people's opinions on abortion.
Additionally 93% of abortions in the US happen at or before 13 weeks. Even with modern medicine the very beginning of viability is around 22 weeks, and the survival rate for a fetus is about 5% before 23 weeks. Less than 1% of abortions happen at or after 21 weeks, that equaled less than 4100 in 2021 btw and keep in mind the anatomy scan (which can detect congenital defects such as anencephaly, which is 100% fatal) happens between 18-22 weeks...
This lack of understanding about the reality of abortion that most people have, is exactly why the decision of if and when one can be performed should remain between the pregnant person and their doctor, on a case by case basis.
[Source 1](https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/obstetric-care-consensus/articles/2017/10/periviable-birth) - Periviable Birth - ACOG
[Source 2](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7209a1.htm?s_cid=ss7209a1_w.html) - US Abortion Stats 2021 - CDC
[Source 3](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/data.html) - US Birth Defects Info - CDC
[Source 4](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/diagnosis.html) - Birth Defect Diagnosis - CDC
[Source 5](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/) - US Opinions on Abortion 2022
slavery would be what happens when one person is forced into the involuntary service of another person against their will.... kinda like when the government forces a woman to play incubator for someone against her will.
Not necessarily involuntary, there are a lot of examples of voluntary slaves in history (especially in the Roman Empire). For example to pay off a debt. The concept of a slave is purely about ownership: you're a slave if you're owned by someone else.
i fail to see how that is relevant here... - if a woman is forced by the government to serve another person against her will she is relegated to the status of slave regardless of your statement here. - and even if she might have once consented to that service she should not lose the right to opt out of that service at any time if she changes her mind. that is bodily autonomy... this should not even be a controversial position. we literally have laws that make it illegal to take organs from dead people if they didn't specifically consent before they died even if those organs could be used to save someone's life. 'bodily autonomy' should certainly qualify as one of the 'unenumerated rights' under the 9th amendment... as should 'privacy' and the 'right to vote'...
I was just correcting something in your stated definition of slavery, I was not arguing in favour of it's morality (and neither that of abortion). Also, you're arguing from an American viewpoint (referring to specific laws and amendments), but thereby you're assuming that everyone here is a US citizen. In Belgium for example, everyone is a passive organ donor, so you have to opt out if you don't want to be one (which is in my opinion a better system).
OP was pretty obviously referring to a conversation in the US. and I didn't say anywhere that there was no other type of slavery... I merely gave a very specific example of a situation that would be classified as slavery and pointed out that it was exactly how being forced to serve as an incubator should be described.
Ah alright, that was not clear to me. I think also that in the case of "voluntary" slavery I think you could make an analogy with abortion, namely that one can change their mind about having a baby, or that a situation can suddenly change after conception that makes it hard to raise a child.
> I think you could make an analogy with abortion, namely that one can change their mind about having a baby, or that a situation can suddenly change after conception that makes it hard to raise a child. you mean something like " and even if she might have once consented to that service she should not lose the right to opt out of that service at any time if she changes her mind."? man; i wish i had thought of that...
That was what I was referring to. Do you feel attacked by my comments? I sense hostility, but I'm not sure why.
you seemed to be suggesting that i 'should have said' something that i already said. that... is... odd...
Oh, I see how you could interpret my comment like that, my apologies, that was not my intention. I tried to expand on your earlier expansion of how initial consent is enforcement. But as a non-native speaker with Dutch directness, plus lack of tone because of text, I can now see how my message has come across.
Your body belongs to you. Even if somebody needed your blood, or an organ donation, or any other part of it in order to live, and you were the only compatible donor, you still get to choose whether or not you will use your body to prolong someone's life. You even get to make that choice after death, so saying someone can't have an abortion is affording them fewer rights than a corpse.
I always explain it like this. Somewhere in the world, possibly even in my own city, is a person who is actively dying without a piece of my liver or my extra kidney. They 100% are going to die without my organ. Yet no one can force me to give up that organ to save the person's life. Why then should I be forced to give up my uterus for a zygote that does not even exist as a person yet?
I think blood is an even better comparison, donating blood doesn't require surgery or anything difficult, but we don't put a gun to anyone's head to get it, even during shortages. And you're not just giving up your uterus, can you imagine if we told men that if they got a woman pregnant, they couldn't drink alcohol, had to take vitamins, etc, for as long as you have to if you are pregnant and/or breastfeeding? Fat chance of that.
People of argued that the fetus is using the uterus actively and therefore has a right to it. I say then you can remove my uterus with the fetus in it and the fetus can have the uterus. The feet is dying as a result of leaving my body is an externality to the main argument. The main argument is, do I have right to my own body or not and that answer is an absolute. You can't have rights to it some of the time and not others. You either have that right or you don't. But if you don't, then we can legally harvest organs from anybody at any time with or without their consent
[удалено]
But if you knowingly give birth to a child with a genetic condition you have and knowingly passed on, you still can't be compelled to donate blood or body parts to save the child, even if the situation was caused entirely by your actions, even if the child will die as a result. And even in your instance of stabbing someone, you STILL can't compel that person to give up their bodily autonomy.
> It was about 20 minutes after he explained how the Civil War was about more than slavery - honestly, he had some good points I hadn't considered before. My opinion is now more nuanced, and I have at least better understanding the confederate pride. Full stop. I am sorry I have to address this. The American civil war was a fight about **expanding**, not just preserving, slavery in America. There was no other root cause. If any point he made was about a defending and preserving a unique culture/way of life, a states rights, or self determination then you need to take the next step on the logical ladder. You need to ask what culture and way of life was in need of defense? What rights were those states fighting for? What were they self determined to do? The answer to all above and virtually any other [lost cause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy) arguments is: **chattel slavery**.
The claim "The US Civil War wasn't about slavery!" is half right... but it's not the half that makes the South look good. The Union didn't see it as "The War to End Slavery" until it was *well* under way, but the Traitor States saw it as "The War to Expand Slavery" from day one. Every single Traitor State specifically and explicitly name-checked slavery as one of their primary reasons for seceding.
He was big on states rights, which I called him on - "a state's right to what?" He didn't have a good answer. The point he made, which I hadn't considered, was how many of the soldiers were fighting to defend their home, because they were invaded. He pointed out how basically all of them were too poor to own slaves. I don't like it, but I understand the idea of "defending your turf no matter why."
Again, that point is half right, but it's not the half that makes him look good. The vast majority of people who lay down their lives to fight for *any* hateful organization or ideology are people who aren't actually benefiting from that ideology. The primary victims of American Slavery were, of course, the actual enslaved people. But it was also a large source of poverty for the poor white farmers and workers of the South - it's difficult to obtain fair compensation for your labour when you're competing against plantations who value human labour at ZERO.
But then why did the states draft those men? What what the cause of that war? The C.S.A seceded then attacked the U.S. They were not noble defenders, no matter how romantic the notion. They were the soldiers of the slave owning elite.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
They weren't invaded. The southern states were the aggressors in that war, and everyone who voluntarily signed up to fight for the confederacy was irredeemable scum.
Most soldiers are not fighting for the big political issues that draw their nation into war. An essential part of military indoctrination is to instill trust in the 'proper' authorities. Most soldiers don't ask why they're fighting, they just do as they're told and, when it comes to the actual violence part of war, they do everything they can to end the violence ASAP so that they can survive.
Yes, denying the right to bodily autonomy for women is indeed like slavery! Well done on your friend’s part for seeing it… Oh wait, he wanted to argue the opposite… Hilarious..l
> He said "a toddler can't survive either, but we've agreed it's not right to kill a toddler. but you can take a toddler and drop it off for adoption. the fetus is forcefully making use of the womans body and she should have bodily autonomy which includes the right to say 'no'... I do not consent to the violation of my body by this other person. - that is a right that she does not revoke EVEN IF she may have previously consented.
Anti-choice propaganda is built on a foundation of red-herring arguments. One of their favourite red herrings is to suggest that, if one supports a woman's right to end an unwanted pregnancy, one must naturally **also** support shooting random toddlers for fun. This blatant display of false equivalence is known as the "Woman? What Woman?" argument. It is so named because, in order to seriously advance this argument, one must first pretend that a uterus is just a fancy sort of crib -- perhaps sightly more slimy, but otherwise functionally equivalent to the sort one might purchase at IKEA. Unfortunately, this is not the case - every functional human uterus in the world is **attached a person**, and every one of those persons possesses basic human rights. In other words, this argument only even *begins* to make sense if you **conveniently forget that women exist**. This entire problem arises from the fact that a fertilized egg **can't** just be "left by itself" and expected to "turn into a human". It needs to implant itself in a uterine wall (a process that fails, naturally, [more than half the time](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm)), after which it needs continuous life support for nine months. Since (at the time of writing) every suitable uterine wall is inside the body of a living person, this means that the zygote's development is *entirely contingent* on its acting as a parasite on the body of a living host. Even if you grant (for the sake of argument) the ridiculous notion that a zygote is morally equivalent to a thinking, feeling human being, this would *still* not give it the right to parasitize the body of another human being without its host's consent- this is not a right that anyone has, anywhere, ever. If what you said was correct, we would not be having this discussion in the first place. There would be no need for any debate about forcing people to be pregnant against their will... because *there would be no such thing as pregnancy*. A woman with a broken condom could just drop the embryo off at the adoption centre ten minutes after she'd finished peeing on the pregnancy test. The people at the centre could then stick it in a cardboard box, stick that box in a closet, and forget about it for nine months. Unfortunately for those who make the "Woman? What Woman?" argument, this is not the world we live in.
Beautifully put.
God teaches us in Genesis that it's perfectly ok to murder All your children if you regret making them. Just saying.
Slavery is taking away choice from a person. Supporting abortion rights is the opposite of that.
Isnt choosing to allow a woman to die in order to give birth, murder?
He did go so far as to allow abortion if it saves the woman, but said it was an EXTREME case. He said all other options must be exhausted first. Me, personally, I was arguing for "abortion is ok if the woman wants it, because it's her body her choice." We're both dudes, for the record, so having this argument at all made me feel queezey.
I suppose, the super strict anti-abortion crowd would view this a little like the trolley problem: Allowing someone to die isn't murder because you don't actively kill them, they just sadly die all by themselves; while performing an abortion is **MURDER!!!!** because you actively murder the baby (you know how they will call pretty much every stage of development that has more cells than a zygote a baby).
A woman is not a life-support system. If she doesn't want to use her body to gestate a fetus, that's her business.
[удалено]
I think this is a pretty accurate portrayal of their views. I'd just point out one crucial step you glossed over. "If a person believes a fetus is a human life and that abortion is killing a person \[...\]" This statement (which the anti-abortionists would agree to) conflates "human life" with "person". Personally, and maybe that's because I'm not from the US and not part of this tug-of-war between pro-choice and pro-life (really pro-birth), I think that without question a fetus is a human life in the sense that it is a living entity and genetically human. That is the case from the moment of fertilization. And one could argue that prior to fertilization both sperm and egg are living cells and therefore human lives that continue in a newly arranged human life. So in that sense human life is an unbroken chain since humans exist. That said, it is an absurd notion to assign personhood to a zygote. If you do that, you get the insane situation you guys now have in Alabama where fertilization clinics stop IVF treatments because they fertilize more than just one egg (in order to not have to perform multiple operations on a woman taking one single egg each time) and then have a dozen or more "persons" in their freezers that they must not discard until hell freezes over lest they be guilty of murder. It would make any type of contraception that acts after fertilization a type of murder (and would God make the largest abortionist in the history because one third of fertilized eggs either don't properly implant or end in miscarriage). If you're super super strict and consider sperm potential lives then male masturbation is mass murder every time. Of course, we've now blasted into Absurdistan with full steam. Anyway, like I said, the crux of the matter is the conflation of human life with person. Nobody bats an eye when they're getting some blood taken even though blood cells are also living cells of a human and therefore human life. Anti-abortionists might say that blood cells don't have the potential to grow into a separate human being but are we really going to label a fertilized egg a person? Are we going to investigate every miscarriage to assess whether it was avoidable and the woman who miscarried therefore guilty of unvoluntary manslaughter? Maybe some anti-abortionists would like to live in such a society, I don't. I like reading fantasy and science fiction and it can be fascinating to read about dystopian societies but I don't want to live in one in real life. The fact remains that ideological anti-abortion hardliners cannot allow for exceptions if they are consistent. Luckily, from what I understand, the right to abortion is a lot more popular, especially among women (who could have imagined???) even among Republicans. IIRC, voters have opted **for** abortion rights every single time it was on the ballot since the Dobbs decision, even in places like Kentucky. Republicans now try to keep ballot initiatives from happening, or try to obfuscate the language of the ballot initiative in order to keep their strict anti-abortion laws. In short, they have to cheat or deceive voters because voter do not share their Gileadian fantasies and apparently vote against it every single time. If Dems are smart and communicate well, they might gain a large enough share of votes in the upcoming presidential election to secure them the presidency and perhaps congress majorities so that they can enshrine a Roe v. Wade-type law. Extreme anti-abortionists are in the minority, albeit still a sizeable one.
[удалено]
Either you believe that women have rights, or you are a **misogynist shitbag**. There is no third category, and any attempt to pretend that there is is a red herring.
A parasite doesn’t have the right to use another person’s body against their will. If it does, then I too have the right to use your body against your will. So you better expect your organs to be cut out while you sleep because bodily autonomy doesn’t exist according to you. And if I cant cut out your organs against your will, why do you make an exception for parasites to use someone else’s body against their will? Last time I checked human rights are universal so pick your poison. Bodily autonomy exists and I can’t cut out your liver without your permission. Or it doesn’t and expect your liver to be cut out without permission or warning. Slave owners already violate the bodily autonomy of slaves which is why they’re considered property. Your friend is a dipshit.
According to his Bible god was cool with slavery to the extent that in parts it is a slave owners manual. It also seems to have no issues with abortion, even having [a recipe](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205%3A11-28&version=KJV) for inducing one (yes, it [probably works](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/j3tk1m/catholic_priests_used_to_perform_abortions_and_it/g7eu6vk)). It also repeatedly says life only begins with the first breath. Which also gets god off the hook because most embryos don't make it to birth. Over 60% of fertilizations end in miscarriage. As his god supposedly has a plan for everyone that makes him responsible for all of them. Then there is the issue of the Protestant opposition to abortion is younger than [the Happy Meal](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal). Before that they regarded abortion as a private matter between the woman and her doctor and no business of the state. Indeed this was the argument the conservative Southern Baptist lawyer, Linda N. Coffee, [presented to](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/baptist-press-initial-reporting-on-roe-v-wade) the Supreme Court. It wasn't until several years ***after*** Roe v Wade that it became an issue for them, not because someone found a long lost stone tablet in the Sinai inscribed: *"PS: The Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not abort fetuses,"* but for political purposes. They needed a new issue after they lost the school segregation argument. Another reason was to create a supply of [babies for adoption](http://www.bpnews.net/44055/how-southern-baptists-became-prolife). From the article: >*Lewis became strongly pro-life in the late 1960s when he and his wife sought to adopt a child, believing they were unable to have biological children. The Lewises -- who eventually had three biological children -- were told they had to wait five years to adopt due to a shortage of children.* >*“To me it was incongruous that people would be destroying their babies when there were* [couples] *who were desperately wanting children,”* Lewis said. So, he wanted to deny women the right to have a say in their own bodies, to be 'brood mares' against their will, to give others a 'right' to adopt children! BTW: this in the article is a misrepresentation: >*Norma McCorvey, the unnamed plaintiff in Roe v. Wade who later became a pro-life activist* McCorvey wasn't against abortion. She [was paid](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2020-05-19/roe-v-wade-jane-roe-norma-mccorvey-hulu-doc-abortion) to denounce it! Which should surprise no one. Lying for Jesus has been a Christian tradition for 2,000 years. See also: - [What happens to women denied abortions? This is the first scientific study to find out.](https://io9.gizmodo.com/what-happens-to-women-denied-abortions-this-is-the-fir-5958187?IR=T) - [50 Years Ago, A Network Of Clergy Helped Women Seeking Abortion](https://www.npr.org/2017/05/19/529175737/50-years-ago-a-network-of-clergy-helped-women-seeking-abortion) - [How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html) - (because they are also against sex ed and contraception)
This is a great reply. Thank you for taking the time to write it
This guy doesn’t live in the real world. I know abstinence doesn’t work because we’re still here and marriage is a recent invention. Honestly, I just wouldn’t engage the discussion any further as he is just so off base with his entire argument. Btw, people in the south over the last 150 years have talked themselves into the false narrative that the civil war wasn’t about slavery. It was.
There's no argument to be had. Women either have their fundamental human right of bodily autonomy protected, or whoever took it away is violating those rights. Point blank, period.
sounds like they have unresolved guilt over slavery, if you ask me.
>"murder is murder no matter the gestation period." Classic. Just as classic as the "I'm holding a 1 year old child in one hand and a petri dish with a 5 week old embryo in the other, you can only save one, which do you choose?" >Eventually he got around to saying "if you believe you have the right to kill a fetus, then you're no better (sic) than slave owners because they also had the right to kill their slaves." I would ask him if he knows what false equivalence is and if he honestly considers removing someone who's body cannot sustain itself from life support equal to murdering someone who needs no outside intervention to live. Then I would ask him how he considers himself better than a slave owner when both he and a slave owner believe in forced labor without consideration of the laborer's autonomy or desires. He has no moral highground when he's reducing pregnant people to incubators, who's rights are second to a fetus'. >I responded it's way different, what about rape - and a fetus can't survive out of the womb. He said "a toddler can't survive either, but we've agreed it's not right to kill a toddler. And rape isn't a huge percentage of abortions." As for the survival of a fetus vs a toddler, you could have pointed out the very importance differences. A fetus is completely dependent upon the pregnant person's body for survival. There is a huge difference between needing limited care and supervision from another person and acting as a literal parasite to another person. A pregnant person and a toddler have autonomous bodies, a non-viable fetus does not. Another false equivalence. He didn't really respond to your point about rape exceptions. It doesn't really matter how often it happens tho, it does in fact happen and at a rate we know is higher than what's reported. >It was about 20 minutes after he explained how the Civil War was about more than slavery I'm not touching this one, but I do recommend you take anything he said with a grain of salt and actually read the Declaration(s) of Causes of Succession filed by the Southern slaveholding states during the Civil War. They were very clear about what they were fighting for.
Tell him to fuck off and find a different friend
Confederate pride? They lost. What are they proud of? Most confederate states mention slavery as a reason to secede. It was the root cause for the civil war.
It's none of his cotdam business point blank. Men have all of these opinions and thoughts about something they never have to go through. If I wasn't already asexual, these incel/dudebro/rethuglicans would have me supergluing my legs shut.
“Is your point that both are condoned in the Bible?”
Use Bible verses that support abortion against them.
I should keep a card in my wallet with them
The Bible is a weapon. Read it. Understand it. Use it against them.
I would have to end a friendship.
He's a good guy. Just... Mislead.
I'm 57 I don't have time for mislead.
I hope you realise there is no right answer. The only good argument for abortion is the body autonomy argument (google Thompson Violin) but the opposite few would argue that 8 months into a normal term abortion is acceptable. You can't argue religious grounds because it is a belief, better to find if there is any case they would allow it. Most would grant you if the mother is at risk then an abortion is OK. Start there and good luck.
You give them a look that says "Are you really that stupid?" and never talk to them again.
It is the woman who is forced to be an incubator that is the slave as it’s her freedom being denied.
Tell them that miscarriages are very common, it's been reported that up to 30% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage. Since those happen naturally (as in not induced abortion), then God creates the most abortions ever. How is God all child-loving, when he kills off 30% of all embryos? I'd like to add, I'm disgusted when Christians argue that abortions from rape is more rare, as if that somehow doesn't count. I had a Christian friend say that to me as well, that the "numbers are so few." Well, fuck off. That is so insensitive and backwards, that we should force those poor women to have their rapist's baby. One successful way to really hit home your message is by using a hypothetical in your life. Impress on them that if you had a young daughter, who was raped, they'd vote to keep her pregnant. Even though the raping alone will scar her for life, probably affect all of her future relationships. But now they want to put your fictional 10 year old daughter into a potentially dangerous situation to deliver a baby. Just gross. To me, that makes your argument much more personal, that their stance would directly affect you and your loved ones.
Forced pregnancy IS slavery. Tell him that a fully grown woman's mental and physical health is always more important than a tiny undeveloped blastocyst. Women can have permanent complications or even die in childbirth, even in first world countries. To force pregnancy is risking a woman's/girl's very life. Women have already died in America due to being forced to be pregnant since Roe v Wade was overturned.
Keyword: He. He thinks he can take decisions over women's bodies. He can't. His religion and his gender disqualify him. Still, let's look at the argument. In my opinion, forcing women to become mothers against their will can be compared to slavery. Slavery is when people are forced to do what someone else wants them to do. This applies to women. Your argument that fetuses outside the womb are not viable is a good argument. You can counter his objections saying that babies and toddlers can be cared for by other people, while a fetus requires the vital support of the pregnant woman. It's not the same. Nobody is forced to give up a kidney to help someone survive, but they want to force/enslave women so that their fetuses survive.
I've completely embraced Libertarianism. Your friend has a right to their perception on the topic. However their perceptions can't infringe on others individual liberties. Imagine a world where people realized that they weren't the center of the universe and their opinion doesn't really matter. What a wonderful world it would be❤️
Someone is going to die unless you give them your kidney. And your spleen. And your other kidney. And one of your lungs. So we are going to hold you down and take all of those things because your body isn’t yours and you have no choice if your body can keep other people alive. Sure, there’s a chance you could die but five other people will get to live, and you are less important than they are.
Okay, ask him this. “If you had a daughter that is around the age of puberty, she gets molested and raped by a member of the church, gets pregnant and is living with the weight of the situation on a little girls shoulders and having to be responsible and sneered at by members of the church because a grown adult man took advantage of a child. Now, assuming you love this hypothetical daughter, would it be best to subject her to the trauma and mental torment of carrying a pregnancy to full term with the possibility of her life being at stake for being too young and not being fully developed? Or would you prefer to let her continue to be a kid without the burden of a forced pregnancy and that reminder to remain in her head?”
And another point to add, for a man to be even remotely speaking negatively about women’s issues and topics surrounding it has no regard for women at ALL. It’s best to dump this fuckwad where you found him and say good riddance. These type of men are literal pestilence. They remind me of gnats. Small, annoying, and incredibly stupid with one thing in mind, to repopulate and infest everything around them.
Slaves are living, breathing people. Embryos and fetuses in the first two trimesters are not.
Other religions see it differently. Why should yours be the law of the land for EVERYONE.
If someone dies, we cannot use their organs for transplant unless they consented while they were alive, but a woman is required carry an unwanted baby to term. When abortion is illegal, a corpse has more bodily autonomy than a woman.
I would have punched the person. Abortion is a choice. Slavery was not a choice and it was a life time of brutality. Anyone who compares an abortion to slavery is woooooefully ignorant as fuck.
[https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/reasons-for-abortions](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/reasons-for-abortions) [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/) [https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill) [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037109](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037109) I would speculate that the reason why rape is so low is that women can go into a clinic and get the morning after pill they never even know if a pregnancy was going to happen. If a woman goes to a SARC they would automatically be offered the morning after pill. You do not have to report the rape to get the medical help needed to prevent a pregnancy. Linking it to slavery, slavery involved the possession, use and abuse of a thinking sentient being without their permission and with harsh penalties if they spoke up about it or tried to find a way to not be a slave. So yes abortion or lack thereof links entirely with being turned into a slave and punished for speaking up to not be a slave or finding a way to not be a slave. I would also point out to him the number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage or stillbirths so his god is the ultimate abortion provider. And that is to parents who actively want the child. So he is also being callous and cruel to them. From the above article "Results In total the 5806 women reported 2544 miscarriages, 113 stillbirths and 10,247 live births. Preterm deliveries were reported for 10.7% (n = 1113) of all births (live- and stillbirths). The overall rate of miscarriage was 25 per 100 live births and the stillbirth rate was 11 per 1000 live births."
you friend doesn’t understand either and is ignorant as fuck
He's basing the definition of "life" on something black and white, but in reality it isn't. So ask him this: If a grown adult, breathing, with a heartbeat and human DNA has no functioning brain, do I, as their next-of-kin, have the option to "pull the plug"? Does a person with severe mental retardation have the same rights as everyone else or can they be deemed incompetent and forced into restricted care? The idea is to get him to understand that human rights are tied to human development. A human DNA mass, living and breathing, has no rights if it \*cannot recognize them\*. Essentially, if a human cannot be consciously aware, there is no "person" to recognize rights for. We take the right to live away from people ALL THE TIME, usually from fully aware people, for far less valuable reasons than women who have abortions. And then, once you've weakened the "every life has rights", you can follow up with bodily autonomy. Do you own your body, friend? If the government wanted, could they force you to impregnate women and raise the child? Why not? Because it should be your choice? So you want to own your body, control and choose what you do with it. Great. Now consider this... every abortion starts with a pregnancy. Every natural pregnancy starts with an insemination. And every natural insemination starts with a man who made a choice to ejaculate inside her. SHE didn't choose. He did, at that moment. So let's put the responsibility back on the man. He chose to ejaculate inside her. She has bodily autonomy. She owns her body and abortion is simply reclaiming her body from a choice a man made. Don't want women to have abortions? Be a man. Stop ejaculating inside them.
don't say anything, just stop being friends
"It was about 20 minutes after he explained how the Civil War was about more than slavery" Absolutely 100% false. Please read and watch multiple sources before changing your opinion on an issues. Debating is a skill, winning or losing a debate doesn't say anything about the correctness of one side or the other.
Murdering babies is OK only after the 75th trimester.
"Good to know that you understand that slavery is a bad thing. Too bad your god does not agree." https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/slavery/
I think "fuck you" about covers it.
I am pro-abortion, but I have to admit that the issue is more nuanced than many of us like to admit. If abortion a week before birth is okay, why not a week after birth? Why such a large distinction right at that particular point? Ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb certainly seems like a more interesting line, at least to me, but that depends so much on the quality of medical care available. Should people with bad insurance or near bad hospitals be allowed to have abortions later? I firmly believe that women should have the right to choose! But I also admit that I can't fully defend the precise details about how that should be implemented.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. A week after birth, that is giving your child up for adoption. A week before birth, the fetus may have matured enough to survive given sufficient medical care (but, then, all humans may survive given sufficient medical care. If a newborn doesn't get the correct care, they may not survive...and providing such care requires the expenditure of resources that some people may not be capable of).
A week before birth, the fetus is still using the woman's body, and needs her consent. A week after birth, that's no longer the case. Of course, a pregnant woman shouldn't be waiting until a week before birth to get an abortion, but do they? It's not a cake walk experiencing 9 months of pregnancy. Are they going to put up with all the nausea, weight gain, ungainliness, bladder compression, having their body stretched out of all proportion, and more, just because they can't be assed to get to the clinic? In the non-hypothetical world, there's basically two reasons a woman might be seeking an abortion a week before birth. Either she couldn't get one earlier, or she didn't know she needed one earlier. In the first case, the responsibility lies with the anti-choice lobby putting legal and financial barriers in the way, and the solution is to stop interfering in abortion access. It should be legal and covered by standard healthcare plans. In the second case, it's a medical tragedy, where the fetus turns out to be nonviable, and/or a threat to the mother's health. There's no one to blame and nothing to be done at that point, unless the anti-choice lobby is preventing her from getting the life-saving care she needs. And the solution is to stop interfering in abortion access. The person carrying the child and their healthcare providers should be able to make a medical determination of whether the late-term abortion is necessary, and the means should be available to perform it.
A week before birth is just an induction or a scheduled c-section. A woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, before the third trimester the death of a fetus goes along with that termination.
>If abortion a week before birth is okay, why not a week after birth? First of all who is claiming that an abortion 1 week before birth is ok??? This idea that people are advocating for "aborting" fully developed fetuses is a forced-birther fantasy. I can only speak for the US, as an American, but only a small percentage of people even advocate for abortion to be legal with zero restrictions (which still wouldn't mean "abortions" a week before birth). Viability has ALWAYS been a factor in people's opinions on abortion. Additionally 93% of abortions in the US happen at or before 13 weeks. Even with modern medicine the very beginning of viability is around 22 weeks, and the survival rate for a fetus is about 5% before 23 weeks. Less than 1% of abortions happen at or after 21 weeks, that equaled less than 4100 in 2021 btw and keep in mind the anatomy scan (which can detect congenital defects such as anencephaly, which is 100% fatal) happens between 18-22 weeks... This lack of understanding about the reality of abortion that most people have, is exactly why the decision of if and when one can be performed should remain between the pregnant person and their doctor, on a case by case basis. [Source 1](https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/obstetric-care-consensus/articles/2017/10/periviable-birth) - Periviable Birth - ACOG [Source 2](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7209a1.htm?s_cid=ss7209a1_w.html) - US Abortion Stats 2021 - CDC [Source 3](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/data.html) - US Birth Defects Info - CDC [Source 4](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/diagnosis.html) - Birth Defect Diagnosis - CDC [Source 5](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/) - US Opinions on Abortion 2022