Is Joe Biden pro-life or pro-choice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter saintlouisblues19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s be clear: pro-life legislation does not necessarily entail forcing women to do anything with their bodies. It means prohibiting people from aborting fetuses.
 
It absolutely forces women to undergo a pregnancy that they do not want. This is unacceptable.
 
No, it prohibits people from aborting fetuses. For example, doctors. The state is not forcing a woman to do anything, that’s the result of natural forces.
 
In concordance with her bodily autonomy, if a woman doesn’t want a little human being growing inside of her, she doesn’t have to.

That’s all pro-choicers are arguing for.
 
No again, pro-choicers are arguing for abortion procedures.

The state does not need to criminalize a woman’s autonomy in order to criminalize abortion.
 
Again, as a pro-choice or we’re just arguing for a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy that she does not want. Let us recall that pregnancy is not a risk-free activity. A certain level of biological damage is guaranteed, a certain level of financial strain is guaranteed, and women die in childbirth all over the world even today.

No one and I mean no one has a right to force a woman to undergo those perils.
 
Victoria33 said:
It’s a shame that they get millions of tax payer dollars
Click to expand...
Planned Parenthood withdrew from Title X funding

www.nytimes.com

Planned Parenthood Refuses Federal Funds Over Abortion Restrictions (Published 2019)

Facing a Trump administration rule that forbids referrals for abortion, the organization decided to reject federal funds for family planning for low-income women.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Victoria33 said:
and then, even make political endorsements. Very unfair.
Click to expand...
Why is this unfair? Endorsements are done through Planned Parenthood Votes PAC. " Planned Parenthood Votes is an independent expenditure political committee registered with the Federal Election Commission."

Many political orgs, including National Right to Life’s PAC, make political endorsements. NRLPAC Candidate Endorsements by State
 
Hume said:
No one and I mean no one has a right to force a woman to undergo those perils.
Click to expand...
Well you’re not seeing my point. To avoid continuing the back-and-forth, I’ll just have to reiterate and leave it for now: criminalizing abortion procedures is not forcing the woman to do anything or violating her bodily autonomy. The state does not need to criminalize anything she does with her body. Full medical care ought to be provided, absolutely, but that need not (and should not) include procedures performed by doctors that force a termination of a pregnancy.

I’ll edit this to respond to your message below instead of yet another reply.
Hume said:
A woman’s body is her house. She owns it. And like all homeowners, we have a right to evict any unwelcome visitors.
Click to expand...
Now you are going further than bodily autonomy and positing legal responsibilities for a fetus. Are you sure you want to go down this road? Is a fetus a person who can “squat” in the womb? We may evict a person, but not kill them upon eviction.

Feel free to send me a direct message @Hume and we can further this line of thought without monopolizing the discussion.
Hume said:
Autonomy begins at birth. Until then, any potential “personhood” a fetus has is eclipsed fully by the woman it occupies.
Click to expand...
Then your housing rights analogy doesn’t work. There is no one to evict (you can’t evict a house from itself). So we’re back to bodily autonomy. Prohibiting a forced termination of pregnancy does not violate bodily autonomy. It prohibits applying force to the woman by another person.
 
Last edited:
This usually makes it simple enough to understand.
A woman’s body is her house. She owns it. And like all homeowners, we have a right to evict any unwelcome visitors.

Edited in reply to your edit 😀;
Autonomy begins at birth. Until then, any potential “personhood” a fetus has is eclipsed fully by the woman it occupies.

I hope that makes the pro-choice stance a little more clear
 
Last edited:
Abortion is not pro-women because Planned Parenthood and the Democrat party are just fine with sex-selection abortions which usually means, the female is aborted.

Calling carrying a baby, slavery, too, is a slap to those who have had to suffer from slavery in their background.

Again, abortion disproportionately affects minorities, so, we need to remember what is at stake here and if one really stands for these things.

Partial birth abortion is an abomination but somehow, one party is okay with that too.
 
Nonsense.

There’s virtually no evidence that sex-selective abortion even exists in the US.

Incidents that are a percent of a percent and dubiously documented are fully irrelevant.
 
@Hume Wait just a minute. You refer to a mother’s body as a house, but who is the homeowner? It can’t be the mother, because a house does not possess itself. Ergo, the homeowner is the unborn child, and the child “owns” the home. The “house” cannot evict the “owner”.

Your argument fails.
 
Lol, no. It doesn’t. You just want it to - and I understand.

A woman has the right of complete bodily autonomy. This is not nor will ever be up for negotiation.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
A woman who doesn’t have autonomy over her body is, by rule, enslaved.

Slavery is immoral and illegal
Click to expand...
A baby that doesn’t have autonomy over it’s body is also a slave. According to you and your kind it is okay to kill your slave. So not only is your side pro slavery, you are pro-murder as well. See how ridiculous we can get?

Yes it is tragic when a woman doesn’t want a baby, especially when it involves rape. Thing is, cases like rape and incest only account for less than 1% of abortion cases. The other cases have no excuse
not that rape or incest are an excuse to murder a baby anyway. The baby committed no crime afterall
to murder their child. If they don’t want it they can give it up for adoption. It takes two to tango after all. She knew what would happen if she tangos with a man (husband or not). As a libertarian you should know every action has a consequence. If said couple can’t afford a baby, they shouldn’t be having sex to begin with.
but what if they can’t afford the hospital bill?
Click to expand...
State insurance covers it like it covered my wife’s pregnancy. No excuse
Hume said:
A woman has the right of complete bodily autonomy. This is not nor will ever be up for negotiation
Click to expand...
A baby has the right to complete bodily autonomy. This is not nor will ever be up for negotiation.
 
Last edited:
A fetus does not exercise bodily autonomy. It is very much a parasite feeding from its host-mother.

She should have the right to refuse consent to something other than herself literally feeding off her body.

Related is the personhood consideration. As a fetus exercises none in any meaningful way BUT its mother does, any conflicts go to the mother. Further reinforcing this tie-breaker is the reality that pregnancy is perilous and a woman should have the right to avoid peril where she can.
 
Hume said:
Lol, no. It doesn’t. You just want it to - and I understand.

A woman has the right of complete bodily autonomy. This is not nor will ever be up for negotiation.
Click to expand...
According to your own argument, she doesn’t, because she’s a house. According to your argument, the unborn child could (if they had the mental capacity and desire to) destroy their home, because we would say that a person has the right to do as they wish to their home.

Bad argument, bad morality.
 
Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is a direct violation of bodily autonomy.
 
All similes and metaphors have weaknesses, but yours is super-apparent due to the fact that we are not our bodies.

Even if you don’t believe in souls, our consciousness occupies or arises from it, but it’s not the same.

If I lose an arm, am I less a person? No. So your refutation of you=body falls apart.

Good try though.
 
You’re not engaging the points I raised earlier, and it doesn’t seem that you’re applying any practical legal sense, only repeating some mimetic talking points you may have picked up somewhere. Since this is a thread about Joe Biden, you can message me directly or we can start a new thread about bodily autonomy. Suffice it to say that if the state prohibits someone from applying force to your body, there is no violation of your bodily autonomy. Quite the opposite, in fact. You are equivocating natural forces with state enforcement.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top