Is Joe Biden pro-life or pro-choice?

[Hume]

I don’t have to consider the argument the same way you so.

“YOU HAVE TO ARGUE ON MY TERMS” is a sophomoric error.

 

[Elias]

a parasite feeding from its host-mother

Now you are dehumanizing a literal person. How far gone can you go?

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is a direct violation of bodily autonomy.

Literally murdering a child is a direct violation of bodily autonomy.

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.

So than why can’t the baby avoid peril? Why are only women allowed protection? Are babies 2nd class people or worse, sub to non-human to you?

 

[Hume]

The woman has the first right of avoiding peril. She has bodily autonomy and self determination while the fetus has neither.

She’s more a “person” than the fetus is. So if she wants to avoid the possible perils of pregnancy including death - she should have that right.

 

[Hume]

I’ll offer this as an olive branch; if we were ever able to remove fetuses from unwilling mothers for replanting into willing mothers and that procedure was no more harmful or expensive than a termination, then I’d probably support making abortion illegal at that point. Probably.

 

[Aquinas11]

No one is happy to see it done.

Joe’s stance of being personally against it but politically for it stems from a perspective many don’t understand. It’s as follows;

Like being personally against rape but politically for it?
Like being personally against racism but politically for it?
Etc

Regrettably, a woman must always have complete and total control over her body. It’s a fundamental, completely non-negotiable point.

The baby is not “her body”. Your point is valid if she wanted to, for example, amputate her arm.

A woman who doesn’t have autonomy over her body is, by rule, enslaved.

Per that logic, a rapist who doesn’t have autonomy over their own body, is by rule, enslaved.

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.

Wow you just admitted the baby is a human being and thus also had “bodily autonomy”, rare to see a pro abortion argument where that is conceded

Let us recall that pregnancy is not a risk-free activity.

Neither is sexual intercourse from which pregnancy is a known risk and you already asserted she has “total control” over her body which, absent rape, includes sex which is “not a risk free activity”

A woman’s body is her house. She owns it. And like all homeowners, we have a right to evict any unwelcome visitors.

No you already admitted the baby is a “human being” and thus the baby’s body is the baby’s house and “like all homeowners, has a right to evict any unwelcome visitors”

Autonomy begins at birth. Until then, any potential “personhood” a fetus has is eclipsed fully by the woman it occupies.

No, see above you already conceded the baby before birth is a “human being”

A fetus does not exercise bodily autonomy.

Again, see above, you conceded the fetus is a “human being”

 

[upant]

In my lifetime, I have not know a POTUS who is against abortion. They have all approved abortion to some point.

Do you think Trump with minor exceptions is the same as Biden with no exception?

Do you consider the GOP position and the Dem position the same? The VA Democratic governor has floated infanticide and the democratic politicians will not support children survivors of abortion?

I’m a liberal and I don’t know anyone that’s pro-abortion. No one is happy to see it done.

are you claiming all women who have had abortions were forced to have an abortion? if they weren’t pro-abortion and weren’t forced, why would they have an abortion? there is a hashtag #ShoutYourAbortion where people brag about their abortion.

Women cannot be made slaves to their wombs.

is this a legitimate reason for murder? what will it expand to next, young children, the aged?

“This is my personal view, but you should be free to make your own choice. My view shouldn’t control you.”

This radical thought used to be called liberty…

passing laws to expand abortion is not expressing a view, it is supporting abortion. proclaiming the feds should pay is supporting abortion.

I suspect Biden is what I would call “real pro life” which means that he doesn’t believe in having abortions like haircuts like so many in our society today…

the days of the Dems believing in rare and infrequent are gone. look at the laws they are shooting down that would keep it rare and infrequent. Joe turned and backs PPH’s position.

Regrettably, a woman must always have complete and total control over her body. It’s a fundamental, completely non-negotiable point.

why? the child also has a right to life

I think we should do what we can to influence her from making that poor decision.

abortion is a poor decision, are you trying to influence them not to do it?

A woman who doesn’t have autonomy over her body is, by rule, enslaved.

women had the autonomy (in most cases) before they and their partner got pregnant, she loses that right when a baby is created.

It absolutely forces women to undergo a pregnancy that they do not want. This is unacceptable.

self-imposed in most cases. a result of their own actions, why is it unacceptable? a person should be responsible for their own actions? murdering another isn’t acceptable.

Autonomy begins at birth. Until then, any potential “personhood” a fetus has is eclipsed fully by the woman it occupies.

is a child really autonomous at birth? no, it still relies on the mother and she has even more responsibilities? the child should have the same rights as the mother from conception.

 

[Elias]

The woman has the first right of avoiding peril. She has bodily autonomy and self determination while the fetus has neither.

She’s more a “person” than the fetus is. So if she wants to avoid the possible perils of pregnancy including death - she should have that right.

The fetus has neither because nobody is willing to stand up for them. Besides you don’t know that the baby doesn’t want to be born. So who are you to talk on their behalf and say that they aren’t people?

I thought all humans had a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but i guess some people have more rights than others. Some people are just “parasites” or “subhuman” and deserve to be killed, right?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Do you think Trump with minor exceptions is the same as Biden with no exception?

Do I think Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden are similar? No.

The VA Democratic governor has floated infanticide

Would you point me to this statement?

the democratic politicians will not support children survivors of abortion?

That is a huge political claim from the GOP.

Thing is, where we have statistics, these situations happen far less often than the already embraced “loophole” clauses apply.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/the-facts-on-the-born-alive-debate/

Honestly, I think it is tragic that we have made this into a political volleyball. Protection of life from conception until natural death ought not be a weapon, it is a vital moral teaching.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But I know thousands that are pro-choice. Women cannot be made slaves to their wombs.

This rhetoric does not have any logical significance.

Regrettably, a woman must always have complete and total control over her body. It’s a fundamental, completely non-negotiable point.

That’s simply not true as society has laws that restrict freedoms with good cause. So this is not a sufficient justification.

Again, as a pro-choice or we’re just arguing for a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy that she does not want.

That doesn’t change anything since a fetus still dies.

 

[Aquinas11]

Slavery is immoral and illegal.

Hume lecturing on slavery?

HUME: I am apt to suspect the Negroes and in general all other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/15093/summary

 

[upant]

Would you point me to this statement?

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Thing is, where we have statistics, these situations happen far less often than the already embraced “loophole” clauses apply.

so why not support it if it is a limited scenario situation?

 

[Hume]

Ok, let’s do it.

-insert Youtube Video-

The only folks you’ll credibly convince with that tripe are the ones who don’t need it.

Like being personally against rape but politically for it?
Like being personally against racism but politically for it?
Etc

No. It’s hard for many to understand, but the stance is tantamount to “This is what I think, but I’m happy to give you room to think differently.” We used to call this “liberty”. Absolutely radical, I know

The baby is not “her body”. Your point is valid if she wanted to, for example, amputate her arm.

The baby uses her body. Typically in a somewhat damaging way if the pregnancy goes well. No one owes anyone this perilous use and a woman must have the right to avoid damage to her body if she wishes.

Per that logic, a rapist who doesn’t have autonomy over their own body, is by rule, enslaved.

Was that supposed to mean something?

Wow you just admitted the baby is a human being and thus also had “bodily autonomy”, rare to see a pro abortion argument where that is conceded

I agree that the baby is a developing human. No question there. it has it’s own DNA.

But it’s not autonomous apart from its mother. It does not yet have bodily autonomy. If she dies, it will die. So a fetus fails the autonomy test.

Neither is sexual intercourse from which pregnancy is a known risk and you already asserted she has “total control” over her body which, absent rape, includes sex which is “not a risk free activity”

Participating in the unitive aspect of sex is not a waiver to bodily autonomy for the woman. Nope. No sir.

No you already admitted the baby is a “human being” and thus the baby’s body is the baby’s house and “like all homeowners, has a right to evict any unwelcome visitors”

The woman’s body belongs to her, not her baby. Similarly, your body belongs to you. No one else.

As I showed earlier, your counter here isn’t coherent.

No, see above you already conceded the baby before birth is a “human being”

It is, but it’s less a “person” than its mother.

Personhood is progressive. You are fully protected by law at birth, but you still lack some basic American rights. For example, you can be entrusted with a rifle and voting at 18, cigarettes alcohol and handguns at 21. A seat in congress at 25 and the presidency/senate at 35.

Again, see above, you conceded the fetus is a “human being”

“human being” and “Bodily Autonomy” are not synonyms, unfortunately for your argument.

To be clear, a woman must enjoy complete bodily autonomy. She cannot be enslaved by anyone or anything. This is completely non-negotiable. Thus “pro-choice” is the only ethical decision, here.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

A woman has the right of complete bodily autonomy. This is not nor will ever be up for negotiation.

Abortion is illegal in other countries so that’s not correct. In fact the entire premise you use can easily be discarded if someone considers other things more important.

 

[Hume]

This rhetoric does not have any logical significance.

It was a pathos appeal answering another pathos appeal.

That’s simply not true as society has laws that restrict freedoms with good cause. So this is not a sufficient justification.

We do not restrict bodily autonomy. A woman is free to do with her body as she wishes. That is the default of liberty. If you wish to limit it, then prepare your argument. There haven’t been any good ones so far…

That doesn’t change anything since a fetus still dies.

It preserves the autonomy of the woman, which appears to be unimportant to you. Tragic, but not uncommon among some ideologies.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

A woman has the right of complete bodily autonomy. This is not nor will ever be up for negotiation.

Abortion is illegal in other countries so that’s not correct.

It just makes those countries wrong. In the free, educated, first-world, you can get one most anywhere.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That is the default of liberty. If you wish to limit it, then prepare your argument.

That liberty is default is an unproven premise. Logically taking that premise on its own also means that I can use my liberty to outlaw abortion anyways.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

In the free, educated, first-world, you can get one most anywhere.

That doesn’t mean anything.

It just makes those countries wrong.

Objectively it doesn’t and their position is easy to defend.

 

[upant]

I’m a liberal and I don’t know anyone that’s pro-abortion. No one is happy to see it done.

hmm…

The City Council in St. Paul, Minnesota, has voted unanimously to designate March 10 as “Abortion Providers Appreciation Day.” The mayor of Minneapolis proclaimed the same.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

That is the default of liberty. If you wish to limit it, then prepare your argument.

That liberty is default is an unproven premise.

Something must be default. As the null in philosophy and science is “uncertainty” unless shown otherwise, that translates to “liberty” for individual actions.

Logically taking that premise on its own also means that I can use my liberty to outlaw abortion anyways.

For yourself, you absolutely can. Choice gives you that right.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

For yourself, you absolutely can. Choice gives you that right.

Choice allows me to do it to anyone, otherwise there would be a restriction and it wouldn’t be a choice.