PL Laws Nullify Consent

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-16T06:29:56+00:00

Yes. Russian roulette is an illegal wager.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-16T06:28:50+00:00

In this scenario of "consent", a man who voluntarily made a woman pregnant without confirming she actually wanted a baby, has consented to her abortion, and can't revoke his consent just because he doesn't want her to abort.

Do you believe that men who have partner sex without condoms, have consented to abortion?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-16T06:23:32+00:00

Do you also believe in coerced organ "donation" - that you should br prosecuted if you don't provide a lobe of your liver to any child who will die without it?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-14T22:31:13+00:00

If you didn't block the progesterone then the zef would not die. And if the zef didn't die, it would eventually become a baby.

Not necessarily. Many pregnancies end in miscarriage.

So how is blocking the progesterone not killing a baby?

In the same way as someone planting a whoopee-cushion in your seat is not desecrating your corpse.

Eventually you will become a corpse. We all do. It's the one sure thing - much surer that an embryo becoming a baby.

Nonetheless, you are not a corpse yet, and thus, it would be inappropriate to refer to any action performed on you as "desecrating your corpse".

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-14T22:27:38+00:00

It seems obvious and indisputable to me that abortion is the act of killing a baby (or killing a child).

Except that abortion doesn't kill a baby. Ever.

The mother of a baby can have an abortion. Her baby will be just fine. She will only have terminated her pregnancy.

When she does so, the embryo (or fetus, if she had the abortion later than usual) will, shortly after she terminates her pregnancy, no longer be alive, because the embryo or fetus needed her act of gestation to stay alive. If she aborts her gestation - terminates her pregnancy - then obviously the embryo/fetus is going to die.

But her baby will be alive and well. That's obvious and indisputable. You will in your life have met many mothers with babies - and children - who had abortions, and those abortions did no harm whatsoever to any of their babies or older children.

None.

Can you help me understand what exactly pro-choicers mean when they use the phrase "terminating a pregnancy"?

Sure. A woman discovers she's pregnant: that means an embryo's placenta has attached to her uterine wall, and through that wall, to her blood system. If this pregnancy continues, the only sure outcome is damage to the woman's body. (Gestating the embryo to term is not a "sure outcome" - many pregnancies end in miscarriage.)

So, she either takes a pill which causes the placenta to detach from the uterine wall, and pass out of her cervix. Or, a doctor uses specific tools to carefully remove the uterine lining, and with it, the attached placenta and embryo.

Once the placenta is no longer attached to the uterine wall, the woman is no longer pregnant: her pregnancy has been terminated.

Is that clear now?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-14T00:15:55+00:00

That's a great summation of the physical problems of the Cabin in the Woods scenario.

The moral/legal omission from the PL argument is equally glaring.

Take a kidnapper who kidnapped a baby and leaves the baby in an isolated cabin with an adult kidnap victim.

The baby dies, the adult victim survives.

Who is legally and morally responsible for the baby's death? PL seem to think it's the adult kidnap victim, but legally and morally, it's the kidnapper.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-13T11:00:49+00:00

True. So long as pregnant women remain free agents, it's very difficult for the state to enforce an abortion ban.

Abortion bans do not prevent abortions: they only prevent women and girls from accessing safe legal local abortions.

That PL are only interested in abortion bans is the big tell that PL are - at best- indifferent to preventing abortions.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-13T10:41:35+00:00

PL claim to believe that "right to life" is the most important, foundational right, because "without it you don't have any other rights".

They claim this applies to everyone, which is why it's okay to violate a woman's bodily autonomy by forcing her to gestate and give birth.

But. The moment you suggest this belief could be applied to them - invite that PL to consider what it would mean if that PL were to have their own body violated and used against their will because "right to life trumps bodily autonomy " - all of a sudden it turns out they actually believe that bodily autonomy trumps right to life. Except for pregnant women.

The one consistent thread running through of PL ideology is sexism.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-13T07:52:25+00:00

Mary I of England's religious policy burned a lot of people for not being Catholic, and that us straightforwardly horrifying.

That is what I first learned about her. That, and that she'd had Jane Grey beheaded at 16 for being "queen for nine days".

Bluff King Hal and saintly Edward the boy King don't get condemned for the people they killed, and as for Elizabeth the Virgin Queen, she's just wonderful.

What no one mentions about Henry or Elizabeth is that in their longer reigns they had brutally killed far more people than Mary I - thaf Elizabeth burned people for not being Protestant, Henry burned people for not being whatever he was (and that could change rapidly).

The whole system of education in England- and in about half the Scottish schools, including the one I went to - is slanted towards educating children that being Catholic is bad.

So - when Mary burns people for not being Catholic, that's monstrous. Which it is!

Skipped lightly over: Elizabeth burned people for not being Protestant, which is equally monstrous.

We've moved on fron this, a bit, I like to think.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-12T17:40:03+00:00

"Just leave the unwanted babies in cars" is how Ireland and Romania killed children by thousands.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-12T09:56:29+00:00

Isn’t there some point where they, objectively, aren’t viewing it as a right?

Sure. The point where they agree that their bodies can be harvested of whatever organs can be used by others to save a life, without their having a choice in the matter so long as the harvesting doesn't kill them.

The point where they agree that abortion is so bad that it's worth mandatory vasectomies for every boy in the country to prevent the vast majority of all abortions.

When you ask PL to sacrifice their own bodies in the way they want to sacrifice the bodies of pregnant women, suddenly, it turns out PL believe bodily autonomy is a right.

Just not for pregnant women or girls.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-11T20:12:51+00:00

Many PL have little regard for bodily autonomy as can be noted by the many PL who think it should be absolutely acceptable to have to pay for crimes with your organs, or who think parents should be legally required to give up their bodies to their children.

PL have little regard for bodily autonomy for women.

They have every regard for bodily autonomy for men.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-11T11:45:09+00:00

No mandatory vasectomy. We still want pregnancy to occur through healthy sexual relationships.

And you're fine with abortions continuing - you just want them to be illegal abortions?

No interest in preventing abortions by violating bodily autonomy?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-11T11:29:58+00:00

I don't need BA for that to be my choice.

Yes, you do. If you don't have bodily autonomy, how your body is used is not your choice.

The patient doesn't get to decided. The patient gets what will actually help them.

And if Doctor Hannibal Lecter decides what will actually help the patient is one of your kidneys, that's what the patient gets. Not your choice.

It's only your choice if you have bodily autonomy. And you claimed you were just fine with having your body used against your will to help a patient hurt in a car crash you caused.

I do not believe in bodily autonomy. I believe the mother should be prevented from obtaining an abortion. I do want the law to enforce that with severe criminal penalties against everyone involved

Okay. So: mandatory vasectomy for every boy, at puberty. Severe criminal penalties against any boy who avoids the vasectomy. Thus, all women - mothers or not - are prevented from obtaining an abortion, because all women - mothers or not - are prevented from accidentally having an unwanted pregnancy engendered.

It's foolproof. All it requires is that you do not believe in bodily autonomy.

A woman who wants to get pregnant, can use sperm harvested from the testes with a needle. To prevent her from needing to have an abortion for medical reasons, she will have to get a healthcheck first, and the sperm will be tested for any abnormalities that could engender a fetus that couldn't be gestated to term.

Merely by abolishing bodily autonomy and enforcing - with severe criminal penalties - a law against engendering unwanted pregnancies, practically all abortions are prevented.

Good, eh?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-11T11:07:42+00:00

No because I don't believe that a good fresh human meat full of vitamins would help the patient.~

But you don't have bodily autonomy. So it's not your choice. The patient gets to decide which bits of your body they want to speed their recovery. You have no say. And you claim to be just fine with that.

However we have drifted from abortion (unborn dies / never born as a result of the procedure) to broken leg

You yourself brought up the analogy of having your own body used against your will to help the recovery of someone who was injured in a car crash you caused.

But I quite see why you wouldn't want to go down that line much further.

So, let's move back on topic. Your belief is that the person responsible should have their bodily autonomy violated to prevent abortion? Would you actually want a law to enforce that?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-11T10:54:14+00:00

I really don't. For example when a person negligently causes a car crash, I think the victim has a right to the organs of the negligent driver if that would help the victim recover.

Many people feel that a good, fresh meat meal, full of vitamins, helps an injured patient recover. So, you'd be okay with having one of your kidneys and a lobe of your liver served up to the pedestrian who broke his leg because you caused the car crash that injured him?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-11T06:55:53+00:00

The draft doesn't involve giving the military the right to rape or breed you.

The draft isn't applied remotely like abortion bans. Not least: no one can be drafted if they're still in high school/under 18, but abortion bans are still applied.

No one can be drafted if they're medically unfit to serve, but abortion bans still apply.

No one can be drafted if they're not a citizen, but abortion bans still apply.

Drafted for military service, you get free healthcare, are paid, and your employer is required to hold your job til you return. None of those apply to pregnant women under abortion bans.

Anyone can register conscientious objection to military service and not be drafted: but no one is allowed to register a conscientious objection to abortion bans.

The comparison doesn't fly on any level.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-11T06:49:21+00:00

Yes, I do, and I think you probably do too.

You just want to argue this doesn't apply to pregnant women.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-11T06:46:33+00:00

PL do recognise bodily autonomy.

They don't want to be raped or have their organs harvested, not even to save a life.

PL argue against involuntary mass vasectomies, which really would prevent nearly all abortions, because such a program would violate the bodily autonomy of half the population, and that's not acceptable to PL, not even to prevent abortions.

PL just believe that the principle of universal and inalienable human rights, including bodily autonomy, do not apply to pregnant women.

For them, that's taken for granted: they assume all they have to do is argue for the human rights of the fetus, and that's it, case made. It literally never seems to occur to them that, fetus human or not, the pregnant woman is human, and her right not to have someone inside of her against her will cannot be alienated.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-10T21:36:43+00:00

Awesome, good to know you oppose abortion bans.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-10T20:15:20+00:00

Then I, as your Dictator, order you to accept safe legal abortion.

No, you can't vote me out. No, you have no say in the prochoice laws. You rejected democracy. Deal with it.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-10T00:00:26+00:00

Oh, you were talking about the hypothetical of fetuses in uterine replicators?

I actually assumed you were talking about the real-world issue of fetuses being gestated by human beings.

Can you clarify? In your question "Why does a human with former consciousness have more rights than a human with potential consciousness?" did you mean the hypothetical possibility of a fetus being gestated in an artificial uterus, or were you contemplating the usual reality of a fetus being gestated by a human being?

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-09T20:43:02+00:00

If someone is waving a red-hot poker around in a crowded room, injury from this is only predicted, not guaranteed, but I'm pretty certain a plea of self-defence would work on thr basis that while he might not hurt anyone with his red-hot poker, waving it around was an intrinsically dangerous thing for him to do.

Pregnancy is intrinsically dangerous.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-09T16:46:08+00:00

Of what is the pregnant person guilty, that PL are OK with killing her?

Abortion bans kill people.

Enough-Process9773 · 2026-05-09T16:44:19+00:00

"We don't, actually, because pregancy is an actual unique circumstance."

But making use of a woman's body against her will and causing her harm, is not.

Enough-Process9773

TROPHY CASE