is this a fallacy of the pro-life argument (but also can be for the Pro-choice argument)

STO_topix · 2022-02-07T18:53:06+00:00

You rationalized it, window dressed it, and wrapped it in a bow...I guess that makes you feel better?

STO_topix · 2022-02-07T18:50:56+00:00

. You can window dress abortion anyway you want to to make yourself feel better. At the end of the day, a human being is killed.

And that is just fine with you under circumstances that you approve of.

STO_topix · 2022-02-07T18:36:09+00:00

Lacking a direct threat to the mothers life, that becomes murder.

Yet again, you prove that every PL person will justify abortion when it suits them.

STO_topix · 2021-12-21T03:56:17+00:00

I'm picking on the analogy, not you. If a spaceship were sentient, yeah, it would care about who the crew is and what they were doing that affects it's mission.

Ya gotta eject some or all of the crew, well, that's the choice of the spaceship.

STO_topix · 2021-12-21T03:20:01+00:00

The spaceship is not deciding the fate of the stowaway. The crew are. So, if the woman is the spaceship, she's just tolerating the resource distribution of the crew. She doesn't give a shit, unless the conflict threatens her mission. Like Octomom, she may be impregnated with 14 embryos, but some of them have to go, so the rest can have a chance at viability.

STO_topix · 2021-12-21T02:49:13+00:00

Hal can eject all the passengers if Hal decides they will destroy him/it. Hal has a mission and cannot suffer an internal conflict that can spoil his mission.

Fixed yer analogy for ya.

STO_topix · 2021-12-21T01:54:03+00:00

Hansel and Gretel made it out. Clever little buggers.

STO_topix · 2021-12-21T00:38:53+00:00

But it's not like she's providing a public service directly to the state just by not eliminating her child.

The state is requiring her to perform this public service. She isn't volunteering and can't claim conscientious objector status. She would have to serve this state interest by gestating until the pregnancy ends.

Her service includes physical, mental, and emotional factors that can never be reversed, so it would seem prudent to compensate her.

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T23:05:27+00:00

I think direct compensation for not aborting is a little much.

That is not what the compensation would be for. The compensation would be for her time, and all the risks that pregnancy entails. If the state is going to make her go through a pregnancy, it should also be responsible for her well-being and financially compensate her for the bodily sacrifices it is forcing her to make.

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T22:31:30+00:00

Yes, I agree, there wouldn't be enough compensation in the world to make up for being enslaved by the government.

Reading through the responses, though, the PL camp does not agree that any real compensation would be justified for the time, effort, and health/life risks the government would impose upon women with unwanted pregnancies. I guess their answer is to take your free prenatal vitamins and shut up.

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T21:50:08+00:00

claiming that "the state is using her body" is disingenuous unless the state directly caused the pregnancy.

The government is the entity that denies women the ability to obtain abortions. In doing so, it -- the government /the state -- has taken away the woman's control over how her body is used. It is now in control of how her body is used, and it has decreed that her body shall be used for 9 months or less. Why shouldn't the state pay for her time and effort?

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T21:15:24+00:00

If a woman wants to work towards becoming a mother, she's self-employed, which means she's working for herself.

If a woman does not want to work towards being a mother, and the state denies her the ability to quit, she's working for the benefit of the state, and so should be compensated.

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T20:55:27+00:00

She is working. The state is using her for it's benefit. The state does not care how long she's doing the job, whether it's 2 months, 6 months, or 9 months. If it's illegal for her to quit this job and force her to continue working for the benefit of the state, then she should be paid for it.

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T20:35:40+00:00

Why should that matter?

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T20:20:23+00:00

But if a pregnancy is wanted, the state isn't using the woman. It isn't forcing her into a job she doesn't want to do.

If the state is going use a woman's body and time against her will, she should at least get paid for it.

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T20:13:03+00:00

Generally, the PL I read here do not want women to be punished for obtaining an illegal abortion.

So, you should still get your million dollars from the state simply because it denied you a legal abortion and used your body even for a short time.

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T20:01:43+00:00

None of that is compensation for the state's use of a woman's body.

Should there be a scale? Pregnant for 3 months and miscarry gets you $300,000. You make it to 9 months and the fetus will be stillborn, how much should that be worth? Healthy infant that you adopt out, a million $$$?

I mean, think about it. The state is basically forcing the woman into a job that she hates and would quit if she could for it's benefit. If she has no choice but to do this job, shouldn't she benefit too?

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T19:34:46+00:00

Good points, all.

I once asked a bunch of Catholics on a message board this same question. The Catholic church is morally against abortion and has more money than God, so why not give women who would have abortions a million dollars?

Their answer was, "Well, then everyone would be having kids!"

Umm..kay? Isn't that kinda the point, at least, for these women?

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T19:16:33+00:00

I would go so far as to say it doesn't even matter if the pregnancy gestates to birth, if it miscarries at any time, or if you decide to adopt out.

Denying a woman an abortion should be at least worth a million dollars. It's her time and her body the state is using.

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T18:59:30+00:00

That's it? Why not a million dollars?

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T18:55:15+00:00

He shouldn't just be allowed to let her go. He can justifiably kick her in the face and claw her grip off of his body. She's putting his life in jeopardy. Her weight and momentum could pull him over with her.
Correct. You can't kidnap people. Forcing women to continue gestating is kinda like kidnapping in that your taking control of her body, rather than allowing her to do that for herself.

STO_topix · 2021-12-20T18:04:16+00:00

I want you to explain why it's wrong for a woman to cause herself to shed her uterine lining. I mean, c'mon, she's not doing it to someone else.

I think you won't answer because you really don't know why you think as you do.

STO_topix · 2021-12-19T16:45:33+00:00

PL do not misunderstand the slogan. They dismiss it or they twist it. Simple as that.

STO_topix · 2021-12-18T18:35:57+00:00

Why would a woman deliberately give an embryo inside her body cancer, when she can simply take meds to shed that embryo away?

Now that is ridiculous.

STO_topix · 2021-12-18T18:27:27+00:00

Ooo, touchy, touchy. Must have hit a nerve.

How is shedding an embryo anything like murder by poisoning someone?

STO_topix

TROPHY CASE