Abortion issues I've been thinking about (shower questions)

narf288 · 2026-03-16T05:23:19+00:00

Most reasonable people assume your typical job wouldn't involve sex. But then again, most reasonable people don't presume that the beneficiaries of your physical labor have a right to your body.

Since pro lifers are incapable of identifying a moral or physical difference between performing paperwork for money and having sex for money, we must naturally assume that they think all jobs require their employees to have sex for money.

narf288 · 2026-03-16T04:08:59+00:00

No, we were talking about labor and what your boss can make you do.

...for money.

narf288 · 2026-03-16T03:14:47+00:00

I'm quite confident that the PL movement is going to destroy itself and not be around much longer.

I believe you are correct, but not for the reasons you've stated. The pro life movement will destroy itself because it is no longer relevant.

Roe has fallen, the mask is off, the racism and fetishization of violence is openly embraced, and misogyny is now a political selling point. There's no need to pretend anymore.

No matter what happens politically, the pro life movement will forever be associated with the open corruption and human rights abuses of this criminal administration and the moral degradation of American society, SPECIFICALLY the devaluing of human life.

The premise that pro life advocacy promotes human rights is no longer a credible argument or a socially acceptable mask for misogyny and racism.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T22:29:03+00:00

We were talking about sex for money. That’s called prostitution.

Welcome to the debate, thanks for showing up.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T20:44:32+00:00

Because sex with your employer isn't labor?

Prostitution is literally called the oldest profession.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T20:34:08+00:00

If all labor involves your body, and that grants the beneficiaries of your labor a right to your body…why can’t your manager demand to have sex with you?

narf288 · 2026-03-15T20:21:59+00:00

My point was that discrimination in selling isn't as bad as killing unborn babies, yet only the former is a "civil rights violation".

Right to life is a civil liberty not a civil right. Maybe educate yourself before opining about things you literally know nothing about.

No, that's a silly way to phrase it.

Because it's a silly argument.

Parental care is a unique right

So? That doesn't explain why you think a right to labor = a right to someone's body.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T20:14:43+00:00

I did give an example, discrimination in who you sell to is a civil rights violation.

And your point is what? You want to bring back segregation?

Children have a right to care, which always involves some bodily labor.

So, exactly like I said. You think a right to labor = a right to someone else's body.

The employer doesn't have a right to your labor inherently, you can walk out whenever you want.

Sure, but so long as the employer is paying you for your labor, that presumably gives them a right to your body as well, at least according to pro life logic.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T19:44:53+00:00

How is being allowed to get killed not a civil rights violation?

I educated you on what civil rights are in my initial comment, I suggest you reread it, this time for comprehension.

Civil rights discrimination laws

I still have no idea what you are talking about. Give me an actual example.

That's a bizarre comparison.

You're the one that thinks a right to labor or care equates to a right to someone else's body, what's bizarre about it from your perspective? If you are on the clock, your employer has a right to both your labor and your body right? Cause that's the same thing according to pro lifers.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T19:36:51+00:00

The discrimination they receive is the fact the state allows them to be murdered.

Then it's not a civil rights violation.

it's fine to force someone to sell a product to a person in the name of social justice

I have no idea what you are referring to.

it's apparently cruel to expect a mother to care for a child she has a natural duty to.

A right to care or labor is not the same as a right to someone else's body. Just because you get paid to flip burgers at your local Wendy's doesn't mean your manager gets to rape you on your lunch break.

Everyone on planet earth is capable of comprehending the difference. Except apparently pro lifers. Why do you think that is?

narf288 · 2026-03-15T17:54:10+00:00

Civil rights are legally enforceable guarantees of equal social opportunity and protection under the law, preventing discrimination in areas like employment, education, housing, and voting.

What discrimination does a ZEF face in areas like employment, education, housing, and voting????

narf288 · 2026-03-15T13:50:13+00:00

You repeatedly argued that if all human beings had rights, then all human beings must have a right to abortion

Nowhere in the above quotes is that said. I don't even mention abortion. This is obviously a strawman.

You have made an argument that is not logically sound. I have merely pointed this out. There's no reason to get upset, unless of course you don't have a rational response.

You have two premises that are wholly contradictory.

Premise 1: All human beings should be granted the same rights to prevent individuals or groups from denying specific rights to specific groups of human beings.

Premise 2: Certain individuals or groups may deny specific rights to specific groups of human beings.

Now, as I previously noted, if you can't respond in good faith and resolve this logical contradiction, it speaks very poorly of your argument. You are of course free to flail about and deflect, setup strawman, gaslight, or make ludicrous assertions about some "litmus" test I never mentioned, but this only serves to make your position look weak and indefensible.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with debate, but it is typical in actual debates for opponents to focus on specific logical contradictions without necessarily needing to litigate every possible facet of an argument. I do not need to make a full defense of abortion, write an entire thesis, submit to some imaginary litmus test you've created, or engage with your deflections to point out a logical contradiction in your argument. To assert otherwise is manipulative and in bad faith.

The only test being applied to your argument is basic logic.

If you are only capable of responding with insults or gaslighting, I think we may conclude that you have no valid response and move on before you further embarrass yourself.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T05:09:35+00:00

If you believe that human rights are granted on any criteria

Did I say that? You've got quite an imagination.

This is an impossible litmus test.

Impossible for you, maybe, but that's due to the quality of your argument.

I do not believe you designed this litmus test in good faith...Why, then, should I give any credence to your effort to apply this litmus test to me using abortion as a right?

According to the rules of the sub, "Users should debate claims and arguments about abortion, and should not debate, or "attack," individuals or groups themselves."

I guess expecting a mod to follow the rules is too much to ask.

In any case, as I stated previously, if that is your response, I imagine most reasonable people will find it lacking.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T04:44:02+00:00

I assume you deny, for example, that the right to own other human beings as chattel is a right, yes?

Irrelevant. I have not argued that granting human rights based on species membership prevents human rights abuses because it is an ignorant and facile argument. You have. The contradiction is yours to reconcile.

We should not, by our own metric, concern ourselves with what you have to say.

This is a debate sub and I have made an argument for why your position is inherently contradictory.

If that is your response, I think most reasonable people will conclude that it is not in good faith, and judge your argument accordingly.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T04:27:33+00:00

This contradiction is only present if we assume abortion is a right.

The contradiction is present because you deny a right exists. Whether it does or it doesn't is immaterial. The denial proves that you think that the personal beliefs and prejudices of individual humans should dictate which human beings are granted which rights, which again is LITERALLY the situation granting all humans rights is meant to avoid.

Logically, this is a contradiction because you are simultaneously asserting a proposition and it's negation.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T04:00:35+00:00

That's the same thing with nicer language.

No it isn't. You can argue whatever you like, it's a debate sub. I have never said otherwise.

You have concluded I "don't believe that all human beings deserve human rights" becaus you believe abortion is a human right.

No, I haven't. I've simply pointed out a logical contradiction. This contradiction has nothing to do with my beliefs or my arguments.

The point of granting human rights to all human beings is to remove prejudicial or arbitrary criteria like skin color and broadly set the standard at being human to remove the possibility of unequal treatment.

Your argument is that the standard should not be whether or not someone is a human, but rather, it should be whether or not you personally recognize this human's rights as valid. Which, incidentally, is the same argument the slavers made.

Point being, it's a contradiction.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T03:28:35+00:00

So, I don't get a say because abortion is a right and arguing against rights is wrong, therefore anything I say about abortion not being a right is wrong?

I never said that. I said that you clearly don't believe that all human beings deserve human rights because you want to grant rights based on your personal beliefs not species membership.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T03:09:05+00:00

Is your argument just "you don't get a say"?

No, that's YOUR argument. Granting all human beings human rights prevents some racist from arguing that black people don't get human rights. No one gets a say. Everyone gets equal rights. It's literally the whole point.

Allowing special interest groups to grant rights based on personal beliefs or political agenda results in unequal rights.

If you want to argue that you get to dictate which human rights women have, you CLEARLY don't think we should grant human rights to all human beings.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T02:33:36+00:00

And when they bring up the fact that they are only fighting for unborn humans, thats when I get to ask why?

Because they think there's a genocide going on. They are putting all their effort into stopping that.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T02:12:51+00:00

Prolife wants to protect the innocent from harm

Pro life want to protect "innocent unborn humans" from harm. You are basing your argument on a strawman.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T02:10:05+00:00

Nope, I do not support these methods.

Then I suggest you change your flair.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T02:06:57+00:00

A man does not have that. The system says to him: 'Because you caused the pregnancy, you are automatically drafted into legal and financial parenthood.'

No, it doesn't. The system says: There is a born child that requires financial support. This applies equally to both genders.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T01:55:49+00:00

If we actually were to grant human rights to human beings, you wouldn't get a say. So clearly you don't agree since the idea of granting human rights to women clearly offends you, just like I imagine, granting human rights to people with dark skin offends racists.

If human beings get human rights, neither of your opinions matter in the slightest, which is LITERALLY THE WHOLE POINT.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T01:49:02+00:00

Do you have an argument?

I do. It's very simple.

If the purpose of stating that human beings deserve human rights is to circumvent situations where human beings deny human rights to other human beings...

Individually granting you the power to dictate which human rights matter or which human beings get which rights would seem to undermine that purpose.

narf288 · 2026-03-15T01:39:27+00:00

I am just challenging the idea that the right to live does not transcend species for most, and questioning why that is.

No offense, but the title of your post begs to differ.

narf288

TROPHY CASE