Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life

The woman has the right to choose 100% of the time. Always. And that’s it.

There is nothing to argue. Women’s rights are never.. and I mean NEVER… up for debate.

Get over it.

About Nathan Hevenstone

I'm an SJW, Socialist, Jewish Agnostic Atheist, Foodie, and Guitarist. Hi!
This entry was posted in Abortion, Activism, Anti-Choice, Autonomy, Bigotry, Bullying, Feminism, Misogyny, Morality, Pro-Choice, Rape Culture, Sexism, Social Justice and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life

  1. Steersman? Go fuck yourself.


    You’re not arguing in good faith. You’re playing games.

    You find me one–(1)–case of a woman having an abortion “the day before she’s about to give birth,” and show me her reasons. Then we’ll talk.

    Your brand of “argument” does not clarify issues. All it does is add noise to the signal.

    • Women have died–women will continue to die–because certain religious and sentimental notions promote the notion that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses (zefs) are “babies” that deserve moral consideration equal to the woman whose body hosts them. And this despite the fact that we don’t even harvest organs from corpses without the prior consent of the dead person.

      And you want to play “what if” about somebody terminating a pregnancy the day before birth?

      Go discuss your hypothetical with Savita Halappanavar’s widower, you misogynist ghoul.

      • Steersman says:

        Maybe you would care to point out, to quote me, where I have even suggested denying women the right to an abortion, at least up to time the stipulated by the law?

        As for “hypotheticals”, you might want to consider that using them is a core element in the scientific method – something which also has a great deal of application in a wide spectrum of human endeavors. But that is probably not of much concern to you as you seem more interested in self-indulgent histrionics.

    • Steersman says:

      Up yours too.

      Seem to recollect that Lord Acton – the fellow who gave us “absolute power corrupts absolutely” – also said something to the effect that it is a bad idea to pass a bad law, one whose potential for “evil” was clear, on the assumption that its problematic provisions would never be abused: generally wise to assume that if it can be then it will be.

      In which case, while I will readily concede, as I have several times here and elsewhere if I’m not mistaken, that there appear to be few cases where such abuses have taken place with regard to abortion, the point is more that making that “principle”, that “right” to “bodily autonomy”, into some kind of absolute seems to open up some rather nasty cans of worms. For instance, if you’re all so quick to insist that a fetus, right up until the time of birth, doesn’t have any rights, that it doesn’t qualify as human, then what’s the next step? What’s the next set of “useless eaters” that you’ll set your sights on? The old, the infirm, the mentally handicapped?

      As for “adding noise to the signal”, that is a bit of hoot coming from you considering that, as I’ve pointed out several times but which none of you seem prepared to acknowledge or deal with, the law of the land already limits that “right” to bodily autonomy. If you were actually engaged in trying to repeal that law and extend the lack of “viability” right to the moment of birth then I might consider that y’all are doing something more just than blowing smoke out of your asses.

  2. Steersman says:

    So that means you’re ok with a woman insisting on an abortion the day before she’s about to give birth, but you would charge her with murder for killing her baby the day after?

    • Happily, any abortion procedures taking place so close to the actual projected date of birth are more likely to result in a living, probably healthy baby. So there would be no death.

      • Steersman says:

        That’s not the point. It is that that difference – nominally two days – in your “ethical calculus” in effect means, even though there is virtually no difference in the viability of the fetus/baby, a difference between excising a tumor, and killing a human being.

        There is maybe and apparently all too frequently some justification for killing other humans, but the trivial difference of not having passed through a birth canal seems a pretty thin pretext. Most people that I interact with tend to have a few qualms about doing that.

        You may wish to take a look at this blog (1) at Secular Pro-Life where even Zinnia Jones apparently concedes that very late abortions are virtually not at all different from infanticide. Which you seem to accept as being within the ambit of a woman’s right to “bodily autonomy”. You really might want to give some thought to the idea that that is anything but an absolute.

        1) “_”;

      • It is entirely the point, Steersman.

        1. Abortions post 20 weeks are extremely rare. Rare enough, in fact, that I’ll bet it’s safe to say that abortions (that is, the termination of pregnancies) resulting in the death of the child that late in the pregnancy (say, within the last week) effectively don’t happen.

        2. The fact is, an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The reason it results in the end of the fetus in most cases is because fetuses cannot survive outside the body so early in the pregnancy (again, the vast majority take place before 20 weeks). Caesarians are not considered to be abortions, but they effectively are.

      • So, again, your point is irrelevant.

      • Steersman says:

        You might want to take another look at exactly what you wrote to start the ball rolling, to wit:

        The woman has the right to choose 100% of the time. Always.

        Which I took to mean that it was a categorical statement which refers to and encompasses absolutely any time between conception and birth, and under absolutely any set of circumsatnces; looks to me like you’re moving the goal posts with your “before 20 weeks”, that you want to have your cake and eat it too, that you really haven’t thought very closely about the implications and consequences of what you’re saying. Which is the reason why I offered the somewhat hypothetical question of a “termination” one day before birth versus one day after birth. Although one might suggest that the relatively recent tragedy in Ireland wherein a woman died in childbirth because of some dickhead Catholic surgeons is a consequence of not extending that right of choice right to the moment of birth.

        In any case, what is your “final answer” then? That women get to choose at any point up to the time of birth? OR that society generally gets to choose from 20 weeks to 36 weeks? In the latter case you might note that that is tantamount to abrogating a woman’s “bodily autonomy” – which looks to be already the “law of the land”.

      • Nothing of what I’ve said to you contradicts my point.

      • Steersman says:

        That you won’t or can’t answer my question more or less proves that your point and position is incoherent and inconsistent if not hypocritical.

      • I did answer you question. And my answer remains as I said in the post.

      • Steersman says:

        Not honestly.

      • You’re wrong. And I’m questioning your reading comprehension and whether you’re engaging honestly.

      • Steersman says:

        I asked a simple question which you seem to be unable or unwilling to answer. Here it is again in a simplified form:

        Do women have the right to choose to have an abortion at any point up to the time of birth? Yes or no.

      • Steersman says:

        Do you realize that means that the current laws, if I’m not mistaken, already restrict that right, that they already deny a woman’s right to “bodily autonomy”?

    • Clearly you’ve never heard of a c-section.

      • Steersman says:

        What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Clearly you’re grasping at straws in a rather desperate attempt to avoid facing the fact that your position is little different from condoning infanticide. While my position, and that of many others, is that there might well be cases that justify it, your position tends to increase the frequency of that “crime”.

        In addition, you seem rather adamant, not to say pigheaded, in your denial that the laws of the land already seriously circumscribe that “right” to “bodily autonomy” that you seem to insist is some sort of god-given absolute. You may wish to peruse the relevant sections in the Wikpedia article on the topic, with particular attention to this statement:

        That decision [Roe vs. Wade] was modified by the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the “central holding” in Roe, but replacing the trimester system with the point of fetal viability (whenever it may occur) as defining a state’s right to override the woman’s autonomy.

Did you read the post and all the comments?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s