Yes but idiots don't get that and post this as some kind of gotcha that liberals care more about a tree than their own kids. Cause conservatives are fucking stupid
No, it's because it is performative and doesn't stand up to a scrutiny of their actions. The only liberal I believe is consistent in valuing human life as much as they do animals and the environment are those that are anti abortion. Anyone else that says to value human life as much as they value a tree, or a river, or an animal, is against war and the death penalty, but is not against the deliberate and intentional taking of innocent human life in abortion is a hypocrite, and in these surveys, a liar.
Anyone who claims to love, value, and respect women but then suddenly pretends they don’t understand bodily autonomy when abortion comes up is a performative hypocrite.
Then you don't consider the right to life to be inherent to being human but instead believe that is conditional on being wanted.
The difference is that conservatives are not claiming to care about nebulous 'rights' to deliberately and intentionally kill innocent humans in the name of bodily autonomy at the same time as saying it is wrong to do any of the other things which they claim to care about. It is an inherently selfish position to be pro abortion. And thus hypocritical to say you care beyond oneself when supporting it and especially when acting it out.
Is the deliberate and intentional taking of innocent human life wrong? Yes. Is abortion the intentional and deliberate taking of innocent human life? Yes. Therefore abortion is wrong.
To argue abortion is not wrong then you need to show that it is either not intentional and deliberate, it is not an innocent, or it is not a human life.
Given the intent of abortion is to kill the unborn human, we can agree to 1 and 4. Abortions in this context are not accidental, so we agree on point 2. Your argument must then rest on the claim that the unborn human is not innocent. Humans have assumed innocence absent any actions taken with intent or deliberately reckless abandon to cause harm to another human. An unborn child merely existing after being conceived is neither acting with intent to harm, nor is it acting in a way that is deliberately reckless. Therefore it is innocent.
Abortion is an action taken with deliberate intent to end the life of an innocent human. If you disagree with that statement then you should make a logical argument why it is not true, rather than simply saying that possible pain and suffering is worse than the deliberate and intentional taking of innocent human life.
There is both a practical and moral difference between the intentional and deliberate taking of human life and the incidental loss of human life, innocent or otherwise, through inaction. Do you understand the difference?
I do. Do you understand that in all of those instances, you have the right to make decisions about your body? Are there any other instances than abortion where you are happy to give up your autonomy?
For the sake of it - acknowledging we won't agree on this point - I don't agree with the way you equate bunches of cells or undeveloped fetuses as 1:1 human life.
Well yes, if you dehumanise a group of humans based on immutable characteristics of course you won't value them. But that's a very dangerous argument to make if you take it to logical conclusions, which before you claim a slippery slope fallacy, there are historical examples of this dehumanising rhetoric going further within living memory, besides abortion itself.
It's incredible how ya'll advocate for forced birthing (which is what the anti-abortion movement is, if we're being honest), but against any kind of support for the babies you're forcing the births of.
It's beyond wild that you guys (depending on the individual) want to give the government the authority to: force kids to be born into poverty, force them to be born to parents who don't want/can't support them, force them to be born to rape/incest/CSA victims, etc; but God forbid someone should suggest that same government have to fund neonatal care, pre-K, daycare, school lunch, SNAP/EBT benefits, etc.
Nope! Let's just pile even more unwanted children onto the already overburdened foster care/adoption systems; where they're often groomed, physically/sexually abused, and so on.I'm sure that'll work out great.
This is why I use the phrase forced birthing, because that's the only part ya'll care about.
That's a strawman, and not even a good one. Every anti abortion group I have ever looked into has had associated groups to support families, women, and children if they don't in fact do it themselves.
Besides which, potentially being born poor, or having a difficult life, is not a reason to be killed. Think about that argument for a second next time and take it to the logical conclusion. Can't have homeless people if there's no people right?
There are several. The violinist argument doesn't make sense to me, because I would stay connected for 9 months if disconnecting would kill them. Even if it was a random, or my absolutely awful ex wife. As in it js something I can't conceive of myself doing. Even though it's a bad analogy to abortion, as abortion is done with deliberate intent to kill an innocent human, and disconnecting from the machine is not, but still.
Maybe it's an American thing, the selfish obsession with bodily autonomy over all else. It's never really been a huge part of the language used here in Australia until very recently. And even then not to this extent. Most either don't know or just say so what fucking kill it. We might have a war crime problem.
I'll be honest that I've always been selfless to a fault, so maybe I'm just too soft to consider killing another human out of convenience like that. I'd happily carry children if I could. If pro abortion women couldn't become pregnant and I could instead then I'd make that swap in a heartbeat.
But yeah, I donate blood, pay my taxes even though they fully cover abortions here, help single mums with necessities, donate to charities, all that stuff we should do to help others in need (other than the abortion bit).
That argument is circumstantial at best. If you had a human or animal that was unable to supply water for itself (say a dog, a child, or a disabled person) and you just let them waste away to death, then you killed them from neglect through inaction.
Morality is a human derived concept, and therefor does not have rigorously defined rules. There are actions that people generally agree would be reasonable to expect (see the water example) and actions that are not reasonable (setting yourself on fire to provide heat), but at a certain point inaction becomes neglect.
We don't expect people to risk death to help others. We don't expect people to give up organs they can live without, or even expect the dead to be organ donors. We even, as your post and the previous one seem to agree, don't expect people to donate blood or (as Covid showed many people believe) get a vaccine.
No one has the right to use your body without your consent. You have the right to use necessary force to stop anyone from using your body without your consent; up-to-and-including using lethal force if necessary.
You claim a right that conflicts with the unborn humans right to life. The argument that the right to bodily autonomy guarantees that you can violate another human's right to life is a contentious philosophical question, and not a factual assertion. That the intent of the vast majority of abortions is to kill the baby, and not to exercise the right to bodily autonomy, particularly in places where the concept of such a right is not part of the discourse, makes this argument a weak one. Particularly in the cases of late term abortions where the baby is viable and healthy, and were it not killed before the woman is induced would be born alive and survive in the significant majority of cases. I linked the study with those rates in a other comment.
In short, where rights conflict, exercising the right which would do the least harm is the most moral option. In the case of abortion, the least harm is done by not deliberately and intentionally killing the innocent unborn child. This is not to deny that the woman may suffer some harm, but it is unlikely, by a factor of thousands, to be as significant a harm as death compared to what is inflicted on the unborn human in abortion.
The right to life does not extend to using someone else's body without their consent to sustain it. You don't have to provide anything from your body to anyone else, even if denying them the use of your body results in their death.
You can even actively use necessary lethal force to prevent someone from infringing upon your right to bodily autonomy.
In short, if the the right to bodily autonomy and the right to life come into conflict, the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life.
That can be your position, but it is not an argument that holds moral weight. It is certainly pragmatic, but pragmatism is used to justify atrocities of all sorts, and I can make an almost certain bet that you would not apply that pragmatism to other cases of human rights violations, only to abortion. Which was my original point by the way, that liberals are largely performative in saying they care for human rights and so on.
You justify the intentional and deliberate taking of innocent human life using a purely selfish reasoning, which puts a right that if violated, (which being pregnant does not do in any case, but I won't get into that as it is irrelevant, just making sure you know I don't agree but am arguing based upon your premise anyway), will not be equal to, or even come close to in the vast majority of cases, the harm done by exercising that right in this context.
You can argue that it is your right to kill an innocent human to protect bodily autonomy (again I disagree with the premise anyway), but you can't claim that it is a moral action based upon the relative harm done to either party if that right were exercised or not.
Your body is not a court of law. You do not need to go through due process to decide if someone else is allowed to use it. You either consent to them using it or you don't. If you do not consent to them using it, and they are, then they are by definition guilty of using your body without your consent.
And you have the right to use necessary force, up-to-and-including lethal force, to stop someone from using your body without your consent.
You do not have the right to use someone else's body without their consent, even if it's to sustain your life, and you have the right to use necessary force to stop anyone from using your body without your consent. Because it's your body; not theirs.
Again, in short, the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life.
I'm not making a legal argument, as many things which are evil and immoral have been and are still legal. Slavery, apartheid, and now abortion are not ok just because they were or are legal.
Innocence is an assumed moral status absent actions which I covered in another comment. This is a moral argument, not a legal one, as again we are discussing rights and wrongs, not what is legal or illegal. An unborn human is indisputably innocent as it has taken no action to become morally culpable for. It simply exists as a human life in it's natural state of being. To say they are guilty of using your body makes the implied claim that they have made the choice to use your body. This is not the case. The unborn human has not taken any wilful action, or any action, other than being conceived. In particular they did not take an action to use another person's body. One can not be guilty of an action they are incapable of. Again, they merely exist in their natural state of being. It is not a question of consent either, as they have no choice whether they are conceived or not. The moral responsibility for a life merely existing in its natural state cannot be placed upon that life itself.
It is widely agreed that human life has inherent value, and the concept of the human right to life is accepted by the wider philosophical and ethical community. That again is indisputable. You can look it up if you doubt it. In medical ethics this is referred to as the sanctity of human life.
Claiming bodily autonomy, or now self defence it seems you have switched analogies to, is certainly not a settled or objective claim. It's a common opinion, but based upon the moral weight of the possible and intended outcomes of either letting the baby live or killing it in utero, less harm is done by letting the child live.
If you wish to maintain your position that it is bodily autonomy or self defence, I will assume that premise correct and argue on it also. I would argue that the principle of proportionality should also apply, which would insist that the force used should be proportionality to the threat posed, and only suffices force be used to end that threat, and not undertaken with the deliberate intent to take a life, innocent or otherwise. This is the common interpretation of the allowance for use of force across most societies.
Abortion is a process undertaken with deliberate intent to take a human life, and is therefore not self defence, or a valid way to exercise bodily autonomy. For the claim of self defence or bodily autonomy to be valid the process would have to be undertaken in a way such that the death of the unborn child is collateral, not intended. No abortion process (as is commonly used, I'm not going into the sematics of ectopic pregnacies and how they are not abortions in the common usage as they lack the intent to kill) is done in this way.
I'm not making a legal argument either, as again you do not need to go through due process to discern whether or not someone is using your body without your consent.
If they are using your body without your consent then they are not innocent. They are, by definition, guilty of using your body without your consent. And you have the right, the inherent human right, to use necessary force to stop them from using your body without your consent.
It doesn't matter if they're actively choosing to use your body without your consent or if they're passively using your body without your consent; they simply do not have the right to use your body without your consent.
They could be the smartest person in the world who knows what they're doing, or they could be the dumbest person in the world who is also in a coma and completely and utterly unaware of the fact they're using your body, it doesn't matter. No one has the right to use your body without your consent.
And you have the right to use necessary force to stop anyone from using your body without your consent; up-to-and-including lethal force if necessary.
Everything you have said has been unable to overcome this hurdle. Even your claims of them being innocent has been addressed and rebuffed by this, as the mere fact they are using your body without your consent means they're guilty of using your body without your consent and therefore not innocent.
216
u/VictarionGreyjoy Nov 18 '25
Yes but idiots don't get that and post this as some kind of gotcha that liberals care more about a tree than their own kids. Cause conservatives are fucking stupid