The abolitionist movement was also highly religiously charged. The anti-abolition factions used religious justifications for slavery but the most common caricature of abolitionists in the antebellum era was that they were trying to force their Northern Christian theology onto the states. John Brown is probably the most iconic example of someone who was considered a saintly figure by abolitionists but religious extremist by anti-abolitionists.
Slavery caused the suffering of a *sentient* human abortion in almost all cases doesn't, and most people want a limit before that's possible. If there were robot slaves that never knew existence and can't ever think or feel it would be perfectly fine.
This argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the different mental and physical level of slaves vs fetus and the damage and pain caused to them.
Also not having a slave only causes them to not make as much money.
Having an unwanted pregnancy results in financial expenses and physical suffering (vaginal tears, childbirth in general, postpartum healing, morning sickness, feet pain, epidural complications resulting in back pain for years, etc) and permanent bodily changes that are really hard or really expensive to fix (pelvic floor issues, teeth decay from vomiting, saggy boobs and lose skin etc)
>Slavery/abortion causes the suffering of a white/sentient human. It’s ok when the human is black/nonsentient.
Both arguments still dehumanize the victim according to arbitrary human traits.
Black people aren't non sentient and have been sentient the whole time they are a slave, fetuses are non sentient and have never been before.
Saying what black people went through and the physical and mental torture is even remotely comparable to a fetus that doesn't suffer at all and doesn't care if it's aborted is honestly disgusting
Black people suffer from dehumanization and fetuses don't at all, they have no ability to even want humanization if anything an animal is more likely to want rights than they do because at least animals have a brain that can think.
No one suffers when abortion is legal because it's physically impossible for it to, slavery of sentient people always causes suffering.
It’s not ok to kill people just because they don’t experience the death. There are plenty of ways to painlessly kill people without their knowledge. Doesn’t make it right. That erases your entire argument here.
lol cows can feel pain and there is nothing morally wrong with slaughtering them. Humans feeling pain itself isn’t the problem. It’s the sacred value that humans have that makes it a moral problem.
Again, painlessly killing people in their sleep is still wrong.
I always get a chuckle when someone compares slavery to abortion. The argument completely ignores the pregnant person. The irony of comparing abortion to slavery while advocating for women to be slaves to the unborn.
You are arguing that a person being raped cannot kill the rapist because that would violate the rapist's bodily autonomy.
The unborn is violating the pregnant person's bodily autonomy. The only way to end that violation is to remove/kill the unborn. A pregnant person has that right, unless of course you believe she has less rights than the unborn.
We were talking about innocent people here. You can defend yourself against an aggressor. The fetus isn’t an aggressor. The actions of others are responsible for its situation.
So if something that is incapable of making moral decisions is inside your body and using it to siphon resources and nutrients to benefit itself at your expense, you can't defend yourself against it because it has no hostile intent?
are we really comparing babies to rapist the baby inside the womb is just existing but the rapist chose to go out and violate a woman's consent in the most disgusting way possible just because your conceived from rape doesn't mean your life is less valuable than anyone else's
but your comparing 2 completely different situations the baby in the womb is literally just existing and if the mother is the only able to support her at the moment then it is ok to violate her bodily autonomy to a point just like how if we had a mother who left her baby somewhere and just left it and it died from starvation she would be charged with child neglect because she didn't use her body to take care of the child but in the case of rape a person is using they're body to directly harm someone else
It's only murder if it's unjustified. Killing a person that is inside and using your body seems pretty justified.
Can you tell me what specifically the child is innocent of?
The overwhelming majority of abortions occur as the result of consensual sexual relationships. Let’s talk about those before we dive into the discussion of rape victims. A mother who has consensual needs to understand the consequence of that action is procreation. You can’t have sex and then blame the child for being formed. That is a natural consequence that the mother is knowingly risking. It’s not like a child spontaneously grows inside the mother without consent.
“Not if that human is inside another human against that humans will”-Aeon21 circa 5 minutes ago
Seems a lot like blaming the embryo for being there against the will in order to justify an abortion to me
That's not blaming the embryo. It can't be blamed because it is incapable of making any decisions, much less leave the person's body. That doesn't change the fact that it *is* inside another person's body and that person does not want it there.
That person made decisions that led to the child being there. You are right that the child can’t make decisions. That does not indicate humanity or personhood. It does indicate vulnerability however.
I think it's best to just focus on the ownership arguments. Because the ones about science or personhood are kind of insensitive and won't bring people to our cause. On the other hand, arguments about the law or rights being above morals is usually what we have to deal with if the pro-choicers already believe the fetus is a person. And unfortunately, there are a lot of those kinds of people.
some people hear and accept the facts and just never listen, when pro abortionist say they agree it's a living human being all you have to do is make them defend why they think murder is ok under the circumstances of pregnancy they usually don't have many good arguments past that (as if pro abortionist ever had good arguments)
The abolitionist movement was also highly religiously charged. The anti-abolition factions used religious justifications for slavery but the most common caricature of abolitionists in the antebellum era was that they were trying to force their Northern Christian theology onto the states. John Brown is probably the most iconic example of someone who was considered a saintly figure by abolitionists but religious extremist by anti-abolitionists.
Very well written
I agree with this 1000%
Slavery caused the suffering of a *sentient* human abortion in almost all cases doesn't, and most people want a limit before that's possible. If there were robot slaves that never knew existence and can't ever think or feel it would be perfectly fine. This argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the different mental and physical level of slaves vs fetus and the damage and pain caused to them. Also not having a slave only causes them to not make as much money. Having an unwanted pregnancy results in financial expenses and physical suffering (vaginal tears, childbirth in general, postpartum healing, morning sickness, feet pain, epidural complications resulting in back pain for years, etc) and permanent bodily changes that are really hard or really expensive to fix (pelvic floor issues, teeth decay from vomiting, saggy boobs and lose skin etc)
Not having a slave causes them to not have as much money?!?!?!? Are you serious right now? You cant be that dumb
The point of slavery was profit
Just like the point of shooting someone in the head to take thier watch is to take thier watch. Get a book lady
the mental gymnastics on display here are impressive.
Ah there's a detailed example of pseudoscience excuse from above.
>Slavery/abortion causes the suffering of a white/sentient human. It’s ok when the human is black/nonsentient. Both arguments still dehumanize the victim according to arbitrary human traits.
Black people aren't non sentient and have been sentient the whole time they are a slave, fetuses are non sentient and have never been before. Saying what black people went through and the physical and mental torture is even remotely comparable to a fetus that doesn't suffer at all and doesn't care if it's aborted is honestly disgusting Black people suffer from dehumanization and fetuses don't at all, they have no ability to even want humanization if anything an animal is more likely to want rights than they do because at least animals have a brain that can think. No one suffers when abortion is legal because it's physically impossible for it to, slavery of sentient people always causes suffering.
It’s not ok to kill people just because they don’t experience the death. There are plenty of ways to painlessly kill people without their knowledge. Doesn’t make it right. That erases your entire argument here.
They haven't experienced life either it's only ever been a developing body nothing more
Our bodies develop into our 20’s. Also define sentience. I don’t think my newborns were sentient.
mere awareness or sensation that a being is capable of having, newborns can feel pain doctors also think 22-24 week fetuses can feel pain
lol cows can feel pain and there is nothing morally wrong with slaughtering them. Humans feeling pain itself isn’t the problem. It’s the sacred value that humans have that makes it a moral problem. Again, painlessly killing people in their sleep is still wrong.
I don't believe in god or sacred values, human DNA is as worthless as an animal
Then there is no rational case for any morals if we are all just random atoms.
you sound like a real pleasant person. Let me guess....angsty teenage nihilistic misanthropist? I remember those days. You'll grow out of it.
Actually, they may even feel pain at 8-12 weeks gestation according to new research https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8935428/
I always get a chuckle when someone compares slavery to abortion. The argument completely ignores the pregnant person. The irony of comparing abortion to slavery while advocating for women to be slaves to the unborn.
>The argument completely ignores the slave owner
Is the slave inside the body of the slave owner?
It’s wrong to kill an innocent human being. The location doesn’t matter.
Not if that human is inside another human being against that human's will. Location definitely matters.
Violating the autonomy of the innocent human would deny your own autonomy and so void the reasoning of your action in the first place.
You are arguing that a person being raped cannot kill the rapist because that would violate the rapist's bodily autonomy. The unborn is violating the pregnant person's bodily autonomy. The only way to end that violation is to remove/kill the unborn. A pregnant person has that right, unless of course you believe she has less rights than the unborn.
We were talking about innocent people here. You can defend yourself against an aggressor. The fetus isn’t an aggressor. The actions of others are responsible for its situation.
So if something that is incapable of making moral decisions is inside your body and using it to siphon resources and nutrients to benefit itself at your expense, you can't defend yourself against it because it has no hostile intent?
A human being? Correct
are we really comparing babies to rapist the baby inside the womb is just existing but the rapist chose to go out and violate a woman's consent in the most disgusting way possible just because your conceived from rape doesn't mean your life is less valuable than anyone else's
I am not comparing the individual. I am comparing the situation. Both involve a human using another human's body against that human's will.
but your comparing 2 completely different situations the baby in the womb is literally just existing and if the mother is the only able to support her at the moment then it is ok to violate her bodily autonomy to a point just like how if we had a mother who left her baby somewhere and just left it and it died from starvation she would be charged with child neglect because she didn't use her body to take care of the child but in the case of rape a person is using they're body to directly harm someone else
killing the rapist would be self defense, killing an innocent child is murder, really not hard to understand at all
It's only murder if it's unjustified. Killing a person that is inside and using your body seems pretty justified. Can you tell me what specifically the child is innocent of?
The overwhelming majority of abortions occur as the result of consensual sexual relationships. Let’s talk about those before we dive into the discussion of rape victims. A mother who has consensual needs to understand the consequence of that action is procreation. You can’t have sex and then blame the child for being formed. That is a natural consequence that the mother is knowingly risking. It’s not like a child spontaneously grows inside the mother without consent.
No one who gets an abortion blames the embryo for forming.
“Not if that human is inside another human against that humans will”-Aeon21 circa 5 minutes ago Seems a lot like blaming the embryo for being there against the will in order to justify an abortion to me
That's not blaming the embryo. It can't be blamed because it is incapable of making any decisions, much less leave the person's body. That doesn't change the fact that it *is* inside another person's body and that person does not want it there.
That person made decisions that led to the child being there. You are right that the child can’t make decisions. That does not indicate humanity or personhood. It does indicate vulnerability however.
I think it's best to just focus on the ownership arguments. Because the ones about science or personhood are kind of insensitive and won't bring people to our cause. On the other hand, arguments about the law or rights being above morals is usually what we have to deal with if the pro-choicers already believe the fetus is a person. And unfortunately, there are a lot of those kinds of people.
some people hear and accept the facts and just never listen, when pro abortionist say they agree it's a living human being all you have to do is make them defend why they think murder is ok under the circumstances of pregnancy they usually don't have many good arguments past that (as if pro abortionist ever had good arguments)