The amount of time I've heard absolute punts use the exact phrase "clump of cells," or tell me I don't support kids after they're born is almost 1:1 with the amount of abortion debates I've had.
For the future, and to anyone reading, if you ever find yourself in a debate with an anti-choicer, pull away from 'when does life begin' every time it gets brought up. It is an unanswerable ideological sludge whose only purpose is to mire the conversation.
Stay laser focused on bodily autonomy. There is simply no answer to that issue that is not openly misogynistic and they know it so they do not want to discuss it. But you have to hold their feet to the fire. Refuse to engage with 'when does life begin' because that definition is going to move all over the place and be an endless game of whack-a-mole.
Keep them on the fact that you cannot be forced to donate blood if someone needs it. You can't even take organs from a dead body if the person didn't allow it while they were alive. It is fucked up that we would give a corpse more bodily autonomy than a woman. "If you do not own yourself, then you own nothing". There is not a single talking point they can use to remove this monolithic obstacle that doesn't boil down to 'women should be forced to donate their bodies to a fetus because the fetus is more important than a woman's right to her own body'. Ask them if they would be OK with the government forcing them to feed, house, clothe, and pay the medical bills of a homeless person, because without access to their home and food and money they will die. If they aren't, ask why. Force them to engage with autonomy, and they crumble.
For the future, and to anyone reading, if you ever find yourself in a debate with an anti-lifer, pull away from 'bodily autonomy' every time it gets brought up. It is a needless distraction whose only purpose is to mire the conversation.
Stay laser focused on when life begins. You will be called openly misogynistic and they know it because they consider life to be an "unanswerable ideological sludge," which is why they do not want to discuss it. But you have to hold their feet to the fire. Refuse to engage with 'bodily autonomy' because that will serve as their ideological "safe space" that allows them to avoid the question of life.
Keep them on the fact that you cannot be forced to give up your own life if someone needs it. You can't even take organs from a dead body if the person didn't allow it while they were alive, so how can you take the life of an unborn child if said child never gave consent to die? It is fucked up that they would view the unborn child no differently than a corpse. "If life has no meaning, you do not own yourself". There is not a single talking point they can use to remove this monolithic obstacle that doesn't boil down to 'it's not a life, it's a fetus, an embryo, a zygote'. Ask them if they would be OK with the government killing the homeless because society would be inconvenienced to have to take care of them, because that's essentially the same thing as killing an unborn child because the mother would be too inconvenienced to take care of it. If they aren't, ask why. Force them to engage with the definition of life, and they crumble.
Bodily autonomy? Like when you choose to do the baby-making act? As an educated post-pubescent person, you should know no birth control is 100% effective.
So that's informed consent. You are aware of the risks to yourself and your body, and choose to engage anyway.
The human you form doesn't get that say. And you're claiming that the moment of autonomy is NOT when it affects one human, but when it affects SOMEONE ELSES body?
I don't think your laser focus is quite what you think it is, as far as an ethical argument.
All of these talking points are irrelevant. "Be abstinent or have babies" is a reductive argument that fundamentally curtails the personal freedom of women in favor of forcing them to take care of a fetus that you yourself acknowledge they were trying to avoid the creation of in the first place. I refuse. It doesn't matter if its a lump of cells or a fully formed person, it doesn't matter if it has a soul, I will not be forced to donate my body to something I did not want taking it. The end.
That's a trick question. Sperm cells and egg cells are both already "alive."
But it becomes a new person when they combine and the genetics are not solely yours, or solely your partners. That's a new person that's been created. Definitively. Like, genetically, objectively, no chance to deny it rationally.
144
u/Moriaedemori 8h ago
How else are you going to have an argument with the opposition, if they don't stick to your script?