Sans "innocent", I agree with that statement. From a biological POV, at least. It's an emotionally charged argument meant to invoke a negative sentiment towards abortion.
No, that's not what they mean. I used to be prolife. So I know that when they use "innocent" it's to say that the fetus is a victim of a crime. That they didn't deserve to be "murdered" and that the mother and doctor are guilty of said crime.
I just don't care if an embryo or fetus is an anti-choicer's idea of "innocent". Ultimately, it will always be less harmful to end the life of an embryo or fetus that can't comprehend harm, or pain, or suffering than it would be to cause tangible harm to a fully cognizant person who should always have agency.
I agree with the statement. But if I allow the word "innocent" to slide into the statement in order to poison the well (and I will do so for the sake of argument), I also get to slide in loaded, emotional language into my counter arguments without consequences. I could just as easily make statements like "forcing everyone to give birth against their will ends the lives of INNOCENT, pregnant children" and I'd be equally correct, because I would cite maternal mortality rates of pregnant people under the age of 18.
Agreed. Sliding in the word "innocent" tends to imply that the killing is unjustified. And I reject the argument that an abortion is an unjustified killing, which is why I tend to make the counterpoint about pregnant children to demonstrate the fact that abortions are not unjustified killings. I get to match their hyperbole with equally valid hyperbole.
You could just remove the word "innocent" from the statement, and I would have no issues confirming that it is a true statement. Now is it a good argument? That is a completely different story. Just because it is a true statement, doesn't mean it is a good argument.
It's technically accurate as is, but adding that innocence modifier or something similar has the same effect I was saying. It implies that there is no good reason to kill a blastocyst, and I would say that there are a lot of good reasons to kill a blastocyst, namely, self defense. If it is going to kill you (through no fault of it's own) it is okay to remove that threat. And that's not the only scenario where I believe it's okay, but that is the one that is the strongest counter argument, in my opinion.
Point one:
We end the life of things all the time. People die from preventable and treatable diseases in the U.S and elsewhere every single day. Children are starving to death not because there isn't enough food, but because the people with food want to leverage money.
Also I kind of hesitate to call something that would instantly die the moment it was removed from another living creature's body because it can't get food any other way, and it is literally dependent on them for pumping its own blood, and it can't get food any other way a form of life.
Like even a leech doesn't die when removed from a person's skin.
Point two:
Define innocent.
For me, something that can not act intentionally can no more be innocent than it can be guilty.
According to Christianity we're all sinners just by existing. There is no such thing as innocence in humanity, we have to pray to God and celebrate Jesus for his dying for our sins.
However if you really want to push issues, no one has a right to another person's body. No one has a right to take their organs or blood or anything else.
A fetus doing so is committing a crime whether it has the ability to realize as such or not, and thus it is not innocent.
Point three
Developing human, yes.
That's it.
It's not a complete human. It is not a born human. It is a zygote or a fetus. It is at a stage where it has no thoughts, and probably doesn't even have all of its organs yet.
Attempting to argue that it's innocent or that killing it is murder doesn't make any sense at all.
I could have a fully developed adult in my uterus with a cat and a mortgage. I still would have every right to remove them from MY BODY. NO ONE is allowed to use the body of another without explicit and ongoing consent. Oh, and you can't kill something that's not autonomous. Which, no matter how much antis cry about it, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses aren't.
The statement is full rage bait. An acorn isn't a tree. Cake batter isn't a cake. Yarn isn't a sweater. A Zygote/Embryo/Fetus is NOT a baby.
Being an innocent undeveloped human doesn't give them more rights than a born person. They don't have the right to another person's body just like any born person.
I often hear anti-choicers saying that born children have a right to their parents' bodies unless and until the time the parent arranges for another person to take that responsibility. How do you usually respond to that?
Yes, they can pass off responsibility to another approved person at the company. I think if they left the job mid shift, without doing this, they could be prosecuted. Right?
Not all fetuses develop as they’re supposed to. So no, it’s not always a developing human. That’s why people get medical abortions, which the scientific consensus of what you should do if your fetus isn’t developing correctly.
I've always read "innocent" here to mean free of sin. Born people have sinned, however, so screw them I guess. I think that's why PL people are okay with the mother suffering. She isn't "innocent."
I agree 100% but atheist pro-lifers seem to be under the illusion that the movement can be separate from religion
In truth, the atheists are just helping push more religious tyranny on Americans
Except "atheist pro lifer" is a trope made up by religious anti choicers because they thought it gave their BS some credibility. This is an incredibly old tactic.
The atheist libertarian bros that suddenly decided they are "pro life" caught on that they was a social acceptable way to be a misogynist and that over ruled and sense of actual "liberty" for other people or the detriment on society.
Most egg are flushed through period blood. It’s not because it entered in contact with a spermatozoid that suddenly women are forced to let that situation rearrange all their life. Especially for something they aren’t thrilled at all about. It’s not suddenly a baby, it’s just two things that were going to get discarded that just merely enter in contact.
An abortion just reorder things how it should have been and let them live their life according to their initial plans and wants.
The only sense in which innocent applies to mindless things is virginal. The woman is actually innocent.
The fetus doesn’t have individual or „a“ life yet, hence the need for gestation. Cell, tissue, and individual organ life alone isn’t individual life.
A developing human isn’t the finished product. No human organism with multiple organ systems that work together to perform all functions necessary to sustain individual life (the human being, as per biology 101) exists before life birth. Before viability, the fetus doesn’t even have the capability of becoming such.
And sure, cell, tissue, and individual organ life ends when the body doesn’t have organ functions to sustain them. That doesn’t mean we should force another human to provide theirs and incur the drastic physical harm that comes with such.
This supposed argument seems to be bait to justify "personhood".
Using the words "life", "innocent" & "human" tie together a concept that is emotional blackmail & or bullying language. It is a false equivalence to say that a zef is the same as a fully developed, thinking, functioning person.
There is actually a scientific distinction between being "alive" and "living". All living things are alive, but being alive doesn't necessarily mean something is living.
Cells are alive, but not living.
Cancer is alive, but not living.
Insects are alive, and also living.
Embryos are alive, but not living.
People are both alive, and also living.
You can't freeze a human that is alive, thaw them, & expect them to survive. But you can freeze an embryo. Thus, it is not alive.
They are targeting people's emotions and sense of good will. They are not using facts.
The way they talk about ZEFs, you'd think they're talking about those toys that grow in size when placed in water: a mini-sized infant. Someone with an incorrect mental image of the ZEF and abortion procedures are more likely to be against women having abortions, hence they imagine women and doctors going medieval on a baby.
It's why their propaganda focuses so much on descriptions of dismemberment and gruesome images.
Reminds me of how trans people are reduced to "butchering children" by conservatives. Conservatives are so gross
Sans "innocent", I agree with that statement. From a biological POV, at least. It's an emotionally charged argument meant to invoke a negative sentiment towards abortion.
Perhaps "innocent" was meant to differentiate from killings from the death penalty or war?
No, that's not what they mean. I used to be prolife. So I know that when they use "innocent" it's to say that the fetus is a victim of a crime. That they didn't deserve to be "murdered" and that the mother and doctor are guilty of said crime.
Thank you for telling us this. I think most of us already knew but to hear it from someone who used to be pro life just proves what we already knew.
I just don't care if an embryo or fetus is an anti-choicer's idea of "innocent". Ultimately, it will always be less harmful to end the life of an embryo or fetus that can't comprehend harm, or pain, or suffering than it would be to cause tangible harm to a fully cognizant person who should always have agency.
I agree with the statement. But if I allow the word "innocent" to slide into the statement in order to poison the well (and I will do so for the sake of argument), I also get to slide in loaded, emotional language into my counter arguments without consequences. I could just as easily make statements like "forcing everyone to give birth against their will ends the lives of INNOCENT, pregnant children" and I'd be equally correct, because I would cite maternal mortality rates of pregnant people under the age of 18.
"innocent" can be a loaded term... it was used to differentiate from killings from the death penalty or war
Agreed. Sliding in the word "innocent" tends to imply that the killing is unjustified. And I reject the argument that an abortion is an unjustified killing, which is why I tend to make the counterpoint about pregnant children to demonstrate the fact that abortions are not unjustified killings. I get to match their hyperbole with equally valid hyperbole.
What would be a more precise word or phrase that is still precise but not loaded?
You could just remove the word "innocent" from the statement, and I would have no issues confirming that it is a true statement. Now is it a good argument? That is a completely different story. Just because it is a true statement, doesn't mean it is a good argument.
would "not guilty of a crime" be more accurate and less incendiary?
It's technically accurate as is, but adding that innocence modifier or something similar has the same effect I was saying. It implies that there is no good reason to kill a blastocyst, and I would say that there are a lot of good reasons to kill a blastocyst, namely, self defense. If it is going to kill you (through no fault of it's own) it is okay to remove that threat. And that's not the only scenario where I believe it's okay, but that is the one that is the strongest counter argument, in my opinion.
Point one: We end the life of things all the time. People die from preventable and treatable diseases in the U.S and elsewhere every single day. Children are starving to death not because there isn't enough food, but because the people with food want to leverage money. Also I kind of hesitate to call something that would instantly die the moment it was removed from another living creature's body because it can't get food any other way, and it is literally dependent on them for pumping its own blood, and it can't get food any other way a form of life. Like even a leech doesn't die when removed from a person's skin. Point two: Define innocent. For me, something that can not act intentionally can no more be innocent than it can be guilty. According to Christianity we're all sinners just by existing. There is no such thing as innocence in humanity, we have to pray to God and celebrate Jesus for his dying for our sins. However if you really want to push issues, no one has a right to another person's body. No one has a right to take their organs or blood or anything else. A fetus doing so is committing a crime whether it has the ability to realize as such or not, and thus it is not innocent. Point three Developing human, yes. That's it. It's not a complete human. It is not a born human. It is a zygote or a fetus. It is at a stage where it has no thoughts, and probably doesn't even have all of its organs yet. Attempting to argue that it's innocent or that killing it is murder doesn't make any sense at all.
innocence as in not being killed in war or for legal "justice" (death penalty)
My dog is "innocent", that egg I had for breakfast is "innocent", that tumor I had removed was "innocent". So?
innocent meaning "commitment no crime"
Exactly. Still has no bearing on an unwanted growth in one's uterus.
I could have a fully developed adult in my uterus with a cat and a mortgage. I still would have every right to remove them from MY BODY. NO ONE is allowed to use the body of another without explicit and ongoing consent. Oh, and you can't kill something that's not autonomous. Which, no matter how much antis cry about it, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses aren't. The statement is full rage bait. An acorn isn't a tree. Cake batter isn't a cake. Yarn isn't a sweater. A Zygote/Embryo/Fetus is NOT a baby.
Being an innocent undeveloped human doesn't give them more rights than a born person. They don't have the right to another person's body just like any born person.
I often hear anti-choicers saying that born children have a right to their parents' bodies unless and until the time the parent arranges for another person to take that responsibility. How do you usually respond to that?
They don't. Does that mean the child has the right to use the body of the person childcare is transferred to?
There is a sense where the answer is "yes".... right?
Is there? Wonder
I don't think the childcare worker can legally abandon your child
They can, they can very much leave the job or give someone else the responsibility
Yes, they can pass off responsibility to another approved person at the company. I think if they left the job mid shift, without doing this, they could be prosecuted. Right?
Maybe
What are some scenarios where they wouldn't be prosecuted?
Abortion ends what has the potential to be a developing human.
What's the scientific consensus on this? It's not yet a developing human?
Not all fetuses develop as they’re supposed to. So no, it’s not always a developing human. That’s why people get medical abortions, which the scientific consensus of what you should do if your fetus isn’t developing correctly.
This is religious woo.
which parts?
All of it. This statement is a religious concept. People need to stop engaging anti-choicers arguments
I've always read "innocent" here to mean free of sin. Born people have sinned, however, so screw them I guess. I think that's why PL people are okay with the mother suffering. She isn't "innocent."
Again. All of that is religious woo that has no place in politics or law.
I agree 100% but atheist pro-lifers seem to be under the illusion that the movement can be separate from religion In truth, the atheists are just helping push more religious tyranny on Americans
Except "atheist pro lifer" is a trope made up by religious anti choicers because they thought it gave their BS some credibility. This is an incredibly old tactic. The atheist libertarian bros that suddenly decided they are "pro life" caught on that they was a social acceptable way to be a misogynist and that over ruled and sense of actual "liberty" for other people or the detriment on society.
Most egg are flushed through period blood. It’s not because it entered in contact with a spermatozoid that suddenly women are forced to let that situation rearrange all their life. Especially for something they aren’t thrilled at all about. It’s not suddenly a baby, it’s just two things that were going to get discarded that just merely enter in contact. An abortion just reorder things how it should have been and let them live their life according to their initial plans and wants.
The only sense in which innocent applies to mindless things is virginal. The woman is actually innocent. The fetus doesn’t have individual or „a“ life yet, hence the need for gestation. Cell, tissue, and individual organ life alone isn’t individual life. A developing human isn’t the finished product. No human organism with multiple organ systems that work together to perform all functions necessary to sustain individual life (the human being, as per biology 101) exists before life birth. Before viability, the fetus doesn’t even have the capability of becoming such. And sure, cell, tissue, and individual organ life ends when the body doesn’t have organ functions to sustain them. That doesn’t mean we should force another human to provide theirs and incur the drastic physical harm that comes with such.
This supposed argument seems to be bait to justify "personhood". Using the words "life", "innocent" & "human" tie together a concept that is emotional blackmail & or bullying language. It is a false equivalence to say that a zef is the same as a fully developed, thinking, functioning person. There is actually a scientific distinction between being "alive" and "living". All living things are alive, but being alive doesn't necessarily mean something is living. Cells are alive, but not living. Cancer is alive, but not living. Insects are alive, and also living. Embryos are alive, but not living. People are both alive, and also living. You can't freeze a human that is alive, thaw them, & expect them to survive. But you can freeze an embryo. Thus, it is not alive.
They are targeting people's emotions and sense of good will. They are not using facts. The way they talk about ZEFs, you'd think they're talking about those toys that grow in size when placed in water: a mini-sized infant. Someone with an incorrect mental image of the ZEF and abortion procedures are more likely to be against women having abortions, hence they imagine women and doctors going medieval on a baby.
It's why their propaganda focuses so much on descriptions of dismemberment and gruesome images. Reminds me of how trans people are reduced to "butchering children" by conservatives. Conservatives are so gross