Ain't nobody ever asked for my permission to abort!
Which, in turn, only begs the question why you would pretend to give it.
The entire pretense of this thread is askew from the outset; there is an underlying question of risk worth exploring, but as the topic post shows, it's a difficult one to set up properly.
But as we roll through it, note what is generally missing:
#2↑: Appeal to fallacy, but so loosely sketched we can select from a sickly bunch. Appeals to aesthetics, or emotion, which is nearly the same, or selfishness.
#4↑: Appeal to aesthetics; ontological fallacy asserting to define personhood.
#5↑: What men can buy, versus the obligations by which a woman can have the final say over what takes place in her own body.
#7↑: What about the men; shift of context.
#9↑: What about the men?
#10↑: Inabilty or refusal to address and explain one's own fallacy (
cf., #4 above).
I won't dispute, say, Iceaura at
#11↑, because his abrupt introduction of the missing consideration would, by its apparent artifice, make its own point; the fact that he
cannot address this fundamental component without changing the subject so severely speaks volumes about the brief discussion preceding him.
What is generally missing is the fact of women themselves. This is why I made the point that a man gets precisely what say she gives him. There is another abortion discussion, occurring in the
Politics subforum↗, and what stands out about that discussion, and especially your own post earlier today—
If "the state"(politicians) is willing to "step up to the plate" and assume the responsibility for seeing that the child is well fed, housed, doctored to and assured a good and thorough education, then maybe the state should have a say on the decision.
—is how we might as well throw back
over six years↗ to a catastrophic discussion taking place over the course of fifteen or sixteen months, in which consideration of this notion, of weaving life-at-conception personhood [LACP°] into the social contract, short-circuited the anti-abortion argument; at the end of it all, the one thing the anti-abortion argument could not do, and even brought many pro-choicers to falter, was the same thing missing from the present dicussion, which is an explicit acknowledgment of a woman's human rights. For anti-abortion advocates, acknowledging the humanity and human rights of a woman explodes their argument to dusts of windblown fancy, and makes the anti-abortion argument that much more difficult to comprehend and present.
This is a part that doesn't change, much. In
Roe, the Court refused to answer a question nobody had been able to answer before, about what constitutes the beginning of life that is at stake in this discussion. The anti-abortion response has simply been to insist, loudly, and the one advantage they enjoy about that is how many people who would otherwise not be anti-abortion just can't cope with the idea that women are human beings who have human rights. Even those ostensibly pro-choice advocates are giving their permission, because they just can't countenance an outcome whereby women don't need that noble, compassionate dispensation.
It comes up; a couple years ago, in questions of history and theology, I encountered a circumstance in which one would play Devil's Advocate in order to grant some point of argument, except, as I
noted at the time↗, it was utterly extraneous. The whole point of granting concessions seemed to be the exercise in claiming such authority and showing such magnanimity. And for our present purpose, sure, it should be enough to note that there comes a point where people grudgingly concede the fact that reality exists, and observe the tendency by which people would rather posture themselves as somehow above all that, such that they can kindly allow reality to be what it is. And, honestly, if one is extraneously granting that God exists because it's easier to pick on people than have a clue, yeah, that just about makes sense, behaviorally speaking; people are human, after all.
But in our moment, here, it serves to remind of priorities. Women do not need anyone's permission to exist; a woman's existence is not something to be parceled and allowed according to how it compares to anyone's sentiments on existential masculinity. The only reason people pretend she needs anyone else's permission is because those people want the authority of giving her permission.
This isn't actually difficult to comprehend. The hard part is getting over traditionalist existential pride.
____________________
Notes:
° LACP is actually a misnomer. Life at conception would actually refer to implantation of the blastocyst, which can occur several days after the life-at-conception argument intends; what they really intend is the assignment of personhood at fertilization, and this fertilization-assigned personhood [FAP] is an ontological sleight. Instead of figuring out what nature tells us about how the world works, and deriving our legislation therefrom, FAP advocates would legislate the ontology from which subsequent legislation would be derived. The one thing fappers cannot afford is to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women.
