Shapiro Gets Into Tense Back-and-Forth With Pro-Choice Student

It would really be better if you demonstrated how not terminating life in the womb was slavery since it fits none of the definitions of the word.
Slavery: 1. The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude.
If anything the child in the womb is treated like the slave here without any personal autonomy at all.

My advice to you is to chose your words more carefully so they don't come back to bite you in the rear. You look foolish now.

 

Yes, forcing women to give birth against their will is slavery. It makes them things, mere incubators, not people. It indicates that someone else owns their bodies because someone else is controlling them.

It may not fit your exact definition but it sure is close......not much different at all...

 

Obviously you don't believe words have meanings unless they conform to your biases. That is essentially dishonest.

You may as well claim parents are "slaves" to their children because the state will not let them kill their kids. It's absurd. At any rate, you rhetoric is hyperbolic to the extreme when you consider abortion is legal within certain guidelines.

 

Is forcing me to pay alimony slavery? Is forcing someone to pay child support slavery? Is forcing me to have to take time and expense to file my taxes which my wish is that I not have to do so slavery?

Do you believe in unlimited abortion even through the third trimester up until the baby is actually born, or do you support "making women slaves"?

You once again screwed up with the meaning of words, so just stop it.

 

As personhood status you are completely incorrect. The law disagrees with you. Deal with it.

I'm not the one doing emotional appeals to a clump of cells over the woman's right to NOT be forced into pregnancy. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one yourself. Otherwise, go thump your morals elsewhere. They are of no importance to me nor to anyone else. Your anti-choice emotional appeals to a clump of cells is noted and disregarded.

 

Yes. I admit it is absurd but you have to remember I'm using your own logic and arguments on which to base my conclusion. So...consider the source.


.

I'm not. I don't deal in pointless speculation.

 

Let's see, the eagle was an endangered species or national bird, I wasn't aware of fetuses going extinct or they were made a state bird. Nice emotional strawman, but it doesn't fly. Try again.

 

humans > eagles

 

woman's rights > fetus

 

The student got intimidated by a professional pundit so this is a bit unfair to the argument. Shapiro would lose with a more seasoned debater on this issue. Why? Because he cannot define what is a human being without admitting that human consciousness is actually the defining trait of all humans. The sticky part though is what is human consciousness? It gets even harder once you get to this part of the argument. What Shapiro wants is to make one of the most complex philosophical and legal issues simple by just ignoring all the complexity in the argument. The Supremes dealt with this wisely in Roe. Nothing Shapiro can say will clear this matter up, nothing the student can say will clear it up either. Suffice it to say, when in doubt, the woman should have control over her own body. If you think Shapiro or the Pope or Ted Cruz should control my daughters body, run on that one and see how far it gets you.

 

Most women do not even know they are pregnant at 4-6 weeks? Splicing hairs aren't you? On purpose?

I am totally against abortions, and as male I never intend on having one, but I believe it is their right to decide if they are ready to be a mother or not, and if abortions are legal, then it should be done within the first trimester or responsibility is automatically accepted, unless the mothers health is in/at risk, and in that circumstance, it is still the mothers decision.

I also disagree that the baby isn't a part of the mother. The mother isn't just an incubator, she is also attached to the baby to obtain nutrition, oxygen, etc... They are one until birth or until the baby is prematurely ejected and place on some other form of artificial life support.

 

They have a reasonable amount of time in which to make their decision. It's not ideal, but it's a compromise I am willing to accept to protect the rights of 99% of the women who seek elective abortions.

Do children have a right to compensation when the results of natural breeding leave them deformed or disabled? It's no different.

There's a huge difference between the government sterilizing people against their will and allowing families to make their own reproductive decisions. They are, in fact, completely opposite political and moral positions.

 

3/5 a person was an attempted compromise on human rights too. It didn't work either. Either the fetus has rights or it doesn't; there are no 3/5 rights. And I say the fetus definitely has a right to not have its DNA intentionally tweaked so as to make it born with no arms. Can we at least agree that everyone has the right to not have their arms taken while in the womb?

It is not the same; one is reproducible by human will, and the other is not.

 

bustin out some history lessons and why it failed precedents.... I love it.

 

And my point remains that any right given to a fetus is a right taken away from its mother.

You show me model legislation that protects a fetus from "harmful" genetic tweaking that preserves the family's right to "beneficial" genetic tweaking, and I will support it.

It is the same. We, as human beings, have no say in the composition of our DNA; it is not within our natural rights. It does not matter whether our DNA is selected naturally or by human will, we have no say in it and can have no say in it until long after it is already set in stone.

 

No doubt, my rights are restricted in all sorts of ways when they interfere with the rights of others.

Neither harmful nor beneficial genetic "tweaking" should be permitted.

The theory of evolution that I read about said that gene combinations must be random in order for a species to survive. Dog breeding is an example. None of the dog breeds that we humans have created since we first starting tweaking with the wolf can survive in nature on its own. Without humans, those breeds wouldn't exist. Because they weren't random...

 

So whose "property" is a foetus? The government's?