Are you against a woman's right to choose?

[Twalli]

That's right, what is called pro-life. But I'll tell you a nightmare scenario of what could happen if you don't let women choose whether or not to have an abortion. This is what not letting them choose could really mean.
A new person comes to power and begins to make a lot of restrictive laws. A woman has to get an abortion if she's deemed unable to raise a child successfully, she doesn't have a choice. In fact, before a baby can be carried to term, the parent (s) must prove that they are suitable parents. If not, the baby must be aborted.
That's what not giving a woman the right to choose means. If we make certain abortions mandatory. Well, you didn't want them to have the freedom to choose, so you have to accept that.

[SomothErgai]

Your argument is fundamentally flawed because it utterly ignores and misrepresents what the pro life argument even is, and then draws conclusions from your made up argument. Which is a tactic used so incredibly often by people who don't understand logic that it has it's own fallacy named after it. Called a Straw Man Fallacy. It's also a mashup of a slippery slope fallacy and a non sequitur.

So let's organize what you're actually saying into a syllogism so we can properly analyze it.

Your Straw Man of the Pro Life Argument:

Premise 1 (Major Premise): Not allowing women the right to choose gives the government control over reproductive decisions.
Premise 2 (Minor Premise): If the government has control over reproductive decisions, it can mandate abortions for unfit parents.
Conclusion: Therefore, not allowing women the right to choose could lead to forced abortions.

The Actual Pro Life Argument:

Premise 1 (Major Premise): Murder is morally wrong.
Premise 2 (Minor Premise): Killing unborn babies unnecessarily is murder.
Conclusion: Therefore, killing unborn babies unnecessarily is morally wrong.

The hypothetical scenario presented is flawed on multiple levels. First, it misrepresents the pro-life position by arguing a straw man, suggesting that pro-lifers seek to control all reproductive choices, when in reality, they are focused on preventing the specific act of killing unborn babies. Second, it employs a slippery slope fallacy, assuming that restricting abortion will somehow lead to forced abortions—an outcome that is both logically and ideologically opposed to pro-life principles. Third, it’s a non sequitur, as the conclusion about forced abortions doesn’t logically follow from the premises about restricting abortion. Lastly, it’s a false equivalence, conflating protecting unborn life with removing all reproductive freedoms.

In contrast, the pro-life syllogism is simple and focused: murder is wrong, and killing unborn babies unnecessarily is murder, therefore killing unborn babies unnecessarily is wrong. The argument presented against the pro-life stance fails because it misrepresents the actual logic and intent of the pro-life movement.

[Twalli]

I understand what pro-lifers want, but you seek to give governmental authority to mandate it. If the government decides, it can make abortions mandatory in certain situations. I don't think this will end up happening, but you don't want to give people choice in this matter.

[SomothErgai]

Are you High?
your argument is like saying:

If the government to makes Murder illegal then that could lead to the government making it illegal NOT to murder.

I truly, from the bottom of my heart, hope you see how nonsensical that is.

[SomothErgai]

To the coward who blocked me

I compared child murder to relationship procedures.

See? I can use inappropriate euphemisms too. But go ahead and hide when you can't defend your position against even the simplest of attacks. Cheers

[Twalli]

Fine maybe you'll understand shat has actually been suggested on here. Mandatory vascetomies until a guy us married.

[seeyounexttuesday]

That’s what I love about you liberal twats. You make up shit to be upset about.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Of course not. A woman should absolutely have the right to choose. It's her body that is forced to carry a child. If she isn't able to carry it for any reason, she should be able to abort it.

[dustybiker2]

I would never deny a woman a right to emergency medicine. Period.

[LazerBean]

I'm against people being able to choose to kill babies, and yes that includes women.

[Agape93]

Nope. 100% pro choice without restrictions

[MzAsh]

Same

[Agape93]

Interesting flex. @OlderAndWiser offensive or trolling?

[SomothErgai]

Making a point. I see your flippant disregard for human life the same way I'm fairly certain you would see my similar flippant disregard for human life.

So... offensive? I guess?

[Agape93]

Nah you're just being an asshole comparing a medical procedure to raping people. So I'm letting a mod check this.

[Agape93]

And now you're blocked

[Gwendoline]

I'm against abortion as a Catholic.

[Dargil]

So long as it is not infanticide, no.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Of course not.

[oldpigg]

Yes I am.