Originally Posted by
Endus
Yes, it's the Violinist argument, essentially, but that argument has never been debunked.
Her argument that there's a difference is that there's a difference between it being a stranger, and a woman and her child. This is not a counter-argument. It introduces an entirely irrelevant factor solely to push an appeal to emotion, which is not based in reason.
She claims the woman has given consent to get pregnant, except for cases of sexual assault. This is a provable lie, because consent is an active state and can always be revoked. You can't get "locked in" to your consent. Above and beyond that lie, there is absolutely nothing about consenting to have sex that in any way indicates any consent to impregnation. That's a malicious and hateful argument that attempt to dehumanize women into brood mares. Handmaid's Tale-style religious nonsense. Acknowledging the risk of pregnancy is not the same as consenting to continue that pregnancy. Absolute clown shoes of a claim, and deeply misogynist.
"The creation of a unique whole human life", we're back to appeals to emotion, because none of this bullshit is relevant to the question. Are twins less "human" because they're not "unique"? Are we investigating all women who miscarry for homicide? Nobody actually believes this horseshit; it's just an emotional appeal to justify their attacks on women.
"It's like her giving consent and then taking it away". Yes. That's how consent works, Hawkins, you blathering fucking moron.
And the sexual assault exception, again, just proves she (and you) really don't believe it's a human person from conception. If you did, sexual assault wouldn't constitute an exception. Are rape-babies less "human" or less deserving of rights? Every time you people make this argument, you're just admitting to being liars and con artists.
"It's also different when it's unplugging rather than actively killing". The vast majority of abortion methods used detach the fetus, which leads to immediate death of the fetus. It's the literal biological equivalent of "unplugging", so she's lying again. Also, when it comes to end-of-life considerations, "unplugging" absolutely is considered "killing", so it's not even an honest approach.
Then she insists that women forced to bear to term aren't being "punished" despite the torturous circumstances, solely because she wants them to be pregnant. Absolutely morally galling. Evil as fuuuuck. Literally dismissing people's consent and desires for her religious views.
That's 4 wasted minutes of my life I'm not getting back. Absolutely awful woman and her whole schtick is incredibly dishonest and ill-informed.