Total posts: 74
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
In most cases, I am against abortion. However, I would not make my will into law.
God, thank you.
This thread really got me thinking everyone wants to legislate their own opinions for everything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
You're a trip 😂
Saying that a harm that is a considerable harm (i.e not an easily managed harm or a non-harm), can sometimes happen is not admitting to pregnancy being harmful because that kind of statement would be misleading and obviously false.
To reword this sentence, you straight up said "Saying that people get hurt sometimes is not admitting to people getting hurt sometimes". It definitely does, my friend. Here's a summary of how our argument has gone.
You: Pregnancy doesn't cause harm.
Me: It can in some cases cause harm.
You: In the majority of cases, pregnancy does not cause harm.
Me: That means in the minority of cases it does, so by definition that means pregnancy can cause harm.
You: Well if the harm isn't big enough or common enough it doesn't count.
You keep moving the goalposts of what you'd find acceptable.
We've both agreed that in some cases, even the minority of cases, pregnancy can cause harm (remember, harm means physical injury). But just in case you don't want to believe me, here's proof.
https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=birth-injuries-90-P02687 -- this one lists common injuries to the child during childbirth, just for funsies
What is your point, exactly? Are you trying to say that the white hicks in Alabama have gotten worse than the strict Muslims in Saudi Arabia?
My original point was "My friends in Saudi Arabia have better access to abortion than me." I then showed you proof of that. That was it, that was the point. I don't know how you missed it.
Why don't you think that states should be able to decide their own laws on abortion? If one state (like Alabama) is mostly against it, explain why they should be compelled to facilitate abortions?
I would completely support abortion laws if the people were actually voting for them. No state except Kansas has done that, so your repeated appeals to "what the people want" is detached from reality because the people aren't being given a chance to say what they want.
If you think one state like Alabama that is mostly against it shouldn't be required to facilitate abortion, would you support the states like Kansas that largely support abortion providing them? Do you believe in democracy even when it goes against your beliefs or do you only support the majority making the rules when they agree with you?
That is different, because here we are talking about what we want and don't want. I am happy to come second to children. Women who want abortions are not.
Lol, yes, that is literally the point. We are talking about what we want and don't want. If you want children, if you want to come second to your child, then you can go do that. No one is stopping you.
I do not want children, and I do not want to come second to my children, even if we're only talking about the 9 months pregnancy. The only 100% guaranteed method of birth control (sterilization) has been repeatedly denied to me, so I am not allowed to exist in a body that can't get pregnant despite my desires. If I am not allowed to sterilize myself, am not allowed access to abortion if I am raped (American women have a 1 in 6 chance of being the victim of rape), may even lose access to contraceptives in the future, and would probably die if I got pregnant (taking the kid with me, by the way) what actions should I take that would make you happy?
I'm fascinated that the person who gets to do what they want regarding pregnancy and birth is screaming at the person who's been denied almost everything she wants. Avoiding pregnancy is 100% on me, but if I get denied sterilization it's still on me, if I get raped it's still on me, if my state outlaws contraception it's still on me. For an act that takes two people, there sure is an insane amount of responsibility on one person in your mindset.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
If pregnancies can cause physical injury why do women want to get pregnant and why do they want to abort after they get pregnant?
You realize every woman is going to have a different answer to this, right? I can't speak for all of them.
I personally do not want to get pregnant because my body would not be able to handle it. If I did get pregnant despite my efforts to the contrary, I would want to abort because I have no interest in going through a high-risk pregnancy or potentially dying just to bring a child into this miserable world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Your representation of my point is an oversimplification. Are you open to amending it to something I feel more accurately represents me? Are you also open to me adding a few definitions of my own?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
@Novice_II
It's not syllogistic as there are three points I'd actually point out, but I appreciate that you're the first person to actually ask my stance, so I'll answer.
Stance: Abortion, among other options for pregnancy and birth related care, should be legal and accessible because:
1) There is no medical or legal precedence for "inescapable somatic subjection" (term defined below)
2) Individual morality is just that -- individual
3) One cannot consent to pregnancy on the night of having sex
To point one:
inescapable: unable to be avoided or denied
somatic: relating to the body, especially as distinct from the mind
subjection: cause or force to undergo (a particular experience of form of treatment).
Denying the legality and accessibility of abortion creates a state of inescapable somatic subjection for the pregnant person that is unseen in any other branch of law and medicine.
If a pregnancy cannot be ended by choice, it is inescapable. For roughly nine months, the pregnant person will be unable to avoid or deny the fact that they are pregnant, a fact which affects every part of their lives. While birth at the end of nine months is certainly an end to a pregnancy it is not an escape from or denial of pregnancy anymore than an end of a prison sentence is an escape from or denial of prison. It is a conclusion of a state during which there was no other option to be had.
In no other instance do we legally demand an individual give of their organs and body to keep another person alive, regardless of cause or relationship. We do not legally require fathers to donate livers to children, even when those children would die. Even if the father himself was the cause of the child needing a new liver, we do not require him to give him the liver. We don't even require the dead to give up their organs for the sake of the living, as organ donation is voluntarily and must often still be okayed by living relatives.
In no other branch of law or medicine do we treat any other consequence as inescapable unless a crime was committed. We do not forbid medical treatment for smokers that develop lung cancer, we do not withhold the assistance of the fire department from those who chose to live in fire-prone areas, and we do not withhold police assistance from those who accidentally leave their doors unlocked and are stolen from. Pregnancy is the only condition where some see it justified to say "because you made a 'bad' decision, you are now trapped in your consequences without escape". This a logical inconsistency deriving from the perceived superiority of certain individual's morality, which brings me to part 2.
To summarize this point: We do not legally demand organs from anyone for any reason and therefore have no justification in demanding the use of a uterus for any reason. We do not refuse to treat unwanted consequences based solely on the initial decision, so we there have no justification to deny abortion care because of a previous decision to have sex.
To point 2:
To say it bluntly, individual morality is irrelevant outside of the choices of that particular individual and cannot be used to force the decisions of others. Sure, vegans may go around screaming their own morality in the faces of the not-vegan, and they have the right to do so, but that is where the discussion ends. They do not have the right to enforce the vegan lifestyle through law. The pro-choice mindset essentially says "regardless of my personal morality regarding abortion, I acknowledge that it is not my place to make the decision for others." This seems to be where I keep losing people. Bones's insistence that I clearly speak to where I think the lines regarding abortion should be drawn has repeatedly missed the fact that my stance is that I (and everyone on else on this thread) should not be the ones drawing the lines. All pregnancy and birth related decisions should be left to the pregnant person and their circle of trusted, chosen people (doctors, clergy, family, etc). Uneducated opinions from the general public and the government offer no help. They are nothing but people repeatedly insisting that their morality, their definition of life, their perception of how life should be lived, matters more than the person than that of the person making the decision.
Apart from saying "I would allow the doctor and mother to make a decision" I haven't answered Bones's increasingly gory questions because they are irrelevant to my foundational point. If it not my pregnancy, then what I "would allow" is irrelevant to the decision being made. If it is my pregnancy, then Bones's opinions on what should be allowed would be irrelevant. The pro-choice stance is essentially one giant concept of "mind your own business and let those impacted by and educated on the decision make the decision."
There is no consistent opinion on abortion across the spectrum of humans, both in terms of physical location and time, so an appeal to "morality" offers no universal standards by which we should be making any decisions other than how we as individuals choose to live our own lives.
To summarize: We all have a right to our own morality. None of us have a right to force others to live by our morality. There is no universal standard regarding abortion to point to, so all morality cannot be used to proscribe the actions of others -- only ourselves.
To point 3:
Inevitably, when I say "pregnancy is inescapable" one of two replies come up. The first is "birth is the escape", which was already addressed above. The second is some variation of "you consented to pregnancy when you consented to sex." This is demonstrably false.
To consent is to "give permission for something to happen." There are two physical steps that are required for a pregnancy to occur. The first is that there must be an egg ready to fertilize. The second is that there must be a sperm to do the fertilizing. For simplicity's sake, let's assume the sperm-related step was consensual -- both man and woman agreed to have sex, and now there is sperm available for fertilization. But how do I, as a woman, consent to giving my egg?
Physical processes cannot be consented to -- I cannot give permission for my hair to grow, I cannot give permission for my stomach to digest, I cannot give permission for my ovaries to release an egg. "Giving permission" by definition implies that my say over something matters. Biological processes do not hinge on a person's say -- they happen whether or not we wish them to. They therefore cannot be consented to.
So, if two steps are required for pregnancy, and one step is impossible to consent to, pregnancy can never be consented to. It is a natural process outside of anyone's complete control, as proven by the multi-million dollar fertility industry. It makes no more sense to tell a pregnant person "you consented to being pregnant" than it does to tell a bald man "you consented to being bald." We can accept that pregnancy is a consequence of sex, but as discussed above, there is no precedence for denying treatment for said consequence.
Consent regarding pregnancy then, is an ongoing day to day acceptance, not a one-and-done deal made on the night of sex. I can continuously consent to the ongoing process of pregnancy, but I can also not consent to the ongoing process of pregnancy and seek to terminate it. Unless we seek to treat sex like a crime, and lock a woman into the inescapability of pregnancy, consent must be continually given.
To summarize: pregnancy is a biological process that cannot be consented to in a single night -- continued permission must be given for consent to be present. If continual permission is not given, the option to terminate must be present or the pregnancy has become the inescapable somatic subjection in point 1/
To summarize my stance as a whole: There is no legal or medical precedence to render pregnancy as inescapable somatic subjection by denying abortion access. Pregnant people must always legally be allowed to seek termination if that is their desire. Moral discussions regarding the methods and timing of abortion are fine things for individuals to have, but irrelevant in the grand scheme of the decisions pregnant people will be faced with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
You don't think pregnancy and childbirth are normal occurrences?
I don't think any one experience of pregnancy and childbirth is the universal norm. One woman may have a beautiful pregnancy with zero lasting effects and another may end up crippled for life. The entire spectrum of pregnancy experience is valid and must be considered in discussions of abortion.
Saying that pregnancy does not result in harm to your body is a *factual* thing to say because in the majority of instances, it does not.
Now I'm just starting to think you don't know what words mean. Your statement of "in the majority of instances, it does not" result in harm factually proves that sometimes it does result in harm. Sure, if it makes you feel better to consider it that minority of cases I don't care at this point, but even you agree that in a minority of cases, pregnancy causes harm. It is therefore a true statement to say "Pregnancy can cause harm." I am not saying in the majority of pregnancies the woman is harmed. I am saying sometimes pregnancies cause harm. To be clear, the definition of harm is "physical injury". Pregnancy can cause physical injury is a fact whether you personally were harmed or not.
If I had to compare the U.S to my country, I would say that without a doubt, the U.S is better. Wages are better, free speech is better, education (I think) is better, it is more geographically diverse, and is fairly cheap (in comparison to my country) in many areas. Countries that criticize the U.S for dispensing with Roe v. Wade ought to look at their own problems, which in my view are great and many.
I don't know how to speak to this without knowing where you live, but suffice it to say that I am American, and am therefore looking at Roe v Wade as my own country's problem.
Really? If your friends in Saudi Arabia have better access to abortion than you, I can only conclude that they or their babies have/had physical or mental impairments because those are the only instances where abortion is allowed. If there is no risk to the mother's life, it is illegal in Saudi Arabia.
You're welcome to read the below article for proof that parts of the US have more restrict abortion laws than Saudi Arabia. I'm not going to walk you through it as I assume you can read this for yourself.
If you really want to know how many people are against abortion in every U.S state, you can view this source:
I did view this source. 28 out of 50 states had a 50% or greater percent of their surveyed population saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Again, you offer me evidence of my own point -- most Americans support abortion.
I have decided that as a parent, I have less value than my children. I would even say that every child, and certainly baby, has more value than me.
How wonderful for you that you were allowed to make this decision. How tough it would be for you if the government were to make it for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
You're the first one to actually try to give me an example of a mother offing her kid a week before birth, so I congratulate on that.
Unfortunately, an article about a serial killer than only mentions the occurrence of "late-term abortions" does nothing to tell us why the women had the abortions, whether the fetuses were compatible with life, or any of the other details that would prove women routinely off their children for no other reason than funsies two days before their due date.
And the slippery slope argument has been a favorite for those against change as long as change has been a thing. I was raised conservative, and the slippery slope was the reason we couldn't make gay marriage legal, the reason we couldn't have a black president, the reason we couldn't add the covid vaccine to the long list of already required vaccines for healthcare workers, etc. Not one of the doomsday prophesies these slippery slopers made came true when the change they feared occurred, so to be frank, I don't care about any slippery slope. It's another thing pro-lifers cling to in order to justify their beliefs when faced with current reality.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm interested that you only see Correctional and Abuse as the two categories of parent-child relationship.
Which category does it fall into when a parent encourages their child's artistic endeavors? it's not correctional, as there are no social expectations to enforce, but if not done correctly the child's creativity will be crushed, perhaps for their entire lifetime.
I agree that there's a motivational difference between abuse and correction, but if you're saying correction can never be abusive, I disagree. If a child is screaming in the supermarket, there's a difference between beating them and helping them recognize the emotions they're struggling with and offering healthy ways of coping/self-regulating. While the ultimate goal may be correction (because no one wants kids screaming in the supermarket), beating teaches a kid nothing other than "I get beat when I scream" whereas proper coping discipline will follow them throughout the entirety of their life.
This is also a mindset we only see with children. Children scream in anger and frustration and we beat them. When adults scream in anger and frustration, it's a crime to beat them .
It's my belief we often prefer the beating method (even if the beating is minor) over the educational method because we culturally enjoy the idea of punishment and we also think adults deserve to unleash their feelings of embarrassment and frustration on a child. Even if the adult's motivation was correctional in beating the child, the end result is abuse.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I've really been respecting you, you know.
Just casually admitting that you cherry-picked disappoints me.
If you know it's a weak point for you, then listen to people who are strong in that area rather than clutching at straws to prove your own point.
Utah is the Mormon state, Florida is a Right state.
I don't understand the relevance of this. I agree states don't keep the best documents on who aborts and why, but that's why we listen to things like the study you just linked. That's why we listen to women who have gone through it. That's why we listen to the doctors who have done the procedures. The stories are out there, you just have to be willing to listen and accept them.
Back to a repeated point of mine -- live in reality long enough and you'll end up being pro-choice. Continue to live in the theoreticals and what-ifs and cozy philosophical musings if you want to stay pro-life.
Created:
-->
@Shila
So why is your test about locking pro-lifers in a burning building and forcing them to make life saving decisions?
Because they volunteer themselves to make such grave decisions all the time. What's one more?
The entire pro-life position is founded on "I know better than you regarding this difficult decision".
Pro-lifers want to save all life.
Then go save it.
Out of all the people groups in the world that have pled for help, not a one of them was an unborn child. Go pay attention to the thousands begging you to and stop obsessing over the one that doesn't need or want you.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Did you read your own study? Look at this part:
The Foster-Kimport study excluded for comparison an unidentified number of women who had abortions for reasons of life endangerment or fetal anomaly, a significant limitation.
The Foster-Kimpart study is not a study to prove that "late-term abortions" occur for reasons other than fetal anomaly and/or life endangerment. It is a study which explores when abortions are had and why and by what type of mothers. It does not say "later term abortions are not being had for reasons of life endangerment and/or fetal anomaly." It says "that is not the group we are studying." Obviously, as the quote above indicates, that group exists, but it's not the focus of the study.
The conclusion of the study, word for word was "Bans on abortion after 20 weeks will disproportionately affect young women and women with limited financial resources." This is a pro-choice study, pointing out that abortion bans disproportionately affect the young and the poor.
life endangerment are even harder to characterize.
This is the only part of your reply that makes sense. Yes, determining when a pregnant person is "dying enough" to warrant medical intervention is difficult. Why then, would we want anyone apart from the most trained to make that decision? Why would we want the government's input, or your input, or mine, when there are doctors in hospitals to make those decisions?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
The 2nd reply, in which I clarified I had misread your post,But then stated 'even if a person pregnant felt trapped,I'd be uncomfortable letting them terminate their unborn at certain stages.
You're right I missed this reply. Apologies.
If a mother was 10 minutes from birth, fully formed ready for birth unborn,And she said nah, I suddenly don't want to,
Rest assured, this is not happening anywhere. No mother is offing their child 10 minutes before birth. 10 minutes before birth, in most cases, is active labor.
I welcome strange scenarios and extreme examples to make foundational points, such as my building on fire scenario proving we innately value the born over the unborn.
I would, however, recommend valuing real scenarios (such as women dying in childbirth, or children dying in utero) over imaginary scenarios such as offing the child in the middle of labor. Those two scenarios cannot be given equal consideration because one is happening in the real world and the other is only in the realm of our wonderings and musings. If you aren't unsure of what's really happening and what's not really happening, I invite you to look for information from involved parties -- women, gynocologists, abortion clinic workers, etc.
Though I'd still be uncomfortable killing the unborn, and rather the risk be taken,I would see it as the mother's choice.
Welcome to being pro-choice.
No one is saying that all pro-choicers are comfortable with every woman's decision. No one is saying that all pro-choicers celebrate abortions.
Being pro-choice is acknowledging that in spite of my discomfort the choice is not mine. Pro-choice is saying "I don't agree with you, but that doesn't matter." Being pro-choice is saying "I don't think you're facing enough risk to terminate the pregnancy, but since it is your pregnancy and not mine, I do not get to determine what level of risk you must endure. That choice belongs to you and you alone."
to the point I'd step out of the question and leave it for others to decide,
I humbly invite you to consider why you think you'd ever have a right to step into the question.
As I said above, I'm not saying you have to like it, feel comfortable with it, agree with it, or morally support it. I am saying that your likes, your feelings, your morals have no place in the decisions of others. By stepping into the question you are asserting in that moment "My feelings/like/morals are now important enough for me to dictate them to you whether you share them or not". The arrogance of such a statement is significant.
let the law give her unlimited freedom of choice.
Even if the law gave the mother the unlimited freedom of choice, she'll still need a doctor. She can't abort by herself, so her options will still be regulated by the opinions of someone versed in medicine (both the science and the ethics). This is why the extreme "offing a kid ten minutes before birth" is such nonsense. Doctors won't do that even if there was an insane woman who wanted them to. It baffles me that pro-lifers get so hung up on a thing that never happens in real life.
Personally I think a large problem in this discussion, are the terms Pro Life and Pro Choice
I think there's some truth to this, to be sure, but it's mainly a lack of communication problem.
Pro-lifers central hang-up on the term pro-choice seems to be that they believe we're advocating for choice without bounds, even the bounds of reality. They routinely ignore the facts of gestation, the laws surrounding bodily autonomy, and the lived experiences of others so they don't realize we value those things. We opt for choice within the facts of science, within the consistency of the law. Your example of "aborting" a kid ten minutes before birth has nothing to do with being pro-choice, because 1) it ignores the science of how birth works 2) it ignores current medical ethics codes and 3) it's not a thing that's really happening.
Pro-choicers central hang up on the term pro-life is that the stance inherently values one life over another so the term is a misnomer. You can't tell someone "your life matters so little to me that I feel I should get to dictate how you live it" and then say "but we just value life". Pro-lifers value the fetus's life over the mother's almost without exception, so pro-life should really be more like "pro-fetus" or "pro-baby". Add in the fact that pro-lifers usually don't support laws that would make life better for the child they insist has to be born, and pro-choicers end up wondering what "life" they're even "pro" about.
Created:
-->
@Shila
A true pro-life person would try to save the 40 embryos instead of the single child. The single child can easily be replaced by 40 others.
This is a true statement. A true pro-life would let the child die to save the embryos. My point was there are no true pro-lifers, because no one would make that choice in the example I gave.
Pro-lifers want to save the millions.
Lol, that is exactly my point. Pro-lifers have a savior complex, and think the warm fuzzies they get from "saving babies" is of more importance than the rights of the women they stomp all over in the process. There are thousands of people groups that need saving, yet no one is out picketing and passing laws to save those groups. Pro-choicers realize that starting from a place of "I need to save them" when no one asked for their help is sanctimonious at best. We acknowledge that difficult decisions are best made by the people who will be affected by those decisions, not by self-righteous people that think they have a right to judge another's choices.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
People don't like it when parents kill their children.
I spent the entire night thinking about this line. It sums up the folly of pro-life to me, as I don't believe that anyone truly thinks embryos and children are equal.
Let's pretend we could somehow lock the pro-lifers on this thread in a burning building. The room to your left contains an 8 year old. The room to the right contains 40 stored embryos. You only have time to save one room before everyone in the building dies. If everyone that says "an embryo is the same as a child" truly believes that, then they would save the 40 stored embryos without hesitation. 40 to 1, right? The choice is obvious.
I do not believe that anyone, in the heat of a life or death moment, would choose to abandon an 8 year old kid to save 40 embryos, not even if the person making the decision were the mother of the child and the embryos. Because, in life or death moments our true beliefs act themselves out in a way they don't on debate forums. On debate forums we say things that make ourselves look and feel good -- in life or death moments we act as the person we truly are beneath all the decorations.
In fact, I daresay most people would actively try to a save a dog before they'd prioritize saving the 40 embryos.
This is an extreme example, but it makes my point. No one truly believes that an embryo is a child. In every other aspect of life what we are now is more significant than what we will be in 9 months. I can't vote just because I'll be 18 in 9 months. I can't sleep with a minor just because they'll be an adult in 9 months. I can't drink just because I'll be 21 in 9 months. Pro-lifers ONLY argue that the future equals the present in abortion debates, which to me says they don't actually believe it even then.
I originally asked for non-religious opinions because I associated the self-delusion I always see in pro-life arguments with religion. I have definitely learned something, as apparently the non-religious are just as capable of self-delusion as the religious. That's not directed at you specifically, but more so pro-lifers at large. You're the only person who has admitted the validity of some of my points even if you don't like them. You haven't told me if you'd be comfortable dictating the use of a woman's uterus if you were speaking to her directly, though, so I am bemused by your willingness to discuss things inasmuch as they stay in the realm of theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
When I said I wanted to talk to pro-lifers without religion, I genuinely thought I would get away from the braindead lines of thought conservative Christians use. I am surprised to discover that braindead people exist outside the realm of religion. Let me point out everywhere you have ignored reality.
How does them being dead make any logical sense? Why would you need to stab them if they're already dead?
Dude. Babies die in utero. How do you think they get dead babies out of a mother? You would need to stab an already dead baby to get it out of mom before it kills her. I am well aware of what a D&E is, apparently more so than you, because I know it is a procedure often used to remove a dead or dying baby from inside mom. That's why the status of the baby matters. You still haven't given me your source and you've only thrown out that the baby is alive to make your point. You want the baby to be alive because it sensationalizes your point. You can't just pick and choose details of a situation to cement your point. It 100% matters if the baby is dead or alive prior to the D&E.
What if the child is 17 and we know that in 9 months time they will become a fully healthy human being?
How do you think this supports your point? If a child is 17 they are still a child and still under their parent's legal authority. It works this way for everything.
We don't let people smoke at 17 years and 3 months. They have to be 18.
We don't let people drink at 20 years and 3 months. They have to be 21.
We don't let people sleep with a minor that will be an adult in 9 months. They have to be an adult first.
There is no scenario in which what you will be in 9 months is more important or relevant than what you are right now. Just like an embryo is an embryo and not the child it will be in 9 months.
but what if the mother doesn't want the baby to be born because the act of giving birth is too painful . . . I'm just testing for your consistency. And yes, these cases happen.
Show me one documented case where a woman carried to the last week of her pregnancy and then said "meh, screw it, let's kill the baby." I guarantee you you will not find one.
If a woman doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy she's not going to wait until she's already gained the weight, developed gestational diabetes, her bones have shifted, she now pees 6 times an hour, and hasn't pooped in 3 weeks before terminating. At that point she's already gone through pregnancy. You can't say "well she doesn't want to go through the pain of birth" because there's no pain free way to get a 9 month old fetus out of a woman. All her choices that far along will be painful. No abortion in the history of ever has been done because mom wanted to avoid the pain of a vaginal delivery. At most, they would deliver the baby via C-section (ie, BIRTH IT) instead of vaginally.
If an abortion is happening very late in the pregnancy it is 100% a wanted child, probably one already with a name. Something is wrong medically with the baby, or the delivery will be a tremendous risk to mom, and now the family must make an impossible decision. A decision, in fact, which will be not be benefitted from your uneducated opinion.
Additionally, do you have such a low opinion of doctors that you think they'd agree to stab a baby that would otherwise be born next week even if for some bonkers reason mom wanted to?
Why does being pro-life require fabricating dramatic situations that literally never happen while repeatedly ignoring ones that happen frequently? On this thread I have been told that pregnancy causes no harm (blatantly false) and that mothers are routinely offing their babies two days before their due date for no other reason than funsies (blatantly false). I've been told we stab baby chests just because mom doesn't want to go through a pregnancy, ignoring the scientific fact that if a chest exists to stab then the pregnancy has already been gone through. I thought I would hear from non-religious pro-lifers with a level of logic usually decimated by religion, but it's the same emotionally charged garbage that ignores how the world works scientifically just for the chance to get to tell women if they don't use their bodies the way you deem fit they're terrible human beings. We can 100% have different morality but we can't have different facts.
Sorry but, a decision has been made and you have to go through with it.
You don't believe this. Or I guess, if you do, it amuses me greatly. I assume you don't believe this because, if you stick to your own morality and if you're not actively trying to become a parent, that means you aren't actively having sex. The idea that no one on the pro-life side is getting laid unless they're trying to become parents would explain why they all seem to be so angry though. Because remember, we've established that even if birth control fails, you consented to being a parent by getting undressed. So either you really believe this and only have sex in an attempt to become a parent, or you don't believe this (as you have sex without the intent of parenthood) and you're a hypocrite.
Another thing you say and dno't truly believe: embryos and born children are equal in worth.
Let's say you're trapped in a building that's on fire. To your left is a room with an eight year old. To your right is a room with 40 stored embryos. No one on this thread, in the heat of their instincts, is going to think saving those 40 embryos is the right choice. Everyone, without fail, will go for the living child because we all instinctively know that an actual person is more valuable than a potential person, or even 40 potential people. If the person trapped in the fire was the mother of the 8 year old as well as the 40 embryos, we would all expect her to save her actual child over her potential children. The only time we ever say "that embryo is the same as an 8 year old" is during abortion debates because pro-life is apparently predicated on the idea that women making their own choices is an evil, selfish act and we have to vilify her as much as possible.
The entire point of pro-choice is "Reproduction is a morally gray area, and one that's full of difficult decisions. Because of this difficulty, no one should get a say worth more than that of the mother, as she is the being capable of making a choice that will be most affected by said choice." Pro-lifers believe this too, because they would lose their minds if the government legally required them to abort the child they wanted . Pro-lifers understand the government's place is not my uterus, but they're okay with using the government to proscribe their holier-than-thou attitude onto other people because it makes them feel good about themselves and because the unborn are the easiest group on the planet to abdicate for, as long as you're willing to ignore a little bit of science.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
The connotations of "conditioning" aren't good ones lol. I don't think we should brush things off as simple "conditioning" of children.
I'm fine with education, but most people interact with children from a me-first approach rather than taking time to understand how to actually educate children. If a 6 year old lies to a parent and a parent smacks them, you haven't told them not to lie. You've taught them to not to lie to the parent. There's been no discussion on why lying is generally bad, you've only said "lying to this person gets you smacked." The child may indeed stop lying to that person, but no moral education has been done.
We take this approach to education because we generally value the experience of the adult over the experience of the child. True education requires meeting a child where they are and leading them in a new direction, and we're generally pretty terrible at that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Novice_II
Personally, I don't know what form of would be better, I just interpret very obvious harms of Democracy that exist currently, and remain open towards looking for ways to control them.
I see the logic to this, but calling something a "harm of democracy" means nothing other than revealing your own sense of morality. You say slavery was a harm of democracy. If I thought slavery was a good thing, I would see emancipation as a harm of democracy and so on. You can certainly call things you disagree with "harms of democracy" but it contributes little to the reality people are living in.
If there is not an internal contradiction, and the position just leads to conclusions which I am satisfied will deter people from accepting those views, that could also lead me to conclude that if most people rationalized the issue they would become pro life.
Translation: If it's logical but leads to conclusions people won't like, then most people will ignore what they don't like in favor of what they do, regardless of truth.
I do agree with you there. It is all over this thread. No major revelation there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Gotcha, thanks.
I do agree abortion is a moral issue but it's also a legal one.
So you can see from my comment I don't see morality and law as exclusive. Morality undoubtedly shapes law, but there is a distinction between the two. We morally tend to agree that lying is wrong, but we only make laws for those that lie in court and not when children lie to their parents. We morally tend to agree that cheating is wrong, but we make laws about cheating in the stock market and not cheating at board games. We morally tend to agree that stealing is wrong, but we make laws about grand larceny and not a kid slipping money from grandma's purse.
I think the central difference between what we leave as moral questions and what we deem as concerns for the law is impact -- the number of people affected, the gravity of the effect overall, and the implication to society as a whole. We don't make laws about children lying because rarely are a great number of people are affected on a large scale and society sees minimal long term impact. We make laws about people lying under oath because it effects everyone involved in the trial and challenges the authority of the court.
So specifically for abortion, there's 100% a morality concern. Moving it into the legal sphere moves it into a larger realm of thought. Pro-choicers typically don't care what your morality is -- believe and do whatever you think is best for your family. The point of contention for pro-choicers is when pro-life people bring the issue (which only affects the family of the fetus in question) into the larger realm and start dictating their own morals through the mouthpiece of government. That's why it feels so all or nothing for us. If we live in a pro-choice society, then both sides of the argument get to make the best decision for their families. If we live in a pro-life society, no one gets to make what they believe is the right choice except the minority in power.
I also think it's important to note that law typically reflects the demographic in power more so than the given country at large. This makes it especially harmful when the demographic in charge plows ahead without consideration for other demographics, because they're inherently making into law their own flavor of morality, often at the expense of another flavor of morality. That's how things like systemic racism come about -- not through crazy racists shouting slurs but through decades, even centuries, of laws being made to cater to white morality while ignoring the moralities of other people groups.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
People don't like it when parents kill their children.
I asked you earlier if you, Lemming, would tell me specifically that I have to be trapped in a pregnancy because you do not see me as being trapped. Did I miss your answer to that?
Let's narrow the conversation down from "people" to you and I. If I am pregnant and tell you "I don't want to be pregnant, I feel trapped" are you comfortable telling me "I don't see you as trapped and therefore you must stay as you are"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Hence me saying, quite accurately, you would support killing a literal child who is past 9 month at development with the only justification being that some chord is still attached to its mother is just a fundamental disagreement.
Where is your quote from? I'd like to read the original source since you've yet to answer my question on whether or not this baby is alive before the D&E.
It would be born, but under the pro-choice position, you would forbid that (just as how you forbid 24 week unborns to be killed) and instead let it be aborted, correct? It's a simple yes or no. If the above circumstance is given to you, and the unborn is perfectly healthy but the mother does not want to go through with the very painful pregnancy, would you allow the doctor to pull the child half way out and dismember its chest?
I don't understand this at all. Pro-choice forbids nothing, it allows the person capable of choice to make the choice. So for a simple "yes or no", no, I would forbid nothing and let mom decide with appropriate medical guidance. If mom 'doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy' then there's no chest to dismember as it hasn't had time to develop. If there is a chest to dismember and the fetus is still alive, it'll just be born. Where are people aborting fully formed fully healthy fetuses on week 38? Does being pro-life hinge on these "examples" that don't happen?
Well now you are creating a wholly different situation to the one being discussed. I am talking about perfectly healthy unborn children and you are comparing it to those who are in the situation where they could have a plug pulled, implying they are probably comatose.
If it's perfectly healthy, then it can go be perfectly healthy without the use of my body.
If it will die without my body, then it is akin to a child on life support (ie, unable to survive without life-sustaining assistance) which we already allow parents to make decisions about. I'm sorry you don't like that, but it is the current fact of our world -- parents get to make ALL medical choices for their children, even ones that put the child's health at risk.
Since you generally seem so concerned about the autonomy of children, I hope you speak out against child abuse, school shootings, sex trafficking, and other things that put born children in danger as fervently as you speak out for the nonexistent autonomy of the unborn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Novice_II
That being said, it seems to me that most people would become pro life if they actually rationalized the issue.
I take it you think none of my previous comments are rational then? I'd be interested to know your thoughts.
I just see it as one of the continuous harms of democracy.
This interests me too. What other harms of democracy do you see? What form of government do you think would work better?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
Do you actually believe what you're writing?
Yes, I do, but I think I understand why you have trouble believing that I'm writing my own beliefs.
A difference between you and I seems to be that I don't center my own experience as "normal" or "fact".
You said "It's just a fact that pregnancy is not harmful, because it does not result in harm to your body." Literally everyone knows this is not true. Pregnancy can and does result in harm sometimes. I'm happy it didn't harm you, but I know many women that it did harm. You've centered your own experience over the well-documented experiences of others in order to justify your position. Because for "It's just a fact that pregnancy is not harmful, because it does not result in harm to your body" to be true, that would mean every women that has reported a pregnancy-related harm is lying, every doctor that has signed deaths certificates of women who've passed away during labor is lying, every single dad raising the child that killed their wife is lying, and the list goes on.
My beliefs are difficult for you to believe because I see the world as it is, not as how I've experienced it. Because when someone, especially hundreds or thousands of someones, tell me something, I believe them even if it contradicts my current perception of the world.
If you think pregnancy causes harm to women, you should ask yourself why the planet is so vastly populated and how humankind has made it this far.
Really? Didn't study history much, did you? You think human history regarding pregnancy and childbirth is warm and fuzzy?
The chances of getting pregnant when using a contraceptive method like the injection, with your male partner also wearing a condom, are extremely slim.
I never said otherwise. I said it can and does happen. The way every pro-lifer has dismissed this reality is convincing me that one can only be pro-life by ignoring certain portions of the human population.
When birth control does fail because sometimes it does, I don't think it rational or logical to force someone to go through something they were clearly trying to avoid, especially when it will result in an unwanted child in a world swimming with unwanted children.
I never said it wasn't "most", I commented that support wasn't unanimous.
Your exact language was "most in this context seems excessive." It's not excessive if it's the literal definition of the word.
In Europe, the U.S is considered as being a nation where the population is truly divided on the matter of abortion, to the extent that it is acknowledged that significant numbers of people are highly likely to be against abortion.
Lol, this is true. I'm surprised you pointed out that most of our ally countries think we're insane for gutting abortion rights. I have friends in Saudi Arabia that have better access to abortion than I do and my Japanese friends think our instance on birthing regardless of consideration of circumstance is cruel and inhumane. The world does see us as highly divided but the world largely agrees with pro-choice Americans. In fact, since 2000 only two countries in the world have made abortion access more restrictive -- the US and Nicaragua. Every other country that implemented a change moved in the direction of less restriction. The global trend is pro-choice,
What will you say then, oh person who thinks that a consensus around suicide prevention can be compared to the (lack of) consensus around abortion?
I don't understand this question. I never spoke to a general consensus on suicide prevention, I shared my personal opinion.
That states have acted on Roe v. Wade no longer being in existence by changing their abortion laws *with* support from people living in those states,
This is false. The only state that has given the people a voice (allowing them to vote directly on the issue) is Kansas, and the majority voted to keep abortion legal.
Some of the laws in other states were left on the books for decades (nine states having laws left over before Roe even existed), before huge portions of the current population was even born, and triggered into effect by the overturn of Roe. Nearly 50% of Americans are millennials or younger, meaning roughly half the people living under pre-Roe trigger bans in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Wisconsin weren't even alive when the law was made. That isn't "support from the people living in those states". That's a power-hungry minority using convenience to their advantage.
If every state let their people vote today on whether or not abortion would be legal, that would be letting the people speak to what they support. And almost all, if not all, states would vote to make it legal.
A secondary issue is that it refers to children only, whereas I would like to know what you think of a conjoined twin who is an adult not giving their consent to a surgical separation. As previously stated, they could be disabled or unable to talk/write for whatever reason, but know that they do not want to undergo surgery and be separated.
Our conjoined twin conversation started because you were using it as an example of one person's bodily autonomy being forcibly sacrificed in favor of another. In your example, where two adults are conjoined, one wants to be separated. I'm confused on your perception of the second. I believe you're telling me that the second twin has somehow, despite their disability, clearly communicated their desire to not be separated, meaning we have two adults in disagreement. Like every other adults with disagreements, they'll need to talk it out and come to an understanding. I don't understand how you think this relates to abortion, as a pregnant person is unable to talk it out and come to an understanding with the fetus. A more appropriate example would be that the second twin is completely unable to communicate and we therefore have no idea if they want to be separated or not. If that were the case we would have no way of knowing if separation or remaining joined would violate the autonomy of the second twin, as they can't communicate with us.
These parents want to save at least one child so they can look after it, and so are prepared to lose one to save the other one.
So if we have child A and child B, it's okay to risk the life of child A to help child B. But if we have child C and adult D, it is never right to risk the child to save the adult? I thought we'd established that adults and children have the same value, not that one is more valuable than the other?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
100% Pro Choice would be allowing the mother to terminate her unborn at any point for any reason, I'd think.
Genuinely, this isn't meant to be snarky.
But who do you think you are that you can allow a mother to do anything?
Why do her motivations have to meet your standards in order to be valid, particularly since her decision either way won't affect you at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
Also as an addendum, I invite you to look at this case of separating conjoined twins.
I'd like to highlight this part in particular
"The ethics committee ultimately concluded that a decision to proceed with surgery was ethically supported and preferable to not performing the surgery. Given the emotional weight of the decision and the conflicting views, though, we believed that the operation should not be required. This meant it came down to the family’s wishes and the surgical team’s willingness."
So, despite risks to the children up to and including death, the doctors deferred to the family's wishes. They told the family one twin would likely die, the family opted to go ahead with the surgery, and the predicted twin died. The parents consented to and asked for the procedure that killed one twin.
The article goes on to say the living twin grew healthy and happy. "I asked her parents if they had any regrets. Absolutely not, they said. They felt like they had been in the best hands for the worst situation."
So, the bodily autonomy of two children was affected, the parents made a decision, and that decision resulted in the death of one child. No one was prosecuted for a crime. We already allow parents to make difficult medical decisions for their children, even when death is a risk. All pro-choicers want is that same consideration. Let me make my decisions for my family, with the input from medical professionals if needed, and stay out of my business. Difficult decisions often have to be made when reproduction is involved. We just want to be free to make them.
If the parents of two conjoined children can decide to risk the death of one twin for the health of the other, then I can decide to risk the death of a fetus for my own health.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
There are people who are Pro Life, who are willing to accept exceptions,Such doesn't make them Pro Choice, I think,
It 100% makes them pro-choice. If you would ever say "this is a difficult situation that should be left to the choice of the mother" you are pro-choice.
Creating two viewpoints, that whirl about one another, black and white thinking, no room for concession,
I agree we've been divided by politics hoping to use us against each other, but let's look at the options logically. If I am saying "the mother should have the right to choose" and believing that makes me pro-choice, then the opposite would make me pro-life. The opposite of "the mother should have the right to choose" is "the mother should not have the right to choose."
This is the core argument -- Should the mother have the right to choose? If you think so, then you are pro-choice.
I personally wouldn't care if we threw the terms pro-choice and pro-life out the window and asked instead "Do you think the government should override my decisions on what I do with my uterus?" It's a yes or no question and so far every pro-lifer I've spoken to on here has said "yes".
Any other detail is overcomplicating a matter for no other reason than to make ourselves feel better about the harsh biological reality of reproduction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
This is certainly the case with women who think their need to not carry their offspring that will not harm them,
So if I say "being pregnant and giving birth will cause me harm" and you say "no it won't" I'm supposed to listen to you because I am mentally ill. You have a very low opinion of women.
Regardless, pro-choice women aren't asking for a perfect world with no regrets or no harm. We're asking for the freedom to make our own choices so that if there is regret, it will be regret we chose. I'd rather terminate a pregnancy of my own volition and regret it later than be forced to give birth and regret it later.
Using this contraception as advised, in addition to using condoms to be even more safe, will stop you from getting pregnant.
Right, of course. There's never in the history of humanity been a pregnancy conceived while contraceptives were in use. Silly me, I guess I'll go tell those kids I know that they can't exist because Mommy was on the pill and Daddy used a condom.
Contraceptives fail all the time, even when used correctly. Stick to reality, not wishful thinking.
If it wasn't separate, you wouldn't need to abort it when you don't want it.
If it's separate, then by definition it can go away. "Separate entities" exist in two different places at once. Try taking a fetus out of a woman and putting it in the next room if it's so separate. If it dies without me, it's not separate from me. This is simple logic.
If the roles were reversed and men could get pregnant, would you ardently support them having abortions because of "my body, my choice", or would you believe that women should have a say in the matter?
Yes, of course. If men were the sex that have to use their bodies to grow new life then I would say men should have the choice to get abortions or not. The parent, whether man or woman, that is not carrying the child inside of them doesn't get to tell the carrying parent what to do. They don't own the child simply because they share DNA, and the person carrying the pregnancy owes them nothing in terms of providing them with a baby.
I'm still amazed that you haven't realized that it's a body in your body, and that this is why many people have a problem with abortion. It's not just your needs that are important when you have another human body in you. Even an embryo or a very small fetus is its own "body."
I know it's a body. I have never said it is not a body. I have said it is a human body more than once and like every other human body on the planet it is not entitled to the use of my body if I do not consent to it. People can have all the problems they want, but unless it's their body in question, their "problems" should not be used to make decisions.
Being disabled or having special needs would make it difficult for them to voice their view, and their twin may try to take advantage of that.
Tred carefully here. You're very casual in using groups to which you don't belong to prove your point. If I told you I was disabled, would you casually throw my demographic in our conversation?
Disabled people can communicate. Maybe not the way we want or expect them too, but certainly moreso than a fetus. It's rather heartless of you to suggest disabled people can't communicate more than an embryo can.
"Most" in this context seems excessive when you consider that it's only around 60% of Americans who, as of this year, say they support abortion. If there was such unanimous support for this practice, Roe v. Wade wouldn't have been overturned.
60% is "most" by every definition of the word. Roe was overturned by a handful of people that the average American had no influence over and did not reflect current popular attitudes. I guarantee if we put it up to a national vote, the majority of Americans would vote for it to be legal.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Abortion relieves that trap I suppose,Though some people are never freed of the guilt and shame of their action,Depends on beliefs and values.
Yes, it does depend greatly on beliefs and values.
All we ask from the pro-choice side is the freedom to legally act on those beliefs and values of our own. We're not asking for something that can't be promised, like a life with no regrets or guilt or shame. We just want to make choices for ourselves so that if there is regret, it was regret we chose and not regret forced us on by others.
I'm more inclined myself for people to move to states, where the laws reflect their personal values.
This will be impossible if the Republicans get their way and pass a national abortion ban. Even as things sit now, you saying "if you don't like, move" values the wealthy over the poor, as only those that can afford to leave can afford choice. If a national abortion ban passes, will your answer then be "move to countries where the laws reflect their personal values"?
I'm also inclined for there to be gray areas in Pro Life/Choice,Exceptions to rules exist,Situations where one or the other is acceptable, I'd imagine.
This is the definition of Pro-Choice. The relationship between mother and fetus is gray, so the mother's opinion matters more than anyone else's. We need to shape laws so that exceptions can exist, so that situations where 'one or the other is acceptable' can happen. So that choices can be made.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Though I don't view it as 'trapped,
So just to confirm, you believe that I, who would feel trapped by a pregnancy, should have to feel/be that way for nine months because you personally don't see me as trapped, and that this is the most morally good outcome of my situation. Yes?
I'm referring specifically to you and I, not random humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Is this question in reference to something specific I said in this thread, or are you asking about the nature of law in general?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
This is the crux of your reply:
But for many people, an unborn fully developed, moments from birth, is no different from a newborn.
The freedom of pro-choice is that if you believe an unborn baby equals a newborn than you have all the freedom in the world to act on that. Give birth to many kids, help many expectant mothers, adopt unwanted children, fight for maternal rights and parental leave. Make the world a better place for the unborn. No one is stopping you.
The challenge of pro-life is that if you do not believe an unborn baby equals a newborn you are trapped. Pro-choice traps no one, as everyone capable of making a choice is free to make it. It is an unfortunate reality that babies in utero aren't capable of making a choice, but saying "they should get the right to choose too" is ignoring reality and appealing to fantasy. I wish we could ask the unborn what we wanted, but we can't. It is folly to assume all children would wish to be born as all the living do not wish to be alive. Statistically, if we could ask the unborn what they wanted, some would choose not to be live. I will therefore not trap people for the sake of the theoretical and impossible to determine wishes of another.
By being pro-choice, I am saying "we don't share beliefs, but I support your right to act on them how you see fit."
By being pro-life, they are saying "I don't care if you agree with me, you will be legally forced to follow my beliefs."
Created:
I said people need to live out their contracts.
Employment is an "at will" contract in the US. Employer or employee can walk away from the contract at any time for any reason. There's no "proper" way to quit or be fired, there is simply "I'm done." Both parties can discuss what the separation will look like (like severance packages or 2 week notices), or one can walk away without saying another word. This includes jobs where people might die.
If you think I cannot walk away from a job I no longer want for any reason, then we're from different worlds. I don't owe my labor to anyone for any reason unless I choose to give it.
To keep your hospital analogy, do you think nurses/doctors should've been legally forbidden to leave their jobs during the pandemic since hiring replacements was near impossible and people were actively dying from covid?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
First, I'd like to thank you for your comment. You're the only pro-life leaning person on this thread that hasn't resorted to calling me names or coming up with ridiculous scenarios or making demonstrably false statements to prove their points. I appreciate your willingness for calm, rational discussion even if we continue to disagree.
Not a gotcha question,I seem to be confused at your use of the word autonomy.
I think people are misunderstanding the definitions of consent and bodily autonomy, so let's explore them.
To consent means "to give permission for something to happen". The common argument from pro-lifers is consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, so let's look at what that means. When I give consent to sex, I am giving permission to my sexual partner to do sexual things with me. It's not an irrevocable consent, as I can take my permission away for whatever reason I want, whenever I want. Consent must be able to be revoked, or it can't be given freely.
But who am I giving permission to when it comes to pregnancy? Surely not my sexual partner, that's simple misogyny. To the non-existent child? Can one give permission to someone who does not exist? Are there a line of baby souls somewhere in the universe that I'm saying yes to as I undress for sex? If there exists no one to give permission to, then I have not given permission. Consent must have an addressee.
Second, it's important to realize that we can't consent to natural processes. I can't give my stomach permission to digest or not to digest. I can't give permission for my kidney to filter my blood. I can't give my hair permission to grow. So how then am I giving permission for my ovary to release an egg? Sex is part of the baby making equation, and a part I can consent to. But I could have sex nonstop and never get pregnant if my ovaries didn't release an egg. So, can I ever truly consent to pregnancy when it requires a natural process totally outside of my control?
As said above, consent is not consent if it cannot be revoked. Even if we want to argue that I 100% consent to pregnancy by having sex, if I cannot choose to walk away from it, then it's a prison, not something I consented to. Consent is ongoing and can be revoked at any time. If it cannot be revoked, it is not consent. I think we get so caught up in the value of babies and the building of legacies and such that we fail to realize those babies and legacies should never come at the cost of imprisonment. Babies are great, legacies are great, but we need to shape the world in such a way that women want to be pregnant. We do a dishonor to ourselves and our own species by thinking reproduction without choice is a good thing.
For bodily autonomy, I think the mistake you're personally making it dropping the "bodily" part. Bodily autonomy is "is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies." It deals directly with the physical body. It's the idea behind "I own myself, and I'll do with myself as I desire." It is not "I need nothing from no one." The common pro-life rebuttal is "2 year olds can't take care of themselves so they aren't autonomous." Clearly if you think 2 year olds lack self-determination, you've never met one.
We all need people to help us live. But there's a difference between "I need someone to cut the corners off my sandwich" and "I need one person's heart to beat and circulate my blood." We need community, but we have the freedom to choose what community we'll belong to. We need shoulders to cry on, teachers to teach us, and friends to laugh with, but we have freedom to choose who those people are. Fetuses lack bodily autonomy because (even if they were capable of making a choice) they do not have choice. We can't say "well, mom is tired of breathing for the baby, it's dad's turn now." We can't say "mom's kidneys are failing, best move the baby to auntie for the time being." The fetus is inextricably linked to mom, will die without mom, and cannot find what it needs from someone else. Personally, I think this is a terrible design for reproduction, but what can you do?
In every need of a 2 year olds life, mom has the option to give that responsibility to someone else. She can delegate teaching to teachers, bathroom duties to dad, handle cooking herself, and so on. Pregnancy is not something that can be delegated. It is therefore a violation of mom's ability to choose what to do with her body by saying "no one else on the planet can do this, so you must do this, and you don't get to say no or change your mind." That is imprisonment.
If you drop "bodily" and just refer to "autonomy" that is more in line with the basic idea of freedom. Choosing what to eat, wear, what music to listen to, etc -- those are choices we all get to make. Imagine if there was only one song in all of existence. Would listening to that song be freedom? If my only choice is one song, it is not a choice. There must be an A to the B. Similarly, if my only choice is to be pregnant, then it's not a choice.
To say a woman deserves this lack of choice because a condom broke, a pill failed, a man raped her, or she just happens to fall into he small percentage of pregnancies that occur despite contraceptives is cold and callous. Why, if we value babies so much, would we want to bring one into the world under such negative scenarios? A baby should be cherished, loved, and wanted -- forcing it to be born to people that don't want it is cruel to all parties involved. Saying "well she can just put it up for adoption" is ignoring the very real stories of adoptees who suffered. Some adoptions are success, some are not, so to offer adoption as this painless solution is naive at best and intentionally dismissive at worst. And it still doesn't address the fact that, even in a successful adoption, the birth mother was denied choice for 9 months.
To go slightly off topic now, there's a strange assumption among pro-lifers that pro-choicers hate babies. I don't hate babies. I want to fix healthcare and education and make the US safe and fix parental leave and a million other things that would make life for babies and children better here. I don't see the point in screaming about someone's "right to life" when so many living suffer. When so many living die in preventable ways every day. When so many living wish for death because that seems better than the life they're living now. Why would I force a baby into such a world? Why would I see my only duty as making sure they're born?
One day, maybe we'll fix the planet and the living won't suffer. Fixing systemic issues would change the abortion debate considerably so, if I don't like abortion, it seems like a better use of my time to fight for poor mothers rather than nonexistent babies. It seems like a better use of my time to fight for healthcare so mom and baby can both be healthy rather than outlawing procedures I don't agree with.
Forced birth makes life better for no one. Being 'pro-life' should be about making life better, not making people miserable. And a central concept in a good life is the ability to choose how it will be lived.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Lol, okay if you think people shouldn't be able to legally quit their jobs we're going to be at an impasse. You clearly don't think people should be able to make decisions for themselves, so you go have fun with that kind of sad life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
There wouldn't be any point in having an army or entering a war if you don't think that you have value that is equal to or more than the value of the enemy.
We go to war over greed. The US didn't invade Iraq because we thought Americans were more valuable than Iraqis. We invaded because we wanted their oil. The humans living there were a side note. Judging someone's value requires acknowledging them, and we couldn't even do that.
You can't even really make an argument for the mental health of a woman who wants to abort her baby but isn't legally able to, as she can give it for adoption or just leave it in the hands of another person who does want it, after it is born.
So you think a woman saying "I do not want to go through pregnancy" is a sign of mental illness. Adoption does not prevent her from going through pregnancy. It is a solution to not wanting to parent, not a solution to not wanting to be pregnant.
In this scenario, who should get their way?
Your scenario doesn't answer my question. I said "Yes, because no one on this thread has given me an example of when we legal require one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another." There is no legal requirement in your conjoined twins example for one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another. We've legalized that all pregnant people forgo their bodily autonomy for 9 months for the sake of the unborn. There's no law that says "conjoined twins have to stay together/separate."
Even in your example you have two people both capable of giving an opinion -- they can discuss and come to a rational decision like adults. Abortion doesn't match this, as we can't ask the child if it wants to live. It can't even want anything as it doesn't have the mental capacity to do that. So you're painting the wants/desires of a person (the woman) as equal to the nonexistent wants/desires of a fetus in this analogy.
This law and the commonly held views associated with it mean more to me than what Uragirimono from this obscure site on the internet thinks. 😆
Awesome, so given that most Americans think abortion should be legal, glad to hear you're supporting choice now. A year ago "the law and commonly held views" allowed abortion in America, and pro-lifers still overturned it. If commonly held views is what decides what's right, I hope you'll join the majority and fight to get abortion access reinstated across the country.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
A baby is the same. You volunteered and signed the contract to take care of it should the situation arise. Just like the hospitals sign the contract to take care of the other people.
Just like all of your other examples, hospitals can change their mind -- they can deny someone service even if they already promised it. Individual employees can also quit and find new jobs. Contracts can be nullified. If they can't, they're prison sentences.
So if a hospital worker can consent to working and then say "never mind, I want to stop", how can a pregnant person who consented to being pregnant say "never mind I want to stop"?
Can you name another instance where a person, once they agree to something, is not legally allowed to change their mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Okay so the fact that you would support killing a literal child who is past 9 month at development with the only justification being that some chord is still attached to its mother is just a fundamental disagreement.
How the hell did you get to this from my statement of "I'd support the doctor choosing the best method of my removal. I'm not a doctor, so why would I allow or not allow any medical procedure? I'd trust someone actually trained to make the decision. " Are you a doctor? Do you know the best methods of removal or are you regurgitating the nightmarish nonsense politicians use to manipulate us? At no point did your question say it was past 9 months development, so now you're just adding things to sensationalize the discussion and make yourself sound rational (and me insane by extension)
Yes, but instead of letting the baby out, would you allow, at the mothers discretion, for doctors to pull the child half out, leaving their heads in, and penetrating it's chest with a pair of scissors (this is how 3rd trimester abortions can be done)?
Is it dead or alive? If it's already dead I don't care how it comes out, again, I'd let the people with the medical knowledge make that decision.
If it's alive, it's just gonna be born. Literally no one does this to 9 month old fetuses that are compatible with life. Why in the world would a woman go through the life-changing effects of pregnancy just to off it the day before birth?
Well I disagree fundamentally. At what stage would you say that the child has autonomy and that they can have a say as to whether they are on life support.
I'm interested that you think the government or other parties should be able to make decisions about a born child. If you disagree fundamentally that the parents should be the ones making medical decisions for their children, who do you think should be making them?
Children becoming legally capable of making their own medical decisions at 18, just like they become able to legally make other decisions for themselves at 18.
Giving consent is different from signing off their death.
No, it's not. Parents make medical decisions for their children, including when "to pull the plug" if such a scenario rises. Just because you don't like the moral implications or struggles that come with that doesn't mean it's not happening.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I am a huge proponent of contract law. When you know the risks involved going in, and you choose to accept those risks, then you must live with the risks you accepted.
So you support denying those in car wrecks treatment for their injuries (as they made a contract when they started to drive knowing a wreck was a risk), you support denying smokers who develop lung cancer medical treatment (as they made a contract when they started to smoke knowing cancer was a risk), and you support denying soldiers PTSD treatment (as they made a contract when they signed up with the military knowing medical trauma is to be expected).
No other decision is our society comes with "Well you knew the risk, so now you're stuck this way" except pregnancy. We do not deny medical care to anyone for any decision except this supposed decision to get pregnant. What makes that and that alone our exception?
Nobody would seriously consider killing their husband as an option.
No, but she would be completely legally able to divorce him and give his medical care to someone else. If she can step away from a husband she no longer wants, why can't she step away from a pregnancy she no longer wants?
Also, to equate sex with organ donation is a major fallacy.
I am not equating the action of having sex to organ donation. I am equating the use of my uterus, blood, bones, lungs, and brain to sustain another life (pregnancy) to organ donation.
This isn't just on the woman.
The biological fact of pregnancy is 100% on the woman. I am not speaking of the parenthood responsibility that begin 9 months after the child is born. I am speaking of who will supply to child with oxygen, blood, and nutrients in the 9 months after sex. No man, no matter how supportive, can assist with that.
Now, if an expectant mother finds a suitable person who would be willing to care for the child once it is born, that is perfectly fine.
Adoption is not a solution to pregnancy. It is a solution to parenthood.
it is appalling how the conversation completely dehumanizes babies and calls them fetuses and risks and unwanted.
I've said multiple times that fetuses are human -- that is the opposite of dehumanizing. Tell me how one human is entitled to the use of another's organs without their consent in such a way that they cannot step away from. Maybe give me an example other than pregnancy. And fetuses can be risks, depending on the pregnancy. Some are unwanted. These are facts. Sad facts, but facts nonetheless.
And the government decided to abort Jews, even though they already accepted Jews, gave them residence, and consented to their living in Germany.
Jews support abortion religiously, believing the life and health of the mother to be more important than that of the baby if/when one has to be prioritized over the other. This is a tone deaf exaggeration.
Created:
I can agree to a sliding scale, but there comes a time when we're speaking from two different scales completely.
I'd say the answer is the same as why a child is entitled to care by their parent
We can agree that a child is entitled to the care of a parent, but there are multiple societally-accepted (meaning legal and standardized, not necessarily universally cheered for) ways for parents to step away from their responsibilities to a child. A child can be put up for adoption, an individual parent can sign their rights away and never see the child again, a parent can pay someone else to tend to certain needs of the child they don't want to do.
If a parent caring for a born child is completely equal to a pregnant person giving the unborn life, then what are the societally-accepted options for stepping away from the responsibilities of pregnancy?
A person's body belongs to them, yet they must use that body to work and gain money, to change diapers, to buy clothing,
You have choice in when, how, and where to work, change diapers, or buy clothing. What is my choice regarding pregnancy if I can't step away from pregnancy? I am literally trapped for 9 months.
It's not that Pro Life people don't value autonomy
This thread is convincing me Pro-Life people don't understand the meaning of bodily autonomy.
Do you really think having a job in order to make money for your children is 100% equivalent to your child getting their oxygen from your lungs? Do you really think having to use your arms to make dinner for your child is the same as your heart pumping blood for your child? Do you really think going clothing shopping for your child is the same as giving up your bladder continence, your sight, your oral health, developing diabetes, or ripping from vagina to butthole for your child?
Raising born children takes sacrifice, no doubt. But it requires actions, not the literal use of one's body to sustain life. If, for some reason, a parent of a born child can't meet all its needs, other people can step in and help. No one can step in and help when the child is in utero. It is completely, without exception, dependent on the mother it's inside of. No parent is responsible for all the needs of their child once they're born, and we don't expect them to be. That's why we have doctors, teachers, coaches, friends, grandparents, and a whole host of other roles to help parents raise their child. But absolutely no one can breathe for the child in utero except the mother. Absolutely no one can supply the child in utero with blood and nutrients except the mother. Absolutely no one can give the child in utero what it needs to grow into an autonomous person,
That's the point of the bodily autonomy argument. A 2 year old has autonomy because, though it has needs, those needs can be meet by anyone, and the 2 year old's body will function regardless of who meets those needs. A 8 week old fetus does not have bodily autonomy because its body will not function without the mother.
Why then, do we force women who do not want to give life to someone using their very blood, lungs, and oxygen to do what no one else can do -- carry their pregnancy?
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Can you share your logic as to why the human in my uterus is entitled to its use?
I don't believe a fetus and a born person are equal, but you seem to, so let's assume that's true.
An 80 year old is not legally or morally entitled to use of my uterus.
An 8 year old is not legally or morally entitled to use of my uterus.
Why should an 8 week old fetus be legally and morally entitled to the use of my uterus?
Clearly, the answer can't be "because it needs it to survive". People in need of organ donations die every day while compatible donors go about their lives without a care in the world, yet no one things we should involuntarily harvest organs from the healthy.
Clearly, the answer can't be "because the mother put it there" when women can have all the sex they want without a man orgasming and no baby will develop.
Clearly, the answer can't be "because the baby is human" when we've established through your own words that the baby and mother are equally human.
So, assuming the full humanity of the baby, how does that change the fact that the mother has bodily autonomy and the baby has no right to her unconsenting body?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
I am arguing value, as a reason we don't kill or are not allowed to kill other humans is because they are seen as having value and society deems it wrong to harm other humans to the point of causing an unnatural end to their life.
This is demonstrably false. We already kill other humans is many socially acceptable ways and none of them are based on value. We don't execute prisoners because they're inherently less valuable than the rest of us. We don't go to war and bomb people because they're inherently of less value. We don't shoot people who break into our homes because they're of less value. Value does not determine who we're okay with killing in societal terms.
It's really stupid of you to believe that having the power to make a choice ought to result in that choice being accepted by everyone, including those with the ability to decide whether women should have access to legal abortions or not.
I don't care if my choices are accepted. I care when my choices are made illegal by the opinions of others. Shun me, scold me, hate me for getting an abortion all you want, I don't care. Don't limit my rights by making laws based on your feelings and we'll be good. What if I thought having more than one kid was immoral? How would you feel if I tried to ban multi-child families?
Do you actually think that we're allowed to do what we want with our bodies?
Yes, because no one on this thread has given me an example of when we legal require one group to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of another. Do you think marital rape should be legal? Do you think slavery should be legal? Do you think Christians should drag native children away from their families to re-education centers legally? All of these violations of bodily autonomy used to be legal and socially accepted, and then we grew as a people and said "no, you can't do that anymore." We've long accepted bodily autonomy is real and must be respected -- even you do so. You just exclude pregnant people from it, saying they must be legally required to forfeit their autonomy in favor of the unborn.
If that's the case, why can you be put in a psychiatric hospital against your will if you harm or attempt to harm your body? If it's your body, why won't people let you harm it?
You're assuming I agree with this. I agree with an individual's right to self harm and don't think suicide should be illegal. Counseling should be available and easily accessible for those who feel like they struggle with self-harm or suicidal thoughts, but it should not include involuntary confinement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
A right to life.
When outside of pregnancy and birth does one's right to life trump another's right to bodily autonomy?
Would you allow for the abortion of an unborn to be partially removed from the mother where head and torso is removed but umbilical chord remains attached?
I'd support the doctor choosing the best method of my removal. I'm not a doctor, so why would I allow or not allow any medical procedure? I'd trust someone actually trained to make the decision.
Would you allow 9 month abortions?
There's no such thing. Babies are born at 9 months.
Would you allow for the killing of babies who are tragically born with requirement of life support since they have no autonomy?
I would allow the parents to make decisions for that child, including taking it off life support. We already do this -- give parents the medical authority over their children -- so again me "allowing" it is irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
And abortion violates the unborn.
The unborn's what? They don't have bodily autonomy to violate.
Rape. The rapists autonomy and desire to rape is intervened by the interest or "favour" of potential victims.
Rape victims have bodily autonomy. By the alarming amount of rape mentions in this thread, it seems like the pro-life stance is "I get to rape people if you get to decide how your uterus is used". For what feels like the 100th time, your freedom ends where bodily autonomy of another begins. The unborn do not have bodily autonomy to violate, because they are not currently autonomous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
Point #2 is very important because in every single circumstance bar abortion, children are more important than female adults. Adults matter less than children, and certainly much less than infants, so why does that suddenly change when someone wants an abortion?
You're using "important" as if I've been arguing value. Adults and children are both valuable. But that value does not give anyone, adult or child, the right to use another's body without their consent. You're welcome to name a legal example where it does.
Why is it that when a woman wants to keep her baby, it is treated with the utmost care and consideration and all efforts are made to look after and embrace this baby by her, her family, her medical practitioners, and the rest of society, but when a woman decides that she doesn't want it it becomes this dispensible cluster of cells that is of no significance to her or the rest of us, and just needs to be disposed of in the most disgusting and brutal way?
Because it's her choice, and what the rest of us think don't matter. The "brutality" is besides the point -- birth is just as brutal as abortions, if not more so depending on gestation time, and yet "I don't want to be ripped open by a baby" isn't seen a valuable to pro-lifers.
It seems to me that women are getting to decide what life has value and what life does not have value, and that we as a society are having to go along with this incredibly toxic and weird notion because "women's rights, ya'll."
Again with the value thing. Women get to decide what happens to their organs in regards to all other people, including their children. It's not because they're more valuable, it's because no one's value exceeds another person's autonomy.
.t's just me and my right to expel that thing I conceived because it's MY body.
Correct, because I don't owe my organs to anyone, including my child. I get to decide what comes out, when it comes out, why it comes out, and how it comes out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I didn't say "body" I said "organs". There's a difference.
Murder, theft, and rape violate the bodily autonomy of others. You do not have rights to violate the bodily autonomy of others.
Name one law that takes bodily autonomy away from one group in favor of another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Name one that requires them to forgo their bodily autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
😂 😂 😂 😂
Let's try a yes or no question -- do you think your valuing of humans gives you authority to tell other humans what to do with their own bodies?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I like your ramblings. They're great to consider.
I'm most interested in this part.
A zygote, a fetus, an infant,Are they not all human?Not all to develop in that direction?Do I not value humans and people?
If you do value humans and people, what does that value look like in terms of the every day choices/actions you take regarding said people? How do you act on your value?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
So using biology and embryology, explain why my uterus should be subject to laws forcing me to share it outside of my consent when no other organ undergoes such legislation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
"The obvious impact of your change was on Christians."
What impact did I have on Christians by leaving their faith?
"Why do you think abortion will reduce pro-life Christians?"
I've never framed abortion as reducing any population. I don't understand this question.
Created: