Uragirimono

I think children are the most universally oppressed people on the planet. 

The pro-corporeal replies here have practically proven that convenience/comfort over adults is always valued over what actually helps a child grow into a healthy, functioning adult. 

I also think there's a bit of Stockholm Syndrome going on with most adults, because if we honestly admitted how much terrible stuff we do to kids, we'd have to admit how much terrible stuff was done to us and address the scars that were left. Most adults have no desire to do that. 

I didn't disagree, I asked for clarification. 

If spite is my motivator, whom am I spiteful towards?

Spite directed towards whom?

My exact question was "So how am I to act on my instinct to not reproduce if I am denied abortion care?"

Meaning "if I am pregnant right now and don't want to be, what options do I have?"

You say "Genetically and biologically it is a human being. No amount of personal feelings can change that fact."

We agree on this. But how does the fetus being a human being entitle it to the use of another human's body when that person does not consent to it?

"My body, my choice" stops at my bodily autonomy. Your bodily autonomy stops where mine starts. 

I'm not addressing your vibrator question any long, as it's gotten so far removed from the original topic that it's pointless. 

"If we amend the scenario, by saying that your dad only has a microscopic fraction of a chance of dying or of suffering any serious permanent health condition, then yes. He should have to do it."

Who in this scenario do we allow to define the risks? Who determines if the chance is microscopic or greater?

I would encourage child rapists and molestors to remember that consent is required for any sexual activity.

They cannot legally have sex with children because children cannot consent. 

Beyond that what they do is up to them. 

Consent must be given to someone, as two adults who say "yes" to each other before having sex. 

Who do I give my consent to pregnancy to?

You say" Person B has no responsibility to Person A in this scenario. Or at least, that's the obvious assumption. It doesn't apply to the parent-and-child relationship."

It does apply to the parent-and-child relationship. If Person B is my dad and Person A is me, do you believe my dad is killing me (and should be legally allowed to kill me) by denying me his liver? 

Whatever the level of sacrifice, I don't owe it to anyone. If I choose such sacrifice then yes, no problem. If such sacrificed is forced on me, I have bene violated. If these fathers you mentioned were forced to work til they died then they were violated. If mothers are forced to give birth and they die, they were violated. It's not an either/or situation. No one should be forced to sacrifice when they don't want to.

We can shun the cancer patient all we want -- that patient is still getting treatment. 

If abortion were allowed, I would not argue against the shunning of women who get it. The point is that the cancer patient gets treatment despite their decision and the pregnant person does not. Please explain why. 

I agree conservative approaches to sex education are miserable. Knowing that, I'm confused as to why you think abortion should be outlawed when so many people aren't given the information they need to make intelligent decisions for their bodies. 

Two people exist. Person A will die without the use of Person B's liver. Person B refuses because the process will cause risk and harm to themselves. Is Person B "killing a human" in your morality by making the choices that are best for their body? Should they have the legal recourse to make such decision in the first place?

Again, my sex choices are completely mine and I will not entertain suggestions. 

Why do I have to have sex in a way you approve of in order to maintain my own bodily autonomy?

I do believe morality exists. 

I don't believe your morality allows you to dictate my life. 

Perhaps I should clarify my point. If your definition of pro-life is "I personally would never have an abortion" then we don't really have a disagreement. You do you, I'll do me, life goes on. 

But pro-life in as much as "I will dictate how other women are treated" then it becomes my business, because your morality is now making decisions for me. What morality do you appeal to that allows you to make decisions for others about things that will never affect you personally?

Abortion is an alternative to pregnancy and healthcare. 

I've tried to sterilize myself for years and am repeatedly denied. 

I use contraceptives, but those aren't 100%. 

What other alternatives would you recommend?

Biology makes pregnancy an outcome of sex, yes. 

Biology makes lung cancer an outcome of smoking. 

We don't tell cancer patients "you consented to smoking and now are denied all healthcare to change your condition."

We do tell pregnant people "you consented to sex so you are now denied all healthcare to change your condition."

What's the difference between those two situations?

Things definitely become legal just because they're legal. 

There may still be moral questions, but legality determines legality. Governments determine legality, not some higher unnamed power. 

The laws of the US already make certain kinds of killing legal, so we as a culture have already established that killing is okay sometimes. We just disagree on when those times are. Which the question I'm trying to answer -- why, without religious appeals, is killing an unwelcome fetus something we should legislate?

I didn't say the condom ripped. It could have, or the pill could've malfunctioned, or half a dozen other things that can lead to an unplanned pregnancy. 

But that's not my point. I consent to sex by saying "yes" to the man I'm having sex with. 

If I'm also consenting to pregnancy in the same moment, who am I saying "yes" to?

Awesome. So how am I to act on my instinct to not reproduce if I am denied abortion care?

My sex life is great, thanks. I don't need or welcome your advice, or your implication that you know when/where/how I have sex based on my comments in this thread.

So your belief is the standard "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" it seems. Consent has to be given to someone. Tell me, while I'm undressing (and giving consent to sex to the man in front of me) who am I giving the consent to pregnancy to? 

So is my  "natural instinct as part of an evolutionary survival of the fittest trait" broken because I don't want children?

Does that open my body up to legislation from people that disagree with me?

I was a pro-life Christian. 

I am no longer pro-life nor Christian. 

I do find it ironic that the Christian God literally told people in the Bible to kill their babies/children, but "we shouldn't need God to tell you not to kill your babies".

I do agree abortion is a moral issue but it's also a legal one. We make laws on things people disagree about morally all the time, and we change those laws as popular morals change. This is why marijuana is now legal in many states, why interracial and gay marriage is legal across the US, and why child labor laws have evolved over time -- because our morality changes. 

We can 100% debate on the morality of abortion, but for me the more immediate problem/concern is a moral minority legislating their opinions on others. 

If I gave you the impression that I'm religious, I apologize.

I left the religion that abused me years ago and have no interest in finding another.

You say "The solution is never ever long-term in eliminating the fetus." 

I think you're speaking to systemic issues like lack of healthcare, poverty, lack of childcare/family support and, in that sense, I agree. Abortion would not be the point of contention that it is if we as a society were willing to make things surrounding pregnancy and childbirth better. 

But if the problem I'm trying to solve it "I don't want to be pregnant" then eliminating the fetus 100% solves my problem, both in the long and short term. On an individualistic level, why do we compel women who don't want to be pregnant (for whatever systemic reason) to be pregnant? What's the logical reason why we legislate how uterus-owners use their uteruses?

I want to hear from pro-lifers that are pro-life without religious reasons. I was raised in the conservative Christian US south, I am painfully well-versed in the religious reasons, but I'm curious as to what non-religious pro-lifers belief and why. 

I'm primarily framing this discussion within an American context but am open to hear from anyone.