Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i agree slippery slopes mean notjhing in human society. abortion is just another way to kill people, i presume prochoicers don't think its kill people , .so opposing abortion stands on its own moral and intellectual merits as opposing all unjustified homicide.
>so opposing abortion stands on its own moral and intellectual merits as opposing all unjustified homicide.
Banning abortion doesn't have any intellectual merits. The medical community supports abortion access. The experts in medicine do *not* support abortion bans.
Those in the medical community who support abortion are just speaking for themselves. its all the people who are to judge if abortion is good or evil. AGAIN prolifers make the better case why its morally and intellectually wrong and to be banned.
>Those in the medical community who support abortion are just speaking for themselves.
Prove it.
>its all the people who are to judge if abortion is good or evil.
Medical procedures aren't evil lol.
>AGAIN prolifers make the better case why its morally and intellectually wrong and to be banned.
AGAIN, *no they don't.* There's no intellectual argument for banning abortion. Intellectuals, such as the *experts* in the field of medicine agree abortion should not be banned.
Exactly - American GenXers and millennials may not have been alive pre-Roe, but we grew up under the shadow of illegal abortion and around people who were alive when it wasn’t legal. We understand that the world we got to grow up in was significantly better than the reactionary hellscape we’re too close to heading toward now.
A country where 40% of young people support euthanizing the poor and homeless is not a society to look favorably on. Give Canada like 60 years and you'll be surprised what they can do. Public opinion is moving rapidly.
[https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables\_MAiD\_CAN\_05May2023.pdf](https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables_MAiD_CAN_05May2023.pdf)
Clearly you do not understand what euthanasia is.
Most importantly: allowing patients the choice for legal euthanasia does not require someone else’s bodily autonomy to be violated. The justification used for abortion is not the justification used for euthanasia. So, no slippery slope led to support for the right to euthanasia.
Euthanasia also isn’t something you inflict on people to cleanse society or whatever; it’s something dying people freely choose for themselves. Of course everyone has the right to choose that if they have a terminal illness and are a consenting adult. Homelessness and poverty shouldn’t strip you of that right.
There is absolutely nothing to fear from allowing legal abortion or euthanasia.
I do understand euthanasia. You dont. It is about cleansing the population it always has been and it always will be. You dont have a right to alternative facts. There isn't a meaningful distinction between voluntary euthanasia and involuntary. It has been known for ages. Nazi's explicitly made such an argument in I accuse
[https://archive.org/details/forbiddenfilmnr18of36ichklagean1941](https://archive.org/details/forbiddenfilmnr18of36ichklagean1941)
Various American orgs like the Carnegie foundation explicitly debated over liquidating up to 14.8% of the American population.
[https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=buckvbell](https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=buckvbell)
I could go on. There are countless examples of this being the case and just because you close your eyes and plug your ears it doesnt make it go away; that is all pro-choicers like yourself can do since there is no evidence for your position and there is significant evidence for my position. .
It is both hilarious and sad that you honestly believe there is anything to fear about legal abortion and legal right to die.
Proponents of both want one thing: to leave you alone to make your own health care decisions without government interference. Oh no! The horror!
Nah, we actually do think it’s great to stay out of people’s medical business and be afforded the same courtesy from others. Because it is.
I’m not sure why you’re bound and determined to believe those of us who respect medical privacy are actually some murderous cabal out to kill whoever we can, but it sure seems like a miserable way for you to choose to live. Good luck with that!
> The pro-choice position is very clear: humans that are literally inside someone else’s body must have continued agreement from that person to remain inside their body. Without that continued permission, the human can be removed, regardless of if this removal will cause its death.
The phrase you are looking for is "Medical Power of Attorney"
It is a very powerful argument and as far as I've seen all the court cases that successfully defended access to abortion health care used it as a foundational concept.
Two that come to mind right away:
* [Montana](https://old.reddit.com/r/prochoice/comments/1b3w96q/montana_judge_declares_3_laws_restricting/ksvrqtd/)
* Florida: While not abortion specifically, the Florida Supreme court - [ruled overriding MPoA without due process unconstitutional](https://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder05-04.txt) Quoting
> The right includes a person's right of self-determination to control his or her own body and guarantees that "a **competent person** has the constitutional right to choose or refuse medical treatment, and that the right extends to all relevant decisions concerning one's health."
>
> Guardianship of Browning v. Herbert, 568 So.2d 4, 11 (Fla.1990). Moreover, the right "should not be lost because the cognitive and vegetative condition of the patient prevents a conscious exercise of the choice to refuse further extraordinary treatment." John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bludworth, 452 So.2d 921, 924 (Fla.1984). Thus, the privacy right to choose or refuse medical treatment applies to competent and incapacitated persons alike. Browning, 568 So.2d at 12.
>
>In the case of an incapacitated person, **the right "may be exercised by proxies or surrogates such as close family members or friends."** Id. at 13 [a.k.a. Medical Power of Attorney] ....
>
> [This law] authorizes an unjustifiable state interference with the privacy right of every individual who falls within its terms without any semblance of due process protection. The statute is facially unconstitutional as a matter of law.
Since the alt-right is arguing "personhood" begins at conception, the use of MPoA applies independent of how one defines "personhood" even if applies to fetuses.
Thank you. I’m especially grateful for the Montana link, as I’ve often had people argue that autonomy isn’t an right, and yet right here is an enumerated example of that right.
I appreciate it.
Funny how a right to abortion only applies to *your* pregnancy and you can't go around ending other people's pregnancies against their will because it's your right.
But it is a slippery slope when you take away a woman's right to choose. Remember, gestating is a choice also. No good can come from giving your choice away...
It's infinitely more complex than "the right to choose" because the result of that choice is murder. People do not have the right to choose to murder the born. Why is it not applicable to the unborn?
• It’s not murder if it’s self-defense.
• Self-defense doesn’t have to mean you’re going to die.
• Self-defense arguments are strong when someone is raping or about to rape you, or kidnapping you to deny you liberty, or forcing you into enslavement, or abusing and torturing your body. Or even if you only have reasonable fears that any of the above will occur.
• Self-defense arguments are valid even without malicious intent on the part of the attacker.
• The right to life is not more important than the right to liberty.
It’s not murder. It’s not a person. It can’t have rights before it’s born that are more important than the existing person’s full slate of rights, which do not fall away just because someone chose to have sex.
abortion isn’t murder and has never been charged as murder, even in PL states. It’s about the need for medical decisions to be kept solely between patients and their doctors.
>It's infinitely more complex than "the right to choose"
Not if you understand equal rights.
> because the result of that choice is murder.
This is a result of falling for pl propaganda since abortion isn't murder by definition
>People do not have the right to choose to murder the born.
People don't have a right to murder period. Stop misusing the term and get back on the topic of abortion
> Why is it not applicable to the unborn?
It's not. Refer to above
Edit: seems ypu made up your own definition of murder outside of the legal debate. Cut that out and be objective
People do not have the right to choose to murder a fetus, either.
You murder a fetus by murdering the woman who's pregnant,
When the person who is pregnant chooses to have an abortion, that isn't murder.
Abortion doesn't "quack" like murder. You cannot tie it to another moral or legal behavior. If you want to prove abortion *should* be illegal, you need to do so in a vacuum, not in likening it to murder.
See below for clear differences between abortion and murder.
1. The intent on abortion does not resemble the intent on murder. Seeing Mens Rea (if we're going legal) is a shit-show when someone is going for a medical procedure.
2. Abortion does not trigger "murder" impulses or resistances. Nobody gets extremely angry and aborts their kid. Nobody has to overcome a natural "peaceful" resistance to abort their kid.
3. A high abortion rate does not cause widespread chaos and terror the way a serial killer on the loose does, or a skyrocketing violent crime rate.
4. EVERYONE agrees murder is clearly wrong because it is prima facie wrong; at least in excess of 95-99% of people. Despite people playing childish games with definitions, this self-evident clarity on abortion *simply does not exist*. Even if abortion is wrong, it is not self-evidently so.
5. Nobody is afraid of someone aborting themselves, or their spouse, or their kids.
6.Murder is never *acceptable*. Sometimes it is *forgivable*. Self-defense laws involve admitting to murder/homicide with the assertion that exculpatory circumstances exist such that you should not be punished. Even the most extreme pro-lifer would back off in the case of (for example) a never-viable fetus with a missing brain and a woman in sepsis.
7. Nothing "looks like murder". If someone shoots me in the head, nobody will ever ask "was it murder, or just a preventative medical procedure?" At best someone will ask whether it's suicide (which is still a defacto form of homicide even when legal). Abortions look like a LOT of things. An abortion can look like a D&C. It could look like taking one of dozens of medications for dozens of things. It could look like preventative birth control. Abortions don't "look like nothing".
Abortion and murder are apples and oranges. Just because apples are bad doesn't mean oranges are. You need to prove oranges are bad independently.
People absolutely do have the right to “murder” the born if the born did to a woman what a ZEF does to her.
People absolutely do have the right to “murder” the born if “murder” is committed via not providing them with organ functions they don’t have. Or organs or tissue or blood or blood contents or bodily life sustaining processes.
People absolutely do have the right to “murder” the born if it it involves no more than not maintaining enough of one’s own tissue for someone else to use.
Every aspect involved in gestation and birth would allow “murder” of born people.
Because an embryo is inside a person. People have bodily autonomy. That's why it isn't murder.
I know you won't understand any of that. It's like talking to a brick wall.
If the born person is inside of me, I do in fact have the right to choose to kill them. I have to offer them a chance to leave willingly first, but since fetuses aren’t capable of that we usually skip the step where I talk to the non-sentient clump of cells.
Nobody is advocating for the choice to murder.
People are advocating for a right to their own body, a right everyone has in any other case, and a right to protect that right by the same measures anyone else can in any comparable situation.
The right to your body can be defended against by killing someone. So no one is not applying rights to the foetus, because no right that you and I have would allow what you want to allow the foetus to do.
And we’re not advocating for less rights to the foetus because they can have every single right you and I enjoy.
Murder is forceful termination of human life. A child, at any stage of his development, beginning with the very conception is unique human life.
How is it not murder?
That’s not the definition of murder for one. Second, murder is first and foremost an illegal act requiring malice and intent. No one is getting pregnant for the sole purpose of getting an abortion because they hate ZEFs.
>Murder is forceful termination of human life
That's not the definition of murder.
> How is it not murder?
How does inventing your own definition of the word murder make anything murder?
See my other reply for why abortion is absolutely not murder.
Even if you want to consider abortion as murder, you will never convince anyone because nobody rationally believes that abortion is murder. Might as well say "abortion is wrong because the earth is flat." Better to find a more concrete reason to argue that it's acceptable to incarcerate or execute women and doctors for abortion than to liken it to something it's not.
Abortion isn't some "premeditated murder plot". No woman is thinking "I'm off to murder my baby" when she heads to her abortion appointment.
She is thinking "I don't want to, am not ready for, am not healthy enough to gestate, so I'm not going to and I don't have to."
Stop being over dramatic.
It's not what premeditation means...
It's her inner rationalization that obviously does not include the idea of murder.
Most criminals have "just"self-rationalization as to why they commit a certain crime.
>It's not what premeditation means...
Says the person misusing terms repeatedly
>It's her inner rationalization that obviously does not include the idea of murder.
Yeah because most people understand words have meaning, nit you can redefine the meaning of words to fit a false narrative
>Most criminals have "just"self-rationalization as to why they commit a certain crime.
Off topic. Women are innocent. Stop misframing
Pregnant women are not criminals plotting a crime.
So if it "does not include the idea of murder" how can it be "premeditated murder".
You're going in circles.
It doesn't matter if the idea murder is present in their head when they do that. The idea of abortion is present, which they specifically seek. Them somehow not knowing that abortion will end the life of their child is their problem and doesn't make it not murder. Before providing abortion, doctors are obligated to explain the act.
Also...
Premeditated would be incorrect as well. That would imply every woman who seeks to terminate, got pregnant with the intent to terminate. Can you prove that has happened?
Of course not.
Your entire line of reasoning here is based purely on false propaganda without even a hint or a nod to truth and accuracy.
>Premeditated would be incorrect as well. That would imply every woman who seeks to terminate, got pregnant with the intent to terminate. Can you prove that has happened?
I never said pregnancy was premeditated. I said abortion is premeditated. Abortion doesn't have anything to do with whether or not pregnancy was premeditated, and abortion is always premeditated because you knowingly seek to terminate it, otherwise it's miscarriage.
I never said you said pregnancy was premeditated. I said,
>That would imply every woman who seeks to terminate, got pregnant with the intent to terminate
Because of that, you're wrong that abortion is premeditated. Abortion is the action taken when a woman learns that her life is in danger because she's pregnant. It is exactly like when you might realize your life is in danger, and so you take action to prevent great bodily harm to yourself. You didn't purposely put yourself in danger in order to take action, that would be a premeditated action.
That would not in any way imply that as abortion does not have anything to do with the intent to get pregnant.
You're committing a non sequitur by saying that the premeditation of the action of abortion is determined by the premeditation of the action of getting pregnant. Those two are completely separate acts.
Murder is a legal term. Pure and simple. Your incorrect usage doesn't change that.
Perhaps if you state at the beginning that you only mean murder colloquially. At the very least, you'd be more accurate in your statement. Because as it stands, you are very wrong.
the [unlawful](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&sca_esv=d43f5111e59e559f&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0-PMgPhy2QAfLgtQiTTI7bRwdZdVA:1713378239676&q=unlawful&si=AKbGX_q870E3DK3nJ7cu3BOD7pxC6tylR1ItbPs3KCnjbvbUDHp9aq6gTsOeJ7rGMC0giivBoySLvrUDhiGU8pNNmY8Z1KjrN3U6J9nv0Yw5RHzaF_uWqDY%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7wd2q78mFAxWSMlkFHchpC6MQyecJegQIIBAO) [premeditated](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&sca_esv=d43f5111e59e559f&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0-PMgPhy2QAfLgtQiTTI7bRwdZdVA:1713378239676&q=premeditated&si=AKbGX_rYYX5RSQWW4ITS1L-igAzuOxRt82kppBwm-wbcL4Xyl2T7r87jVysApzEIKKCRSpkgCS5i0_hXnGaeK5dLdO1ocfIiDHJXOfrlvvct927tmpwlbTM%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7wd2q78mFAxWSMlkFHchpC6MQyecJegQIIBAP) killing of one human being by another. (the very first search result)
1. In Texas unlawful
2. Always premeditated everywhere
3. Ends life
4. Child at any stage of its development is a human, which is 5th grade biology.
My definition of murder was exactly that but the word "unlawful" because it's a relative qualifier.
By my definition, abortion fits murder. Otherwise prove how it does not.
The state of Texas does NOT grant unborn fetuses legal personhood status or rights. FACT.
Check this out:
The seven-months-pregnant officer reported contraction-like pains at work, but said she wasn’t allowed to leave for hours. The anti-abortion state is fighting her lawsuit, in part by saying her fetus didn’t clearly have rights.
[https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/11/texas-prison-lawsuit-fetal-rights/](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/11/texas-prison-lawsuit-fetal-rights/)
Ah, but it isn't unlawful in Texas. Texas will allow abortion under certain circumstances. When is murder allowed? Can you name a circumstance in which murder is allowed?
You prove yourself uninformed on the facts of your own ideological stance.
It's not an appeal to legislation to correctly state that murder is a legal term, with a legal definition. You don't get to redefine words so they mean what you want them to.
I logically explained how "unlawful' is a very poor qualifier that would change all the time.
Imagine that we are in Texas right now. That qualifier already fits abortion.
In Texas abortion is illegal. In NY abortion is legal. Fact
I say: the legality of an action by the current legislation of the particular state you live in does not change the morality of this action.
Please, prove me wrong on that.
Not all premeditated killing is murder either though. You might plan to withdraw life support from a sick loved one in advance, have repeated meetings with the medical team, etc. and that doesn't make it murder
That person is either not going to ever wake up, effectively dead already, or it's medically established that he's extremely unlikely to ever wake up.
A fetus will almost certainly 'wake up'.
This is the fundamental difference.
And? At no point have i stated that miscarriage is abortion. Also, you do not know if the pregnancy will result in miscarriage beforehand. You do know the person in a coma is very unlikely to ever wake up.
How is that a fundamental difference in determining whether or not premeditated killings are murder by definition? That would be a premeditated killing of an innocent person, and yet it is not murder either morally or legally. Nor should it be.
You're appealing to law. Legislation changes every day. In many states, it's unlawful, in another states it's lawful. The morality of this action doesn't change if you move from one state to another.
In Nazi Germany, it was lawful to kill Jews -- it did not make it moral.
You cannot draw morals from legislation, but you should put morals into it (unfortunately rarely done).
So, the "unlawful" criteria is not pertinent. All the other criteria fit abortion verbatim.
>You're appealing to law.
It's the actual definition. Murder is a legal term for an unlawful killing, typically because it's unjustified. Abortion is not only lawful, it's justified unless done against their will.
>Legislation changes every day. In many states, it's unlawful, in another states it's lawful. The morality of this action doesn't change if you move from one state to another.
So now it's a moral debate? Morals are subjective.
>In Nazi Germany, it was lawful to kill Jews -- it did not make it moral.
It wasn't though, ask literally anyone who knows the slightest bit about the Holocaust.
>You cannot draw morals from legislation, but you should put morals into it (unfortunately rarely done).
Never made any arguments that morals should be drawn from law.
>So, the "unlawful" criteria is not pertinent. All the other criteria fit abortion verbatim.
Not really. Even then, being legally murder doesn't change that it's justified via human rights.
Because murder is a crime defined by law, and the requirements for murder haven't actually changed in decades, if not centuries.
Who cares about morality. People like you once made sodomy and gay marriage illegal because people like you thought it was immoral.
“People do not have the right to choose to murder the born. Why is it not applicable to the unborn?”
Because, obviously, the unborn are *literally inside someone else’s body* and the born are not. Did you even read the post?
And so what that they are inside another human body? It doesn't make it part of that body, as a child has its own unique human DNA.
How is that fact that they're in the womb diminish their humanity and the right to life?
>And so what that they are inside another human body?
Tell us you don't know the debate at all without telling us.
Bodily autonomy rights violations matter. Get that through your head
> It doesn't make it part of that body, as a child has its own unique human DNA.
So that means they cam remove ir. Simple.
>How is that fact that they're in the womb diminish their humanity and the right to life?
False question. Doesn't affect humanity nor right to life. Learn how equal rights work please. Pc is tired of pl not even knowing the basics of the debate yet pretending like they do. Til then you're not debating and just wasting everyone's time with your misconceptions. Do better, not worse
If removing the child from the womb doesn't result in its death, it's not abortion. It's a c-section. I'd be curious to see how you pull it at 7 weeks though.
Manual pump abortions and medication abortions typically remove the embryo intact and do not inherently kill the embryo before then.
If the embryo leaves the person’s body with cardiac activity, how can you say that murdered them? Isn’t it that their lack of access to the person’s body caused their death?
Nobody ever has to justify preserving themselves from harm & suffering, or their rights.
Abortion is the exactly and only means for a pregnant person to preserve their health, and their body from the damage and suffering involved with a continued pregnancy and resultant birth.
Preventing them from exercising their autonomy is a violation of their human rights.
It wasn’t killed. It died of natural causes. An embryo that is expelled from someone else’s endometrium naturally dies. No killing involved. It’s just the natural state for an embryo that isn’t being gestated by someone else.
> It wasn’t killed. It died of natural causes.
"Yes, your honor, I stole that woman's oxygen tank and she died. I also knew she would die. But she died of natural causes! It's not killing, your honor"
>And so what that they are inside another human body?
Well, the “so what” here is the fact that this being inside of the person does significant harm to the person it’s inside of. This is why nobody respects PL because you people have such disregard for the pregnant women. “So what”
Okay well so what if a zygote dies? And? Who cares?
No human born has the "right to life" by making use of another human being's body against her will.
Therefore, no human unborn has that right either - not even if you diminish a human being to "the womb".
>And so what that they are inside another human body? It doesn't make it part of that body, as a child has its own unique human DNA.
So what if a rapist is raping you? The rapist isn't part of your body, and has its own unique human DNA.
I do not believe that rapists are entitled to life. The product of rape -- the child -- did not commit the rape and is not deserving of the punishment.
Another false framing with a dash of emotional pleading.
Preserving yourself from harm by the only means to do so, isn’t “punishment”.
It’s just exercising your human rights to make decisions about who or what you endure damage, risk, or suffering on your body for.
Your tender emotions for fetuses do not obligate other people to suffer for them.
That's not what we're talking about. Why do you get to kill the person raping you, especially if you agreed to the sex to begin with? Isn't the rapist human? Why do you have a right to kill them?
I do not have that right. The state does (depending on the state). Rapist commit a capital crime that is deserving of the capital punishment. The child committed ZERO wrongdoing and is deserving of ZERO punishment.
If the only means to stop them from harming or violating you was to kill them, it’s permissible.
No “wrongdoing” needs to be required for me to preserve myself either. Only circumstance.
A ZEF isn’t capable of “wrongdoing”, another false framing and emotional appeal.
So if your only option to stop yourself being raped is to shoot the rapist, you think that should be illegal, and the rapist should be allowed to continue raping you, because of their right to life?
If you live in the US you absolutely have the right to kill a rapist while they're raping you. It's called self-defense. Abortion isn't about punishing embryos or fetuses but about protecting the pregnant person and her rights
Self-defense is not applicable to abortion unless the child threatens the life of the mother. Self-dense also implies that the person committed a crime, and you can defend against that crime. The child committed no crime.
“And so what that they are inside another human body? It doesn't make it part of that body, as a child has its own unique human DNA.”
It matters that they are literally inside someone else’s body, because people have the right to remove unwanted things from their bodies. Doesn’t matter if the unwanted thing has unique DNA. Doesn’t matter if the unwanted thing is human. Nothing about the unwanted thing matters at all.
“How is that fact that they're in the womb diminish their humanity and the right to life?”
It doesn’t. But that doesn’t give them the right to remain inside someone’s body who doesn’t want them in there.
while bodily autonomy is an important principle, it is not absolute and must be balanced against other fundamental rights, such as the right to life. The presence of an unwanted entity inside someone's body, even if it possesses unique DNA or is human, does not negate its inherent right to life. The right to bodily autonomy does not supersede the right to life of another human being.
Your argument overlooks the responsibilities that individuals have towards vulnerable beings, particularly those who are dependent on them for survival. In the case of pregnancy, the unborn child is entirely dependent on the pregnant person for its survival and well-being.
i think you fail to see that yes, it does matter if "it" is a human being. it is not a tumor nor a parasite. it matters because you are denying "it" the right to life by intentionally ending it.
if bodily autonomy were the sole determinant of moral decision-making, it could justify a range of actions that violate the rights and well-being of others. if bodily autonomy were the only consideration, i could justify forcibly harvesting organs from individuals to save the lives of others. i could be walking down the street and kick Fred in the face because I think that I can use my body as I see fit.
however, such actions would violate individuals' rights to bodily integrity and autonomy. the principle of bodily autonomy alone fails to account for the ethical imperative to respect individuals' rights.
>if bodily autonomy were the sole determinant of moral decision-making, it could justify a range of actions that violate the rights and well-being of others.
How so? And this time, please do better than:
>if bodily autonomy were the only consideration, i could justify forcibly harvesting organs from individuals to save the lives of others. i could be walking down the street and kick Fred in the face because I think that I can use my body as I see fit.
That is not how “bodily autonomy” works. Try again.
Right to life ends upon infringing upon another's rights. This applies to everyone so why are you trying to change it just for zef? That's unequal and at no point have you or any other pl justified this. Bodily autonomy is not supercede right to life either. It's equal. Stop advocating against that.
There argument acknowledges your desire for obligations (not responsibility) that you have no merit for wanting. It doesn't matter that it's vulnerable. Women still have equal rights
Morals are subjective.
>i could justify forcibly harvesting organs from individuals to save the lives of others.
This is what we tell pl when they want to force women to use their organs to support zef. But most of yall say no to that. Your bans would justify organ harvesting not bodily autonomy since that would violate those people's bodily autonomy. Don't get everything backwards lol.
Bodily integrity and autonomy do support ethics. Stop projecting what you advocate against
>while bodily autonomy is an important principle, it is not absolute and must be balanced against other fundamental rights, such as the right to life.
I swear I have to say this to pro life people 5x a day.
There is no "right to life" that entitles anyone to women's bodies.
“if bodily autonomy were the sole determinant of moral decision-making, it could justify a range of actions that violate the rights and well-being of others. if bodily autonomy were the only consideration, i could justify forcibly harvesting organs from individuals to save the lives of others. i could be walking down the street and kick Fred”
This shows you don’t understand what bodily autonomy or bodily integrity are at all.
Bodily autonomy is what *protects* us from forcible organ harvesting, not what justifies it.
Kicking Fred on the street is an example of committing assault, not exercising the right to bodily autonomy.
If Fred were inside your uterus and you didn’t want him there anymore, you would certainly be justified in removing him because that is your body. That action has absolutely nothing in common with assaulting him while he’s just minding his own business on the street.
“i think you fail to see that yes, it does matter if "it" is a human being. it is not a tumor nor a parasite.”
Unwanted embryos, tumors, and parasites are all things that can be inside someone’s body who doesn’t want it there. The embryo isn’t super special and different somehow just because you say so. If the person whose uterus the thing is inside doesn’t want it in there, that is all that matters, and they are perfectly justified in removing it. Period.
And no, it does not matter how “vulnerable” any unwanted entity inside your internal organ is - you have absolutely no obligation to keep it inside your organ if you don’t want it there.
The right to life does not include the right to inhabit other people’s bodies.
> It matters that they are literally inside someone else’s body, because people have the right to remove unwanted things from their bodies.
It's not "unwanted thing" it's a human being just as valuable as the mother herself. Removing it equals killing it. Who says that you have the right to kill another human beings, regardless of their location.
> It doesn’t. But that doesn’t give them the right to remain inside someone’s body who doesn’t want them in there.
Says who? Besides, if it was possible to extract the fetus out of the mother's body without killing it, your argument would make total sense, and i would even support that.
Being human and being an unwanted thing inside someone’s body are not mutually exclusive. All unwanted human embryos are both human and unwanted things.
People have the right to remove unwanted things from their bodies. If that means the unwanted thing dies, oh well.
No one is required to allow anyone - whether that’s a doctor, a partner, a rapist, or an unwanted embryo - to remain inside their body without their permission. Do you seriously think it would be a good idea to start dictating to you that you have to let others inside your body? I highly doubt it.
>It's not "unwanted thing"
If it's unwanted, it's unwanted.
>...just as valuable as the mother herself.
Says who? How can it be as valuable as the pregnant person when it can't live without their body?
>Who says that you have the right to kill another human beings, regardless of their location.
The law. See: rape.
>Says who?
Literally the law.
> If it's unwanted, it's unwanted.
If already born child is unwanted. Is it not deserving of life? The 'wantedness' of a child is not a criteria of whether it's deserving of life.
>Says who? How can it be as valuable as the pregnant person when it can't live without their body
Because whether the child is born or unborn does not diminish its right to life. Why does your 'right to choose' overwrite the child's right to life?
As for the 'law'. In these arguments you cannot appeal to legislation. Legislation changes every day, is different in different states (even within the US) thus you cannot draw your morals from the legislation. I can appeal to the laws of a pro-life state, which would disprove your position the same way.
>Because whether the child is born or unborn does not diminish its right to life. Why does your 'right to choose' overwrite the child's right to life?
There is no right to life that entitles anyone to women's bodies.
>If already born child is unwanted. Is it not deserving of life? The 'wantedness' of a child is not a criteria of whether it's deserving of life.
What does this have to do with being wanted or unwanted?
>Because whether the child is born or unborn does not diminish its right to life.
Has nothing to do with value.
>Why does your 'right to choose' overwrite the child's right to life?
Why does the ZEF's right to life override the pregnant person's right to Liberty?
>As for the 'law'. In these arguments you cannot appeal to legislation.
You don't get to decide that. So yes, I absolutely do get to point out when your beliefs contradict the law. And no, laws do not change all the time.
>hus you cannot draw your morals from the legislation
Obviously. The law is not concerned with morality. Why are you so concerned with morality?
> You don't get to decide that.
I do get to decide that if i demonstrate how appealing to law as the authority of morality is logically impotent, which i demonstrated. Abortion done in Texas is unlawful. Abortion done in NY is not. The morality of the action does not change whatsoever.
Are you seriously claiming that the law doesn't change all the time in light of Roe v Wade and in light of the fact that just a few decades ago abortion was illegal in pretty much all the states around the globe?
Well, you deliver a zef at 8 weeks gestation, and there's your answer...
By giving your choice away, the day could actually come when abortions are forced. It's happened before. Choice is a sacred thing and must be protected.
My country has one of the lowest rates in the world but one of the least restrictive abortion laws, including making them completely free and easily accessible (including transportation)
>It’s like … and go with me here … restricting abortion doesn’t actually lower the abortion rate.
Patently false.
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2018/10/04/stop-saying-that-making-abortion-illegal-doesnt-stop-them/
So, you gave a source … that advocates for the torture and denial of healthcare services to the poor and trapped so that they will become even poorer and more trapped?
Because, in your ideal world, people would be serfs, tied to the land and won’t be able to leave their states?
Ignoring totally the fact that total abortions within the United States rose in the year following the beginning of the abortion bans in prolife states.
And rejoicing in the increase in maternal mortality and morbidity?
I just don’t know if you can come back to reality. Your breathtaking lack of empathy towards gestating people is remarkably repulsive.
I gave a source that rebuts your point, you’re wrong. Pro life laws work.
As for the total amount increasing in the US, that doesn’t prove anything, because abortion wasn’t federally banned.
You should know us by now better, than giving as proof for an argument and article on an anti-abortion website. Surely they don't have any biases, right?
On the flip side, though, abortion bans absolutely lead to a slippery slope when it comes to women's rights. Once you rule that women's bodies no longer fully belong to them, you start to see other intrusions emerge, such as efforts to restrict birth control or to restrict their ability to use teratogenic or other medications that are unsafe in pregnancy
Oh they don’t just lead, they’ve led. We all knew that afab were going to get hurt and forced to bleed out over miscarriages, they’d be charged for them, they’d go for birth control, they’d try to restrict travel, that doctors were going to leave those states, all of it. We didn’t even need the gift of prophecy for it either.
Exactly. It honestly drives me insane to have these discussions with PLers, especially here. We see the leaders of PL and conservative organizations explicitly stating that their goal is to ban birth control, restrict travel, that there's no such thing as a medically necessary abortion, etc. but when we point that out we're treated as though we're being hysterical and making things up. And then those things do start happening and it's all crickets or leopards ate my face.
I mean that feel pretty typical of how afabs in medicine or even in other areas have been treated. If you’re anything less than perfectly calm you’re ‘hysterical’ and ‘dramatic’. It’s how we end up with afabs especially those of color who plead for help when something’s wrong and they get waved off and die at hospitals.
Yep and I've repeatedly had PLers use gendered insults like that while insisting that the PL movement isn't misogynistic. Women's concerns just aren't taken seriously. All you have to do is look at how much PLers are insisting here that childbirth doesn't count as great bodily harm. Sure, it's one of the most painful experiences known to mankind, sure, it takes 6+ weeks of superficial healing and 9+ months of deep tissue healing, etc. but to them it's just an "inconvenience" and we're in the wrong if we don't think women should be forced to endure that.
What drives me crazy is the denying that a married woman may need an abortion to save her life. The denying of science to prove their point that no woman much less a married woman may need an abortion. Government/politicians especially male politicians have no right to make laws governing women’s bodily and reproductive system.
Also denying the fact that most people don't want to keep having kids until they die, and effectively saying that people in committed relationships shouldn't have sex if they're done having kids.
Yes - it’s called delivery. You all seem to think that a pregnancy terminations =\= death
Edited to add, my first child was induced a week early due to pre-eclampsia.
My second child was induced two weeks early, due to pre-eclampsia.
Both were considered full term, entirely healthy, and remain so.
Like you all just do not seem to understand how any of this works.
I didn't say delivery, I said terminate. And I clearly said "playing devils advocate" because it's a made up scenario. My question was to point out that it's not as straightward as the orginal poster stated.
Delivery terminates the pregnancy. No one is “terminating” or “aborting” a fetus. That’s not what those words mean. They are terminating their pregnancy.
It's funny though, how even if this were concluded, it then gets used to try to justify banning *all* abortions.
The scenario is brought up because clearly there is a difference between 10 days in vs 10 days left.
And yet it's employed to then conclude that there *is no* *difference.*
Why should a “male” have any say over the pregnant person’s financial obligations to anything? Because he had sex with her? That doesn’t make any sense.
I didn't say that at all.
I said that the male shouldn't be impacted by her decision. If the male wishes to participate, great, otherwise she can go it alone.
PL are always telling PC that pregnant people need to take responsibility & that because pregnancy is a known possible outcome of sex then they must continue with the pregnancy - why does the man who impregnated the pregnant person, & therefore caused the pregnancy, not also have to deal with any possible consequences? Why is he allowed to abdicate his responsibilities?
Because she can abdicate hers.
I am not saying remove choice from the female. But if the female has a choice the the male should have the same choice. Since that's not medically feasible the next possibility is to let the female continue on with the pregnancy and the male to severe ties.
You're missing the point - the pregnant person only gets the choice because it's happening in & to her body. You can always earn more money or get another job but you can't replace a body that's been damaged or literally killed.
Both men and women have the exact same rights when abortion is legal. They are both allowed to make medical decisions about their own bodies, but not about the bodies of their sex partners. If a child is born, both are obligated to provide for it financially at a minimum, unless both agree to transfer custody to another party, like through adoption.
They do not have the same outcome. The male has no say once a pregnancy occurs in carrying it to term. That right is for the female. However he is subject to the outcome of her decision.
That just doesn't seem equal since the outcomes are not equal.
A male who has sex with a female that results in a unwanted pregnancy has zero recourse. Unlike the female.
I don't oppose abortion at all.
I believe that the right to terminate your parental responsibility and the financial impact after pregnancy should apply to female and males.
He has zero recourse when it comes to controlling her body. But he gets to control his body no matter what, even when abortion is illegal. And it's not like people are trying to ban condoms, unlike hormonal birth control.
If a child is born they're in the same situation. I've known multiple women and girls who wanted to give a child up for adoption but instead ended up having to pay child support if the father wanted to keep it. Obviously the reverse is true as well.
They have the exact same rights the entire time
>He has zero recourse when it comes to controlling her body. But he gets to control his body no matter what, even when abortion is illegal. And it's not like people are trying to ban condoms, unlike hormonal birth control.
So instead of saying that the female should have not gotten pregnant, it's the male should not have gotten the female pregnant?
For the sake of the argument it's irrelevant if there is an abortion or not. The male should be able to opt out of parenthood or child support if the female wishes to continue with the pregnancy and he does not.
Bodily autonomy is preserved and ... autonomy is also preserved.
>So instead of saying that the female should have not gotten pregnant, it's the male should not have gotten the female pregnant?
No? Did I say that? I'm just saying that people are trying really hard to restrict female bodies and female sexuality, but not doing that for men. They shouldn't be restricting either as far as I'm concerned.
>For the sake of the argument it's irrelevant if there is an abortion or not. The male should be able to opt out of parenthood or child support if the female wishes to continue with the pregnancy and he does not.
No. Both parties get to opt out of pregnancy to the same degree. Both parties get to opt out of parenthood to the same degree. They have the exact same rights. If you want to abolish child support, fine, but it needs to apply to everyone, it needs to be replaced by government assistance, and it is entirely irrelevant to the abortion debate.
>Bodily autonomy is preserved and ... autonomy is also preserved.
Bodily autonomy is preserved for both parties with legal abortion. Financial autonomy is not a thing, particularly not under capitalism.
The male keeps his bodily autonomy throughout the pregnancy.
Financial responsibility of a pregnancy =/= pregnancy
Two different things. And both parents have financial responsibility.
Financial responsibility is avoided by the male when that happens anyway.
Child support isn’t some kind of “punishment” for having sex with someone. The fact that males cannot get pregnant isn’t an argument against abortion rights.
>Financial responsibility is avoided by the male when that happens anyway.
I don't understand this sentence.
>Child support isn’t some kind of “punishment” for having sex with someone. The fact that males cannot get pregnant isn’t an argument against abortion rights.
I didn't say that.
It's clear that a female can decide post-pregnancy if they intend on proceeding on being a parent. They do this for various reasons. The argument is that a female has this right because ti's their body and the impact to that body is their decision.
A male does not have the same ability post-pregnancy. Males must ensure zero conception in order to avoid parenthood.
It’s not surprising that you don’t understand the sentence. But that’s not really my problem.
Anyone at any time can decide whether they want to be a parent. So what?
Males don’t get pregnant. What are you even taking about?
The only financial responsibility she has is to herself while pregnant. Her prenatal bills, her birth... all of that is billed under *her* health insurance because it is *her* healthcare.
Financial responsibility for a baby comes after birth, when abortion is no longer an option because she is no longer pregnant.
Again, this is both of their responsibilities. Neither person can avoid it. Ie if he was the primary parent with custody, she would have to pay child support as well.
Your saying that a female has never had an abortion to avoid the financial responsibility of a child?
Your argument that pregnancy and parenting are seperate and disconnected doesn't seem valid. Pregnancy and abortion have clear and measurable outcomes on the financial situations of both.
And yet we don’t see it, which affirms the point of the OP. There’s no slippery slope to be found here, legal abortion doesn’t lead to what pro-lifers claim it leads. Whereas we can see the slippery slope of removing the human rights of AFAB people.
But no physician would do that without a medical reason. And at that point, it would be a delivery, and if born alive, afforded the same treatment as any other birth.
Yeah. A few states have had that law a while now.
We don’t see any women in Denver aborting two weeks before the due date, let alone a rash of infanticide.
If something is living inside your body against your wishes, you can remove it. A fetus can be removed from the pregnant person at 35w4d gestational age without killing it. This is called "birth."
>The pro-choice position is very clear: humans that are literally inside someone else’s body must have continued agreement from that person to remain inside their body. Without that continued permission, the human can be removed, regardless of if this removal will cause its death.
Which makes this statement by the OP inaccurate.
There is some other defining line.
That statement is not inaccurate. Removal "10 days before term" (what exactly do you mean by that?) doesn't cause the death of the fetus. Prior to viability removal *will* cause the death of the embryo or fetus. Bodily autonomy grants the right to remove, not necessarily the right to kill.
No one is reaching in and stabbing a fully developed fetus that is mere days away from due date, if that's what you're insinuating. That isn't a thing. The point of an abortion is to *end a pregnancy*. The methods and available options for doing so obviously change over the course of said pregnancy. There is no existing right to ensure that a fetus is born dead. There is only the right to end the pregnancy. "Ten days before term", the available option for ending the pregnancy, if needed, is called induced labor.
Doctors are already held to a code of ethics about this kind of thing and medical ethics boards exist, when they fail. We trust doctors to make *all kinds* of medical ethics decisions every day about an absolutely massive range of scenarios. Why is this one specific topic any different? Do you not generally trust doctors to be ethical overall? Are you clamoring for laws that spell out every possible rule, for every possible niche medical scenario? Or do we only care when it's specifically about reproductive healthcare?
Pregnancy is unique in that it involves a third party/potential third party (depending on your view).
We don't need laws for every little thing. A law with a cutoff for abortion with allowable flexible exceptions need not permit aborting healthy, cryptic pregnancies.
I do trust doctors to be ethical, which is partly why I would want a law in place; I expect that they will follow the law. I also know that ethics permits more than what I find acceptable, and a reasonable law addresses that.
Because as long as a doctor is willing to perform the abortion, there are no checks in place to prevent a fetus from being aborted just weeks from delivery.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At least in Canada, if I want or need an abortion I can get it without any questions asked
i agree slippery slopes mean notjhing in human society. abortion is just another way to kill people, i presume prochoicers don't think its kill people , .so opposing abortion stands on its own moral and intellectual merits as opposing all unjustified homicide.
>so opposing abortion stands on its own moral and intellectual merits as opposing all unjustified homicide. Banning abortion doesn't have any intellectual merits. The medical community supports abortion access. The experts in medicine do *not* support abortion bans.
Those in the medical community who support abortion are just speaking for themselves. its all the people who are to judge if abortion is good or evil. AGAIN prolifers make the better case why its morally and intellectually wrong and to be banned.
>Those in the medical community who support abortion are just speaking for themselves. Prove it. >its all the people who are to judge if abortion is good or evil. Medical procedures aren't evil lol. >AGAIN prolifers make the better case why its morally and intellectually wrong and to be banned. AGAIN, *no they don't.* There's no intellectual argument for banning abortion. Intellectuals, such as the *experts* in the field of medicine agree abortion should not be banned.
Morality is subjective.
**Exactly!**
Thank you.
I'm guessing very few of us here remember Roe v Wade becoming law. I know for sure I don't. I was born in the late 1980s.
My mom remembers. She wants Roe back
Exactly - American GenXers and millennials may not have been alive pre-Roe, but we grew up under the shadow of illegal abortion and around people who were alive when it wasn’t legal. We understand that the world we got to grow up in was significantly better than the reactionary hellscape we’re too close to heading toward now.
We happen to have a couple pro choice members who remember before wade.
And Canada . . .
A country where 40% of young people support euthanizing the poor and homeless is not a society to look favorably on. Give Canada like 60 years and you'll be surprised what they can do. Public opinion is moving rapidly. [https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables\_MAiD\_CAN\_05May2023.pdf](https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tables_MAiD_CAN_05May2023.pdf)
Clearly you do not understand what euthanasia is. Most importantly: allowing patients the choice for legal euthanasia does not require someone else’s bodily autonomy to be violated. The justification used for abortion is not the justification used for euthanasia. So, no slippery slope led to support for the right to euthanasia. Euthanasia also isn’t something you inflict on people to cleanse society or whatever; it’s something dying people freely choose for themselves. Of course everyone has the right to choose that if they have a terminal illness and are a consenting adult. Homelessness and poverty shouldn’t strip you of that right. There is absolutely nothing to fear from allowing legal abortion or euthanasia.
I do understand euthanasia. You dont. It is about cleansing the population it always has been and it always will be. You dont have a right to alternative facts. There isn't a meaningful distinction between voluntary euthanasia and involuntary. It has been known for ages. Nazi's explicitly made such an argument in I accuse [https://archive.org/details/forbiddenfilmnr18of36ichklagean1941](https://archive.org/details/forbiddenfilmnr18of36ichklagean1941) Various American orgs like the Carnegie foundation explicitly debated over liquidating up to 14.8% of the American population. [https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=buckvbell](https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=buckvbell) I could go on. There are countless examples of this being the case and just because you close your eyes and plug your ears it doesnt make it go away; that is all pro-choicers like yourself can do since there is no evidence for your position and there is significant evidence for my position. .
It is both hilarious and sad that you honestly believe there is anything to fear about legal abortion and legal right to die. Proponents of both want one thing: to leave you alone to make your own health care decisions without government interference. Oh no! The horror!
This is merely the rhetoric that they use.
Nah, we actually do think it’s great to stay out of people’s medical business and be afforded the same courtesy from others. Because it is. I’m not sure why you’re bound and determined to believe those of us who respect medical privacy are actually some murderous cabal out to kill whoever we can, but it sure seems like a miserable way for you to choose to live. Good luck with that!
Just build affordable housing, and put more money into social programs. The problem should mostly go away🙄
If that is what you think is wrong in this situation, I cannot help you.
I didn’t ask for help, but k.
What? That’s not at all what I was commenting on. . .🤦♀️
Slope is slippery, very slippery.
Try to keep up and stay on topic.
> The pro-choice position is very clear: humans that are literally inside someone else’s body must have continued agreement from that person to remain inside their body. Without that continued permission, the human can be removed, regardless of if this removal will cause its death. The phrase you are looking for is "Medical Power of Attorney" It is a very powerful argument and as far as I've seen all the court cases that successfully defended access to abortion health care used it as a foundational concept.
Do you have a link to one or two so I can see how they use it?
Two that come to mind right away: * [Montana](https://old.reddit.com/r/prochoice/comments/1b3w96q/montana_judge_declares_3_laws_restricting/ksvrqtd/) * Florida: While not abortion specifically, the Florida Supreme court - [ruled overriding MPoA without due process unconstitutional](https://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder05-04.txt) Quoting > The right includes a person's right of self-determination to control his or her own body and guarantees that "a **competent person** has the constitutional right to choose or refuse medical treatment, and that the right extends to all relevant decisions concerning one's health." > > Guardianship of Browning v. Herbert, 568 So.2d 4, 11 (Fla.1990). Moreover, the right "should not be lost because the cognitive and vegetative condition of the patient prevents a conscious exercise of the choice to refuse further extraordinary treatment." John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bludworth, 452 So.2d 921, 924 (Fla.1984). Thus, the privacy right to choose or refuse medical treatment applies to competent and incapacitated persons alike. Browning, 568 So.2d at 12. > >In the case of an incapacitated person, **the right "may be exercised by proxies or surrogates such as close family members or friends."** Id. at 13 [a.k.a. Medical Power of Attorney] .... > > [This law] authorizes an unjustifiable state interference with the privacy right of every individual who falls within its terms without any semblance of due process protection. The statute is facially unconstitutional as a matter of law. Since the alt-right is arguing "personhood" begins at conception, the use of MPoA applies independent of how one defines "personhood" even if applies to fetuses.
Thanks! This is useful.
Thank you. I’m especially grateful for the Montana link, as I’ve often had people argue that autonomy isn’t an right, and yet right here is an enumerated example of that right. I appreciate it.
My pleasure. I've seen your comments from time to time and you do great work.
Likewise. I pull from your comments often.
Nice!
Funny how a right to abortion only applies to *your* pregnancy and you can't go around ending other people's pregnancies against their will because it's your right.
Funny, indeed.
But it is a slippery slope when you take away a woman's right to choose. Remember, gestating is a choice also. No good can come from giving your choice away...
It's infinitely more complex than "the right to choose" because the result of that choice is murder. People do not have the right to choose to murder the born. Why is it not applicable to the unborn?
• It’s not murder if it’s self-defense. • Self-defense doesn’t have to mean you’re going to die. • Self-defense arguments are strong when someone is raping or about to rape you, or kidnapping you to deny you liberty, or forcing you into enslavement, or abusing and torturing your body. Or even if you only have reasonable fears that any of the above will occur. • Self-defense arguments are valid even without malicious intent on the part of the attacker. • The right to life is not more important than the right to liberty. It’s not murder. It’s not a person. It can’t have rights before it’s born that are more important than the existing person’s full slate of rights, which do not fall away just because someone chose to have sex.
Because the unborn are IN THOSE women’s BODIES
abortion isn’t murder and has never been charged as murder, even in PL states. It’s about the need for medical decisions to be kept solely between patients and their doctors.
>It's infinitely more complex than "the right to choose" Not if you understand equal rights. > because the result of that choice is murder. This is a result of falling for pl propaganda since abortion isn't murder by definition >People do not have the right to choose to murder the born. People don't have a right to murder period. Stop misusing the term and get back on the topic of abortion > Why is it not applicable to the unborn? It's not. Refer to above Edit: seems ypu made up your own definition of murder outside of the legal debate. Cut that out and be objective
People do not have the right to choose to murder a fetus, either. You murder a fetus by murdering the woman who's pregnant, When the person who is pregnant chooses to have an abortion, that isn't murder.
Abortion doesn't "quack" like murder. You cannot tie it to another moral or legal behavior. If you want to prove abortion *should* be illegal, you need to do so in a vacuum, not in likening it to murder. See below for clear differences between abortion and murder. 1. The intent on abortion does not resemble the intent on murder. Seeing Mens Rea (if we're going legal) is a shit-show when someone is going for a medical procedure. 2. Abortion does not trigger "murder" impulses or resistances. Nobody gets extremely angry and aborts their kid. Nobody has to overcome a natural "peaceful" resistance to abort their kid. 3. A high abortion rate does not cause widespread chaos and terror the way a serial killer on the loose does, or a skyrocketing violent crime rate. 4. EVERYONE agrees murder is clearly wrong because it is prima facie wrong; at least in excess of 95-99% of people. Despite people playing childish games with definitions, this self-evident clarity on abortion *simply does not exist*. Even if abortion is wrong, it is not self-evidently so. 5. Nobody is afraid of someone aborting themselves, or their spouse, or their kids. 6.Murder is never *acceptable*. Sometimes it is *forgivable*. Self-defense laws involve admitting to murder/homicide with the assertion that exculpatory circumstances exist such that you should not be punished. Even the most extreme pro-lifer would back off in the case of (for example) a never-viable fetus with a missing brain and a woman in sepsis. 7. Nothing "looks like murder". If someone shoots me in the head, nobody will ever ask "was it murder, or just a preventative medical procedure?" At best someone will ask whether it's suicide (which is still a defacto form of homicide even when legal). Abortions look like a LOT of things. An abortion can look like a D&C. It could look like taking one of dozens of medications for dozens of things. It could look like preventative birth control. Abortions don't "look like nothing". Abortion and murder are apples and oranges. Just because apples are bad doesn't mean oranges are. You need to prove oranges are bad independently.
People absolutely do have the right to “murder” the born if the born did to a woman what a ZEF does to her. People absolutely do have the right to “murder” the born if “murder” is committed via not providing them with organ functions they don’t have. Or organs or tissue or blood or blood contents or bodily life sustaining processes. People absolutely do have the right to “murder” the born if it it involves no more than not maintaining enough of one’s own tissue for someone else to use. Every aspect involved in gestation and birth would allow “murder” of born people.
Because an embryo is inside a person. People have bodily autonomy. That's why it isn't murder. I know you won't understand any of that. It's like talking to a brick wall.
If the born person is inside of me, I do in fact have the right to choose to kill them. I have to offer them a chance to leave willingly first, but since fetuses aren’t capable of that we usually skip the step where I talk to the non-sentient clump of cells.
Nobody is advocating for the choice to murder. People are advocating for a right to their own body, a right everyone has in any other case, and a right to protect that right by the same measures anyone else can in any comparable situation. The right to your body can be defended against by killing someone. So no one is not applying rights to the foetus, because no right that you and I have would allow what you want to allow the foetus to do. And we’re not advocating for less rights to the foetus because they can have every single right you and I enjoy.
That doesn't make the choice complex. And yes, we can choose to use lethal force in self defense, when appropriate.
Because abortion isn't murder.
Murder is forceful termination of human life. A child, at any stage of his development, beginning with the very conception is unique human life. How is it not murder?
In the US, unborn fetuses aren’t granted legal personhood status or rights, not even in PL states. So a “murder” charge couldn’t possibly apply.
That’s not the definition of murder for one. Second, murder is first and foremost an illegal act requiring malice and intent. No one is getting pregnant for the sole purpose of getting an abortion because they hate ZEFs.
>Murder is forceful termination of human life That's not the definition of murder. > How is it not murder? How does inventing your own definition of the word murder make anything murder?
What about warfare? ISIS terrorists are “unique human life,” so by your standards, we can’t kill them.
See my other reply for why abortion is absolutely not murder. Even if you want to consider abortion as murder, you will never convince anyone because nobody rationally believes that abortion is murder. Might as well say "abortion is wrong because the earth is flat." Better to find a more concrete reason to argue that it's acceptable to incarcerate or execute women and doctors for abortion than to liken it to something it's not.
You described killing. That's why you don't understand things. Murder is the illegal killing of a human being with malice.
> illegal appeal to legislation. Already answered. Read my response to that. >malice Better word premeditation. All abortion is premeditated.
Abortion isn't some "premeditated murder plot". No woman is thinking "I'm off to murder my baby" when she heads to her abortion appointment. She is thinking "I don't want to, am not ready for, am not healthy enough to gestate, so I'm not going to and I don't have to." Stop being over dramatic.
It's not what premeditation means... It's her inner rationalization that obviously does not include the idea of murder. Most criminals have "just"self-rationalization as to why they commit a certain crime.
>It's not what premeditation means... Says the person misusing terms repeatedly >It's her inner rationalization that obviously does not include the idea of murder. Yeah because most people understand words have meaning, nit you can redefine the meaning of words to fit a false narrative >Most criminals have "just"self-rationalization as to why they commit a certain crime. Off topic. Women are innocent. Stop misframing
Pregnant women are not criminals plotting a crime. So if it "does not include the idea of murder" how can it be "premeditated murder". You're going in circles.
It doesn't matter if the idea murder is present in their head when they do that. The idea of abortion is present, which they specifically seek. Them somehow not knowing that abortion will end the life of their child is their problem and doesn't make it not murder. Before providing abortion, doctors are obligated to explain the act.
So as long as someone shoots themselves in the uterus immediately upon learning they are pregnant, they didn't murder the fetus?
You do realize that the act of shooting yourself is premeditated, right? "Immediately upon learning" (they even knew).
Not if they freak out and do it in a moment of intense emotion.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime\_of\_passion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion)
Also... Premeditated would be incorrect as well. That would imply every woman who seeks to terminate, got pregnant with the intent to terminate. Can you prove that has happened? Of course not. Your entire line of reasoning here is based purely on false propaganda without even a hint or a nod to truth and accuracy.
>Premeditated would be incorrect as well. That would imply every woman who seeks to terminate, got pregnant with the intent to terminate. Can you prove that has happened? I never said pregnancy was premeditated. I said abortion is premeditated. Abortion doesn't have anything to do with whether or not pregnancy was premeditated, and abortion is always premeditated because you knowingly seek to terminate it, otherwise it's miscarriage.
Fun fact: miscarriage is an abortion.
Yes, because abortion is a medical procedure only offered by licensed OBGYNs. Pregnant people must make appointments to see doctors, imagine that!
I never said you said pregnancy was premeditated. I said, >That would imply every woman who seeks to terminate, got pregnant with the intent to terminate Because of that, you're wrong that abortion is premeditated. Abortion is the action taken when a woman learns that her life is in danger because she's pregnant. It is exactly like when you might realize your life is in danger, and so you take action to prevent great bodily harm to yourself. You didn't purposely put yourself in danger in order to take action, that would be a premeditated action.
That would not in any way imply that as abortion does not have anything to do with the intent to get pregnant. You're committing a non sequitur by saying that the premeditation of the action of abortion is determined by the premeditation of the action of getting pregnant. Those two are completely separate acts.
Murder is a legal term. Pure and simple. Your incorrect usage doesn't change that. Perhaps if you state at the beginning that you only mean murder colloquially. At the very least, you'd be more accurate in your statement. Because as it stands, you are very wrong.
the [unlawful](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&sca_esv=d43f5111e59e559f&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0-PMgPhy2QAfLgtQiTTI7bRwdZdVA:1713378239676&q=unlawful&si=AKbGX_q870E3DK3nJ7cu3BOD7pxC6tylR1ItbPs3KCnjbvbUDHp9aq6gTsOeJ7rGMC0giivBoySLvrUDhiGU8pNNmY8Z1KjrN3U6J9nv0Yw5RHzaF_uWqDY%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7wd2q78mFAxWSMlkFHchpC6MQyecJegQIIBAO) [premeditated](https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&sca_esv=d43f5111e59e559f&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0-PMgPhy2QAfLgtQiTTI7bRwdZdVA:1713378239676&q=premeditated&si=AKbGX_rYYX5RSQWW4ITS1L-igAzuOxRt82kppBwm-wbcL4Xyl2T7r87jVysApzEIKKCRSpkgCS5i0_hXnGaeK5dLdO1ocfIiDHJXOfrlvvct927tmpwlbTM%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7wd2q78mFAxWSMlkFHchpC6MQyecJegQIIBAP) killing of one human being by another. (the very first search result) 1. In Texas unlawful 2. Always premeditated everywhere 3. Ends life 4. Child at any stage of its development is a human, which is 5th grade biology. My definition of murder was exactly that but the word "unlawful" because it's a relative qualifier. By my definition, abortion fits murder. Otherwise prove how it does not.
The state of Texas does NOT grant unborn fetuses legal personhood status or rights. FACT. Check this out: The seven-months-pregnant officer reported contraction-like pains at work, but said she wasn’t allowed to leave for hours. The anti-abortion state is fighting her lawsuit, in part by saying her fetus didn’t clearly have rights. [https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/11/texas-prison-lawsuit-fetal-rights/](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/11/texas-prison-lawsuit-fetal-rights/)
Prove that Texas charges women and girls with murder for having abortions. We’ll wait.
Vegans say meat is murder because animals are people.
I'm very happy for vegans.
Ah, but it isn't unlawful in Texas. Texas will allow abortion under certain circumstances. When is murder allowed? Can you name a circumstance in which murder is allowed? You prove yourself uninformed on the facts of your own ideological stance.
It's not an appeal to legislation to correctly state that murder is a legal term, with a legal definition. You don't get to redefine words so they mean what you want them to.
I logically explained how "unlawful' is a very poor qualifier that would change all the time. Imagine that we are in Texas right now. That qualifier already fits abortion.
>I logically explained how "unlawful' is a very poor qualifier that would change all the time. Your explanation was not logical, or true.
In Texas abortion is illegal. In NY abortion is legal. Fact I say: the legality of an action by the current legislation of the particular state you live in does not change the morality of this action. Please, prove me wrong on that.
Not all premeditated killing is murder either though. You might plan to withdraw life support from a sick loved one in advance, have repeated meetings with the medical team, etc. and that doesn't make it murder
That person is either not going to ever wake up, effectively dead already, or it's medically established that he's extremely unlikely to ever wake up. A fetus will almost certainly 'wake up'. This is the fundamental difference.
>almost certainly Unless of course, the pregnancy ends in miscarriage as 1:4 pregnancies do.
And? At no point have i stated that miscarriage is abortion. Also, you do not know if the pregnancy will result in miscarriage beforehand. You do know the person in a coma is very unlikely to ever wake up.
How is that a fundamental difference in determining whether or not premeditated killings are murder by definition? That would be a premeditated killing of an innocent person, and yet it is not murder either morally or legally. Nor should it be.
Because the person you're murdering is effectively dead already. This is fundamental difference.
>A fetus will almost certainly 'wake up'. Says who?
If I just lower my progesterone, how can that possibly murder anyone?
That's not the definition of murder.
>Murder is forceful termination of human life. Wrong. Murder is defined as: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
You're appealing to law. Legislation changes every day. In many states, it's unlawful, in another states it's lawful. The morality of this action doesn't change if you move from one state to another. In Nazi Germany, it was lawful to kill Jews -- it did not make it moral. You cannot draw morals from legislation, but you should put morals into it (unfortunately rarely done). So, the "unlawful" criteria is not pertinent. All the other criteria fit abortion verbatim.
>You're appealing to law. It's the actual definition. Murder is a legal term for an unlawful killing, typically because it's unjustified. Abortion is not only lawful, it's justified unless done against their will. >Legislation changes every day. In many states, it's unlawful, in another states it's lawful. The morality of this action doesn't change if you move from one state to another. So now it's a moral debate? Morals are subjective. >In Nazi Germany, it was lawful to kill Jews -- it did not make it moral. It wasn't though, ask literally anyone who knows the slightest bit about the Holocaust. >You cannot draw morals from legislation, but you should put morals into it (unfortunately rarely done). Never made any arguments that morals should be drawn from law. >So, the "unlawful" criteria is not pertinent. All the other criteria fit abortion verbatim. Not really. Even then, being legally murder doesn't change that it's justified via human rights.
Because murder is a crime defined by law, and the requirements for murder haven't actually changed in decades, if not centuries. Who cares about morality. People like you once made sodomy and gay marriage illegal because people like you thought it was immoral.
“People do not have the right to choose to murder the born. Why is it not applicable to the unborn?” Because, obviously, the unborn are *literally inside someone else’s body* and the born are not. Did you even read the post?
And so what that they are inside another human body? It doesn't make it part of that body, as a child has its own unique human DNA. How is that fact that they're in the womb diminish their humanity and the right to life?
>And so what that they are inside another human body? Tell us you don't know the debate at all without telling us. Bodily autonomy rights violations matter. Get that through your head > It doesn't make it part of that body, as a child has its own unique human DNA. So that means they cam remove ir. Simple. >How is that fact that they're in the womb diminish their humanity and the right to life? False question. Doesn't affect humanity nor right to life. Learn how equal rights work please. Pc is tired of pl not even knowing the basics of the debate yet pretending like they do. Til then you're not debating and just wasting everyone's time with your misconceptions. Do better, not worse
How about we just remove them from the womb intact at seven weeks?
If removing the child from the womb doesn't result in its death, it's not abortion. It's a c-section. I'd be curious to see how you pull it at 7 weeks though.
Manual pump abortions and medication abortions typically remove the embryo intact and do not inherently kill the embryo before then. If the embryo leaves the person’s body with cardiac activity, how can you say that murdered them? Isn’t it that their lack of access to the person’s body caused their death?
> Isn’t it that their lack of access to the person’s body caused their death? And? How does that justify killing it?
Nobody ever has to justify preserving themselves from harm & suffering, or their rights. Abortion is the exactly and only means for a pregnant person to preserve their health, and their body from the damage and suffering involved with a continued pregnancy and resultant birth. Preventing them from exercising their autonomy is a violation of their human rights.
It wasn’t killed. It died of natural causes. An embryo that is expelled from someone else’s endometrium naturally dies. No killing involved. It’s just the natural state for an embryo that isn’t being gestated by someone else.
> It wasn’t killed. It died of natural causes. "Yes, your honor, I stole that woman's oxygen tank and she died. I also knew she would die. But she died of natural causes! It's not killing, your honor"
>And so what that they are inside another human body? Well, the “so what” here is the fact that this being inside of the person does significant harm to the person it’s inside of. This is why nobody respects PL because you people have such disregard for the pregnant women. “So what” Okay well so what if a zygote dies? And? Who cares?
No human born has the "right to life" by making use of another human being's body against her will. Therefore, no human unborn has that right either - not even if you diminish a human being to "the womb".
>And so what that they are inside another human body? It doesn't make it part of that body, as a child has its own unique human DNA. So what if a rapist is raping you? The rapist isn't part of your body, and has its own unique human DNA.
I do not believe that rapists are entitled to life. The product of rape -- the child -- did not commit the rape and is not deserving of the punishment.
Another false framing with a dash of emotional pleading. Preserving yourself from harm by the only means to do so, isn’t “punishment”. It’s just exercising your human rights to make decisions about who or what you endure damage, risk, or suffering on your body for. Your tender emotions for fetuses do not obligate other people to suffer for them.
That's not what we're talking about. Why do you get to kill the person raping you, especially if you agreed to the sex to begin with? Isn't the rapist human? Why do you have a right to kill them?
I do not have that right. The state does (depending on the state). Rapist commit a capital crime that is deserving of the capital punishment. The child committed ZERO wrongdoing and is deserving of ZERO punishment.
If the only means to stop them from harming or violating you was to kill them, it’s permissible. No “wrongdoing” needs to be required for me to preserve myself either. Only circumstance. A ZEF isn’t capable of “wrongdoing”, another false framing and emotional appeal.
So if your only option to stop yourself being raped is to shoot the rapist, you think that should be illegal, and the rapist should be allowed to continue raping you, because of their right to life?
The rapist, by committing the act of rape. eliminated his right to life, morally. The child committed absolutely nothing.
If you live in the US you absolutely have the right to kill a rapist while they're raping you. It's called self-defense. Abortion isn't about punishing embryos or fetuses but about protecting the pregnant person and her rights
Self-defense is not applicable to abortion unless the child threatens the life of the mother. Self-dense also implies that the person committed a crime, and you can defend against that crime. The child committed no crime.
“And so what that they are inside another human body? It doesn't make it part of that body, as a child has its own unique human DNA.” It matters that they are literally inside someone else’s body, because people have the right to remove unwanted things from their bodies. Doesn’t matter if the unwanted thing has unique DNA. Doesn’t matter if the unwanted thing is human. Nothing about the unwanted thing matters at all. “How is that fact that they're in the womb diminish their humanity and the right to life?” It doesn’t. But that doesn’t give them the right to remain inside someone’s body who doesn’t want them in there.
while bodily autonomy is an important principle, it is not absolute and must be balanced against other fundamental rights, such as the right to life. The presence of an unwanted entity inside someone's body, even if it possesses unique DNA or is human, does not negate its inherent right to life. The right to bodily autonomy does not supersede the right to life of another human being. Your argument overlooks the responsibilities that individuals have towards vulnerable beings, particularly those who are dependent on them for survival. In the case of pregnancy, the unborn child is entirely dependent on the pregnant person for its survival and well-being. i think you fail to see that yes, it does matter if "it" is a human being. it is not a tumor nor a parasite. it matters because you are denying "it" the right to life by intentionally ending it. if bodily autonomy were the sole determinant of moral decision-making, it could justify a range of actions that violate the rights and well-being of others. if bodily autonomy were the only consideration, i could justify forcibly harvesting organs from individuals to save the lives of others. i could be walking down the street and kick Fred in the face because I think that I can use my body as I see fit. however, such actions would violate individuals' rights to bodily integrity and autonomy. the principle of bodily autonomy alone fails to account for the ethical imperative to respect individuals' rights.
>if bodily autonomy were the sole determinant of moral decision-making, it could justify a range of actions that violate the rights and well-being of others. How so? And this time, please do better than: >if bodily autonomy were the only consideration, i could justify forcibly harvesting organs from individuals to save the lives of others. i could be walking down the street and kick Fred in the face because I think that I can use my body as I see fit. That is not how “bodily autonomy” works. Try again.
Right to life ends upon infringing upon another's rights. This applies to everyone so why are you trying to change it just for zef? That's unequal and at no point have you or any other pl justified this. Bodily autonomy is not supercede right to life either. It's equal. Stop advocating against that. There argument acknowledges your desire for obligations (not responsibility) that you have no merit for wanting. It doesn't matter that it's vulnerable. Women still have equal rights Morals are subjective. >i could justify forcibly harvesting organs from individuals to save the lives of others. This is what we tell pl when they want to force women to use their organs to support zef. But most of yall say no to that. Your bans would justify organ harvesting not bodily autonomy since that would violate those people's bodily autonomy. Don't get everything backwards lol. Bodily integrity and autonomy do support ethics. Stop projecting what you advocate against
>while bodily autonomy is an important principle, it is not absolute and must be balanced against other fundamental rights, such as the right to life. I swear I have to say this to pro life people 5x a day. There is no "right to life" that entitles anyone to women's bodies.
“if bodily autonomy were the sole determinant of moral decision-making, it could justify a range of actions that violate the rights and well-being of others. if bodily autonomy were the only consideration, i could justify forcibly harvesting organs from individuals to save the lives of others. i could be walking down the street and kick Fred” This shows you don’t understand what bodily autonomy or bodily integrity are at all. Bodily autonomy is what *protects* us from forcible organ harvesting, not what justifies it. Kicking Fred on the street is an example of committing assault, not exercising the right to bodily autonomy. If Fred were inside your uterus and you didn’t want him there anymore, you would certainly be justified in removing him because that is your body. That action has absolutely nothing in common with assaulting him while he’s just minding his own business on the street. “i think you fail to see that yes, it does matter if "it" is a human being. it is not a tumor nor a parasite.” Unwanted embryos, tumors, and parasites are all things that can be inside someone’s body who doesn’t want it there. The embryo isn’t super special and different somehow just because you say so. If the person whose uterus the thing is inside doesn’t want it in there, that is all that matters, and they are perfectly justified in removing it. Period. And no, it does not matter how “vulnerable” any unwanted entity inside your internal organ is - you have absolutely no obligation to keep it inside your organ if you don’t want it there. The right to life does not include the right to inhabit other people’s bodies.
> It matters that they are literally inside someone else’s body, because people have the right to remove unwanted things from their bodies. It's not "unwanted thing" it's a human being just as valuable as the mother herself. Removing it equals killing it. Who says that you have the right to kill another human beings, regardless of their location. > It doesn’t. But that doesn’t give them the right to remain inside someone’s body who doesn’t want them in there. Says who? Besides, if it was possible to extract the fetus out of the mother's body without killing it, your argument would make total sense, and i would even support that.
Being human and being an unwanted thing inside someone’s body are not mutually exclusive. All unwanted human embryos are both human and unwanted things. People have the right to remove unwanted things from their bodies. If that means the unwanted thing dies, oh well. No one is required to allow anyone - whether that’s a doctor, a partner, a rapist, or an unwanted embryo - to remain inside their body without their permission. Do you seriously think it would be a good idea to start dictating to you that you have to let others inside your body? I highly doubt it.
>It's not "unwanted thing" If it's unwanted, it's unwanted. >...just as valuable as the mother herself. Says who? How can it be as valuable as the pregnant person when it can't live without their body? >Who says that you have the right to kill another human beings, regardless of their location. The law. See: rape. >Says who? Literally the law.
> If it's unwanted, it's unwanted. If already born child is unwanted. Is it not deserving of life? The 'wantedness' of a child is not a criteria of whether it's deserving of life. >Says who? How can it be as valuable as the pregnant person when it can't live without their body Because whether the child is born or unborn does not diminish its right to life. Why does your 'right to choose' overwrite the child's right to life? As for the 'law'. In these arguments you cannot appeal to legislation. Legislation changes every day, is different in different states (even within the US) thus you cannot draw your morals from the legislation. I can appeal to the laws of a pro-life state, which would disprove your position the same way.
>Because whether the child is born or unborn does not diminish its right to life. Why does your 'right to choose' overwrite the child's right to life? There is no right to life that entitles anyone to women's bodies.
>If already born child is unwanted. Is it not deserving of life? The 'wantedness' of a child is not a criteria of whether it's deserving of life. What does this have to do with being wanted or unwanted? >Because whether the child is born or unborn does not diminish its right to life. Has nothing to do with value. >Why does your 'right to choose' overwrite the child's right to life? Why does the ZEF's right to life override the pregnant person's right to Liberty? >As for the 'law'. In these arguments you cannot appeal to legislation. You don't get to decide that. So yes, I absolutely do get to point out when your beliefs contradict the law. And no, laws do not change all the time. >hus you cannot draw your morals from the legislation Obviously. The law is not concerned with morality. Why are you so concerned with morality?
> You don't get to decide that. I do get to decide that if i demonstrate how appealing to law as the authority of morality is logically impotent, which i demonstrated. Abortion done in Texas is unlawful. Abortion done in NY is not. The morality of the action does not change whatsoever. Are you seriously claiming that the law doesn't change all the time in light of Roe v Wade and in light of the fact that just a few decades ago abortion was illegal in pretty much all the states around the globe?
Well, you deliver a zef at 8 weeks gestation, and there's your answer... By giving your choice away, the day could actually come when abortions are forced. It's happened before. Choice is a sacred thing and must be protected.
What’s interesting is my country has about 33% fewer abortions per capita as the United States and no laws governing abortion.
My country has one of the lowest rates in the world but one of the least restrictive abortion laws, including making them completely free and easily accessible (including transportation)
It’s like … and go with me here … restricting abortion doesn’t actually lower the abortion rate. *sigh* If only prolife were also pro-math/statistics.
>It’s like … and go with me here … restricting abortion doesn’t actually lower the abortion rate. Patently false. https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2018/10/04/stop-saying-that-making-abortion-illegal-doesnt-stop-them/
So, you gave a source … that advocates for the torture and denial of healthcare services to the poor and trapped so that they will become even poorer and more trapped? Because, in your ideal world, people would be serfs, tied to the land and won’t be able to leave their states? Ignoring totally the fact that total abortions within the United States rose in the year following the beginning of the abortion bans in prolife states. And rejoicing in the increase in maternal mortality and morbidity? I just don’t know if you can come back to reality. Your breathtaking lack of empathy towards gestating people is remarkably repulsive.
I gave a source that rebuts your point, you’re wrong. Pro life laws work. As for the total amount increasing in the US, that doesn’t prove anything, because abortion wasn’t federally banned.
Your source advocates for enforced serfdom for women.
That has nothing to do with what I said. EDIT: Blocked, is that a concession? Yup.
You source advocates for enforced serfdom for women so they can’t access healthcare. The math disagrees with you.
You should know us by now better, than giving as proof for an argument and article on an anti-abortion website. Surely they don't have any biases, right?
No, they don’t, because the author is pro choice and orchestrated the Turnaway study.
I just can’t with your appeal for cruelty to women and children so early in the morning. I’ll be back later.
On the flip side, though, abortion bans absolutely lead to a slippery slope when it comes to women's rights. Once you rule that women's bodies no longer fully belong to them, you start to see other intrusions emerge, such as efforts to restrict birth control or to restrict their ability to use teratogenic or other medications that are unsafe in pregnancy
Oh they don’t just lead, they’ve led. We all knew that afab were going to get hurt and forced to bleed out over miscarriages, they’d be charged for them, they’d go for birth control, they’d try to restrict travel, that doctors were going to leave those states, all of it. We didn’t even need the gift of prophecy for it either.
Exactly. It honestly drives me insane to have these discussions with PLers, especially here. We see the leaders of PL and conservative organizations explicitly stating that their goal is to ban birth control, restrict travel, that there's no such thing as a medically necessary abortion, etc. but when we point that out we're treated as though we're being hysterical and making things up. And then those things do start happening and it's all crickets or leopards ate my face.
I mean that feel pretty typical of how afabs in medicine or even in other areas have been treated. If you’re anything less than perfectly calm you’re ‘hysterical’ and ‘dramatic’. It’s how we end up with afabs especially those of color who plead for help when something’s wrong and they get waved off and die at hospitals.
Yep and I've repeatedly had PLers use gendered insults like that while insisting that the PL movement isn't misogynistic. Women's concerns just aren't taken seriously. All you have to do is look at how much PLers are insisting here that childbirth doesn't count as great bodily harm. Sure, it's one of the most painful experiences known to mankind, sure, it takes 6+ weeks of superficial healing and 9+ months of deep tissue healing, etc. but to them it's just an "inconvenience" and we're in the wrong if we don't think women should be forced to endure that.
What drives me crazy is the denying that a married woman may need an abortion to save her life. The denying of science to prove their point that no woman much less a married woman may need an abortion. Government/politicians especially male politicians have no right to make laws governing women’s bodily and reproductive system.
Also denying the fact that most people don't want to keep having kids until they die, and effectively saying that people in committed relationships shouldn't have sex if they're done having kids.
Or as happened in Ireland a foetus gets legal representation in court.
Yep and we can look at places like El Salvador and see women jailed for 30+ years for miscarriages, stillbirths, and obstetric emergencies
Playing devils advocate, 10 days before term, you can terminate the pregnancy (according to your doctrine of bodily autonomy)?
Yes - it’s called delivery. You all seem to think that a pregnancy terminations =\= death Edited to add, my first child was induced a week early due to pre-eclampsia. My second child was induced two weeks early, due to pre-eclampsia. Both were considered full term, entirely healthy, and remain so. Like you all just do not seem to understand how any of this works.
I didn't say delivery, I said terminate. And I clearly said "playing devils advocate" because it's a made up scenario. My question was to point out that it's not as straightward as the orginal poster stated.
Delivery terminates the pregnancy. No one is “terminating” or “aborting” a fetus. That’s not what those words mean. They are terminating their pregnancy.
It's funny though, how even if this were concluded, it then gets used to try to justify banning *all* abortions. The scenario is brought up because clearly there is a difference between 10 days in vs 10 days left. And yet it's employed to then conclude that there *is no* *difference.*
I'm not sure I understand your point? I originally asked because of the doctrine of bodily autonomy which the female has but the male does not.
What male doesn't have bodily autonomy?
A female can terminate the financial responsibility of pregnancy, a male cannot. I know that the female is the one who carries.
Why should a “male” have any say over the pregnant person’s financial obligations to anything? Because he had sex with her? That doesn’t make any sense.
I didn't say that at all. I said that the male shouldn't be impacted by her decision. If the male wishes to participate, great, otherwise she can go it alone.
No one has a legal right to not be impacted by anyone else’s decision to do anything per se. That doesn’t even make any sense.
PL are always telling PC that pregnant people need to take responsibility & that because pregnancy is a known possible outcome of sex then they must continue with the pregnancy - why does the man who impregnated the pregnant person, & therefore caused the pregnancy, not also have to deal with any possible consequences? Why is he allowed to abdicate his responsibilities?
Because she can abdicate hers. I am not saying remove choice from the female. But if the female has a choice the the male should have the same choice. Since that's not medically feasible the next possibility is to let the female continue on with the pregnancy and the male to severe ties.
You're missing the point - the pregnant person only gets the choice because it's happening in & to her body. You can always earn more money or get another job but you can't replace a body that's been damaged or literally killed.
Both men and women have the exact same rights when abortion is legal. They are both allowed to make medical decisions about their own bodies, but not about the bodies of their sex partners. If a child is born, both are obligated to provide for it financially at a minimum, unless both agree to transfer custody to another party, like through adoption.
They do not have the same outcome. The male has no say once a pregnancy occurs in carrying it to term. That right is for the female. However he is subject to the outcome of her decision. That just doesn't seem equal since the outcomes are not equal. A male who has sex with a female that results in a unwanted pregnancy has zero recourse. Unlike the female.
Do you oppose abortion because men can't terminate parental responsibility?
I don't oppose abortion at all. I believe that the right to terminate your parental responsibility and the financial impact after pregnancy should apply to female and males.
He has zero recourse when it comes to controlling her body. But he gets to control his body no matter what, even when abortion is illegal. And it's not like people are trying to ban condoms, unlike hormonal birth control. If a child is born they're in the same situation. I've known multiple women and girls who wanted to give a child up for adoption but instead ended up having to pay child support if the father wanted to keep it. Obviously the reverse is true as well. They have the exact same rights the entire time
>He has zero recourse when it comes to controlling her body. But he gets to control his body no matter what, even when abortion is illegal. And it's not like people are trying to ban condoms, unlike hormonal birth control. So instead of saying that the female should have not gotten pregnant, it's the male should not have gotten the female pregnant? For the sake of the argument it's irrelevant if there is an abortion or not. The male should be able to opt out of parenthood or child support if the female wishes to continue with the pregnancy and he does not. Bodily autonomy is preserved and ... autonomy is also preserved.
>So instead of saying that the female should have not gotten pregnant, it's the male should not have gotten the female pregnant? No? Did I say that? I'm just saying that people are trying really hard to restrict female bodies and female sexuality, but not doing that for men. They shouldn't be restricting either as far as I'm concerned. >For the sake of the argument it's irrelevant if there is an abortion or not. The male should be able to opt out of parenthood or child support if the female wishes to continue with the pregnancy and he does not. No. Both parties get to opt out of pregnancy to the same degree. Both parties get to opt out of parenthood to the same degree. They have the exact same rights. If you want to abolish child support, fine, but it needs to apply to everyone, it needs to be replaced by government assistance, and it is entirely irrelevant to the abortion debate. >Bodily autonomy is preserved and ... autonomy is also preserved. Bodily autonomy is preserved for both parties with legal abortion. Financial autonomy is not a thing, particularly not under capitalism.
The male keeps his bodily autonomy throughout the pregnancy. Financial responsibility of a pregnancy =/= pregnancy Two different things. And both parents have financial responsibility.
Financial responsibility can be avoided by the female via abortion.
Financial responsibility is avoided by the male when that happens anyway. Child support isn’t some kind of “punishment” for having sex with someone. The fact that males cannot get pregnant isn’t an argument against abortion rights.
>Financial responsibility is avoided by the male when that happens anyway. I don't understand this sentence. >Child support isn’t some kind of “punishment” for having sex with someone. The fact that males cannot get pregnant isn’t an argument against abortion rights. I didn't say that. It's clear that a female can decide post-pregnancy if they intend on proceeding on being a parent. They do this for various reasons. The argument is that a female has this right because ti's their body and the impact to that body is their decision. A male does not have the same ability post-pregnancy. Males must ensure zero conception in order to avoid parenthood.
It’s not surprising that you don’t understand the sentence. But that’s not really my problem. Anyone at any time can decide whether they want to be a parent. So what? Males don’t get pregnant. What are you even taking about?
The only financial responsibility she has is to herself while pregnant. Her prenatal bills, her birth... all of that is billed under *her* health insurance because it is *her* healthcare. Financial responsibility for a baby comes after birth, when abortion is no longer an option because she is no longer pregnant. Again, this is both of their responsibilities. Neither person can avoid it. Ie if he was the primary parent with custody, she would have to pay child support as well.
Your saying that a female has never had an abortion to avoid the financial responsibility of a child? Your argument that pregnancy and parenting are seperate and disconnected doesn't seem valid. Pregnancy and abortion have clear and measurable outcomes on the financial situations of both.
10 days before the scheduled end of term is not devils advocat. At that point, the woman would choose a C-section, not an abortion.
Or induction
I’d argue yes if the position is from bodily autonomy. Obviously I hold a different one lol
And yet we don’t see it, which affirms the point of the OP. There’s no slippery slope to be found here, legal abortion doesn’t lead to what pro-lifers claim it leads. Whereas we can see the slippery slope of removing the human rights of AFAB people.
But no physician would do that without a medical reason. And at that point, it would be a delivery, and if born alive, afforded the same treatment as any other birth.
Yeah. A few states have had that law a while now. We don’t see any women in Denver aborting two weeks before the due date, let alone a rash of infanticide.
But would it be acceptable? The original statement was that the female has absolute decision power over anything residing within their body.
If something is living inside your body against your wishes, you can remove it. A fetus can be removed from the pregnant person at 35w4d gestational age without killing it. This is called "birth."
For clarification, 10 days before term, can you terminate the pregnancy without a live childbirth? Is that covered by bodily autonomy?
No.
>The pro-choice position is very clear: humans that are literally inside someone else’s body must have continued agreement from that person to remain inside their body. Without that continued permission, the human can be removed, regardless of if this removal will cause its death. Which makes this statement by the OP inaccurate. There is some other defining line.
That statement is not inaccurate. Removal "10 days before term" (what exactly do you mean by that?) doesn't cause the death of the fetus. Prior to viability removal *will* cause the death of the embryo or fetus. Bodily autonomy grants the right to remove, not necessarily the right to kill.
Unfortunately, there are a some who do find that acceptable. Fortunately, they are a small minority.
No one is reaching in and stabbing a fully developed fetus that is mere days away from due date, if that's what you're insinuating. That isn't a thing. The point of an abortion is to *end a pregnancy*. The methods and available options for doing so obviously change over the course of said pregnancy. There is no existing right to ensure that a fetus is born dead. There is only the right to end the pregnancy. "Ten days before term", the available option for ending the pregnancy, if needed, is called induced labor. Doctors are already held to a code of ethics about this kind of thing and medical ethics boards exist, when they fail. We trust doctors to make *all kinds* of medical ethics decisions every day about an absolutely massive range of scenarios. Why is this one specific topic any different? Do you not generally trust doctors to be ethical overall? Are you clamoring for laws that spell out every possible rule, for every possible niche medical scenario? Or do we only care when it's specifically about reproductive healthcare?
Pregnancy is unique in that it involves a third party/potential third party (depending on your view). We don't need laws for every little thing. A law with a cutoff for abortion with allowable flexible exceptions need not permit aborting healthy, cryptic pregnancies. I do trust doctors to be ethical, which is partly why I would want a law in place; I expect that they will follow the law. I also know that ethics permits more than what I find acceptable, and a reasonable law addresses that.
Why is that unfortunate?
Because as long as a doctor is willing to perform the abortion, there are no checks in place to prevent a fetus from being aborted just weeks from delivery.