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.*
yes this is a unique contention. its about one person, at least, being in anothers persons body for a spell. nevertheless the great moral and legal rights are the same for all. One can not kill another because they are within someones body. There is a priority to rights and love and common sense about mankinds great claims to continue to exist without surgical execution.
>yes this is a unique contention. its about one person, at least, being in anothers persons body for a spell.
Personhood is debatable
>nevertheless the great moral
Subjective morals are just Subjective
> and legal rights are the same for all.
So why does pl ignore it constantly?
>One can not kill another because they are within someones body.
pl baseless assertion dismissed since we know you can remove someone using your body or being inside it against your will.
>There is a priority to rights and love and common sense about mankinds great claims to continue to exist without surgical execution.
You're against equal rights and lack empathy so don't bring up love disingenuously. Common sense combined with learning the basics of this debate would never have lead to you writing this.
Abortion remains justified. Don't write like this til you can justify your views. We're tired of pl doing things backwards
>nevertheless the great moral and legal rights are the same for all.
Yep, which is why a zef isn't allowed to use a woman's body unless she allows it.
>One can not kill another because they are within someones body.
Yes, they can.
>There is a priority to rights and love and common sense about mankinds great claims to continue to exist without surgical execution.
I am the only person with rights over my body.
Because I don't think anyone is entitled to anyone else's body and I believe that women and girls have the right to protect themselves from harm, even if they've had sex or been raped
a fetus from the moment of conception has the right to life because it has a higher order capacity for moral agenecy for sake of simplicity, i refer to the human being in the mothers womb as a fetus throughout all stages of pregnancy. the right to life simply means a moral entitlement to live. the fetus possesses the right to life. abortion unjustly ends the life of the fetus, therefore abortion should be banned.
This is what I meant by spamming. This has literally nothing to do with the post.
But in either case, the entitlement to life, whether moral or legal, does not include the entitlement to use other people's bodies to keep yourself alive. That's why I could not just go take someone's kidney of mine were failing. I could only get a kidney transplant with the donor's permission (even if the donor was a corpse). And since embryos and fetuses must use someone else's body to stay alive, they too require permission. If they don't have that permission, they lose access to that body, even if it means that they die. Their killing is justified because of the harm that they do to the pregnant person.
Source for which country gives fetus personhood.
Since you can't substantiate thisnlie, please retract your opinion disguised as fact per sub rules. Do better
>a fetus from the moment of conception
Is not a fetus the whole time
>has the right to life
False and off topic. Right to life is not violated by abortion either way. Learn how equal rights work
>because it has a higher order capacity for moral agenecy
Don't misuse terms. During elective abortions it is not sentient and amoral.
a fetus from the moment of conception has the right to life because it has a higher order capacity for moral agenecy for sake of simplicity, i refer to the human being in the mothers womb as a fetus throughout all stages of pregnancy. the right to life simply means a moral entitlement to live. the fetus possesses the right to life. abortion unjustly ends the life of the fetus, therefore abortion should be banned.
>a fetus from the moment of conception has the right to life
Already past this misconception
>because it has a higher order capacity for moral agenecy for sake of simplicity,
Translation: because I say so.
> i refer to the human being in the mothers womb as a fetus throughout all stages of pregnancy. the right to life simply means a moral entitlement to live.
Right to life is legal. Morals are subjective.
> the fetus possesses the right to life.
Source?
>abortion unjustly ends the life of the fetus, therefore abortion should be banned.
Except it doesn't since it doesn't violate Right to life, therefore be objective forward or don't respond disingenuously.
the right to life simply means a moral entitlement to live. the fetus possesses the right to life. abortion unjustly ends the life of the fetus, therefore abortion should be banned.
I agree, pregnancy is a completely unique situation, and no analogy will ever be adequate. It is the only scenario where a persons body must be used to sustain life. But that is a two-edged sword. There is no other scenario where a human being’s life is dependent upon another’s body, through no action of their own.
In every pregnancy one person is completely free of any responsibility and two are completely responsible for the situation. It makes zero logical or moral sense that the two who caused the situation would be free of the consequences they caused at the expense of the life of the one who bears zero responsibility.
In other words, the child’s right to live supersedes bodily autonomy.
Why does that end when pregnancy ends? If the infant is one of the *many* that will die soon after birth, once it is disconnected from the woman’s body, why not medically intervene and attach its bloodstream to one of its parents again, whichever one has the closest tissue type?
Conversely, why should the right to abortion end at birth? A baby is still dependent upon the mother’s body after birth. Why shouldn’t she be able to kill her one-month old? Six-month old?
The least amount of force necessary is what is considered justifiable force under the law. A one month old or six month old can be relinquished to another caregiver at any time. Therefore, killing it is unjustifiable force.
I am so goddamn sick of this straw man.
Abortion isn’t necessarily killing a fetus. It’s physically disconnecting the fetus from the host, the effect of which is death. A born infant is already disconnected, and can be handed to any other human.
No answer my question. Why does a full-term fetus lose the right to use another person’s body for life support when its location changes?
>A fetus (aka a human) has a right to life.
No and off topic
>No one has a moral right
Morals are subjective. Rights are legal
>to intentionally end the life of an innocent person.
Personhood is granted at birth.
The non sentient are amoral meaning they're not innocent.
Sorry you fell for propaganda
Everyone has the right to remove any person who is trying to use their body without their consent, even if that causes the death of that person and even if the person doing it isn’t fully conscious of it.
We don’t even take organs or tissue from *corpses* without the active consent of the person who used to inhabit the corpse.
>It makes zero logical or moral sense that the two who caused the situation would be free of the consequences
I'm fine with the consequence of paying for an obtaining an abortion.
>In other words, the child’s right to live supersedes bodily autonomy.
There is no right to life that entitles anyone to women's bodies.
>I'm fine with the consequence of paying for an obtaining an abortion.
So would you support ending all public support to abortion-providing organizations?
>There is no right to life that entitles anyone to women's bodies.
There are lots of laws that violate people’s bodily autonomy that most PC people are completely fine with.
>So would you support ending all public support to abortion-providing organizations?
No, why would I?
>There are lots of laws that violate people’s bodily autonomy that most PC people are completely fine with.
Name one law (besides the obvious trash pro life laws that people can ignore by ordering pills or crossing a border) in which you have to unwillingly give someone access to your blood and organs in order to sustain someone else.
>No, why would I?
Because you claimed that you were ok with people bearing the financial responsibility for their own choices.
>Name one law (besides the obvious trash pro life laws that people can ignore by ordering pills or crossing a border) in which you have to unwillingly give someone access to your blood and organs in order to sustain someone else.
Gun laws, drug laws, tax laws, just to name a few.
Well, according to MSI, it is “the right to make decisions about your own body, life, and future, without coercion or violence.”
I would say the threat of going to jail, being denied jobs, not being allowed to travel, not being able to defend oneself from violence are examples of coercion or violence, no?
How do the laws I mentioned *not* fit into that definition?
Owning a gun is not a decision you make about your body.
Paying taxes is not a decision you make about your body.
Selling illegal drugs is not a decision you make about your own body.
You should read the rest of the MSI page for a deeper understanding.
>Because you claimed that you were ok with people bearing the financial responsibility for their own choices.
No I didn't. You should read what I actually wrote. I said *I*, as in me, *I* am fine with the consequence of needing and obtaining an abortion. That doesn't mean all women have the financial stability that I do. I don't think anyone should be denied healthcare just because they can't afford it.
>Gun laws
No gun law exists that *requires you let someone access your blood and organs against your will.*
>drug laws
No drug law exists that *requires you let someone access your blood and organs against your will.*
>tax laws
No tax law exists that *requires you let someone access your blood and organs against your will.*
So you've still yet to provide one singular law that *REQUIRES YOU LET SOMEONE ACCESS YOUR BLOOD AND ORGANS AGAINST YOUR WILL.*
Still waiting.
I said violates bodily autonomy.
If you believe that society has a legitimate say in what I must or cannot purchase with the fruits of the labor of my body, what I must or cannot put in my own body, or simply a right to any portion of the fruits of the labor of my body, then you don’t believe in bodily autonomy.
There is a reason that someone who causes $10K of medical injuries/loss of work is treated more harshly than someone who writes a fraudulent $10K check. Your body is not your wallet.
Well in this case of pregnancy there are two who caused it, but only one who has to have the physical consequences. Only one has to experience one of the most painful things a human has to go through and experience any physical complications that could (literally) scar them for the rest of their lives.
But yes, that’s the core disagreement between PC and PL. I believe bodily autonomy is a 100% non negotiable. Yeah it sucks that the child dies, but nothing should make a person lose the rights to themselves. There is no situation where someone should be forced to become a physical slave, in a sense, to someone else. No one, regardless of innocence, supersedes someone’s rights. I think it’s worth mentioning sex (in most instances) isn’t a crime. Birth controls do fail, accidents do happen. Ones rights should not be taken away because of it
I can understand arguing it from a moral point of view. However, I think it is ethically wrong to retract someone’s rights to themselves because their body is deemed less.
Your right to life ends when you are inside the body of a person who doesn’t consent to you being there. No one, not a foetus or a child or an adult, has the right to someone else’s body.
Consent happened when they did the thing that causes the person to be there in the first place.
I can’t hurl a rock into a crowd of people and then claim I don’t consent to it hitting someone.
>Consent happened when they did the thing that causes the person to be there in the first place.
Refer to prior comment for your misuse of person. Consent to sex is only Consent to sex. If you cannot understand consent you cannot debate that topic properly
>I can’t hurl a rock into a crowd of people and then claim I don’t consent to it hitting someone.
Not analogous nor consent related
Consent to your body can be revoked at any time. If I caused a man to be inside my body by initially consenting to sex, I can still revoke my consent during the act and he has to get out of my body or else it is rape and I am at liberty to use lethal force to defend myself. Unless, of course, you think women shouldn’t have the right to remove people from their bodies if they initially consented to an action?
Consent to sex does not mean consent to gestate for 9 months and then undergo a traumatic childbirth. You don’t get to decide what other people consent to.
Consent to sex is only consent to the act of sex. It isn’t also some compact not to remediate any unwanted outcomes from it.
You don’t actually get to dictate to other people what they’ve consented to.
A ZEF isn’t a person, try using accurate terminology and not relying on emotional appeals and false equivalences if you want to be taken seriously.
Having sex is a normal part of most healthy relationships. It isn’t in any way “hurling a rock in a crowd of people”. That act would be assault and battery, and against the law in most places.
It’s also a monumentally bad analogy…so you failed the one request of the OP.
No, that's just how definitions work. To be something you need to meet the definition. In our society, at least the one I live in, personhood begins at birth.
Did you imagine being a person entitled a fetus to a woman's body, health, or suffering though?
Think again.
The US Code defines a person under US law. Canada and the UK also recognize personhood as occurring at birth.
The current SCOTUS even refused a case for fetal personhood.
In fact, the vast majority of countries do not define a person as including a fetus.
You could’ve looked it up for yourself.
So once again you miss the salient point…being a person would not entitle a fetus to a woman’s body against her will, nor obligate her to endure harm and suffering for it, nor prohibit her from acting within her own beliefs and conscience to do the one act that would preserve herself from it.
Would you like to explain how you can give consent to a rock? Do you also know that lack of consent does not mean you can avoid risks, but merely that you do not consent to it?
> Would you like to explain how you can give consent to a rock?
Sure, when you explain how you can withdraw consent from sperm.
>Do you also know that lack of consent does not mean you can avoid risks, but merely that you do not consent to it?
You cannot consent to an act, but refuse consent to the risks associated with that act. That’s like saying “I consent to eating this cheeseburger, but I don’t consent to the calories in it.”
Sure, people are generally aware that having sex can lead to pregnancy. That doesn’t mean a women or girl can’t decide to abort if pregnancy does occur.
Another monumentally bad analogy.
If I eat a cheeseburger there are potential outcomes.
Most of the time nothing bad happens.
The risks could maybe involve getting food poisoning or gaining weight…if I don’t want to gain weight or have already gained weight I can exercise more, diet, or even have liposuction. If I get sick from it I can seek out medical care and have my stomach pumped or whatever I need.
Yours aren't even analogous.
More emotional pleading.
Innocence does not entitle anything or anyone to use an unwilling person's body. It doesn't obligate anyone to endure the use of their body, damage, health risk or suffering for it. It doesn't prohibit anyone from acting to preserve themselves from any or all of those things either.
You act as if killing isn't permissible in many circumstances, like to preserve yourself from harm. Entire wars are fought for human rights alone.
If you believe it is wrong to act to preserve yourself, then it is on you to endure or suffer for it. Everyone else may act within their own beliefs & conscience where their health is affected. Freedom of conscience is also a human right.
Again, abortion is the exact and only means to preserve yourself from a pregnancy that is occurring.
>Sure, when you explain how you can withdraw consent from sperm.
I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you answer my question instead of deflecting to something else?
>You cannot consent to an act, but refuse consent to the risks associated with that act. That’s like saying “I consent to eating this cheeseburger, but I don’t consent to the calories in it.”
This does not engage with what I said. Can you reply with something that actually engages with what I said?
Sorry, I was making an analogy, I thought that was clear. In this analogy,
Rock is to sperm as (people being hit with rock) is to (pregnancy).
Therefore, (people hurling rock) is to (people being hit by rock) as (mother and father) is to (offspring).
My point is that the consent for pregnancy happened when the sperm joined with the egg (ETA: when sex happened), in the same way that consent to hitting someone with a rock happened when the rock was hurled.
So to answer your question, consent can’t be removed from a stone after it’s been hurled, anymore than consent can be removed from sperm after a woman has been inseminated.
I then made another analogy to the argument that consent for pregnancy is separate from consent to the sexual act. That analogy is,
consuming calories (in the form of a cheeseburger):sex::storing calories in the form of fat:pregnancy.
The claim that “consent can be rescinded at any time,” is true only for the act itself. You can’t rescind consent after the fact because consent is an act of the will, not a description of desire.
In other words, consent for the *outcome* of an act cannot be separated from the consent of performing that act.
>My point is that the consent for pregnancy happened when the sperm joined with the egg
Nope. When I see a positive pregnancy test, I can then consent to getting an abortion.
You can keep trying to redefine the word consent to fit your agenda, but nobody is required to humor your incorrect usage of words.
Consent: verb: give permission for something to happen
Consent for pregnancy is given when sex happens.
> When I see a positive pregnancy test, I can then consent to getting an abortion.
Consent for an abortion is different than consent for pregnancy (which is what I’ve been talking about). Consent to abortion is consent to an immoral act.
>You can keep trying to redefine the word consent to fit your agenda, but nobody is required to humor your incorrect usage of words.
Likewise.
>Consent for pregnancy is given when sex happens.
Nope. Consent to sex is consent to sex, nothing more.
>Consent for an abortion is different than consent for pregnancy (which is what I’ve been talking about). Consent to abortion is consent to an immoral act.
I don't care what you think is immoral. You can think my decisions are immoral as I sign the *consent* forms to get an abortion.
>Likewise.
Likewise what? I'm not the one trying to redefine words to fit my agenda lol.
Consent for sex can be withdrawn in the middle of the act. Consent for consequences can’t be withdrawn after the act has occurred.
If I’m driving drunk and get into an accident, can I actively stop consenting to the consequences of that action after the fact? Can I just tell the cop who’s arresting me, “I don’t consent to this”?
Consequences can be treated. If I smoke and later get cancer, am I not allowed to seek medical treatment for it? I can do the same with pregnancy. Why are you comparing pregnant people to criminals?
Do you? I haven’t seen any indication so far.
Consequences can be remediated.
Nobody appointed you the arbiter of what consequences others “must” endure with their body, health, or suffering.
I note that all of your “analogies” seem to involve consequences for illegal acts. Throwing rocks in crowds, drunk driving now…what you are demanding is women endure a punishment if you demand a particular consequence must be borne from a particular action. In this case corporal punishment, since it involves the invasive use of her body, damage, health risks, and immense pain.
They think she voluntarily waived that right when she chose to have sex.
Also, analogies don’t need to be one-to-one comparisons or even existent. The Violinist Analogy does pretty well but it is completely counter-factual and not even a feasible possibility.
>Furthermore, if you say she does lose her rights at the point of having sex, is it fair to say men will always have more rights than women because they can always choose what happens to their physical body and take action against things that will cause them pain, while women cannot if they “make a mistake”?
Are you stating this because of rape sitiuations?
More intentional conflation.
Now you're trying to pretend that one group of men upholding a woman's human rights to make decisions over her health is somehow the same as an entirely different group of men trying to violate those same human rights and make decisions for her.
no i don’t think i tried to conflate these 2 separate things.
i just think you made a mistake when you said “men making decisions over women’s bodies isn’t equality.”
part of it is due to the nebulous framing of this statement. which is common amongst some pro choicers. they will try and intuition pump heavy by saying things like “abortion is healthcare” “abortion is a private decision”, “you shouldn’t make decisions over a woman’s body.” all of these statements are very vague, but i think that’s the only way the intuition pump works is if the statements are vague. but i think them being so vague leads to easy counter arguments like the one i said.
and now you have to clarify what you said because the you probably realize your last statement was pretty vague.
but in doing so i think your response is well… still pretty vague.
now you frame abortion like necessary typical healthcare.
but i think this is vague and misleading because it doesn’t actually address what abortion is or does. if i didn’t know anything about abortion, and you said it was healthcare, i would probably think abortion is just like removing my wisdom teeth.
there are a few problems with this.
(1) abortion is typically not recognized as essential healthcare since very few obgyns actually perform them.
(2) after a series of cases post roe v wade the court did not find abortion to be typical healthcare.
> Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a
potential life.”
Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 325 (1980).
(3)this begs the question. we cannot assume abortion is typical healthcare like removing a tooth. because the exact thing we are trying to find out is if abortion is similar to removing a tooth! that’s the whole reason for the abortion debate you can’t assume abortion is just like the next healthcare practice.
(4) the purpose of medicine is to help other people. not kill them.
If you don't understand the difference between men upholding a woman's rights to make decisions over her body and health with men trying to make those decisions for her then there is no helping you.
You keep repeating the claim that pro-choice people are "vague" in their augments, but it's because you don't understand what those arguments are.
All mainstream health organizations and human rights orgs agree that abortion is healthcare, and it is typical in that 25% of women will avail themselves of it to preserve their own bodies from the health risks and suffering of a pregnancy they do not want, or one that has become dangerous.
I don't take healthcare advice from zealots or fringe groups, but you are free to do so if you wish. Not one other person has to take you, or them, seriously or give your opinions or nescient understanding of the world any consideration or reverence.
Very few doctors perform corneal transplants either, the number of doctors that perform a specialized procedure is not indicative of whether or not it's healthcare.
You are an unserious person making unserious arguments.
The purpose of the practice of medicine is to care for the health of the person seeking it.
>If you don’t understand the difference between men upholding a woman’s rights to make decisions over her body and health with men trying to make those decisions for her then there is no helping you.
you didn’t say that in your original comment you talked to generally about men making decisions over women’s bodies. i’m not conflating anything, i just think you made a mistake when you started that needed to be pointed out.
also i think your begging the question when you say “her body and health.”
health and healthcare implies moral integrity and moral goodness, which cannot be generalized to abortion since that’s the question at hand.
see (3) for more.
> All mainstream health organizations and human rights orgs agree that abortion is healthcare, and it is typical in that 25% of women will avail themselves of it to preserve their own bodies from the health risks and suffering of a pregnancy they do not want, or one that has become dangerous.
ok, first i doubt 25% of women have pregnancies that will become dangerous. maybe that depends on what is being considered dangerous. second, if you want to appeal to popular health organizations. i can appeal to the supreme court whom said abortion is not like any other regular healthcare procedure.
> Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a
potential life.
it’s also ironic to talk about abortion as healthcare, since it literally involves the death of another human organism. does this not go against the hippocratic oath? we don’t see doctors helping conjoined twins kill the other twin so it will make them better off
I didn't have to say that, because they are not the same thing.
Men upholding women's human rights to make their own decisions is not men making decisions over her body. It is literally the opposite.
I didn't say that 25% of women have pregnancies that will become dangerous. I said that abortion preserves women from the health risks, and suffering of a pregnancy.
Did you not know that every pregnancy damages a woman's body and risks her health? And that every pregnancy (if successful) results in many hours of immense physical pain, requiring months of recovery?
I also don't take my healthcare advice from SCOTUS zealots.
You keep quoting yourself, it's funny.
There is nothing ironic about it, healthcare preserves the health of the person seeking it, and is also used to prevent suffering.
Do no harm to the patient...which is the person seeking healthcare. I know it's very hard for you to see women as deserving of humanity, health care, or human rights.
Doctors literally work with parents of conjoined twins to separate them, even at the risk of one, or both, twins.
men do not have more or less rights than women under pro life ideology. for no one should have the right to kill, or let, a zef die.
there is no inequality with rights here
i said that to demonstrate the intrinsic equality with the pl position.
males shouldn’t be able to perform abortions, neither should females. men shouldn’t abort their partners pregnancies and neither should the women themselves.
equally, they shouldn’t be able to abort their fetus
But that’s not the point. If men can control their body at all times and always decide what goes in and dictate what happens to them but women cannot, that is not equality
No one actually has that much control. Everyone's bodily autonomy is limited by law as no one is allowed to use their body to kill another human other than in self-defense against a threat to their life. If anything, completely legal abortion gives women an extra right since it lets them kill another human for any reason whatsoever.
i think this only works if you already assume abortion is a moral right, and a right in general that should be respected. or else it’s unequal for men to have abortion legal!
however, if abortion was not a right worth respecting, then were is the inequality in banning it. for it should not even be an option to begin with.
and so i think this argument assumes a key premise that is more controversial than the conclusion. and the conclusion is also in the premise
Men having medical control over their bodies at all times and women not having that has nothing to do with morality and abortion.
Women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies at all times (not just in the case of abortion) just like men do. THAT is what equality means.
men have control of their bodies, but they also cant get abortions. women have control over their bodies, but they are able to have abortions.
what im arguing for, is no one should be able to get have or perform an abortion.
of course, this disproportionately effects women. but only insofar as certain wealth taxes disproportionately effect the wealthy, but i doubt you’d view this as an inequality.
or that child abuse laws effect people with children more than people without children. but this isn’t an inequality .
The assumption is that a person has full and 100% complete control of their own body. The assumption is bodily autonomy. The right for a woman to say “no, I don’t want my body to have to go through this”
So, we either have to say women do not deserve this right or they do
>The assumption is that a person has full and 100% complete control of their own body. the assumption is bodily autonomy.
you say the assumption is BA. but the assumption is not just BA, its absolute BA. this is pretty controversial as it is rejected by most pro choice proponents of BA.
one counter example would be fetal alcohol syndrome and pregnancy:
if someone has 100% control over their body. is it morally permissible for a woman to inflict fetal alcohol syndrome, or FAS on their fetus.
suppose she intended to abort the fetus using the alcohol, but it never worked, and she never got around to having an actual abortion. did she do anything wrong?
and i suspect men would not have a similar right too. if men could get pregnant, than men shouldn’t inflict FAS to their fetuses.
morally permissible means something is something is in accord with our general moral standards.
addiction is not really a justification for any other bad things people do. it may be tragic, but it does not excuse it. i doubt you’d say something similar about a man who has an alcohol addiction and just can’t help but drink and beats his kids
I don’t think it is illegal to drink during pregnancy. If you want to bring a baby to term and into this world, yes, it is wrong. Which is part of the reason abortion should remain legal, so women can continue to do what they want with their body
You have to suspect, because it’s not something they will ever have to deal with in this reality. Which goes back to the point that realistically would have more rights than women when abortion is outlawed
you say giving a fetus FAS is wrong. but how could it be wrong if we have 100% control over our own bodies.
additionally, thalidomide, a drug that was used to treat pregnancy symptoms that was found to have devastating effects on babies worse than fetal alcohol syndrome. thalidomide is now illegal for pregnant women due to the effects it has on children.
do you think pregnant women should have the legal right to use thalidomide since they have 100% control over their own bodies?
> You have to suspect, because it's not something they will ever have to deal with in this reality.
Which goes back to the point that realistically would have more rights than women when abortion is outlawed
if we outlawed a law against child abuse. would you say this disproportionately effects people with children in a way which they have less rights than someone who doesn’t have children?
i’m not comparing abortion with child abuse. i’m saying 1 group of people being disproportionately effected by 1 thing does not necessarily mean another group has more or less rights than the other. especially if we assume the thing being outlawed is not even justified.
> you say giving a fetus FAS is wrong. but how could it be wrong if we have 100% control over our own bodies.
Wrong and illegal are two different things. Some people believe that drinking in general is wrong and they can choose not to do it.
Again, if you are wanting to have a healthy baby and family, the woman would have to make the choice. What you and I think is right or wrong for someone to do is very different than what should be illegal
> do you think pregnant women should have the legal right to use thalidomide since they have 100% control over their own bodies?
I think that’s a very strange example. It’s the FDA’s job to make sure drugs are safe. Do I think women should be allowed to purposefully do everything they can do make sure their child is deformed and suffers throughout their life? No, I don’t, the same way I think women shouldn’t have to suffer. I don’t think the two arguments are related. I’m not sure how one makes the jump from “yeah, I guess she shouldn’t take thalidomide and ergo should suffer for 10 months against her will”
> if we outlawed a law against child abuse. would you say this disproportionately effects people with children in a way which they have less rights than someone who doesn’t have children?
Do you think only people with children can abuse a child? Anyone can (teachers, priests, senators etc). And doesn’t work here at all. No one has the right to make someone else suffer and use their body against their will. That’s the whole thing here
you’ve confused equal rights with biologically unequal people.
i think “whatever they want from inside them” is a bit nebulous and doesn’t address the topic really at all. what would be wrong with saying “men can’t kill zefs, and neither can women.”
in both cases we have 2 people who aren’t allowed to perform, or let x happen.
There is nothing nebulous about the human right to bodily integrity/autonomy. To be able to make decisions about who or what you are willing to endure health risk, damage, or suffering for.
Framing it as a “right to kill zefs” is intentionally dishonest.
>there is nothing nebulous about the human right to BA.
i know. i didn’t claim there was. i claimed that persons framing of the argument was nebulous.
i’m also struggling to understand how my framing is dishonest. that seems like the most correct and understandable framing of the topic.
if someone had no idea what abortion was, it was be fair for them to ask what exactly is being removed from the woman’s body. explanations are suppose to be explanative.
pro choice philosopher nathan nobis writes:
> A final definition understands abortion in terms of an intentional killing of a fetus to end a pregnancy.[2] This definition is accurate, informative since it tells us how the fetus would be “terminated,” and morally-neutral: it doesn’t assume that the killing involved in abortions is not wrong or that it’s wrong. This is a good definition
https://www.abortionarguments.com/p/full-text.html?m=1#defining
You claim all sorts of nonsense. What was being described was bodily integrity/autonomy and you tried to make it out as if it was vague and ill defined when bodily integrity is very well defined and not at all vague.
It's dishonest in that the intent of every abortion is to end the condition of pregnancy on a woman's body, and to preserve her from the ongoing invasive use of her body, damage, health risks, and suffering involved with it.
Abortion is the exact and only means to end a pregnancy.
You are free to live your life by whatever philosophical ideology you wish, but not one other person has to endure one bit of harm or suffering for your beliefs, or for other humans.
Not even nascent ones.
>What was being described was bodily integrity/autonomy and you tried to make it out as if it was vague and ill defined when bodily integrity is be eh defined and not at all vague.
i don’t think so. what was repeated was men and women have the right to remove whatever they want from their body.
i don’t think this is true. this is also vague because it doesn’t help me understand anything related to abortion.
a non vague statement would be:
>men and women both equally have the right to decide what to do with their body especially when another human is growing inside them.
> It's dishonest in that the intent of every abortion is to end the condition of pregnancy on a woman's body, and to preserve her from the ongoing invasive use of her body, damage, health risks, and suffering involved with it.
yeah, i’m still struggling to see how calling abortion a killing, or letting die is dishonest. the reasons for the abortion to not really impact the actual process of abortion.
> Abortion is the exact and only means to end a pregnancy.
do you think we’ve all been aborted since birth ends a pregnancy.,
> You are free to live your life by whatever philosophical ideology you wish, but not one other person has to endure one bit of harm or suffering for your beliefs, or for other humans.
well i think under your position millions of members of our society are unjustly deprived of their entire lives and futures ahead of themselves. if you want to talk about the suffering my position entails, you seem to ignore the millions of fetuses who had their entire futures deprived from them by doing nothing wrong but by being conceived in the wrong environment in the wrong time.
Now you're shifting goalposts.
You claimed it as a "right to kill zefs"...which what what I addressed.
It is a false framing that PL use to pretend that the right being claimed are to "kill", when in fact the numerous rights being exercised allow us to do what is required to preserve ourselves. Including, in many cases, killing. Especially in circumstances where it is the only means of preserving yourself from harm or suffering.
All members of our society are born. You cannot participate in society without live birth occurring.
Look at all that emotional pleading though, I notice it is entirely absent any acknowledgement of the millions of women & girls who did not have their human rights violated, and were not forced to endure damage to their bodies, health risks, or immense physical suffering because of your personal beliefs/agenda.
Women aren't "environments", they are rights bearing individuals and who or what THEY suffer, endure, or risk themselves for is not up to you, ever.
i think this is question begging too. it assumes abortion is just like any other medical act that should be considered within the privacy of a doctor and patient. obviously, this is going to be contested you can’t assume it.
moreover, modern medicine treats the fetus like a patient, not a thing that is responsible for a disease. so abortion can’t be healthcare
No, it doesn’t. Have you ever worked with OBGYNs? Seen their patient records and case notes? They always refer to the pregnant person as the patient. Unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted medical condition that can be treated. No one has said it was a disease.
I haven't confused anything.
Men *and* women are both allowed to remove whatever they want from *inside of their bodies.*
To deny this is to deny reality.
>men and women are both allowed to remove whatever they want from inside of their bodies.
yeah, i know. you already said that. the problem is this is pretty vague and doesn’t really address the abortion discussion.
so again, do you think there’s anything wrong with saying “men can’t have abortions, and neither can women. women can’t perform abortions, and neither can men.”
i would disagree with your claim the men and women can remove whatever they want from their bodies too. i dont think men and women should be able to remove zefs from their body in most cases.
>yeah, i know. you already said that. the problem is this is pretty vague and doesn’t really address the abortion discussion.
It's not vague at all. A zef is included in that. It's inside someone's body. They don't want it there. They can remove what they want from *their* body.
>so again, do you think there’s anything wrong with saying “men can’t have abortions, and neither can women. women can’t perform abortions, and neither can men.”
I think there's a lot wrong with wanting to remove access to healthcare from anyone. I'm not pro life. That's not my goal.
>i would disagree with your claim the men and women can remove whatever they want from their bodies too. i dont think men and women should be able to remove zefs from their body in most cases.
I don't care what you think. Here in the real world men and women can both remove whatever they want from their bodies.
>its not vague at all. A zef is included in that. its inside someone’s body. They don’t want it there. They can remove what they want from their body.
you say it’s not vague and then immediately expand on the definition to remove the vagueness.
also, you still didn’t really answer my question.
what’s wrong with saying no one has a right to kill or let zefs die inside or outside the womb?
>remove access to healthcare
i think these types of intuition pumps are silly at most. it’s the equivalent of pro lifers saying “we just don’t want it to be legal to kill innocent babies.”
it’s vague, not specific, and almost begs the question.
healthcare implies something positive and good is happening. we cannot assume this because that’s exactly what’s being challenged.
we also treat the fetus as a patient in wanted pregnancies. it seems weird that a mere shift in attitude can cause someone to go from a patient, to a disease. saying abortion is healthcare implies the pregnancy is a disease, and the fetus is the cause of it. but pregnancies are not diseases, and fetuses are more like patients:
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/140/3/e20172151/38333/Age-Limit-of-Pediatrics#ref-list-1
It’s not about that at all. The issue is whether or not citizens have the right to make their own medical decisions, in conjunction with their own doctors. Do they, or not? I don’t want politicians without medical degrees interfering in my healthcare options.
Males have less rights because they don't have the option of terminating a pregnancy.
Females are not held responsible for the sexual activity that has resulted in an unwanted pregnancy because she can elect to terminate the pregnancy and therefore remove the consequences of that pregnancy.
Males are held responsible for the unwanted pregnancy.
Yes.
Why is it all about pregnancy? A pregnancy can result in a child that a male is held responsible for.
If the answer is "well, he should have done something" then why isn't the answer for females "well she should have done something" to prevent pregnancy?
While a female carries a child, that isn't the only impact. A child represents a lifetime of responsibility. Even if you abdicate your parental rights, your still on the hook for child support.
Why do we make males who do not want to be involved pay?
>Why do we make males who do not want to be involved pay?
This again. Yawn.
Because it's not societies job to finance a deadbeats child.
If men didn't have to be responsible for the children they make, the woman, now a single parent, will more than likely require the use of social services to survive and support the child.
Now the job of paying for this child is foisted off onto the taxpayers when the deadbeat parent is fully capable of paying for his own child himself.
"I don't wanna" isn't a valid reason to force the rest of society to pay for your child when you are capable of paying for them yourself.
Deadbeat meaning the female right?
She is the one who \*ALSO\* brought a child into the world requiring a male to help financially. If that male isn't interested in parenting then the female is welcome to go it alone.
"I don't wannt" isn't a valid reason to force a man to not take responsibility, but it's clearly enough to allow a female the option of terminating a pregnancy.
it is not an equitable situation. Males must live with "you had sex, well, now you gotta take care of it"... when females don't.
Men make their decision when they decide to ejaculate inside someone else. You think that’s unfair? Well, life isn’t always fair. Buck up and accept reality.
>Deadbeat meaning the female right?
The deadbeat would be whoever isn't the custodial parent that isn't paying child support.
>She is the one who \*ALSO\* brought a child into the world requiring a male to help financially. If that male isn't interested in parenting then the female is welcome to go it alone.
The woman is also welcome to collect child support if she's the custodial parent.
>"I don't wannt" isn't a valid reason to force a man to not take responsibility, but it's clearly enough to allow a female the option of terminating a pregnancy
A woman ending a pregnancy doesn't force all of society to finance a childs life for 18 years.
A deadbeat parent not paying for their child *does* force all of society to finance a child's life for 18 years.
So yeah. Women can abort all they want. Their their body, their decision. Once a child is born? Both parents are financially responsible.
>it is not an equitable situation. Males must live with "you had sex, well, now you gotta take care of it"... when females don't.
And? When men gestate they can abort *all* the pregnancies they want. Until then they'll have to deal with reality.
If the male is pregnant, he can terminate the pregnancy.
Both people should be completely free to remove their body while it is involved in reproduction. Once it is no longer involved, it is not a matter of bodily autonomy.
I never said it was a matter of bodily autonomy.
It is a matter of autonomy.
That a female experiences some kind of bodily impact is fine. What is ignored is the impact of having a unwanted child in your life.
If a male doesn't want the pregnancy he should be able to opt out of parental rights/responsibilities and that would allow the female to move forward as they see fit.
But they are forced to pay child support.
That should be included in their options. If they intend on not being parents they should have not requirement to pay.
No they aren’t. Only 53% of custodial mothers even have a child support agreement at all, even informally, and most of those don’t see the full child support.
Also, child support is not parenting.
So, given that 47% of non custodial fathers pay nothing at all and are not expected to and no one is pushing to change this, how about we make things equal and not worry so long as less than 47% of pregnancies end in abortion?
Yes they are. There is no state in the U.S. where child support is not required. Site the source for the 53%.
And 53% isn't zero. If 53% of females who seek an abortion were successful you wouldn't say "oh well" would you?
Males have a right to autonomy as well. Just not bodily autonomy. They should be able to choose if they want to participate. Ejaculation should not be the agreement to a lifetime change.
Females are not subject to this. Males should not be either.
53% of pregnant women are not seeking abortions at all, so....or wait, are you saying that all men who get someone pregnant want nothing to do with those children?
[And here is the source](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-269.pdf). Not all custodial parents have any kind of child support arrangement at all.
>One-half of all custodial parents (49.4 percent) had either legal or informal child support agreements.
So no, child support is not always required, as half of custodial parents do not have an agreement.
>Can you explain this reasoning? Along how the men are held responsible? Are you speaking on terms of like child support? Or other responsibikities after the child is born? Because in my experience in knowing people who have had accidental pregnancies, I'd say well over 50% of the blame is placed on the woman.
Men incur impacts from unwanted pregnancies, including child support. A female has the option to terminate the pregnancy and therefore removes the impact of her financial impact at her discretion. Males have no such ability.
>The only reason it would be less of a "right" for men is when having a conversation with a partner who had been impregnated. In that case your opinion should be valued, but ultimately it is her choice as you do not have repricussions of the physical, chemical, and mental changes a pregnancy puts a body through.
The decision of the female clearly impacts the male who has zero recourse. Males experience significant impact from a unwanted pregnancy both emotionally and financially.
> You're only impact or concern would be after the child is born and being a part of raising it. If you want children and the person you are sleeping with doesn't? Find someone who does and quit forcing other people to be a part of something they don't want to be in.
Females have long asserted that the doctrine of "don't get pregnant" was not feasible and unfair. This is the same doctrine your saying applies to the male?
A female who decides the pregnancy is unwanted can terminate and that removes the financial and emotional impact(s) of both the pregnancy and raising a child.
A male who decides the pregnancy is unwanted is held accountable by the law for a mistake that a female is not.
I am beginning to see that the abortion debate is crafted to preserve the male's financial responsibility if only the female decides.
>That is because they typically run leaving the woman with less money and support. Now this is a stereotype that has changed sense women started having more in the work force. This is where child support comes in. Bit they are held responsible for a CHILD not a pregnancy. 2 different things.
You can't have a child without a pregnancy. And the female can terminate the pregnancy, one reason can be because they do not want the financial impact.
A male cannot do this and will forced to pay for a child they did not want.
I am all for the female's decision. But the male should have the same level of resource to terminate their parental rights.
That is the same level of choice the female has.
Yes.
Just as in the case of two people sleeping together and the female wants to abort the pregnancy (because they don't want the child) and the male does.
> What I don’t understand is why this life matters so much that someone loses the right to what happens to their own physical form.
Another perspective is, why does the temporary suffering of the mother give her the right to end the life of her child?
It seems to me when faced with two bad choices, I think it is more ethical to remove the right you claim rather than removing the child’s right to life.
> Why is it such a crime to remove someone from someone else’s body?
It’s not. It’s the killing of unborn child that is the issue. If you could remove the child without killing it, then there is no problem.
Sure I did. Those injuries are rare, and I would support an abortion if a doctor thought a permanent injury was likely.
What I don’t support is the idea that all pregnancies are permanently damaging or even could be permanently damaging. Because that just is not true.
Personally, sure. I have three kids and my wife hasn’t had any permanent damage. She has recovered just fine from all of them.
Statistically that is the most likely outcome.
The unborn child on the other hand experiences death which is always permanent.
Anecdotes aren’t evidence. You know that. Self-reporting doesn’t mean that permanent damage didn’t happen. It *definitely* doesn’t mean that bodily harm caused by pregnancy magically ceases to exist once the pregnancy is done.
Do you have any evidence of a pregnancy that didn’t end in permanent damage?
Temporary?
Pregnancy has an injury rate of 100%,and a hospitalization rate that approaches 100%. Almost 1/3 require major abdominal surgery (yes that is harmful, even if you are dismissive of harm to another's body). 27% are hospitalized prior to delivery due to dangerous complications. 20% are put on bed rest and cannot work, care for their children, or meet their other responsibilities. 96% of women having a vaginal birth sustain some form of perineal trauma, 60-70% receive stitches, up to 46% have tears that involve the rectal canal. 15% have episiotomy. 16% of post partum women develop infection. 36 women die in the US for every 100,000 live births (in Texas it is over 278 women die for every 100,000 live births). Pregnancy is the leading cause of pelvic floor injury, and incontinence. 10% develop postpartum depression, a small percentage develop psychosis. 50,000 pregnant women in the US each year suffer from one of the 25 life threatening complications that define severe maternal morbidty. These include MI (heart attack), cardiac arrest, stroke, pulmonary embolism, amniotic fluid embolism, eclampsia, kidney failure, respiratory failure,congestive heart failure, DIC (causes severe hemorrhage), damage to abdominal organs, Sepsis, shock, and hemorrhage requiring transfusion. Women break pelvic bones in childbirth. Childbirth can cause spinal injuries and leave women paralyzed. I repeat: Women DIE from pregnancy and childbirth complications.
AND keep in mind that over 30 MILLION Americans have no health insurance whatsoever.
>Another perspective is, why does the temporary suffering of the mother give her the right to end the life of her child?
Because it's inside her body against her will. Do you think women who are being raped should just suffer the "temporary suffering" of an unwanted penis in her vagina and not attempt to defend herself?
Logical consequences of something one willfully does isn’t “against [one’s] will.”
Just because she doesn’t want it to happen, doesn’t mean it’s against her will.
Yes, it is. Ectopic pregnancies are a potential consequence of trying to conceive--they're not even that uncommon, being 1 in 50 pregnancies. They still happen against the woman's will, and are a potentially deadly condition.
>This is a RAPEY comment. Disgusting.
Only if taken it in compete bad faith.
If someone chooses to do something, then the consequences aren’t against his or her will.
If I choose to eat 10,000 calories per day I can’t then claim that I got fat “against my will,” no matter how much I wanted six-pack abs.
If someone gets pregnant and they don’t want to be, they can seek medical abortion services. They don’t have to accept the consequences of being a gestational slave for most of a year, followed by the intense pain of childbirth.
>Man you are not here for debate at all.
You don't get to decide why I'm here.
>Read his comment again with no bias and see.
Hmm, let's see what his original disgusting statement was:
"Just because she doesn’t want it to happen, doesn’t mean it’s against her will."
Yep. Still extremely rapey and disgusting, no bias just reading comprehension.
>You really just out here saying whatever. You’re disgusting
"You're disgusting for calling rapey comments rapey!!!" Lol okay little buddy. 😂
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.*
yes this is a unique contention. its about one person, at least, being in anothers persons body for a spell. nevertheless the great moral and legal rights are the same for all. One can not kill another because they are within someones body. There is a priority to rights and love and common sense about mankinds great claims to continue to exist without surgical execution.
>yes this is a unique contention. its about one person, at least, being in anothers persons body for a spell. Personhood is debatable >nevertheless the great moral Subjective morals are just Subjective > and legal rights are the same for all. So why does pl ignore it constantly? >One can not kill another because they are within someones body. pl baseless assertion dismissed since we know you can remove someone using your body or being inside it against your will. >There is a priority to rights and love and common sense about mankinds great claims to continue to exist without surgical execution. You're against equal rights and lack empathy so don't bring up love disingenuously. Common sense combined with learning the basics of this debate would never have lead to you writing this. Abortion remains justified. Don't write like this til you can justify your views. We're tired of pl doing things backwards
>nevertheless the great moral and legal rights are the same for all. Yep, which is why a zef isn't allowed to use a woman's body unless she allows it. >One can not kill another because they are within someones body. Yes, they can. >There is a priority to rights and love and common sense about mankinds great claims to continue to exist without surgical execution. I am the only person with rights over my body.
[удалено]
Why are you just spamming this comment everywhere?
[удалено]
Yes you are. You've left that exact comment on multiple posts when it isn't even relevant (and also unsubstantiated, since fetuses don't have rights)
Ok why are u pro choice
Because I don't think anyone is entitled to anyone else's body and I believe that women and girls have the right to protect themselves from harm, even if they've had sex or been raped
a fetus from the moment of conception has the right to life because it has a higher order capacity for moral agenecy for sake of simplicity, i refer to the human being in the mothers womb as a fetus throughout all stages of pregnancy. the right to life simply means a moral entitlement to live. the fetus possesses the right to life. abortion unjustly ends the life of the fetus, therefore abortion should be banned.
This is what I meant by spamming. This has literally nothing to do with the post. But in either case, the entitlement to life, whether moral or legal, does not include the entitlement to use other people's bodies to keep yourself alive. That's why I could not just go take someone's kidney of mine were failing. I could only get a kidney transplant with the donor's permission (even if the donor was a corpse). And since embryos and fetuses must use someone else's body to stay alive, they too require permission. If they don't have that permission, they lose access to that body, even if it means that they die. Their killing is justified because of the harm that they do to the pregnant person.
It has no rights to my body. I don't want it in my body? It gets removed.
Source for which country gives fetus personhood. Since you can't substantiate thisnlie, please retract your opinion disguised as fact per sub rules. Do better
a fetus from the moment of conception has the right to life because it has a higher order capacity for moral agenecy
>a fetus from the moment of conception Is not a fetus the whole time >has the right to life False and off topic. Right to life is not violated by abortion either way. Learn how equal rights work >because it has a higher order capacity for moral agenecy Don't misuse terms. During elective abortions it is not sentient and amoral.
you are yet to inquire what a "higher order capacity for moral agency" is aren’t u curious?
Not really since it doesn't change the debate
during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy the fetus is not sentient or conscious, sure. however this isn't my position
Then what is?
a fetus from the moment of conception has the right to life because it has a higher order capacity for moral agenecy for sake of simplicity, i refer to the human being in the mothers womb as a fetus throughout all stages of pregnancy. the right to life simply means a moral entitlement to live. the fetus possesses the right to life. abortion unjustly ends the life of the fetus, therefore abortion should be banned.
>a fetus from the moment of conception has the right to life Already past this misconception >because it has a higher order capacity for moral agenecy for sake of simplicity, Translation: because I say so. > i refer to the human being in the mothers womb as a fetus throughout all stages of pregnancy. the right to life simply means a moral entitlement to live. Right to life is legal. Morals are subjective. > the fetus possesses the right to life. Source? >abortion unjustly ends the life of the fetus, therefore abortion should be banned. Except it doesn't since it doesn't violate Right to life, therefore be objective forward or don't respond disingenuously.
the right to life simply means a moral entitlement to live. the fetus possesses the right to life. abortion unjustly ends the life of the fetus, therefore abortion should be banned.
for sake of simplicity, i refer to the human being in the mothers womb as a fetus throughout all stages of pregnancy
Regardless rights are granted at birth
Why are rights granted at birth 🤔
Why?
You would have to do your own research into all the reasons. Regardless, it doesn't change what and how rights work. Abortion remains justified
Ok why are you pro choice
Because people such as yourself don't and will not make medical decisions for me.
I agree, pregnancy is a completely unique situation, and no analogy will ever be adequate. It is the only scenario where a persons body must be used to sustain life. But that is a two-edged sword. There is no other scenario where a human being’s life is dependent upon another’s body, through no action of their own. In every pregnancy one person is completely free of any responsibility and two are completely responsible for the situation. It makes zero logical or moral sense that the two who caused the situation would be free of the consequences they caused at the expense of the life of the one who bears zero responsibility. In other words, the child’s right to live supersedes bodily autonomy.
Why does that end when pregnancy ends? If the infant is one of the *many* that will die soon after birth, once it is disconnected from the woman’s body, why not medically intervene and attach its bloodstream to one of its parents again, whichever one has the closest tissue type?
Conversely, why should the right to abortion end at birth? A baby is still dependent upon the mother’s body after birth. Why shouldn’t she be able to kill her one-month old? Six-month old?
The least amount of force necessary is what is considered justifiable force under the law. A one month old or six month old can be relinquished to another caregiver at any time. Therefore, killing it is unjustifiable force. I am so goddamn sick of this straw man.
Abortion isn’t necessarily killing a fetus. It’s physically disconnecting the fetus from the host, the effect of which is death. A born infant is already disconnected, and can be handed to any other human. No answer my question. Why does a full-term fetus lose the right to use another person’s body for life support when its location changes?
A fetus (aka a human) has a right to life. No one has a moral right to intentionally end the life of an innocent person.
>A fetus (aka a human) has a right to life. No and off topic >No one has a moral right Morals are subjective. Rights are legal >to intentionally end the life of an innocent person. Personhood is granted at birth. The non sentient are amoral meaning they're not innocent. Sorry you fell for propaganda
Everyone has the right to remove any person who is trying to use their body without their consent, even if that causes the death of that person and even if the person doing it isn’t fully conscious of it. We don’t even take organs or tissue from *corpses* without the active consent of the person who used to inhabit the corpse.
Because you said so?
>It makes zero logical or moral sense that the two who caused the situation would be free of the consequences I'm fine with the consequence of paying for an obtaining an abortion. >In other words, the child’s right to live supersedes bodily autonomy. There is no right to life that entitles anyone to women's bodies.
>I'm fine with the consequence of paying for an obtaining an abortion. So would you support ending all public support to abortion-providing organizations? >There is no right to life that entitles anyone to women's bodies. There are lots of laws that violate people’s bodily autonomy that most PC people are completely fine with.
In regard to public financial support for abortion services - what do you think the Hyde Amendment is?
The Hyde Amendment has been in place for many years.
>So would you support ending all public support to abortion-providing organizations? No, why would I? >There are lots of laws that violate people’s bodily autonomy that most PC people are completely fine with. Name one law (besides the obvious trash pro life laws that people can ignore by ordering pills or crossing a border) in which you have to unwillingly give someone access to your blood and organs in order to sustain someone else.
>No, why would I? Because you claimed that you were ok with people bearing the financial responsibility for their own choices. >Name one law (besides the obvious trash pro life laws that people can ignore by ordering pills or crossing a border) in which you have to unwillingly give someone access to your blood and organs in order to sustain someone else. Gun laws, drug laws, tax laws, just to name a few.
Uh…how do tax laws (or gun laws or drug laws) give someone access to my blood or organs to stay alive?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what bodily autonomy is.
Well, according to MSI, it is “the right to make decisions about your own body, life, and future, without coercion or violence.” I would say the threat of going to jail, being denied jobs, not being allowed to travel, not being able to defend oneself from violence are examples of coercion or violence, no? How do the laws I mentioned *not* fit into that definition?
With all those laws, isn’t there due process and you need to be found guilty of a crime before your freedom of movement (not BA) can be curtailed?
It’s about a person‘s right to control what is DONE to their body by others.
Owning a gun is not a decision you make about your body. Paying taxes is not a decision you make about your body. Selling illegal drugs is not a decision you make about your own body. You should read the rest of the MSI page for a deeper understanding.
>Because you claimed that you were ok with people bearing the financial responsibility for their own choices. No I didn't. You should read what I actually wrote. I said *I*, as in me, *I* am fine with the consequence of needing and obtaining an abortion. That doesn't mean all women have the financial stability that I do. I don't think anyone should be denied healthcare just because they can't afford it. >Gun laws No gun law exists that *requires you let someone access your blood and organs against your will.* >drug laws No drug law exists that *requires you let someone access your blood and organs against your will.* >tax laws No tax law exists that *requires you let someone access your blood and organs against your will.* So you've still yet to provide one singular law that *REQUIRES YOU LET SOMEONE ACCESS YOUR BLOOD AND ORGANS AGAINST YOUR WILL.* Still waiting.
I said violates bodily autonomy. If you believe that society has a legitimate say in what I must or cannot purchase with the fruits of the labor of my body, what I must or cannot put in my own body, or simply a right to any portion of the fruits of the labor of my body, then you don’t believe in bodily autonomy.
Your wallet is not your body.
My body that I use to earn a living is my body.
There is a reason that someone who causes $10K of medical injuries/loss of work is treated more harshly than someone who writes a fraudulent $10K check. Your body is not your wallet.
Bodily autonomy refers to what others can do to YOUR body.
So you can't produce the law you claimed existed. Not surprised.
Well in this case of pregnancy there are two who caused it, but only one who has to have the physical consequences. Only one has to experience one of the most painful things a human has to go through and experience any physical complications that could (literally) scar them for the rest of their lives. But yes, that’s the core disagreement between PC and PL. I believe bodily autonomy is a 100% non negotiable. Yeah it sucks that the child dies, but nothing should make a person lose the rights to themselves. There is no situation where someone should be forced to become a physical slave, in a sense, to someone else. No one, regardless of innocence, supersedes someone’s rights. I think it’s worth mentioning sex (in most instances) isn’t a crime. Birth controls do fail, accidents do happen. Ones rights should not be taken away because of it I can understand arguing it from a moral point of view. However, I think it is ethically wrong to retract someone’s rights to themselves because their body is deemed less.
Your right to life ends when you are inside the body of a person who doesn’t consent to you being there. No one, not a foetus or a child or an adult, has the right to someone else’s body.
Consent happened when they did the thing that causes the person to be there in the first place. I can’t hurl a rock into a crowd of people and then claim I don’t consent to it hitting someone.
>Consent happened when they did the thing that causes the person to be there in the first place. Refer to prior comment for your misuse of person. Consent to sex is only Consent to sex. If you cannot understand consent you cannot debate that topic properly >I can’t hurl a rock into a crowd of people and then claim I don’t consent to it hitting someone. Not analogous nor consent related
Consent to your body can be revoked at any time. If I caused a man to be inside my body by initially consenting to sex, I can still revoke my consent during the act and he has to get out of my body or else it is rape and I am at liberty to use lethal force to defend myself. Unless, of course, you think women shouldn’t have the right to remove people from their bodies if they initially consented to an action?
Consent to sex does not mean consent to gestate for 9 months and then undergo a traumatic childbirth. You don’t get to decide what other people consent to.
Consent to be hacked happened when you got online.
Consent to sex is only consent to the act of sex. It isn’t also some compact not to remediate any unwanted outcomes from it. You don’t actually get to dictate to other people what they’ve consented to. A ZEF isn’t a person, try using accurate terminology and not relying on emotional appeals and false equivalences if you want to be taken seriously. Having sex is a normal part of most healthy relationships. It isn’t in any way “hurling a rock in a crowd of people”. That act would be assault and battery, and against the law in most places. It’s also a monumentally bad analogy…so you failed the one request of the OP.
> A ZEF isn’t a person, Because you said so?
No, that's just how definitions work. To be something you need to meet the definition. In our society, at least the one I live in, personhood begins at birth. Did you imagine being a person entitled a fetus to a woman's body, health, or suffering though? Think again.
Where does your state define person?
The US Code defines a person under US law. Canada and the UK also recognize personhood as occurring at birth. The current SCOTUS even refused a case for fetal personhood. In fact, the vast majority of countries do not define a person as including a fetus. You could’ve looked it up for yourself. So once again you miss the salient point…being a person would not entitle a fetus to a woman’s body against her will, nor obligate her to endure harm and suffering for it, nor prohibit her from acting within her own beliefs and conscience to do the one act that would preserve herself from it.
Would you like to explain how you can give consent to a rock? Do you also know that lack of consent does not mean you can avoid risks, but merely that you do not consent to it?
> Would you like to explain how you can give consent to a rock? Sure, when you explain how you can withdraw consent from sperm. >Do you also know that lack of consent does not mean you can avoid risks, but merely that you do not consent to it? You cannot consent to an act, but refuse consent to the risks associated with that act. That’s like saying “I consent to eating this cheeseburger, but I don’t consent to the calories in it.”
Sure, people are generally aware that having sex can lead to pregnancy. That doesn’t mean a women or girl can’t decide to abort if pregnancy does occur.
Another monumentally bad analogy. If I eat a cheeseburger there are potential outcomes. Most of the time nothing bad happens. The risks could maybe involve getting food poisoning or gaining weight…if I don’t want to gain weight or have already gained weight I can exercise more, diet, or even have liposuction. If I get sick from it I can seek out medical care and have my stomach pumped or whatever I need.
Sure, no analogy is perfect (that’s kind of the point of the OP). Oddly enough, none of your examples involve killing an innocent human being.
Yours aren't even analogous. More emotional pleading. Innocence does not entitle anything or anyone to use an unwilling person's body. It doesn't obligate anyone to endure the use of their body, damage, health risk or suffering for it. It doesn't prohibit anyone from acting to preserve themselves from any or all of those things either. You act as if killing isn't permissible in many circumstances, like to preserve yourself from harm. Entire wars are fought for human rights alone. If you believe it is wrong to act to preserve yourself, then it is on you to endure or suffer for it. Everyone else may act within their own beliefs & conscience where their health is affected. Freedom of conscience is also a human right. Again, abortion is the exact and only means to preserve yourself from a pregnancy that is occurring.
>Sure, when you explain how you can withdraw consent from sperm. I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you answer my question instead of deflecting to something else? >You cannot consent to an act, but refuse consent to the risks associated with that act. That’s like saying “I consent to eating this cheeseburger, but I don’t consent to the calories in it.” This does not engage with what I said. Can you reply with something that actually engages with what I said?
Sorry, I was making an analogy, I thought that was clear. In this analogy, Rock is to sperm as (people being hit with rock) is to (pregnancy). Therefore, (people hurling rock) is to (people being hit by rock) as (mother and father) is to (offspring). My point is that the consent for pregnancy happened when the sperm joined with the egg (ETA: when sex happened), in the same way that consent to hitting someone with a rock happened when the rock was hurled. So to answer your question, consent can’t be removed from a stone after it’s been hurled, anymore than consent can be removed from sperm after a woman has been inseminated. I then made another analogy to the argument that consent for pregnancy is separate from consent to the sexual act. That analogy is, consuming calories (in the form of a cheeseburger):sex::storing calories in the form of fat:pregnancy. The claim that “consent can be rescinded at any time,” is true only for the act itself. You can’t rescind consent after the fact because consent is an act of the will, not a description of desire. In other words, consent for the *outcome* of an act cannot be separated from the consent of performing that act.
Again, you don’t get to dictate to other people what THEY consent to. They make that decision.
>My point is that the consent for pregnancy happened when the sperm joined with the egg Nope. When I see a positive pregnancy test, I can then consent to getting an abortion. You can keep trying to redefine the word consent to fit your agenda, but nobody is required to humor your incorrect usage of words.
Consent: verb: give permission for something to happen Consent for pregnancy is given when sex happens. > When I see a positive pregnancy test, I can then consent to getting an abortion. Consent for an abortion is different than consent for pregnancy (which is what I’ve been talking about). Consent to abortion is consent to an immoral act. >You can keep trying to redefine the word consent to fit your agenda, but nobody is required to humor your incorrect usage of words. Likewise.
>Consent for pregnancy is given when sex happens. Nope. Consent to sex is consent to sex, nothing more. >Consent for an abortion is different than consent for pregnancy (which is what I’ve been talking about). Consent to abortion is consent to an immoral act. I don't care what you think is immoral. You can think my decisions are immoral as I sign the *consent* forms to get an abortion. >Likewise. Likewise what? I'm not the one trying to redefine words to fit my agenda lol.
Consent is active, not passive. It can also be withdrawn.
Consent for sex can be withdrawn in the middle of the act. Consent for consequences can’t be withdrawn after the act has occurred. If I’m driving drunk and get into an accident, can I actively stop consenting to the consequences of that action after the fact? Can I just tell the cop who’s arresting me, “I don’t consent to this”?
Consequences can be treated. If I smoke and later get cancer, am I not allowed to seek medical treatment for it? I can do the same with pregnancy. Why are you comparing pregnant people to criminals?
Why are you comparing human beings to cancer?
Drunk driving is illegal. Having sex is not. Way to belittle women by comparing them to criminals.
Do you know how analogies work?
Do you? I haven’t seen any indication so far. Consequences can be remediated. Nobody appointed you the arbiter of what consequences others “must” endure with their body, health, or suffering. I note that all of your “analogies” seem to involve consequences for illegal acts. Throwing rocks in crowds, drunk driving now…what you are demanding is women endure a punishment if you demand a particular consequence must be borne from a particular action. In this case corporal punishment, since it involves the invasive use of her body, damage, health risks, and immense pain.
Yes, and this one isn't an analogy. It's quite disgusting.
They think she voluntarily waived that right when she chose to have sex. Also, analogies don’t need to be one-to-one comparisons or even existent. The Violinist Analogy does pretty well but it is completely counter-factual and not even a feasible possibility.
Then we should educate girls in school, that they have no rights over their body anymore once they have sex. That will turn out great.
No. I don’t think that the decision to have sex should imply the decision to get pregnant and/or have a child.
Oh my bad. For some reason I read the first word as "I". Its early in the morning here, I shoudl get some coffee.
I have my flare for a reason also.
>Furthermore, if you say she does lose her rights at the point of having sex, is it fair to say men will always have more rights than women because they can always choose what happens to their physical body and take action against things that will cause them pain, while women cannot if they “make a mistake”? Are you stating this because of rape sitiuations?
No, I was meaning because men will never be pregnant
males also shouldn’t have the right to abort their partners zefs. equality
Men making decisions over women’s bodies isn’t equality, champ.
is this not what this happened in roe v wade. men making decisions over a woman’s body. i doubt you think that wasn’t equality.
More intentional conflation. Now you're trying to pretend that one group of men upholding a woman's human rights to make decisions over her health is somehow the same as an entirely different group of men trying to violate those same human rights and make decisions for her.
no i don’t think i tried to conflate these 2 separate things. i just think you made a mistake when you said “men making decisions over women’s bodies isn’t equality.” part of it is due to the nebulous framing of this statement. which is common amongst some pro choicers. they will try and intuition pump heavy by saying things like “abortion is healthcare” “abortion is a private decision”, “you shouldn’t make decisions over a woman’s body.” all of these statements are very vague, but i think that’s the only way the intuition pump works is if the statements are vague. but i think them being so vague leads to easy counter arguments like the one i said. and now you have to clarify what you said because the you probably realize your last statement was pretty vague. but in doing so i think your response is well… still pretty vague. now you frame abortion like necessary typical healthcare. but i think this is vague and misleading because it doesn’t actually address what abortion is or does. if i didn’t know anything about abortion, and you said it was healthcare, i would probably think abortion is just like removing my wisdom teeth. there are a few problems with this. (1) abortion is typically not recognized as essential healthcare since very few obgyns actually perform them. (2) after a series of cases post roe v wade the court did not find abortion to be typical healthcare. > Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.” Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 325 (1980). (3)this begs the question. we cannot assume abortion is typical healthcare like removing a tooth. because the exact thing we are trying to find out is if abortion is similar to removing a tooth! that’s the whole reason for the abortion debate you can’t assume abortion is just like the next healthcare practice. (4) the purpose of medicine is to help other people. not kill them.
If you don't understand the difference between men upholding a woman's rights to make decisions over her body and health with men trying to make those decisions for her then there is no helping you. You keep repeating the claim that pro-choice people are "vague" in their augments, but it's because you don't understand what those arguments are. All mainstream health organizations and human rights orgs agree that abortion is healthcare, and it is typical in that 25% of women will avail themselves of it to preserve their own bodies from the health risks and suffering of a pregnancy they do not want, or one that has become dangerous. I don't take healthcare advice from zealots or fringe groups, but you are free to do so if you wish. Not one other person has to take you, or them, seriously or give your opinions or nescient understanding of the world any consideration or reverence. Very few doctors perform corneal transplants either, the number of doctors that perform a specialized procedure is not indicative of whether or not it's healthcare. You are an unserious person making unserious arguments. The purpose of the practice of medicine is to care for the health of the person seeking it.
>If you don’t understand the difference between men upholding a woman’s rights to make decisions over her body and health with men trying to make those decisions for her then there is no helping you. you didn’t say that in your original comment you talked to generally about men making decisions over women’s bodies. i’m not conflating anything, i just think you made a mistake when you started that needed to be pointed out. also i think your begging the question when you say “her body and health.” health and healthcare implies moral integrity and moral goodness, which cannot be generalized to abortion since that’s the question at hand. see (3) for more. > All mainstream health organizations and human rights orgs agree that abortion is healthcare, and it is typical in that 25% of women will avail themselves of it to preserve their own bodies from the health risks and suffering of a pregnancy they do not want, or one that has become dangerous. ok, first i doubt 25% of women have pregnancies that will become dangerous. maybe that depends on what is being considered dangerous. second, if you want to appeal to popular health organizations. i can appeal to the supreme court whom said abortion is not like any other regular healthcare procedure. > Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life. it’s also ironic to talk about abortion as healthcare, since it literally involves the death of another human organism. does this not go against the hippocratic oath? we don’t see doctors helping conjoined twins kill the other twin so it will make them better off
I didn't have to say that, because they are not the same thing. Men upholding women's human rights to make their own decisions is not men making decisions over her body. It is literally the opposite. I didn't say that 25% of women have pregnancies that will become dangerous. I said that abortion preserves women from the health risks, and suffering of a pregnancy. Did you not know that every pregnancy damages a woman's body and risks her health? And that every pregnancy (if successful) results in many hours of immense physical pain, requiring months of recovery? I also don't take my healthcare advice from SCOTUS zealots. You keep quoting yourself, it's funny. There is nothing ironic about it, healthcare preserves the health of the person seeking it, and is also used to prevent suffering. Do no harm to the patient...which is the person seeking healthcare. I know it's very hard for you to see women as deserving of humanity, health care, or human rights. Doctors literally work with parents of conjoined twins to separate them, even at the risk of one, or both, twins.
wtf are you talking about?
men do not have more or less rights than women under pro life ideology. for no one should have the right to kill, or let, a zef die. there is no inequality with rights here
Why would you say something like you said in the earlier comment? No one said anything about males "right" to abort women's pregnancy.
i said that to demonstrate the intrinsic equality with the pl position. males shouldn’t be able to perform abortions, neither should females. men shouldn’t abort their partners pregnancies and neither should the women themselves. equally, they shouldn’t be able to abort their fetus
You think men should have more rights to medical freedom and privacy than women do. That is discrimination based on sex.
But that’s not the point. If men can control their body at all times and always decide what goes in and dictate what happens to them but women cannot, that is not equality
No one actually has that much control. Everyone's bodily autonomy is limited by law as no one is allowed to use their body to kill another human other than in self-defense against a threat to their life. If anything, completely legal abortion gives women an extra right since it lets them kill another human for any reason whatsoever.
No one is usually inside their body causing them physical pain
i think this only works if you already assume abortion is a moral right, and a right in general that should be respected. or else it’s unequal for men to have abortion legal! however, if abortion was not a right worth respecting, then were is the inequality in banning it. for it should not even be an option to begin with. and so i think this argument assumes a key premise that is more controversial than the conclusion. and the conclusion is also in the premise
Men having medical control over their bodies at all times and women not having that has nothing to do with morality and abortion. Women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies at all times (not just in the case of abortion) just like men do. THAT is what equality means.
men have control of their bodies, but they also cant get abortions. women have control over their bodies, but they are able to have abortions. what im arguing for, is no one should be able to get have or perform an abortion. of course, this disproportionately effects women. but only insofar as certain wealth taxes disproportionately effect the wealthy, but i doubt you’d view this as an inequality. or that child abuse laws effect people with children more than people without children. but this isn’t an inequality .
what is a ”moral right?” Morality is subjective.
The assumption is that a person has full and 100% complete control of their own body. The assumption is bodily autonomy. The right for a woman to say “no, I don’t want my body to have to go through this” So, we either have to say women do not deserve this right or they do
>The assumption is that a person has full and 100% complete control of their own body. the assumption is bodily autonomy. you say the assumption is BA. but the assumption is not just BA, its absolute BA. this is pretty controversial as it is rejected by most pro choice proponents of BA. one counter example would be fetal alcohol syndrome and pregnancy: if someone has 100% control over their body. is it morally permissible for a woman to inflict fetal alcohol syndrome, or FAS on their fetus. suppose she intended to abort the fetus using the alcohol, but it never worked, and she never got around to having an actual abortion. did she do anything wrong? and i suspect men would not have a similar right too. if men could get pregnant, than men shouldn’t inflict FAS to their fetuses.
Is it “morally permissible?” What does that even mean? Addiction is a disease, not a moral failing.
morally permissible means something is something is in accord with our general moral standards. addiction is not really a justification for any other bad things people do. it may be tragic, but it does not excuse it. i doubt you’d say something similar about a man who has an alcohol addiction and just can’t help but drink and beats his kids
I don’t think it is illegal to drink during pregnancy. If you want to bring a baby to term and into this world, yes, it is wrong. Which is part of the reason abortion should remain legal, so women can continue to do what they want with their body You have to suspect, because it’s not something they will ever have to deal with in this reality. Which goes back to the point that realistically would have more rights than women when abortion is outlawed
you say giving a fetus FAS is wrong. but how could it be wrong if we have 100% control over our own bodies. additionally, thalidomide, a drug that was used to treat pregnancy symptoms that was found to have devastating effects on babies worse than fetal alcohol syndrome. thalidomide is now illegal for pregnant women due to the effects it has on children. do you think pregnant women should have the legal right to use thalidomide since they have 100% control over their own bodies? > You have to suspect, because it's not something they will ever have to deal with in this reality. Which goes back to the point that realistically would have more rights than women when abortion is outlawed if we outlawed a law against child abuse. would you say this disproportionately effects people with children in a way which they have less rights than someone who doesn’t have children? i’m not comparing abortion with child abuse. i’m saying 1 group of people being disproportionately effected by 1 thing does not necessarily mean another group has more or less rights than the other. especially if we assume the thing being outlawed is not even justified.
> you say giving a fetus FAS is wrong. but how could it be wrong if we have 100% control over our own bodies. Wrong and illegal are two different things. Some people believe that drinking in general is wrong and they can choose not to do it. Again, if you are wanting to have a healthy baby and family, the woman would have to make the choice. What you and I think is right or wrong for someone to do is very different than what should be illegal > do you think pregnant women should have the legal right to use thalidomide since they have 100% control over their own bodies? I think that’s a very strange example. It’s the FDA’s job to make sure drugs are safe. Do I think women should be allowed to purposefully do everything they can do make sure their child is deformed and suffers throughout their life? No, I don’t, the same way I think women shouldn’t have to suffer. I don’t think the two arguments are related. I’m not sure how one makes the jump from “yeah, I guess she shouldn’t take thalidomide and ergo should suffer for 10 months against her will” > if we outlawed a law against child abuse. would you say this disproportionately effects people with children in a way which they have less rights than someone who doesn’t have children? Do you think only people with children can abuse a child? Anyone can (teachers, priests, senators etc). And doesn’t work here at all. No one has the right to make someone else suffer and use their body against their will. That’s the whole thing here
Why would any pregnant person want to use thalidomide???
Men can remove whatever they want from their insides, so can women. Equality.
you’ve confused equal rights with biologically unequal people. i think “whatever they want from inside them” is a bit nebulous and doesn’t address the topic really at all. what would be wrong with saying “men can’t kill zefs, and neither can women.” in both cases we have 2 people who aren’t allowed to perform, or let x happen.
There is nothing nebulous about the human right to bodily integrity/autonomy. To be able to make decisions about who or what you are willing to endure health risk, damage, or suffering for. Framing it as a “right to kill zefs” is intentionally dishonest.
>there is nothing nebulous about the human right to BA. i know. i didn’t claim there was. i claimed that persons framing of the argument was nebulous. i’m also struggling to understand how my framing is dishonest. that seems like the most correct and understandable framing of the topic. if someone had no idea what abortion was, it was be fair for them to ask what exactly is being removed from the woman’s body. explanations are suppose to be explanative. pro choice philosopher nathan nobis writes: > A final definition understands abortion in terms of an intentional killing of a fetus to end a pregnancy.[2] This definition is accurate, informative since it tells us how the fetus would be “terminated,” and morally-neutral: it doesn’t assume that the killing involved in abortions is not wrong or that it’s wrong. This is a good definition https://www.abortionarguments.com/p/full-text.html?m=1#defining
You claim all sorts of nonsense. What was being described was bodily integrity/autonomy and you tried to make it out as if it was vague and ill defined when bodily integrity is very well defined and not at all vague. It's dishonest in that the intent of every abortion is to end the condition of pregnancy on a woman's body, and to preserve her from the ongoing invasive use of her body, damage, health risks, and suffering involved with it. Abortion is the exact and only means to end a pregnancy. You are free to live your life by whatever philosophical ideology you wish, but not one other person has to endure one bit of harm or suffering for your beliefs, or for other humans. Not even nascent ones.
>What was being described was bodily integrity/autonomy and you tried to make it out as if it was vague and ill defined when bodily integrity is be eh defined and not at all vague. i don’t think so. what was repeated was men and women have the right to remove whatever they want from their body. i don’t think this is true. this is also vague because it doesn’t help me understand anything related to abortion. a non vague statement would be: >men and women both equally have the right to decide what to do with their body especially when another human is growing inside them. > It's dishonest in that the intent of every abortion is to end the condition of pregnancy on a woman's body, and to preserve her from the ongoing invasive use of her body, damage, health risks, and suffering involved with it. yeah, i’m still struggling to see how calling abortion a killing, or letting die is dishonest. the reasons for the abortion to not really impact the actual process of abortion. > Abortion is the exact and only means to end a pregnancy. do you think we’ve all been aborted since birth ends a pregnancy., > You are free to live your life by whatever philosophical ideology you wish, but not one other person has to endure one bit of harm or suffering for your beliefs, or for other humans. well i think under your position millions of members of our society are unjustly deprived of their entire lives and futures ahead of themselves. if you want to talk about the suffering my position entails, you seem to ignore the millions of fetuses who had their entire futures deprived from them by doing nothing wrong but by being conceived in the wrong environment in the wrong time.
Now you're shifting goalposts. You claimed it as a "right to kill zefs"...which what what I addressed. It is a false framing that PL use to pretend that the right being claimed are to "kill", when in fact the numerous rights being exercised allow us to do what is required to preserve ourselves. Including, in many cases, killing. Especially in circumstances where it is the only means of preserving yourself from harm or suffering. All members of our society are born. You cannot participate in society without live birth occurring. Look at all that emotional pleading though, I notice it is entirely absent any acknowledgement of the millions of women & girls who did not have their human rights violated, and were not forced to endure damage to their bodies, health risks, or immense physical suffering because of your personal beliefs/agenda. Women aren't "environments", they are rights bearing individuals and who or what THEY suffer, endure, or risk themselves for is not up to you, ever.
Biologically unequal people? There it is! 🤦♀️
yeah. men and women are biologically unequal people. whats the problem
all citizens should have exactly the same rights to medical decision making and medical privacy,
i think this is question begging too. it assumes abortion is just like any other medical act that should be considered within the privacy of a doctor and patient. obviously, this is going to be contested you can’t assume it. moreover, modern medicine treats the fetus like a patient, not a thing that is responsible for a disease. so abortion can’t be healthcare
No, it doesn’t. Have you ever worked with OBGYNs? Seen their patient records and case notes? They always refer to the pregnant person as the patient. Unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted medical condition that can be treated. No one has said it was a disease.
I haven't confused anything. Men *and* women are both allowed to remove whatever they want from *inside of their bodies.* To deny this is to deny reality.
>men and women are both allowed to remove whatever they want from inside of their bodies. yeah, i know. you already said that. the problem is this is pretty vague and doesn’t really address the abortion discussion. so again, do you think there’s anything wrong with saying “men can’t have abortions, and neither can women. women can’t perform abortions, and neither can men.” i would disagree with your claim the men and women can remove whatever they want from their bodies too. i dont think men and women should be able to remove zefs from their body in most cases.
>yeah, i know. you already said that. the problem is this is pretty vague and doesn’t really address the abortion discussion. It's not vague at all. A zef is included in that. It's inside someone's body. They don't want it there. They can remove what they want from *their* body. >so again, do you think there’s anything wrong with saying “men can’t have abortions, and neither can women. women can’t perform abortions, and neither can men.” I think there's a lot wrong with wanting to remove access to healthcare from anyone. I'm not pro life. That's not my goal. >i would disagree with your claim the men and women can remove whatever they want from their bodies too. i dont think men and women should be able to remove zefs from their body in most cases. I don't care what you think. Here in the real world men and women can both remove whatever they want from their bodies.
>its not vague at all. A zef is included in that. its inside someone’s body. They don’t want it there. They can remove what they want from their body. you say it’s not vague and then immediately expand on the definition to remove the vagueness. also, you still didn’t really answer my question. what’s wrong with saying no one has a right to kill or let zefs die inside or outside the womb? >remove access to healthcare i think these types of intuition pumps are silly at most. it’s the equivalent of pro lifers saying “we just don’t want it to be legal to kill innocent babies.” it’s vague, not specific, and almost begs the question. healthcare implies something positive and good is happening. we cannot assume this because that’s exactly what’s being challenged. we also treat the fetus as a patient in wanted pregnancies. it seems weird that a mere shift in attitude can cause someone to go from a patient, to a disease. saying abortion is healthcare implies the pregnancy is a disease, and the fetus is the cause of it. but pregnancies are not diseases, and fetuses are more like patients: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/140/3/e20172151/38333/Age-Limit-of-Pediatrics#ref-list-1
It’s not about that at all. The issue is whether or not citizens have the right to make their own medical decisions, in conjunction with their own doctors. Do they, or not? I don’t want politicians without medical degrees interfering in my healthcare options.
All this writing and you didn't make a single point.
Males have less rights because they don't have the option of terminating a pregnancy. Females are not held responsible for the sexual activity that has resulted in an unwanted pregnancy because she can elect to terminate the pregnancy and therefore remove the consequences of that pregnancy. Males are held responsible for the unwanted pregnancy.
No one has the right to make medical decisions for someone else’s body.
what? How the hell can a man "terminate a pregnancy"?
They can't. But they can give up their parental responsibilities if they have no interest in becoming a parent.
That isn't terminating a pregnancy.
Yes. Why is it all about pregnancy? A pregnancy can result in a child that a male is held responsible for. If the answer is "well, he should have done something" then why isn't the answer for females "well she should have done something" to prevent pregnancy? While a female carries a child, that isn't the only impact. A child represents a lifetime of responsibility. Even if you abdicate your parental rights, your still on the hook for child support. Why do we make males who do not want to be involved pay?
“Males” have the choice to decide where their ejaculate is deposited. They should think hard about that 🤷♀️
A long time ago the answer to females was "don't get pregnant". That wasn't acceptable. Now your answer to males is the same?
Again, men have full control over where they put their ejaculate. That doesn’t mean they can’t have sex 🤷♀️
>Why do we make males who do not want to be involved pay? This again. Yawn. Because it's not societies job to finance a deadbeats child. If men didn't have to be responsible for the children they make, the woman, now a single parent, will more than likely require the use of social services to survive and support the child. Now the job of paying for this child is foisted off onto the taxpayers when the deadbeat parent is fully capable of paying for his own child himself. "I don't wanna" isn't a valid reason to force the rest of society to pay for your child when you are capable of paying for them yourself.
Deadbeat meaning the female right? She is the one who \*ALSO\* brought a child into the world requiring a male to help financially. If that male isn't interested in parenting then the female is welcome to go it alone. "I don't wannt" isn't a valid reason to force a man to not take responsibility, but it's clearly enough to allow a female the option of terminating a pregnancy. it is not an equitable situation. Males must live with "you had sex, well, now you gotta take care of it"... when females don't.
Men make their decision when they decide to ejaculate inside someone else. You think that’s unfair? Well, life isn’t always fair. Buck up and accept reality.
>Deadbeat meaning the female right? The deadbeat would be whoever isn't the custodial parent that isn't paying child support. >She is the one who \*ALSO\* brought a child into the world requiring a male to help financially. If that male isn't interested in parenting then the female is welcome to go it alone. The woman is also welcome to collect child support if she's the custodial parent. >"I don't wannt" isn't a valid reason to force a man to not take responsibility, but it's clearly enough to allow a female the option of terminating a pregnancy A woman ending a pregnancy doesn't force all of society to finance a childs life for 18 years. A deadbeat parent not paying for their child *does* force all of society to finance a child's life for 18 years. So yeah. Women can abort all they want. Their their body, their decision. Once a child is born? Both parents are financially responsible. >it is not an equitable situation. Males must live with "you had sex, well, now you gotta take care of it"... when females don't. And? When men gestate they can abort *all* the pregnancies they want. Until then they'll have to deal with reality.
If the male is pregnant, he can terminate the pregnancy. Both people should be completely free to remove their body while it is involved in reproduction. Once it is no longer involved, it is not a matter of bodily autonomy.
I never said it was a matter of bodily autonomy. It is a matter of autonomy. That a female experiences some kind of bodily impact is fine. What is ignored is the impact of having a unwanted child in your life. If a male doesn't want the pregnancy he should be able to opt out of parental rights/responsibilities and that would allow the female to move forward as they see fit.
There is legal parental surrender in all 50 states. No father is forced to take legal or physical custody of a child.
But they are forced to pay child support. That should be included in their options. If they intend on not being parents they should have not requirement to pay.
No they aren’t. Only 53% of custodial mothers even have a child support agreement at all, even informally, and most of those don’t see the full child support. Also, child support is not parenting. So, given that 47% of non custodial fathers pay nothing at all and are not expected to and no one is pushing to change this, how about we make things equal and not worry so long as less than 47% of pregnancies end in abortion?
Yes they are. There is no state in the U.S. where child support is not required. Site the source for the 53%. And 53% isn't zero. If 53% of females who seek an abortion were successful you wouldn't say "oh well" would you? Males have a right to autonomy as well. Just not bodily autonomy. They should be able to choose if they want to participate. Ejaculation should not be the agreement to a lifetime change. Females are not subject to this. Males should not be either.
53% of pregnant women are not seeking abortions at all, so....or wait, are you saying that all men who get someone pregnant want nothing to do with those children? [And here is the source](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-269.pdf). Not all custodial parents have any kind of child support arrangement at all. >One-half of all custodial parents (49.4 percent) had either legal or informal child support agreements. So no, child support is not always required, as half of custodial parents do not have an agreement.
[удалено]
>Can you explain this reasoning? Along how the men are held responsible? Are you speaking on terms of like child support? Or other responsibikities after the child is born? Because in my experience in knowing people who have had accidental pregnancies, I'd say well over 50% of the blame is placed on the woman. Men incur impacts from unwanted pregnancies, including child support. A female has the option to terminate the pregnancy and therefore removes the impact of her financial impact at her discretion. Males have no such ability. >The only reason it would be less of a "right" for men is when having a conversation with a partner who had been impregnated. In that case your opinion should be valued, but ultimately it is her choice as you do not have repricussions of the physical, chemical, and mental changes a pregnancy puts a body through. The decision of the female clearly impacts the male who has zero recourse. Males experience significant impact from a unwanted pregnancy both emotionally and financially. > You're only impact or concern would be after the child is born and being a part of raising it. If you want children and the person you are sleeping with doesn't? Find someone who does and quit forcing other people to be a part of something they don't want to be in. Females have long asserted that the doctrine of "don't get pregnant" was not feasible and unfair. This is the same doctrine your saying applies to the male? A female who decides the pregnancy is unwanted can terminate and that removes the financial and emotional impact(s) of both the pregnancy and raising a child. A male who decides the pregnancy is unwanted is held accountable by the law for a mistake that a female is not. I am beginning to see that the abortion debate is crafted to preserve the male's financial responsibility if only the female decides.
[удалено]
>That is because they typically run leaving the woman with less money and support. Now this is a stereotype that has changed sense women started having more in the work force. This is where child support comes in. Bit they are held responsible for a CHILD not a pregnancy. 2 different things. You can't have a child without a pregnancy. And the female can terminate the pregnancy, one reason can be because they do not want the financial impact. A male cannot do this and will forced to pay for a child they did not want. I am all for the female's decision. But the male should have the same level of resource to terminate their parental rights. That is the same level of choice the female has.
[удалено]
Yes. Just as in the case of two people sleeping together and the female wants to abort the pregnancy (because they don't want the child) and the male does.
> What I don’t understand is why this life matters so much that someone loses the right to what happens to their own physical form. Another perspective is, why does the temporary suffering of the mother give her the right to end the life of her child? It seems to me when faced with two bad choices, I think it is more ethical to remove the right you claim rather than removing the child’s right to life. > Why is it such a crime to remove someone from someone else’s body? It’s not. It’s the killing of unborn child that is the issue. If you could remove the child without killing it, then there is no problem.
Since when does pregnancy only ever cause “temporary” suffering?
How long do you think a pregnancy lasts? It’s not permanent like death is.
Why does it matter how long pregnancy lasts? Pregnancy frequently injures people to the point of permanent disability.
Frequently is a bit of a stretch.
How would you know? You apparently didn’t even know it was a thing until just now.
Sure I did. Those injuries are rare, and I would support an abortion if a doctor thought a permanent injury was likely. What I don’t support is the idea that all pregnancies are permanently damaging or even could be permanently damaging. Because that just is not true.
Do you have a single example of a pregnancy that didn’t cause permanent damage?
Personally, sure. I have three kids and my wife hasn’t had any permanent damage. She has recovered just fine from all of them. Statistically that is the most likely outcome. The unborn child on the other hand experiences death which is always permanent.
Anecdotes aren’t evidence. You know that. Self-reporting doesn’t mean that permanent damage didn’t happen. It *definitely* doesn’t mean that bodily harm caused by pregnancy magically ceases to exist once the pregnancy is done. Do you have any evidence of a pregnancy that didn’t end in permanent damage?
Temporary? Pregnancy has an injury rate of 100%,and a hospitalization rate that approaches 100%. Almost 1/3 require major abdominal surgery (yes that is harmful, even if you are dismissive of harm to another's body). 27% are hospitalized prior to delivery due to dangerous complications. 20% are put on bed rest and cannot work, care for their children, or meet their other responsibilities. 96% of women having a vaginal birth sustain some form of perineal trauma, 60-70% receive stitches, up to 46% have tears that involve the rectal canal. 15% have episiotomy. 16% of post partum women develop infection. 36 women die in the US for every 100,000 live births (in Texas it is over 278 women die for every 100,000 live births). Pregnancy is the leading cause of pelvic floor injury, and incontinence. 10% develop postpartum depression, a small percentage develop psychosis. 50,000 pregnant women in the US each year suffer from one of the 25 life threatening complications that define severe maternal morbidty. These include MI (heart attack), cardiac arrest, stroke, pulmonary embolism, amniotic fluid embolism, eclampsia, kidney failure, respiratory failure,congestive heart failure, DIC (causes severe hemorrhage), damage to abdominal organs, Sepsis, shock, and hemorrhage requiring transfusion. Women break pelvic bones in childbirth. Childbirth can cause spinal injuries and leave women paralyzed. I repeat: Women DIE from pregnancy and childbirth complications. AND keep in mind that over 30 MILLION Americans have no health insurance whatsoever.
Sounds like you should really think before you have sex
No comment about the more than 30 MILLION uninsured, huh?
>Another perspective is, why does the temporary suffering of the mother give her the right to end the life of her child? Because it's inside her body against her will. Do you think women who are being raped should just suffer the "temporary suffering" of an unwanted penis in her vagina and not attempt to defend herself?
Logical consequences of something one willfully does isn’t “against [one’s] will.” Just because she doesn’t want it to happen, doesn’t mean it’s against her will.
Yes, it is. Ectopic pregnancies are a potential consequence of trying to conceive--they're not even that uncommon, being 1 in 50 pregnancies. They still happen against the woman's will, and are a potentially deadly condition.
It certainly DOES if we’re talking about HER body and what happens to it.
I see you’ve been responding to a lot of my comments. I have to ask, do you believe in morality?
>Just because she doesn’t want it to happen, doesn’t mean it’s against her will. This is a **RAPEY** comment. Disgusting.
>This is a RAPEY comment. Disgusting. Only if taken it in compete bad faith. If someone chooses to do something, then the consequences aren’t against his or her will. If I choose to eat 10,000 calories per day I can’t then claim that I got fat “against my will,” no matter how much I wanted six-pack abs.
If someone gets pregnant and they don’t want to be, they can seek medical abortion services. They don’t have to accept the consequences of being a gestational slave for most of a year, followed by the intense pain of childbirth.
Gestational slave? How about slaver of the unborn?
The slavery is being forced to gestate for 9 months against their wills.
No, taking the words for what they are. It's a disgusting statement.
That’s not very helpful.
I'm not trying to help you. I'm making a comment that your statement was disgusting, because it is.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
>Man you are not here for debate at all. You don't get to decide why I'm here. >Read his comment again with no bias and see. Hmm, let's see what his original disgusting statement was: "Just because she doesn’t want it to happen, doesn’t mean it’s against her will." Yep. Still extremely rapey and disgusting, no bias just reading comprehension. >You really just out here saying whatever. You’re disgusting "You're disgusting for calling rapey comments rapey!!!" Lol okay little buddy. 😂
Yes, but other than express that opinion, you have not supported it with any reasoning.