Bodily Rights and Abortion

[ladsin]

Questions regarding abortion are strangely incredibly frequent on this site. As with some of my other myTakes this one is intended to give my response to some of the more frequent questions so I don't have to consistently write the same thing and can instead just link here in the future.

I was once a "pro-life" supporter, but my views changed relatively quickly after hearing the bodily rights argument. My thoughts on this issue are fairly simple and as such I think this will actually be incredibly short.

Many of these conversations devolve into an argument about personhood and whether or not a fetus should count as a person. Those who propose forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes will state that the fetus is a person and has a right to life. Those who disagree state that a fetus is not a person and as such does not have rights. I think this argument is pointless and unnecessary. I think it is pointless because the most coherent and powerful pro-choice argument is cogent regardless of personhood. The bodily rights argument is simply that no person has the right to use another person's body to sustain their life (absent their consent), and as such neither does a fetus. For the sake of argument I could grant a fetus every right associated with personhood and that would still not grant them the right to live in or on another person without their consent.

I think that one of the most powerful arguments that I heard on this subject is that if we force a woman to give up her right to self autonomy in preference of the fetus then we are actually granting women less rights than we grant corpses. In my country a person has to consent to be an organ donor, and if they are not an organ donor we cannot take their organs after their death regardless of how many people it could help. Yet by the millions people think that a woman should be forced to give up her uterus to another person.

That's really it. Arguments over personhood, the sanctity of life, etc are irrelevant. No person has the right to another's body without their consent and continued consent. I don't have a right to your organs, you don't have a right to mine, a 2 year old doesn't have a right to it's mother's organs, and neither does a fetus. Anyway, hope this was concise enough, and as always correct me on anything you think I got wrong.

[OlderAndWiser]

When you engage in intercourse and do not take precautions to avoid pregnancy, you know that you are assuming the risk of creating a life within you. If you don't want someone else "using your body," don;t engaged in unprotected sex. When you proceed without concern for the consequences, you have waived the right to make the argument that you get to control your body.

[ladsin]

Not all sex is consensual. Of the sex that is, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Many women utilize "protection" but still find themselves pregnant. Lastly, the circumstances that results in a fetus living off of them are irrelevant. No person has a right to another person's body without their continued consent.

[OlderAndWiser]

"No person has a right to another person's body without their continued consent." That is your position, a conclusion. It is not a fact.

Do parents not have an obligation to nurture and protect their children through their minority?

[ladsin]

I'd figured that we'd at least agree that a person doesn't have a right to another's organs... Was I mistaken? If you think you have a right to my body I suppose we just simply disagree and while we could try and have a discussion about how we determine rights I think it'd be largely unproductive.
Let's start there and then we can move on if need be.

[OlderAndWiser]

There is nothing that makes you right and me wrong, or vice versa. We simply disagree. I think that if you don't want a baby living in your body for 9 months, you should take the precautions to make sure that you don't get pregnant. And if you do get pregnant, killing another person because they are an inconvenience seems rather selfish to me.

[Intraluminal]

@OlderAndWiser

You argument established an implied contract.

"if you don't want a baby living in your body for 9 months, you should take the precautions to make sure that you don't get pregnant."

Would be valid, if and only if:

All pregnancies we're consensual on the woman's part. However, this is not the case.

Underage girls get pregnant. By law they are unable to enter into a contract. Why should this implied "contract" be different?

Women who are raped enter into your supposed contract against their will. By law contracts entered into under duress are invalid.

Children who are raped. See above.

By law, a person cannot enter into a contract if the did not understand the contract. In effect, there was no contract. How is your proposed implied contract different?

Women may enter into sex, even getting pregnant under the implied contract that the man will support her and the child. Do you propose that there is an implied contract on the man's behalf as well?

[OlderAndWiser]

@Intraluminal Yes, a small percentage of those who get abortions are not within the bounds of my argument. That does not open the door for the majority who are covered by this argument.

[ladsin]

What percentage of pregnancies are intended?

[OlderAndWiser]

I'm sure that you are asking that question because you think that it bolsters your argument. It does not, because it is the wrong question.

What percentage pf pregnancies occur as a result of voluntary (no force or forcible coercion) behavior by the female?

[Intraluminal]

@OlderAndWiser

So you agree that women who have been raped should be allowed to have an abortion so that they need not carry and bear their rapists child? Women need not carry the fetus that is killing them? Little girls need not give their incestuous father's additional children to abuse?

[OlderAndWiser]

@Intraluminal Yes, I agree with certain exceptions, as you have mentioned, although I cannot reconcile it with Biblical commands.

[Trisha13]

No. You're wrong. OBVIOUSLY she hasn't "waived her rights" haha! It's totally legal to get an abortion. 🙄

[Intraluminal]

@Trisha13

OlderAndWiser and I are NOT arguing about the *legality* of it

We are arguing with each other about the *morality* of it. The two things are often similar, but they are not the same thing.

For example, the Enquier bought the exclusive rights to a story about how Trump got a woman pregnant a few years ago. It is LEGALLY right for them to buy that story with the sole intent of buying it so it would never be told (AKA buy and kill).

That is however, MORALLY wrong, and should be illegal. See the difference?

[Trisha13]

@Intraluminal I see the difference. Thank you for that clarification, however misguided it is.

[Intraluminal]

@OlderAndWiser

Then, older, you are pro-choice. You simply disagree about what strictures should limitbits use, and in that, I agree with you. Abortion should not be, and is not, unlimited. The question isn't should abortion be allowed or not, it's "under what *restrictions* should abortion be allowed."

[OlderAndWiser]

@Intraluminal Most people who oppose abortion recognize a few limited exceptions. The difference is between very restricted access or abortion on demand (abortion as a means of birth control for the irresponsible.)

[martinxcv]

Wow a ultra mod who speaks sense and does not lick the femiextremists arse. Great

[Intraluminal]

@Trisha13

How is it misguided to debate these issues. OlderAndWiser believes himself to be anti-choice. It's clear to me that after discussing the issue, he is pro-choice. The difference lies in what rules should govern the use of abortion. Before you get offended, consider this - there already *are* strictures on the use of abortion. For instance, you can't abort a fetus at 8 months. These restrictions are based on our shared moral understanding. OlderAndWiser and I are simply arguing over our moral positions.

[martinxcv]

@Intraluminal I have tried this out to Trisha, i mean in Poland they are toughening up abortion laws and the same in some US states.

[Trisha13]

@martinxcv anti choice. Said it all 😘

[TheUglyMan]

There are so many methods of contraceptives what excuse do woman have falling pregnant against their will?

[Trisha13]

@TheUglyMan excuse to woman have? Oh man, you're beyond reasoning. I'm out. 😘

[martinxcv]

@Intraluminal I meant i have tried to explain this to Trisha

[TheUglyMan]

@Trisha13 bye😉

[Trisha13]

@martinxcv I mean, I have tried to see your point. Unfortunately I have a backbone 🤷🏻‍♀️It's hard for little boys to have to explain things to women, I'm sure. ❤️

[martinxcv]

@Trisha13 yes because you have no IQ and cannot accept the facts of law.

[martinxcv]

@TheUglyMan @Trisha13 is a redundant idiot

[Intraluminal]

@Trisha13

Nothing personal, but that's an ad hominem attack that you used against @martinxcv That not only fails to prove your point, it weakens it.

[martinxcv]

@Intraluminal Unfortunately this is the box standard retort from lots of women who are all out of points to validate their argument. they normally abuse just to get the last word in and then block and think they have won that way. Very childish and you lose any respect for them.

[ladsin]

Y'all seem to be having enough fun without me.

[puzzlez]

There are s lot of women who are forced into unprotected sex. Not just in countries where women have no rights, but in countries such as the UK, USA, etc. Several years ago, I was homeless and stuck, and I was in a relationship with a guy who turned out to be a drug addict. My options were allow his advances, or face his angry wrath. Bet you can figure out which I chose. I wound up pregnant. I had no insurance, and no way to raise a child on my own. I was orphaned at 7, and have no living family. The father would be an angry drug addict. I chose an abortion, which was much less costly financially and mentally. How was I supposed to raise and nurture a child in that situation?

[TheUglyMan]

@puzzlez or just use contraceptives

[Trisha13]

@TheUglyMan you're an idiot. Flat out idiot. And you know what else I think? Thou doth protest too much 😘 You're prob one of those far right anti abortion anti gays. And the reason you are so against it is because you've made girls get abortions. And you're secretly gay.

[TheUglyMan]

@Trisha13 I'm not anti gay or far right lol and I'm straight as an arrow. I'm simply defending unborn babies.

[puzzlez]

@TheUglyMan So when a guy shoves me into a corner and starts undressnig me forcefully, how do you propose I ask him to stop and put on a condom?

When I'm between jobs, HOMELESS, and my mind is more preoccupied with how to get meals for the week, how do you propose I get any form of pharmaceutical contraceptive? Most of which I'm allergic to, by the way. (I've tried since then.)

As a side note, both me and my sister were children born with the use of contraceptives. They're not a 100% guarantee.

[Trisha13]

@martinxcv your name on here is perfect 🙄

[wolfcat87]

@ladsin Unprotected sex is 100% consent to pregnancy. You are literally choosing to put a baby in there. XD That's like buying an apple and then screaming that you did not consent to owning an apple.

Also, 74% of abortions are due to not using protection... About that. 14% are due to rape. There's a huge discrepancy there.

[ladsin]

@wolfcat87 Do you have a citation for those numbers?
Regardless, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. If I give person A permission to touch me for X amount of time that does not mean I give person Y permission for Z amount of time, does it?

[lumos]

And then people claim that sexism isn't a thing, yet women have less rights over their bodies than actual dead people.
Bodily autonomy is truly the best argument for pro-choice. I really can't see why anyone would think it's ok to force a woman to go through a pregnancy that is unwanted. It will traumatize her.

[martinxcv]

Well tough, the unborn have less rights other their bodies then dead people too. How on Earth can you say the same for women, they have so many rights now it is suppressive to others. I can see why they made you ultra mod, you fit right in with their extreme, bigoted suppressive regime.

[MasterAetos]

I beg to offer, women have an insane amount of rights these days. Don't get me, I respect women but your sex doesn't dictate that you should be morally superior just because you can give birth and a man can't.

[martinxcv]

@MasterAetos I cannot understand how she came to that absurd conclusion.

[TheUglyMan]

There are so many methods of contraceptives you have no excuse falling pregnant. By the way not just your body there's life inside you.

[MasterAetos]

@TheUglyMan Right on point; outside of a rape case, I will never agree to an abortion.

[lumos]

A fetus only has less rights in the first trimester. And sorry guys but I just don’t see how a fully alive, independent, breathing, thinking, feeling person should have less rights than a lump of cells who can’t even survive on its own and isn’t even aware of its own existence.

[jacquesvol]

@martinxcv Our sperm has rights too then! Right to a hospitable vagina.

[Hoggyo]

@TheUglyMan contraception doesn't always work for example my mom was on the pill when she fell pregnant with me and my twin brother.

[Cccgala]

In states where abortion is legal, forcing a woman to give up the right to bodily autonomy is tantamount to a violation of the right already in effect de jure, and not a manner of "granting less rights".

"Granting less rights" or having no rights at all would only be true in a political setting where the right to bodily autonomy is repealed by law, or if the concerned law is, has been, and will remain to be non-existent.

[ladsin]

Not sure what your point is, can you clarify?

[Cccgala]

In states where abortion is legal, the laws will prevail.

Parties that intend to force a woman not to undertake the path to abortion essentially obstructs a woman's capacity for decision-making, thereby violating her right to make a choice.

[ladsin]

Ah, we agree.
Although I'm never certain that the right won't take over and revoke rights.
Remember that, for example, NC law currently states that a woman can't revoke consent to sex.

[Cccgala]

That is immense state intervention.

How can consent be 'revoked'? Would consent, in that context, be legally binding?

[ladsin]

The law is that if a woman initially consents to sex then she cannot revoke it until completed. www.usatoday.com/.../

[jacquesvol]

@Cccgala forcing a woman to give up the right to bodily autonomy is the same as forcing you to donate a kidney to someone.

[jacquesvol]

@ladsin in NC.
what about 49 other states?

[ilovelegs]

@jacquesvol Where did you ever come up with that? Do you realize that it's only since 1973 since abortion on demand was made a law - an ill conceived law based on a lie. A person comes into existence at the moment of conception. It's been that way since man was created by God. Once conceived, from the beginning of man's existence it's been the woman's responsibility by natural law to carry, love and nurture the child conceived to it's birth. No man has the authority to take that child's life in the mother's womb for any reason other than an absolute emergency. That unborn child has a right to life the same as we all do. Not to have that protection would eventually destroy the human race. It's totally contrary to our nature to destroy an unborn child. It's one of the biggest offenses against God. Evil exists in the world and one of the biggest deceptions is the movement to make eliminating an unborn child from a mother's womb a good thing. Like getting rid of a virus or cancer. etc.

[Intraluminal]

@ilovelegs

Also known as the "naturalist fallacy."

It's also "natural" that 90% of infants die in their first year of life, but thanks to "unnatural" antibiotics, they don't.

[jacquesvol]

@ilovelegs gods have nothing to do with laws.

[Intraluminal]

@ilivelegs

The bible considers slavery so "natural" that it even tells you how to sell your daughters into slavery.

[curiousnorway]

In 99+ % of the cases it's consenting sex between the woman and man. First of all they could use contraception, the second is that with sex it's a big risk for pregnancy since it's how the human's reproduction system works and the third, it's possible to have none-penetrative sex or not have sex at all if you're so afraid of being pregnant. As a pro-lifer I'm a pro-choice supporting people to choose if they wants to have sex or not, but they've to take the consequences of it. If they're first insisting on having sex, become pregnant etc. then they should rather consider adoption than abortion if they don't want children. Most people are responsible for sex and the impregnation.

[wolfcat87]

Technically 14% are due to rape, but I'm with you on most of this. 74% could be prevented due to safe sex. These numbers are from the Guttmacher Institute for Reproductive Health.

[ladsin]

Let's start here.
If a woman is raped, should she have a right to an abortion?

[curiousnorway]

I don't think abortion should be legal if it's not cases where it's one survive or both dies. If someone commit a crime, it don't mean you should too. The rapist should be imprisoned for life and be punished harshly. Actually, less than 1% of the abortion cases are rape cases. In addition it exist long-term contraception you can take to reduce the chance of pregnancy although the man isn't using anything. We've intrauterine device and COCP pills. My point is that if someone are hundred percent sure they don't want children, I do highly recommend them to use them.

[curiousnorway]

And birth control implant is an option.

[ladsin]

Where are you getting your statistics from?

Additionally, what rationale do you use to justify making this illegal. My case, as explained above, is that nobody has a right to another person's organs. You are saying that some people do have a right to another person's organs, even if they (the host) do not want them (user) to be attached to their organs. I do not see any justification for this.

[curiousnorway]

If you don't want children, you can use semi-permanent solution like birth control implant or intrauterine device. It's something that lasts for years and you're wearing 24/7. Then you don't have to become pregnant.

When it comes to the majority of the cases people choose to have sex. Sex isn't something you must have and you can use contraception. It's also possible to have none-penetrative sex. Freedom to have sex like other things don't come without responsibility.

[ladsin]

Whether or not I make a mistake doesn't give others access to my organs... Does it?

[curiousnorway]

If you choose to have sex or to not invest in contraception, then you've taken a choice and a choice don't come without consequences. How you can't do cheating without consequences, it's how you can't have sex without potential consequences. If you cheats, your partner may be upset. If you have sex, pregnancy may happen. So simple is that!

[ladsin]

If I cheat should I have my rights taken away?

[0112358]

I completely disagree, in that while i'm probably more 'pro choice' than average in terms of where I'd draw a line, I think personhood 100% trumps bodily autonomy. The analogy I'd draw is more that of conjoined twins, who can't simply announce they'd like to execute the other party if it would be convenient to them. In that case, yes, sometimes doctors opt to save one (and in the case of a medical emergency, since the mother is capable of autonomous survival while a fetus may not be depending on the stage, that would be relevant). But if nature conspires to shove someone into your body in a way that makes their survival conditional on maintaining it, I don't think your autonomy gives you the right to terminate that relationship.

I'll also throw this one out: assuming you're willing to grant personhood, doesn't that give the right only to ask for the fetus to be removed from the uterus, but not to deny the fetus medical attention? So would you therefor replace abortion with transferal to some sort of incubator/artificial uterus as soon as that was viable, and ban abortion from that point? And if artificial uteruses in the near future can support fetuses from conception onward, you'd ban abortion entirely?

[ladsin]

Your argument seems strange to me. Do you think that the fetus owns it's mother's organs because it happens to be in there? I highly doubt that you do, but that's what your argument seems to indicate.
I actually think that implanting a fertilized embryo into an artificial or other persons uterus is fine. Of course there's some issues around consent and practicality, but I'd be open to hearing a discussion on it. I don't know exactly where I'd land on that argument, but I think I'd land on the side of implantation.

[0112358]

I think when two persons are tied together that each has a right to life that far exceeds the others desire for autonomy.

As for the implantation and so on... the key there is that I absolutely do think women have the right to terminate a pregnancy at, for example, 4 months specifically because personhood hasn’t been reached. I really do not believe most women simply want to escape the burden of pregnancy and move immeidkately to adoption.

[ladsin]

So to clarify. If I knocked you out and hooked myself up to your body to filter my blood should you have the right to stop me from continuing to use your body? If you initially agreed to help me filter my blood but later changed your mind should you be able to stop, or do I get to force you to keep filtering my blood?

I didn't understand your last sentence.

[0112358]

I think a better analogy would be that someone knocks both of us out, and hooks us up so I’m filtering your blood and you die if the connection is severed. Should I have the right to say “my liver” and cut you off? I’d say no, actually.

A fairly separate point: I often hear prochoicers talk about viability as when the legal cutoff should be for abortion and that’s what I was trying to get at. If the fetus is viable on its own and has personhood then how can termination be acceptable when simple early delivery is an option? I think that’s a very short sighted argument (and not one most of them believe). It would not surprise me if viability gets pushed back well into the first trimester and I do -not- think those requesting first trimester abortions would be equally happy with a first trimester delivery of the fetus.

[ladsin]

Strange. I'm actually surprised that you think you should have a legal obligation to sustain my life. I guess I appreciate it, but I don't want you to force me to do that.

Late term abortions aren't legal so far as I'm aware, but whether or not they should be I think is a legitimate question. My rationale is that they should because they still don't have a right to another's organs, but that the fetus should be put up for adoption.

[0112358]

Here in Canada there are no laws on abortion at all. Old ones were struck down years ago and not replaced.

I find people tend to act like pro choice means “in favour of legal first trimester abortions”. By than standard I’m a pro choice extremist because I’d push the line further back then that.

[ladsin]

Ah..

[MasterAetos]

That's a nice thought, but I'm a pro-life thinker through and through. Also, an abortion eliminates the choice of the fetus, which by that stage, has already developed into something resembling a human baby. According to statistics, women in America have had abortions during their 21st week of pregnancy. Would you like to know what the fetus would like at that stage? At 7 weeks, the fetus looks very much humanoid, at 21 weeks? It will develop defined features. Everybody likes to talk about how it's the woman's body and therefore her choice, that's a nice sentiment and normally I would agree but this is literally life and death. I won't sugarcoat it for anyone, abortion is murder. It's the willful taking of a human life but people create excuses to pretend that the fetus isn't a life yet because it hasn't been born. I won't pretend to deny that abortion in all cases can't be justified, if you're a teenage girl and you were raped, I can understand and I won't judge you for making that decision but if you just had a one night of willful sex and you're, I don't know, 25 years old. That's on you.

[TheUglyMan]

What about the many contraceptives women have access too?

[MasterAetos]

@TheUglyMan They clearly aren't using them then, if abortion is what they resort too.

[ladsin]

1.) the "choice" of the fetus is irrelevant to this. The "right" to another person's organs is not a right that we extend to anyone else. You're advocating for extra special rights for fetuses and I don't see the justification for that.
2.) Is it murder that I don't give my organs to other people?

[MasterAetos]

Yes, yes it is. What if a family member needed a donation and you were a suitable donor? Would you just say, "Well tough, I'm keeping my organs." How selfish and evil is that?

[ladsin]

It may depend on the circumstances, but whether or not I would is different from whether or not I should have a legal obligation to do so.

[cavmanier]

“I think that one of the most powerful arguments that I heard on this subject is that if we force a woman to give up her right to self autonomy in preference of the fetus then we are actually granting women less rights than we grant corpses. In my country a person has to consent to be an organ donor, and if they are not an organ donor we cannot take their organs after their death regardless of how many people it could help.”

I see whether to donate organs or not as more of a right while a person was alive and becomes a contractual arrangement upon death. The corpse doesn’t choose. Even if it is a right, women, or alive people don’t have ‘less rights’ than corpses. Corpses can’t legally marry, vote, own property, etc. So that seems obviously factually incorrect. 3 is greater than a hypothetical 1 or correct me if I'm wrong. But even if corpses had all the rights and we were all slaves to them, I don’t think those arbitrary rules would make abortion morally or ethically wrong or right. I wouldn’t base what I think is right or wrong on current laws (we all remember slavery).

Also organ donation and living in a womb are different so it’s not a consistent argument. Women aren’t ‘give up her uterus.’ The baby doesn’t put the uterus in their body like the recipient of an organ donor.

I don’t know if there is a correct answer to this, but saying a child doesn’t have the right to develop in the womb starts sounding a little wacky to me. I feel like this can get into whether we have to legally take care of children in general, because that forced work could be seen as slavery.

[ladsin]

1.) This seems like a semantics argument. The point was specifically in regards to self autonomy. Whether you want to call it the "corpse's" right or the person's right who existed before death is not really relevant. The point is (and I thought it clear although perhaps not) is that we do not even take the organs of corpses unless the person consented in life. Even though those organs could help a dozen people.

2.) Whether or not you think abortion moral in some cases, immoral in others, moral in all, or moral in none isn't really relevant to me. What I care about, and what this Take was about is what rights we plan to legally protect. I think that abortion is legal for good reason, and I would not want someone to try to take away my organs without my consent, thus I will not accept legislation that leads to that for others.

3.) All analogies break down at some point, because they're analogies. The point is that women are saying "I do not want this person here", and I say they--

[ladsin]

--should be able to remove that unwanted person. "Pro-Lifers" on the other hand say that the woman cedes the rights to her uterus for the duration of the pregnancy. I see no good reason for this. This would also presumably lead to the mother choosing what to do with other organs like her stomach and lungs.

4.) A child has that right, if the mother allows it. I don't get how this is "wacky". For example, I see a woman and we both want to have sex. I have that right, we can do it (presuming age etc). HOWEVER if she does not consent to have sex, or revokes consent, then I no longer have the right to have sex with her. I don't think that's too difficult a concept, do you?

[cavmanier]

1. I thought you think the most powerful argument is that corpses have more rights than women? That is clearly not true though so I wanted to clarify that. There is an obvious reason why organs need consent. Technically I don't even think a person can consent to organ donation alone. They pretty much need family confirmation as well. But back to the point, the reason is of course that with our historically Christian society, there's cultural roots to believing organs in corpses are necessary for afterlife. Besides that, when organs are taken, the person is usually still alive (so organs can be used), and having consent protects people from doctors making an error of their prognosis. So while organs can help others, there are potential downsides to the dead.

[ladsin]

1.) Perhaps there was some confusion then, I apparently wrote this section too poorly. The most powerful argument is that of bodily rights, one of the most powerful examples is that of giving a living person less of a particular right than that of a dead person. Does that make it more clear? In America (at least) we do not take the organs of a dead person, even though they could save many lives, unless they had previously given us consent. However, many people argue that women should be forced to "give up" the rights to her organs without her consent in preference of some other person.

Does that help to clarify my position?

[Pamina]

This is exactly what I'm always saying. I usually say that if, hypothetically, a grown living person had been implanted into my body somehow, I'd still think I should have every right to get rid of that person even if it meant killing them.

It essentially comes down to priorities. But it's easy to say a fetus's right to live is more important than a woman's bodily autonomy when you're not the one affected.

And I'll say this very clearly now: No person, no government in the world will ever force me to stay pregnant and give birth if I don't want to. Ever.

What you pro-lifers think of that, is completely irrelevant to me.

[wolfcat87]

So... don't get pregnant. It's not rocket science. So many ways to prevent pregnancy these days.

[Pamina]

@wolfcat87 Sure. But accidents will always happen.

[wolfcat87]

They are very rare if a person is truly trying to avoid a child. For instance, you can mix hormonal birth control with mechanical and your chances go from negligible to nearly impossible. A person could have a hormonal IUD and wear condoms and have 3 forms of protection. Add spermicide for 4. Add a sponge for 5. The list goes on and on. People are just lazy and they take it out of a person who didn't vote to be made and is not allowed to even live after being forced into existence. 74% of these accidents are from cases where people did not prevent them at all. Imagine how few there would be if people actually put effort into it.

[Pamina]

@wolfcat87 I agree with you that preventive measures should be taken way more seriously than they are. How we do that? Proper sex-ed in schools and easy access to all types of birth control and protection. Ironically it's always anti-abortion people/politicians who push for restricting these things. Not saying all do, but the ones who do are anti-abortion usually.

But all that is besides the point I was making. Even if we achieve all that, accidents will still happen, especially with teens. And what about those women? They still need to have the right to abort. And luckily they do.

[wolfcat87]

I never have anything against people who do everything and have issues or who are raped or have health problems. My concerns are completely for the people who create a child through irresponsibility and laziness and then want it gone.

I agree that education and birth control availability are important.

[Annie_Mosity]

Fact of the matter is, it's my body and mine alone. Fetus or no fetus.

Humans are not parasites, they do not need host bodies - therefor a fetus is not a fully formed human and it has ZERO rights.

I don't know why we have to keep having this discussion. It's legal, it's becoming more available and being legalised in more and more places which only helps protect those desperate people who may find other means... why fight such a pointless war?

[taleswapper]

And you missed the whole point. "Humans are not parasites, they do not need host bodies - therefor[sic] a fetus is not a fully formed human and it has ZERO rights. " A parasite is by definition of another species than the host. Ergo, your argument falls short. Humans have rights by virtue of being human; "fully formed" isn't needed, or children wouldn't have rights either. The whole point of this post is that it's irrelevant to talk about the unborn's rights; they don't extend beyond those of the born. This includes involuntary life support.

[Annie_Mosity]

@taleswapper you know the parasite analogy was to describe the host situation. Ignoring the species its a pretty accurate description.

Your argument falls short when you refer to partly formed humans as having the same rights as a child. They do not. End of story.

[taleswapper]

Saying "end of story" doesn't make your statement more reliable; it just makes you look foolish. SCOTUS and the various Circuit Courts disagree with you analysis. They have ruled repeatedly that the unborn DO have rights; just not those which supercede the mother's right to autonomy. So you'll have to do better than "because I say so..."

[Annie_Mosity]

@taleswapper they do not have the same rights as a human child though do they?

[MasterAetos]

What a narrow-minded response but I expect that from a woman. Fetuses do have rights. Would you like to know at what stage women in America choose to have abortions statistically speaking? At 21 weeks. Do you know what the fetus looks like at that stage? Like a PERSON.

Shame on you, killing an unborn child. That's evil.

[MasterAetos]

Also, do you know what fetus even means? It's Latin, and it means offspring, what does offspring entail? A human life that has been born. Just throwing that out there.

[Annie_Mosity]

@MasterAetos fetuses haven't been born so that means nothing.

And what a narrow mindrd view but you expect that from a woman... What a totally ridiculous sentence!

Neither interested or concerned with you. Your opinion changes nothing about what I can and cannot do to things living in my body and it never will.

[taleswapper]

Actually they do. Sorry... If, for example, the mother choose not to breast-feed, she cannot be compelled by law. She still has to feed the newborn, but not from her own body, even if the alternative is the child starving.

[Annie_Mosity]

@taleswapper do they have the same rights as a child?

[taleswapper]

Pretty much, yeah. There are a few that a child has that the unborn do not; mostly for practical reasons and precedent. I've never HEARD of one being granted separate counsel, for example.

[Annie_Mosity]

@taleswapper exactly. Nor do they have the right not to be killed... which for the purpose of this discussion is the only one that counts.

[wolfcat87]

So any human that didn't fully form properly has no rights? That covers quite a few people with disabilities. How Nazi-centric of you to think this way.

[Annie_Mosity]

@wolfcat87 where did I say that? No where. If you're going to argue at least have a point.

[Annie_Mosity]

@wolfcat87 where did I say that? Nowhere. There's plenty to debate without making things up.

[wolfcat87]

"is not a fully formed human and it has ZERO rights.

I don't know why we have to keep having this discussion. It's legal, it's becoming more available and being legalised in more and more places "

Yup, I've seen this argument in history books...

[Annie_Mosity]

@wolfcat87 you're talking about an unformed, unborn lump of cells and comparing them to disabled humans... You need to have a think about how you value actual humans, that's a horrid comparison but then anti abortionists don't often seem to care for real, born, living humans so I'm not surprised.

[wolfcat87]

We are all lumps of cells. XD Some of us better formed than others. Also, look up the definition of human. You are clearly unclear on what it means. We are all individual humans with our own DNA and bodies from conception by any definition. The only argument is on which humans you think are more valuable and who you think sohuld die. Plenty of people in history have found it beneficial to decide which humans have value and which ones do not... What happened to all humans have value? You want me to sympathize, but you are the one deciding some humans are more valuable than others.

[Annie_Mosity]

@wolfcat87 A human being is defined as this:

human being
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Soooo... which bit of that describes a blob of unformed cells Wolfcat? Can a fetus stand or speak or show signs of superior developed mental capacity? Perhaps before giggling at how clever you are YOU should check the meaning.

And this isn't about who I think should die (trust me I'd definitely start with actual,. living humans) this is about calling the termination of potential life as killing an actual human being.

[delagarza]

Good take, but what frustrates me more is all these guys down voting and arguing that it is wrong when they don't have a fucking cervix or vagina or are even a frickin woman!!! Yes it is 'against' nature, yes it can be seen to some as 'murder' but if that child is going to have no quality of life i. e severely disabled, then why the hell would you want to bring in a child that would have to go through this shit? If your a guy who is trying to tell a woman what she can & can't do with HER body, please fuck off. We don't tell you to get your balls chopped off, or get vasectomy or anything like that. Hop on ya bike and scoot

[delagarza]

Rant over :)

[acooke-13]

Although I wouldn't say it as abruptly, I agree with you. If men could get pregnant and give birth they would have a COMPLETELY different view, so you're right!

[delagarza]

@acooke-13 Thank you! I know, it's ridiculous, they've no idea what women have to do and go through, it takes two to tango but when the girls pregnant it's HER fault, not necessarily.

[acooke-13]

No I agree completely, he'll cum in you but won't take responsibility (as well as the woman) for getting you pregnant, asif you just magically placed a fetus there :)

[delagarza]

@acooke-13 Spot on

[wolfcat87]

So over women screaming at men for caring. Then, when men stop caring you women whine as well. May karma bite you in the rear the rest of your life. I applaud any man who cares. In my country slaves would never have been freed without white scaring. Thank goodness no one told them that if they were not black then they should not have any opinion on how they should be treated. The logic is flawed to the core. Do you object to elderly abuse? Are you elderly? You don't have to be something to know right from wrong.

[delagarza]

@wolfcat87 I think you need to chill, you've taken what I've said a little to heart hun. What I'm basically saying is if the man is telling you what you HAVE to do, then he shouldn't be, if you're a couple and he's suggesting abortion not TELLING you, then I think that's fine. No one should ever tell you what you HAVE to do with your body, and I'm pretty sure if you were pregnant and a man told you that you had to abort it, you would be furious. Why are you even bringing in elderly abuse, read the question this is only about abortion - it ain't even a similar subject.

[acooke-13]

@wolfcat87 Bloody hell... God forbid women get a say on their own bodies! Women can't do right for wrong nowadays, she only dissed men who told a woman what to do, not the men that care.. Read it properly before you bounce woman.

[wolfcat87]

@acooke-13 This is not about women's bodies. This is about a child that has been made by two people and that is its own body. Women want to whine about absent fathers? This is why they are being created. Can't have it both ways. Either they matter when it comes to children or they don't. If they don't then don't require that they pay child support. If a woman can get out of her responsibilities to the person they created, then a man should too. Equal rights and all. His work done with his body matters right? Of course the child's body does not matter, because only some humans matter, right? You can say chill, but I'm not the one who started this thread. i'm only responding.

[acooke-13]

@wolfcat87 No actually it is about a womans body, you're right it is created by a man and a woman but it does not grow in the man, does it... Yes I agree, equal rights of course, but again it is growing in the WOMANS body. Actually, you're right there too, that baby only has human rights after a certain time. Exactly, I can and have said chill, and I also didn't start it, I just responded babes

[delagarza]

@acooke-13 Just stop responding to her, she clearly has no idea what I meant and even explaining doesn't get it. Waste of time

[wolfcat87]

Hmmm... The turning your back with your fingers in your ears when you don't like a different opinion. Classic preschooler coping tactic. XD

[wolfcat87]

@acooke-13 The woman can decide to not get pregnant except in cases of rape which only account for 14% of the time. 74% of these women could prevent a child they do not want. I approve of them fully using their bodily rights to not create a human they would just kill. With all of the birth control methods in the world, there is simply no excuse for such a heinous lack of care for human life anymore.

[delagarza]

@wolfcat87 You have problems woman.. I'm actually trying to refrain from any more arguing, hence the 'classic pre-schooler coping tactic', which not many adults seem to know, apparently.

[acooke-13]

@wolfcat87 Did you know that accidents happen, not every birth control is 100% effective.

[delagarza]

@wolfcat87 Why are you getting so defensive over human rights? When have either of us said we are pro-life or pro-choice? Exactly, we haven't. I am only pro-choice when it comes to everything said up there on the opinion, if you read it. The only thing that was bashed was men wrongfully telling a woman what to do.

[Krokodyl]

Nice argument I never heard it before. The second one doesn't really work tho because organs are not living beings but also sounds powerfull. But this your argument about right mother's body is only justifiable if woman was raped but what about the other cases? are you still pro-choice? "abortions are difficult topic for me as on one hand it kills children but on the other hand, it gives women a choice"

[ladsin]

I think you misunderstood. We value bodily autonomy so much that even after a person's death we won't take actions against their body even though it could help another person.

Secondly I never mentioned rape... Regardless of the circumstances that lead up to the fetus using the woman's body to sustain it's own life the woman has a right to deny it access to her body.

[Krokodyl]

Oh yeah I misunderstood, thank you. I have seen is as when someone is using using your body without you wanting ititas with unwanted child from rape t is bad but when you sleel with someone and are not carefull enough it was your decision / stupidity and should carry the consequences.

[ladsin]

No worries, I think English is a second language for you, so I understand it can be confusing.

Whether or not a person makes a stupid decision does not mean that they should lose their rights, in my opinion.

[Krokodyl]

Yeah you are right about English being my second language and I agree with you completely. And that argument is actually really good. Would maybe use it in debate league

[ladsin]

Awesome.

[JessForAdvice]

Any woman has a right to do what she wants with her body.
I personally don’t think I’d have one HOWEVER you never know what situations I may get into later in life.
Some people growing up don’t have the perfect life and may feel no other option.
It’s not anyone’s opinion on one persons choices.

[martinxcv]

Yes everything is about women's choice and rights as opposed to their responsibilities isn't it. Snowflake women

[MasterAetos]

@martinxcv I agree, women just don't want to accept responsibility. Furthermore, abortion is morally wrong and I will stand by that. Outside of a rape case, I would never stand by and let a woman have an abortion. She doesn't have the means to raise a child? Then why did she have sex? It's very simple.

[martinxcv]

@MasterAetos Exactly my point, i tried to explain this to a woman just now on here and all she could reply was 'you can't stop people having sex.

[martinxcv]

*or you can't stop people wanting sex.

[martinxcv]

@MasterAetos Good on what you said to Annie though. It blocked me for some reason so i could not condemn her vile reply about 'my body and my body alone'. Very selfish and very entitled. Women like this are not gonna get my respect

[MasterAetos]

@martinxcv In that scenario, there is contraception for both parties to avoid an unexpected pregnancy. I also think it's an abuse of a person's procreative abilities to have abortions, humans have this ability to create life through reproduction but choose to abort a human life before they are born... That's very selfish and evil.

[MasterAetos]

@martinxcv Yeah, reading that really pissed me off. How can somebody be so entitled and nonplussed about ending a life?

[martinxcv]

@MasterAetos yes you are right, i fully agree, feminism has to be blamed for brainwashing women as well but that is no excuse for their selfish and evil behaviour. They are in schools doing that now, forcing their poison on kids, pressuring them and telling them what to think. They pass it off as' educating'

[martinxcv]

@MasterAetos And everything is always the man's fault or the man's responsibility.

[MasterAetos]

@martinxcv Usually, that's how it goes these days. If you're a man and you're assaulted, no one cares. If you're a woman, it's suddenly a crime. There are more examples out there, but this is one of the controversial ones.

[martinxcv]

@MasterAetos yes exactly

[TheUglyMan]

It's not just your body there's a life there.

[MasterAetos]

@martinxcv Schooling is all about subliminal teaching, they brainwash folks into thinking the way the government wants them too. It's like 1987 and Brave New World combined; thinking outside of the collective automatically makes it a crimethink.

[martinxcv]

@MasterAetos yes i know, we need more people to see this

[wolfcat87]

We have laws to restrict harmful choices in every country. Should we do away with them all?

[goaded]

Nice take, thanks.

This argument was probably first stated in 1971 by Judith Jarvis Thompson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion

Her thought experiment was:
"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."

[wolfcat87]

The main difference is that in this story you would have chosen to have that person's organs removed so that they are wholly dependent on you for those 9 mos. Then, you choose to unplug them after they have no other hope.

[goaded]

@wolfcat87 No, you must have missed: "He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment" and "in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment".

[wolfcat87]

No, I saw that part. I was making it fit the abortion story line more than it actually does. In this it's more parallel to rape which only accounts for 14% of abortions. I made it comparable to the other 85%.

[goaded]

@wolfcat87 Most of the other 85% would be because there wasn't supposed to be a pregnancy in the first place.

[wolfcat87]

If a woman decides to skip proper contraception, as in 74% of cases, then it's more comparable to my amendments.

[goaded]

@wolfcat87 Unfortunately, that's not true:

"RESULTS: Forty-six percent of women had not used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, mainly because of perceived low risk of pregnancy and concerns about contraception (cited by 33% and 32% of nonusers, respectively). The male condom was the most commonly reported method among all women (28%), followed by the pill (14%). Inconsistent method use was the main cause of pregnancy for 49% of condom users and 76% of pill users; 42% of condom users cited condom breakage or slippage as a reason for pregnancy. Substantial proportions of pill and condom users indicated perfect method use (13-14%). As many as 51,000 abortions were averted by use of emergency contraceptive pills in 2000."
www.guttmacher.org/.../contraceptive-use-among-us-women-having-abortions-2000-2001

To get abortion numbers down, teach children about relationships (emphasising consent), sex, and contraception.

[wolfcat87]

I was quoting Guttmacher as well. It looks like you are using stats from 2000-2001. That was 17 years ago.

[wolfcat87]

Also, the more recent stats posted showed 50% used no birth control at all at the time of conception while 24% used it inconsistently or improperly...

[goaded]

@wolfcat87 Could you include a link next time, so I don't have to search?

www.guttmacher.org/.../induced-abortion-united-states
"Fifty-one percent of abortion patients in 2014 were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, most commonly condoms (24%) or a hormonal method (13%)."

I won't quibble about the 1%. The 24% figure doesn't appear there, but of course many women seeking abortions will have had a problem with their contraception!

www.guttmacher.org/.../contraceptive-use-united-states
"Some 62% of all women of reproductive age are currently using a contraceptive method.
Ten percent of women at risk of unintended pregnancy are not currently using any contraceptive method.
The proportion of women at risk who are not using a method is highest among 15–19-year-olds (18%) and lowest among women aged 40–44 (9%)."

Again: to get abortion numbers down, teach children about relationships (emphasising consent), sex, and contraception.

[LikeARiver]

Should I have the right to take my child who is an infant and decide that I no longer want them in my house and leave them on the sidewalk outside my property where they are likely to die?

By willfully engaging in behavior that makes a person dependent on you to survive you forfeit your ethical right to certain actions that will kill them. There is an implicit agreement there. This is ethically different than refusing to take an action to save someone when their current situation is unrelated to my previous actions that your organ donation analogy relies on.

Organ donation is a few steps removed from even that since I can't say for certain that possessing two kidneys currently myself is causing someone, somewhere, to die.

[ladsin]

All analogies break down at some point. The organ donation was simply that, an analogy to demonstrate that we don't force people to give up their organs for the benifit of others, even if they're dead.

Similarly, your analogy breaks down because a person being in your house is different than a person being inside you and attaching themselves to your organs.

[LikeARiver]

While trespassing on my property rights vs trespassing on my body autonomy are not of the same severity, it rhymes. I don't think refusing to give someone an organ is all that different in character to refusing to house a homeless person who would likely die during the night.
They are mainly different in that donating your own organs is a far greater burden.

In any case, my main point is that for me there is a different ethical situation when your own actions were involved in the existence of the current issue. I also think refusing to save someone is different than killing someone. For me these two faults in your analogy are critical and make it unpersuasive.

[ladsin]

They aren't faults with my analogy. Or, at least with my argument. We both agree that you shouldn't have a legal obligation to house anyone even if they may die as a result. We both agree that you shouldn't have a legal obligation to let someone use your organs, even if it means they may die.
We both agree on those. You, however, have a caveat with the second in that someone should have to let the other person use their organs if they're a woman impregnated.

[LikeARiver]

That's a mischaracterization of my view. If you took a risk and poisoned someone ruining their kidney and your kidney was the only possible one that could save their life, I think you should be legally required to give them a transplant. I don't think that analogy is perfect, but it's close enough.

[LikeARiver]

Should you have the right to demand that your organ be returned to you after you donated it?

[ladsin]

How is it a mischaracterization of your argument?
After I've entered into a contractual obligation to give away my organ to another person it would no longer be my organ. I would have given away my rights associated with it.

This is different from abortions because, not all sex is consensual, and consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

[LikeARiver]

It's a mischaracterization if you think I oppose abortion rights because they are women who had sex.

I think consent to sex is consent to pregnancy because they're linked by biology, breaking that link for certain involves violating someone else's rights. I don't support banning abortion with non-consensual sex.

Your analogy fits abortion in cases of non-consensual sex fairly well, but there's still a distinction both in the certainty of the situation and allowing someone to die vs killing someone. I just agree that forcing someone to have a pregnancy is barbaric, particularly when there was a sexual assault, that the government shouldn't be able to able to legally compel it when the women involved had no personal responsibility for the pregnancy. My main opposition is that it causes significant harm to someone for events outside of their control, not that it violates their body autonomy.

[ladsin]

I'm lost. "It's a mischaracterization if you think I oppose abortion rights because they are women who had sex." Is this not literally your point? Your argument is that they consented to having sex, and therefor consented to becoming pregnant. Therefor they should be forced to remain pregnant against their wishes.
If that's not your argument I must severely misunderstand you.
About consent to sex vs consent to pregnancy though. If I give person A consent to touch my body for X amount of time does that mean I also give person B consent to touch my body for Y amount of time?

[LikeARiver]

I don't oppose abortion because they're women who had sex, I oppose abortion because it violates a fetus's right to life. That is a difference. Your other description of my position is accurate.

It's different since than your consent to touch example because person B's action is involuntary and cannot be stopped without harming person B. When you agree to let person A touch you, you know that person B touching you may come with it and must agree to both. Agreeing to touch person A while not consenting to touching person B is deciding to harm person B.

[ladsin]

Ah, I see. It's still strange, because you don't think it a violation of a person's right to life to deny them access to your organs in any circumstance other than in the case of pregnancy right?

I find this a very strange notion. I don't want person B to touch me, but I do want person A to touch me. I may have even taken steps to ensure that person B does not touch me. Yet person B is still touching me, and you think I have to just live with it.
I just can't find any situation in which that would make sense to anyone, with the exception of a special right that they grant to a fetus. I don't agree with granting them special rights, or denying women their rights in this circumstance.

Alas.

[jacquesvol]

LikeARiver and your sperms right to life?
How many millions did you deny it?

[LikeARiver]

@jacquesvol I don't think sperm have the right to life since they are a part of my body. I think it's hard to argue that fetuses aren't independent beings residing in someone else's body since they're genetically distinct and genetically complete developing humans. I think conception is the only sensible place to grant a right to life. For people that believe right to life should be conveyed at birth, a stage of brain development, or to eggs and sperms, I'd just have to agree to disagree.

[jacquesvol]

@LikeARiver you can't force women to put their organs at the disposal of a lump of cells if they don't want it.

[Markasaurous]

Well what you are saying is cutting off all debate for what is a more complex issue than black or white. A fetus will inevitably develop into a child if all things go well which most of the time they do, an organ will die with the person and can be used when a person dies yes, however that organ isn't a whole other human life.

Then if you live in the US comes the Victims Of Violence Act which states if a woman who is pregnant is murdered (and the fetus) that would be double manslaughter and rightfully so, would you wish that to be single manslaughter instead of double? Also, if you kill a person, the organs aren't considered another life, the fetus is.

Now you argue in terms of consent and the thing is, the woman and man who had sex consented to having sex and the consequences of having sex. You are free to choose but you aren't free from the consequences of your actions. Abortion isn't a right and is killing a child.

[ladsin]

Does a born child have a right to it's mother's organs?

[Markasaurous]

It's not about a right. It is about doing the right thing and obviously a good mother would care for her child. A bad mother won't care for her child and will let her kid die because she won't take responsibility for her actions.

All a mother has to do is breast feed which is natural and isn't sacrificing the mother any.

It's not about rights. It is about morality. If you think a mother doesn't have to take care of her child then that is a terrible standard. I believe a mother should take care of her children. Seems crazy I know.

[ladsin]

You can believe whatever you want about the morality of it. I don't much care.

I do care what you try to impose on other people legally. "All a mother has to do is breast feed which is natural and isn't sacrificing the mother any." IS that REALLY all you think that a mother has to do? You can't seriously think that, can you?

[Markasaurous]

I was intending that to mean what she has to give from herself physically since you were arguing the point of it being her body, a mother has to do a lot more than just breast feed obviously.

What about the rights of an unborn child? Why should a mother be able to kill her kid if she doesn't want it? Just because it is her body that doesn't mean she can do anything to herself, there are laws against self harm, suicide, etc. Those people who want to do self harm/harm to others usually have mental disorders who want to hurt themselves like depression and are placed on a 5150 hold, now, why isn't a mother who wants to inflict harm on a baby on a 5150?

There is no reason to abort a baby.

[ladsin]

No reason? Not even if the mother will die as a result? That's a stricter belief than most and I don't think that's what you actually meant.

I already said that I can grant a fetus every right that a person has. That does not give them the right to live off of another person's organs without their consent anymore than I have the right to use your organs. That's simply not a right that we grant person's. You're arguing for special rights for the fetus and I don't see that as justifiable. You don't grant the fetus that right after it is born right?

[Markasaurous]

It is the mother's child, of course a mother should allow the mother to "use her organs" it doesn't matter how you put this. A mother is a terrible mother if she doesn't allow her child to "use her organs".

[ladsin]

That's your opinion and I don't much care about that. I think I already said this, but I don't care what you think about the morality of the decision, I care about what you try to force other people to do with their own bodies.
My mother thought that it was evil and immoral to let children play with yu-gi-oh cards because there was a character named "the dark magician" or something, and she was liberal compared to many of my friends' parents.

That's fine, I don't much care, but as soon as you start trying to legislate that some people have a right to other people's bodies (regardless of whether or not they consent) I take issue.

[BillyB4]

Personally I still think forcing women to have unwanted babies is better than killing them. I think of it this way. Let’s say two women get pregnant. One aborts and the other has the kid, but when her boy is five years old she decides she doesn’t want to have him and kills him. The first woman is thought of as being perfectly normal, whereas the second one is considered a murderer. But in my mind they are no different, in that they are taking away another life because it inconveniences them. I think that this is wrong. However, I don’t think abortion rates should be brought down purely by banning it, because that would ignore the fact that a lot of women who abort live in dire poverty, so I think instead the government should focus on help for young families, especially young mothers, so abortion isn’t needed anymore.

[ladsin]

I find your analogy to be a false equivalence. Do you think it murder that I don't give up my organs to other people?

[BillyB4]

Organs aren’t life in themselves. A fetus is a life.

[ladsin]

So do I have a right to your organs?

[ladsin]

To sustain my life

[BillyB4]

Dude think of it this way using your organ analogy. Let’s say you have a guy who has some sort of organ failure. It then turns out that there’s one woman who has the right genetics to save him, so doctors drug her and hook her up to the man and force her to spend months feeding her blood to him through transfusion tubes without her consent. She has a right to pull out those tubes and let the man die, as he is violating her rights. However, if she stabbed the man and then pulled out the tubes, she would have violated his right to not be killed. It’s a subtle moral distinction, letting die versus killing. The argument that you set out is a letting die argument, where abortion is a killing argument, and a fetus has a right not be killed. Therefore, your argument may initially sound convincing at first, but it’s actually confusing two different arguments with each other.

[ladsin]

An abortion is the process of removing the tubes.
The fetus dying is the result. I don't see how that's not clear from the analogy you just gave...

[BillyB4]

By removing the tubes you’re letting someone die because they’ve violated your rights. Abortion is violating the rights of the fetus by killing it. It’s a subtle difference.

[ladsin]

Does the fetus have a right to its mothers organs? How long does it have ownership of them?

[BillyB4]

Dude I don’t think you’re understanding the difference between killing and letting die. A fetus has a right not to be killed. As for your organ argument, that’s a letting die argument as I noted above

[ladsin]

Why can't you answer those two questions?

[BillyB4]

Because you seem to be ignoring or unable to comprehend the fact that your organ analogy doesn’t really work for comparison to abortion when you really think about it. How come you can’t seem to respond to the fact that killing and letting die are separate issues?

[BillyB4]

Maybe I should clarify a bit. The problem that I have with organ argument is first of all it’s a question of killing vs letting die, and I’ve already made it clear that it isn’t acceptable to be forced to give your organs to someone but abortion is also wrong, and secondly, it’s not really analogous to abortion but more analogous to the fact that a woman shouldn’t be forced to be impregnated, so your whole argument is kind of like comparing apples to oranges.

[ladsin]

Because my entire argument is that regardless of whether or not a fetus has a right to life they do not have a right to another persons organs. I grant every fetus a right to life. Just not on another person without their consent.
This is granting them the same rights that we grant to all people. This is equitable treatment. Your argument is that the fetus has a special right to live off another person's organs for 9 months, but that it loses that right as soon as it is born.

[BillyB4]

That’s not my argument. My argument is simply that a fetus has a right not to be killed, despite the fact that it’s an inconvenience to the mother. Your organ argument isn’t a good analogy because it ignores the distinction between your right to let someone die so they don’t violate your rights, and the right of everyone not to be killed. A fetus is a life because it’s autonomous and not just a clump of cells so it has a right not to be killed. Again, just read my analogy above about the blood transfusions woman, which I think adequately explains it and which you seem to keep ignoring

[ladsin]

It really doesn't. Look, if the fetus was viable then it could just as easily live outside of her. Hell, a late term abortion would just be a cesarian.
The fact that the fetus can't yet survive on it's own does not mean it has a right to her body. I'll put it this way, if we could figure out a way to remove the fetus and keep it alive then I would be all for it. But I am not for forcing a woman to give up her rights for someone else.

[BillyB4]

And I’m not up for supporting the taking of a young child’s life.

[ladsin]

Alrighty. Thanks for the conversation.

[BillyB4]

Yeah.

[BillyB4]

As for putting the fetus somewhere else to grow it if the mother doesn’t want a baby, I think that’s a good idea and I think one day that will happen and solve this whole issue.

[ladsin]

Sure, and that would be a worthy debate to have.
The question is about what we do in the interim, and what precedents and legal obligations we intend to set.
But alas, I've grown weary. HAve a good one.

[BillyB4]

Yeah you too. Interesting conversation

[wolfcat87]

Comparing a life you created and forced to be dependent on you before you decide to kill it is not the same as a comparison involving someone not dependent on you.

[My-Shangri-La]

Becoming pregnant is something that is totally in the control of the woman. Women don’t just fall pregnant; in other words, you can’t just become “unluckily” pregnant and then have to deal with it. With that in mind, why not begin to take responsibility 1 step sooner. Instead of becoming responsible while you’re already pregnant, why not do it a little sooner and either don’t have sex, or have protected sex? Why must women be so selfish as to not only want to have irresponsible sex, but also play god and be able to take life?

[ladsin]

Not all sex is consensual. Of the sex that is, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Many women utilize "protection" but still find themselves pregnant. Lastly, the circumstances that results in a fetus living off of them are irrelevant. No person has a right to another person's body without their continued consent.

[My-Shangri-La]

https://youtu.be/RDmwPGrZkYs

[My-Shangri-La]

The right to life supercedes and woman’s right to choice

[ladsin]

Do you extend that right to born children or any other group of humans? For example do I have the right to your kidney to sustain my life?

[My-Shangri-La]

If I die and I donate it and you get it, great

[ladsin]

Are pregnant women dead?

[My-Shangri-La]

No. What kind of question is that? I think you’re running out of ideas here. The fact is, women deserve rights and autonomy but not when it involves killing a life. The new science nowadays proves that it is a life

[ladsin]

No, I'm not running out of ideas. Are you serious, or are you just pushing my leg?

You said that I can have access to your organs on two conditions:
1.) That you consent to it.
2.) That you're dead.
I attempted to address this with a simple question, but apparently did so poorly so I'll elaborate here.
Regarding the first condition, it's obvious that women are not giving their consent for a fetus to live off their body. This is why they are seeking an abortion in the first place. That in and of itself would demonstrate that your response does not refute the bodily rights argument, but I decided to address the latter condition as well. The second condition was that you had to be dead. My response was that pregnant women don't meet this second condition of yours either. They're living persons who are not consenting to someone using their organs and you're advocating that they should be forced to do so anyway.

[My-Shangri-La]

Wait. If a woman does not want to consent to that, then DONT GET PREGNANT! You don’t take away that consent by murder!

[lumos]

It's not totally in the control of the woman. Condoms break. Pills don't work 100% of the time. Even if she does everything in her power to not become pregnant (besides practicing abstinence), there's still a chance that she will end up pregnant. And if you firmly believe that women then should abstain because of the chance of getting pregnant despite using contraceptives, I hope you're also only ever having sex with reproduction in mind, and you'll never have sex with a woman unless it will result in having a baby with her.

[My-Shangri-La]

Take away that consent 1 step sooner when a life doesn’t even exist in the first place. Don’t take that consent away Once a life exists because then you’re a killer

[My-Shangri-La]

@lumos the pro choice side of this always points to exceptions and turns them into rules. Condoms are 99.5% effective. I’m not spending my time arguing about.5%. They do the same thing with pregnancy by rape.

[My-Shangri-La]

And between the pill and the condom, you’re not gunna get pregnant

[lumos]

Condoms are actually only 98% effective, and can go as low as 85% effective when you take human error into account. Same goes for pills. If the woman happens to forget a pill, her chances of getting pregnant are already much higher. So out of a hundred times having sex, during 2-15 of those times, statistically it would be very likely to get pregnant. And a lot of sexually active couples have sex at least a few times a week. Meaning it's really not unlikely that at some point, the contraceptive will fail.

[My-Shangri-La]

@lumos you’re so wrong. Condoms+ pill and you will not get pregnant. The pill alone will do the job. I can’t believe the absolute selfishness here to want to play the god role and take a life. Yes, you can’t 100% control if you get pregnant. You can control it 99% but everything comes with a risk though so that’s nothing new. You have to be able to deal with a possible risk. You can’t just kill

[jacquesvol]

My-Shangri-La Humans aren't perfect and make mistakes

www.guttmacher.org/.../...intentionstatuschart.png

www.guttmacher.org/.../unintended-pregnancy-united-states

[My-Shangri-La]

@jacquesvol those are t mistakes, those are lack of education. I can attest to that because my district didn’t even bother teaching sex Ed. They used to have us sign in for the sake of attendance then just leave to lunch.

[My-Shangri-La]

@jacquesvol mistake or not, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and life supercedes and woman’s right to selfishness

[Annie_Mosity]

Contraception fails, so yes pregnancies can just be "unlucky".

Why are women so irresponsible? You do know they can't get themselves pregnant don't you? They need an irresponsible partner to donate his sperm...

[My-Shangri-La]

@Annie_Mosity where is he donating his sperm if you aren’t laid out on the bed with your legs open? Face it, women have the upper hand in dating and sex. If you don’t want sex, you don’t open your legs. If you don’t want to bring a child into this world, take a pill and/or have him wear a condom. You’re in total control here and have freedom without having to be a murderer

[jacquesvol]

@My-Shangri-La The control isn't total: www.guttmacher.org/.../...intentionstatuschart.png

www.guttmacher.org/.../unintended-pregnancy-united-states

[lumos]

There was actually a thread about this on an app that I use quite a lot, and like at least 20 different girls *within just 5 km of me* reported to getting pregnant either while on the pill or using a condom. Some kept the baby, others did not. It's not as unusual or rare as you might think.
Considering that the fetus isn't even aware of its own existence and within the first trimester (the heart and brain have barely even started forming, and it's only about 2 inches or 6 cm), I'm not sure why its "life" or barely formed body should be prioritized over the woman's. Like the nail on my thumb is the size of that fetus. And most abortions happen within the first trimester.

[Annie_Mosity]

What the fuck are you on about? Are you trying to say that you have no responsibility for fucking someone without contraception? It's his sperm that HE is knowingly ejaculating into a woman.

[lumos]

minus the parentheses, forgot to edit those out.

[jacquesvol]

@My-Shangri-La Men who don't want women to abort should keep their dicks in their pants.

[My-Shangri-La]

@Annie_Mosity no I’m not. It’s 50/50 since both parties are required for sex. You don’t want to have sex? Don’t open your legs. And if he still has sex with you through force, then he’s a rapist and should be reported. You act like a mans sperm just gets into your vagina. You have to allow that unless of course he raped you

[My-Shangri-La]

@jacquesvol oh so men should abstain for fear of abortion? Didn’t you guys just say at the top that women shouldn’t abstain for fear of abortion?

[Annie_Mosity]

No I alluded to nothing of the sort. I said that accidental pregnancy occurs then you made out like it doesn't and that if a woman gets pregnant then it is entirely her fault.

I just read some of your comments and it's obvious you don't have a clue about contraception and the risks involved, perhaps if you had a womb you may be more inclined to educate yourself. You're being wilfully ignorant of scientific facts while simultaneously trying to pass dubious claims as fact.

[My-Shangri-La]

@Annie_Mosity mistake or intentional, murder is no answer. You don’t get to take a life for your convenience

[Annie_Mosity]

Yes I do, whether you like it or not. I have done and would again if I felt I had to.

[My-Shangri-La]

@Annie_Mosity great

[ladsin]

This got hectic quick. Your response to me demonstrating that neither of your conditions were applicable to women was to disregard it and say, "Wait. If a woman does not want to consent to that, then DONT GET PREGNANT! You don’t take away that consent by murder!"
To which I will again reiterate my initial response, "Not all sex is consensual. Of the sex that is, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy."
Secondly, abortion is not murder. It's the termination of a pregnancy. If I hook myself up to you and am using your body to filter my blood and you don't want me to do that, and ask a doctor to disconnect us you are not murdering me. Similarly, a woman refusing to let a fetus use her body is not murder any more than me denying my organs to any dying person around the world is murder.

[ladsin]

Feel free to message me if this gets too complex with multiple people.

[Annie_Mosity]

yes it fucking is.

[jacquesvol]

Not for fear of abortion, but since conservative men hate abortion so much, https://i.imgur.com/zNzQw4G.jpg

[jacquesvol]

@My-Shangri-La If you call abortion murder, I suppose you'll call condoms kidnapping?

[My-Shangri-La]

@jacquesvol that’s dumb. Are there eggs in condoms now that get fertilized? Come on now with these weird things

[jacquesvol]

@My-Shangri-La Sperm too is alive, VERY alive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySej3k1YYV0&t=53s

[My-Shangri-La]

@jacquesvol I know it’s alive. Who disputed that?

[taleswapper]

"Women don’t just fall pregnant; in other words, you can’t just become “unluckily” pregnant and then have to deal with it." Actually, a woman can become spontaneously pregnant. It's called parthenogenesis, and while it's less common than twins, it's more common than natural triplets. And no; becoming pregnant isn't under a woman's control. If it were, there would BE no unwanted pregnancies; duh... Further, even if she desperately wants to be pregnant, that doesn't mean she can or should carry any particular fetus to term. About half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, as the unborn proves to be unviable. Nor is this process foolproof. So sometimes, much as we administer antibiotics to help fight an infection the body can't manage on it's own, we assist in an early end to a pregnancy that's undesirable. If that's "playing god", then so is every doctor on the planet...

[taleswapper]

@jacquesvol Not in any meaningful sense. It neither consumes, nor excreets, nor reproduces; three of the four criteria for life.

[TheUglyMan]

Damn My-Shangri-La is killing it. You go bro. Takes real courage to defend the defenseless.

[My-Shangri-La]

@TheUglyMan thanks for the support!👍🏼

[jacquesvol]

@My-Shangri-La If you can't live with the idea of a woman having the choice, keep your zipper closed.

[My-Shangri-La]

@jacquesvol I’m done here. You support murder and I don’t. All I need to know.

[jacquesvol]

@My-Shangri-La cdn-webimages.wimages.net/...1fb7109fb35224-wm.jpg

And a condom is kidnapping

[My-Shangri-La]

@jacquesvol stop with the jokes. It’s not even good material

[wolfcat87]

@lumos A mom has every right to not make that other person in the first place. 74% of pregnancies that end in abortion are due to a lack of moms preventing those babies being made according to the women who were having the procedure done. They reported that they did not use any birth control at all in 50% of cases or used it inconsistently or improperly in 24% of cases. This is according to the world renowned Guttmacher Institute for Reproductive Health. I would be happy with people simply not making babies they do not want in the first place.

[jacquesvol]

@My-Shangri-La If you don't want abortions, then ONLY knock up girls who WANT YOUR kids.

[My-Shangri-La]

@jacquesvol this is old, why do you keep coming back?

[questionsWanswers]

The bible says that the unborn is NOT alive, for ithas not yet recieved the breath of life. Because ancient idiots didn't know that air was made of particles, they thought it was a spirit.

The bible condones and details laws regarding how to kill a woman's baby up to full term should the husband suspect she committed adultry. So if you're coming at this pro life thing from a religious aspect, go fuck yourself and read what it actually says.

Its always going to be a gray area where brain developement in a fetus acquires consciousness, but my guess is it's somewhere around the cutoff time they've already legally decided, because they consulted medical proffesionals when they made the law not a two thousand year old book of ridiculous myths.

And thats how I feel about it, what of it?😠

[nadinatali]

Wow, first you insult people by telling them to go fuck themselfs and then you insult somebody religion calling it ridiculous myths. Please tell me where in Bible is that part about killing cuz I dunno?

[questionsWanswers]

@nadinatali numbers chapter 5. Your welcome

[questionsWanswers]

@nadinatali so did you read it? Verse 11-31 it details the priest making a drink that brings a curse upon the woman, the "curse" being it makes her sick and have a miscarriage. Please tell me if you still want to come at me on this issue.

[nadinatali]

Well I find it and explanation

Some propose that Numbers 5:11-31 refers to God causing an abortion. The 2011 edition of the NIV mistakenly states that the drink will cause miscarriage in Numbers 5:21-22, 27. However, this is not what the passage is talking about. Pregnancy is nowhere mentioned, or even hinted at, in the text. The only thing that even sounds like pregnancy is the guilty wife’s stomach becoming bloated, but even in that instance, it has nothing to do with pregnancy. Further, the passage does not say that drinking the concoction would cause an abortion/miscarriage

[nadinatali]

If a wife was found guilty, the punishment was death (Leviticus 20:10). If the wife was found innocent, she would be “cleared of guilt” and “able to have children” (Numbers 11:28). So, again, Numbers 5:11-31 does not refer to abortion in any sense. Rather, it is describing a method that God allowed to be used to determine if a wife had committed adultery against her husband.

And I believe this more than story Bible advocate miscarriage. Sometimes Bible stories are allegorical especially Old testimony.

[questionsWanswers]

@nadinatali so you're the one who gets to decide what is Or isn't "mistaken" in the bible? I thought it was the inerrant word of god. Curious.

Anyway, I was reading the NASB version, and no the word "pregnancy" is not specified but that's still clearly what it's talking about. That's what it means when it says "waste from her thighs" that's clearly a miscarriage said to be the result of the cursed drink. You can lie to yourself all you want, you'll do it till you're blue in the face because you don't want to accept the truth, but it's not going to sway me. I have the facts right in front of me.

[nadinatali]

Well since there is no fact or words to convince me it is about miscarriage I don't believe it. I don't care about your anger and fact you are so bitter. I really don't. Belive what you want but you are talking here like somebody put recipe for abortion. I don't have need to explain to you what I believe or not cuz you are irrelevant to me and your opinion also.

[questionsWanswers]

@nadinatali what are you talking about? All you have to do is read what it says. there's your fact that the bible does condone a forced miscarriage (abortion) I know you'd much rather cherry pick and try to interpret it differently, it's still there and it still says what it says. I hope it haunts you that you're having to keep your mind from even going in a direction that would lead you to understanding how inconsistent and vile these man made stories are. Good luck.

[behnam1999]

The libtard believes that:
this sentient is human and must be protected:
http://s9.picofile.com/file/8323987200/baby.jpeg

but this sentient is not human and can be brutally dismembered and dumped in the trash:
s8.picofile.com/file/8323987250/hqdefault.jpg

[behnam1999]

They call it humanity and human rights!

[ladsin]

Did you bother to read the argument at all? Your response doesn't address the content at all.

[behnam1999]

I just wanted to ridicule those libtards, and show how stupidly they think!

[ladsin]

Somebody is.

[jacquesvol]

@ladsin look who wrote that...

[jacquesvol]

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/user/behnam1999

[behnam1999]

@jacquesvol Thank you, I'm happy that I'm telling the truth. Actually, healthy people don't follow Jews!

[jacquesvol]

@behnam1999
Jesus was a Jew. And a prophet in Islam. Muhammad's wife Safiyya was Jewish.

[behnam1999]

@jacquesvol Mohammad and his son-in-law suffered a lot from Jews!
Do you know anything about Jewish alliances with infidels?
Anything about Kheybar?
It is even said that maybe, Mohammad was poisoned by a Jewish old woman!
Although, I'm not religious really!

[jacquesvol]

Isn't Kheybar a Shiite thing?

[jacquesvol]

Shiites represent ONLY some10% of all Muslims

[behnam1999]

@jacquesvol Kheybar was a Jewish fortress. In the war between Muslims and Jews, the Muslims captured this fortress. The most famous thing about it is that Ali, Mohammad's son in law, carried the door of the fortress on his shoulders and the Muslim army made it into the castle!
Well, it doesn't matter the majority of Muslims follow which faith, Shia or Sunni. The real thing that matters is that, not all of those faiths represent the real Islam, if you want to know about the real Islam and its ideology, you have to find the right faith, and it has nothing to do with the number of each faith's followers!

[behnam1999]

@jacquesvol Shias believe Mohammad's successor was his son-in-law. But people like Abu Bakr, Omar and Osman didn't pay attention to Mohammad's statements and declared themselves as the Caliph and ignored Ali. This is what the Shia believes, after the prophet, ali and his eleven sons were supposed to be the caliphs, totally 12, and they were the real leaders of Muslims. But Sunnis only accept the four caliphs, Abu Bakr, Omar, Osman and Ali. The interesting thing is that, Mohammad had 12 sons, Jacob had 12 sons who were called israelites, neftaly, Judah, and others which among them, Muslims accept Joseph as the prophet of God. Again the Persian prophet, Zoraster had 12 sons!!

[behnam1999]

@jacquesvol Mohammad's heritage gets back to Abraham. Abraham had two sons, Issac and Ismael. Issac was father of Jacob and the ancestor of Israelites, Ismael traveled from Jerusalem to Mecca (Current Saudi Arabia) and married to an Arab woman, he is actually Mohammad's ancestor, so Mohammad was not a pure Arab!

[jacquesvol]

Annd Moses too was a Jew. Like most prophets in Islam

[jacquesvol]

And Mohammad was a pupil of Baheira, a Syrian Arianist monk. A Christian.

[behnam1999]

@jacquesvol All Muslims believe in those prophets. But Quran says that the religion that the Jews are practicing now, has nothing to do with the religion those prophets used to preach. That means they have altered the original scripture. I don't if you have read Talmud or not, but just get one, and open it, read through it, you know, we can't say those things came from God.

[Jon_25]

You make a really good point here. I guess my only problem would be that just because they don't have the right to live off her doesn't mean she can kill them. It's just as well she has the baby taken out of her alive and either infused to a girl that can't conceive or who wants it, or stored as cells until someone does want it. You don't have to kill it, just because she doesn't want to keep it alive. Science can do that, so I still don't see why abortion should be allowed. You can take it out without killing it. That's possible. It takes care of the mom's wishes, and saves the kids life. Win win.

[ladsin]

I'd be fine with that. Although it's most certainly not practical by any stretch of the imagination. There aren't enough women lining up to be surrogates to meet the demand.

[Jon_25]

I'm not saying it's practical, but assuming the baby is alive, which I think it is, you still shouldn't kill it. So yes your argument is right it can't live off the mom if she doesn't want it, but it's still a person and has a right to life if we can help it. If not by the mom then by preservation at least.

[Waffles731]

I don't know how I feel about abortion, on one hand its killing babies which is good, on the other its giving women a choice which is bad.
I'm not sure where I first heard that joke

[ladsin]

Next thing you know women will be asking for the right to speak in church. Absolute decadence.

[Trisha13]

I know. We can drive, we can vote. What more do these broads want? 😂

[wolfcat87]

This was actually pretty hilarious!

[Az-Arm-]

lmfao at stupid and uneducated people who compare the body donation with pregnancy.
Why do women have uteruses? Can anyone finally understand that fetus is supposed to use its mother's nutrition?
This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE. This is NATURE.

[jacquesvol]

It's about who has the right to control a woman's body. She or the govt?

[Az-Arm-]

@jacquesvol should rapists control their bodies?

[Az-Arm-]

@jacquesvol i know you downvoted.

[goaded]

"should rapists control their bodies?"

Of course they should, they shouldn't rape. Rapists probably think rape is also "NATURE", though, don't you think? "I want, I take!". "Law of the jungle!".

(Just so you know, I'll be downvoting, too.)

[Az-Arm-]

@goaded abortion is not nature

[goaded]

Miscarriages are (it happens to about 1 in 3 pregnancies, iirc), and abortions are usually just ensuring that that woman has one.

[Az-Arm-]

@goaded miscarriages abd abortions are not the same thing. Any sane person knows the difference

[Az-Arm-]

And*

[jacquesvol]

the outcome is the same Nature is the most active abortionist there is

[Az-Arm-]

@jacquesvol Really then let me kill you anyways you are going to die. The outcome is the same. Are you a feminist?

[jacquesvol]

Do you REALLY want to face court for murder?

[Az-Arm-]

@jacquesvol Miscarriages are done by nature. Abortions are done by abortionists.

[jacquesvol]

You aren't nature. Yet you expressed a desire to kill

[Az-Arm-]

@jacquesvol in order to show you that when someone kills that not nature

[Az-Arm-]

is *