Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
The Activation Act of Idaho prohibits abortions unless necessary to avoid the death of pregnant woman, or in situations of rape or incest that have been denounced to the forces of order.
So far there are 11 states that have outlawed abortion, nine states that have laws waiting to be passed to restrict abortion, five states that have restricted abortion, and one state with legal abortion that has closed all of its abortion clinics.
none of them. Forced pregnancy and labor is a violation of human rights.
Your logic is faulty for numerous reasons. For example - the bone marrow scenario presumes the child is a stranger. The dying anemic person is a total stranger to a woman who is a bone marrow match. We don’t have any obligation towards strangers on earth, especially to perform supererogatory acts (actions that go above and beyond ordinary kindness). However, a child who is gestating inside a woman’s uterus is not a stranger. Rather, this is a woman’s own son or daughter. The analogy, therefore, is faulty because it presumes that a woman has no more obligation to her own child than she does to a complete stranger. Parents have obligations to their own children that they don’t have towards total strangers. The government demands and enforces these obligations, which is why Child Protective Services exists.
@Cubus A stranger is a person whom one does not know or with whom one is not familiar... so by definition... yes it is.
From a legal and ethical standpoint, because of bodily autonomy, a person cannot be forced to donate parts of their body against their will. Even to their own child...
You can't even take body parts from the dead with out prior consent.
The case is - you made consent.
When a woman is pregnant, it is because she has voluntarily engaged in the only act known to get her pregnant: sex. When you consent to sex, you consent to the possibility of getting pregnant. The only exception is a rape, but is only accounts for less than 0.5% of abortions (according to Planned Parenthood’s data).
@Cubus consenting to sex is not the same thing as consenting to getting pregnant... The same way consenting to protected sex doesn't automatically mean that you are consenting to unprotected sex.
Pregnancy is a risk factor, the same way getting into a car accident is a risk every time you drive...
"From a legal and ethical standpoint, because of bodily autonomy, a person cannot be forced to donate parts of their body against their will. Even to their own child.."
What you say is called "collision norm". It involves the sacrifice of one good at the expense of protecting another good. When two norms clash, it is necessary to determine which of them is superior. In most societies in the world, including European civilization, the good of protecting life is considered to be superior to protecting personal freedom.
@Cubus As a result of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and later the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Convention, rape, sexual slavery, and related actions, including forced pregnancy, and sexual slavery, are now recognized as crimes against humanity and war
"As a result of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and later the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Convention, rape, sexual slavery, and related actions, including forced pregnancy, and sexual slavery, are now recognized as crimes against humanity and war"
Read what I wrote before honey :) I already answered that argument.
"The fetus... if she dose not give consent to have another person in her body she has the right to have that person removed."
The preborn human cannot receive consent. They have no concept of permission, consent, intentionality, or deliberate action. They do not understand verbal or written language, gestures, body language, looks, or touches. There is no way for a woman to communicate consent to her preborn child in a way the preborn child will understand. Just like consent cannot be given to someone who is unconscious.
The bone marrow scenario involves an unnatural use of body parts, whereas pregnancy involves the natural use body parts. The bone marrow inside your body is designed to be used for your body. It produces cells and provides other physiological support for the body it resides in. It was not made to be surgically removed and placed into another person’s body. That’s an artificial or unnatural use. This, however, is not the case with pregnancy. When a woman is pregnant, the child growing inside her is in precisely the one place where human beings are designed to gestate: the uterus. That organ is the natural and proper organ to gestate another human being. There is nothing unnatural about it. It’s designed to provide physiological support for another human body, unlike bone marrow, which is designed to provide physiological support for your body.
@Cubus I won't add to much to what Subaru said as she covered mostly everything, but your entire argument about nature could be summed up as one big appeal to nature. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Again - When a woman is pregnant, it is because she has voluntarily engaged in the only act known to get her pregnant: sex. When you consent to sex, you consent to the possibility of getting pregnant. The only exception is a rape, but is only accounts for less than 0.5% of abortions (according to Planned Parenthood’s data).
@Cubus Okay I will explain... pregnancy occurs when an egg allows a sperm to fertilize it and that fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall... that is possible with out having sex.
Any sexual activity that introduces sperm into — or around — the vagina could result in a sperm making its way to the egg.
@Cubus That seems to lead to some implausible outcomes though. If we assume that the concept of consent is built into the risk of any activity we undertake, that would imply that going outside implies that we consent to being robbed or assaulted. Maybe you could argue that, but it's far from clear and seems ridiculous on the surface. At that point "consent" no longer means what people take it to mean in conversations about anything.
@Cubus sure but it's unclear what we mean by "specific" unless you're smuggling in premises regarding natural purpose or existence of alternative consequences. Sex can often lead to one specific outcome, but that outcome can be mitigated to a percentage that we could reasonably assign to being assaulted in public. It's a line we can't draw because what if I go walking in a dangerous neighborhood? A slightly dangerous neighborhood? A safe one with one bad apple who likes to hunt at night? At some point we transition from blaming a person for their own misfortune, to accepting that the person took every precaution and was still effed over.
All of this is besides the autonomy argument though. If you're interested, I recommend Judith Thompson's "Defense of Abortion" for a rights based claim to autonomy that doesn't rely on consequences or the stage of the pregnancy. It makes the case that if we were to wake up strapped to a person who required life saving treatment, that it seems intuitively plausible to claim a violation against one's person and exit the situation. True, we didn't do anything to put the person there, but it doesn't seem to really matter when we consider autonomy in other contexts. If I run over a person, I am not legally obligated to rent my body to my victim, and no government or serious political argument has been advanced to argue the contrary.
@Cubus no I specifically said that in cases of intentional action against another person that renders them incapacitated, the state does not mandate that you give up your body to keep them on life support. If you stab me and I need a blood donation or something, the state cannot compel you to assist me, even if you intentionally inflicted harm upon me. Why is this?
@Cubus You're missing the point. In the case of abortion, you have (supposedly) a live body that you put there by your own actions. In the case of a person who you ran over with a car, the exact same principle applies, and yet in the second instance, we do not ask the perpetrator to donate organs or blood to the victim if they're needed. I'm asking you why that seems to be the case.
@Cubus it has nothing to do with accidents. If you grab your car right now and 100% INTENTIONALLY run me over, thus ending my life with every knowledge that you will do so, the state STILL does not compel you to give up your internal bodily autonomy by means of organ harvesting or blood transfusions if such a procedure is possible.
I also take issue with the first claim you just made about deciding not to save somebody vs deciding to kill them. Obviously that's another point entirely and don't really wish to bang my head against that wall, but it is far from obvious that standing by while somebody drowns is somehow very different than actively submerging them below the surface. It seems as though there is some degree of culpability. But again, for the sake of the original argument I'll grant you that.
@Cubus well then I have to give you points for consistency, but the majority of people who oppose abortion don't tend to bite that bullet. There seems to be a disconnect among most in the pro-life camp when it comes to pregnant women vs anyone else who might lose bodily autonomy. But if you would be willing to invade the body of anybody in the right circumstances then our moral values might be too different to be able to find common ground, but I do appreciate the honesty.
@Cubus Everything you say is based solely on your belief that "life begins at conception, and any interruption of that process is murder". You should remember this is your "belief".
It's MY belief that life begins when a fetus is "ensouled", and I'll be damned if I'm going to share that information of what I "believe" or know to be true about it. Maybe you don't even believe in souls for all I know.
Point is I've just read this thread which gets no one anywhere they weren't before. From a shear "numbers" standpoint, you are in a minority when it comes to what the "general public" finds acceptable for abortions, but it's not the general public making the laws in a representative republic.
@loveslongnails I believe that life begins at conception, because this is what science says. Fertilised egg already has a different DNA than a mother or father. If it was just another cell in mother's body, it would have the same DNA as her.
@Cubus "Science" has yet to prove that souls exist, but... call me a spiritual genius, I happen to know they do. I just can't demonstrate it to you "on the physical plane". Of course, you will call this nonsense, but no matter. There IS no human life without a soul attached to it.
And this right here: "... including forced pregnancy, and sexual slavery, are now recognized as crimes against humanity..." When states pass legislation outlawing abortions in as little as 6 weeks, or simply try to deny abortion for any reason such as the Idaho Law, that certainly brings the question of forced pregnancy back into play in my mind. Your solution is "don't have sex". Hmm, and you're living in what world?
@loveslongnails "Forced pregnancy" means pregnancy caused by rape, by the brought up definition from 1949.
Alabama
Nebraska.
Opinion
0Opinion
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions