It isn't a debate, so rules of logic don't apply, but it is, for the most part rational.
I read a fascinating article about why cult leaders champion beliefs that are relatively easy to disprove (e.g. Trump won in 2020). The argument goes like this: If you are a cult leader and you make a big, bold, true statement, you cannot tell if people agree with you based on logic or on following you. However, if you statement is readily proven false, then people who agree with you are either willing to ignore reality or willing to say false things, all to be part of your group. Thus lies serve as a technique by which members of a group can identify as part of that group. And it works too, right? If someone tells you Trump won in 2020 you already know a lot about them!
The abortion argument is much the same. Leaders call for policies that are so non-sensical that the only reason to follow them is to demonstrate you are part of their group. And for many people, the urge to belong is so strong, they readily do so. It is precisely because the policy is abhorrent that it works as a way to establish group identity. And if they can make that policy the law of the land, it demonstrates they are in control. Something they very highly value.
I think there is a logical explanation for the pro-forced birth people’s words: the desire to control and subjugate women. That’s the intent, and the words are whatever they think gets the job done, regardless of the soundness of the verbal arguments.
And usually by men who are firmly pro-bodily autonomy when it comes to masking and vaccines. And who are firmly 'keep the govt off my back and away from my guns, but give them the keys to your vagina, Carole, you fucking slut'
I think most of them do care about logic and their argument is rational to them. They believe life begins at conception and that said life has rights protected by the constitution the same as you or me. Unless you dismantle the "life begins at conception" argument, you have no hope of changing a pro-lifer's mind. Unfortunately, most people just default to calling them sexist or bible thumpers despite the fact that over 40% of pro-life people are women (Gallup, 2019) and the main argument has nothing to do with "muh Jesus." I'm pro-choice and I've convinced some conservatives I know that conception doesn't equal life. You can change mines as long as you argue against what they're saying rather than vilifying them as people. Not much you can do against the religious folks though.
There probably are many explanations but it is also understandable that one can run out of empathy and understanding for people who make zero effort to do the same. That being said, thank you very much for putting in the effort to try to change minds (and even succeeding!).
There's another explanation that was posted here recently (by u/MutationIsMagic ) that is also quite convincing:
[https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/03/11/this-is-what-abortion-politics-is-for/](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/03/11/this-is-what-abortion-politics-is-for/)
You can't use logic because the majority of the arguments anti-choicers make are emotional, primarily via religion. They see the fetus as a person separate and equal to the woman. You can't argue with people who just make up their own reality and demand people abide by it.
They think consent was given when you agreed to sex and cannot be rescinded. Nevermind those who never consented in the first place.
So don't have sex with these people because if you say "no" at any point it doesn't matter and they will happily rape you.
As a Christian, I personally could not have an abortion. As a woman born in the USA, knowing I have rights, I can't tell another woman what to do. My main argument is that Christ said hate the sin, love the sinner. It doesn't work with the people I know who are pro-life. When they found out I wasn't one of them. I received videos to watch. I didn't watch them. That is what I have freedom to do. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, I will know I am considered less then.
I agree with you and everything your saying. My opinion on why it’s not good enough for them is they distinguish you being different from the thing growing inside of you and they’re saying that things rights override yours.
I don’t agree with it at all. But that’s their argument :(
Which is crazy because everyone has the right to self defense. What’s his face Rittenhouse chose to go to a riot; killed 2 people and still got off on self defense. He was able to defend himself even though he made the decision to put himself in danger. But I have to put a fetus above my own life because i had sex. Make it make sense.
>My opinion on why it’s not good enough for them is they distinguish you being different from the thing growing inside of you and they’re saying that things rights override yours.
I mean fine. Then let's outlaw cancer treatment for anti-abortionists. Let's see them put their money where their mouth is.
Yeah, I agree with every single argument for abortion rights that’s been posted to this sub. But the problem is I can tell immediately that most if not all of them will be discarded by anti abortions, I already know what they’ll say in contrast
Their argument is that you consented to being pregnant by having sex and that consent is irrevocable. They think even married women should just be abstinent if they don’t want a baby.
>They think even married women should just be abstinent if they don’t want a baby.
Yep. And those same people who say that will also say she consented to sex by getting married. So "stay abstinent but also you can't actually say _no_ "
Oh yes can't forget that. Tying women's worth to their relationships with men, telling them they can't say yes before marriage and can't say no afterwards, but also they should "just be responsible" and not get pregnant by all that sex they owe their husband 🙃
I could say the same thing about organ donation. I already consented to being a donor and withdrawing could cause multiple people to die. If I didn’t want to be a donor I should not have consented and therefore the government can override my wishes? I don’t think so.
To improve your argument, a closer analogy would be if you removed consent after the donated organ was transplanted.
Not saving a life does not equal taking a life.
That said, it should not be up to any government (federal or state) to regulate medical procedures.
>I already consented to being a donor and withdrawing could cause multiple people to die.
The counterargument would be that your scenario *could* cause people to die, while a woman withdrawing consent to pregnancy **would** cause the death of her baby. Potentiality versus certainty.
Of course, this same argument is ignored by those same people when it comes to the certainty of a pregnant woman's death vis-à-vis complications.
I would say potential and certainty don’t matter due to the fact that there are people who have withdrawn consent ( deathbed or otherwise) and that someone definitely died because of it. The government still did not force them to be on the list.
We allow abortion for rape, incest and some genetic abnormalities. We do not euthanize people based on the above so in the eyes of the law the fetus/embryo is not considered equal to a child or baby.
Currently abortion is allowed 100% across the board. For any reason the mother dreams worthy. But this statement acts as if all pregnancies are rape or incest when infact it makes up only about 0.03%. The exception should never be the rule.
Well you equated killing the fetus to murder, murder is ok in the 0.03% of the cases? Also if I can “ murder” a fetus for the exceptions can I do that for babies and children who are a product of rape or incest? I would think not.
It's not ok to murder anyone that's the point. The child the mother is carrying is being murdered by the mother when she gets an abortion. That child never made a choice or concented to anything yet IT is the one being murdered for the mothers lack of responsibility. If you haven't seen how abortions are done I would suggest you look for yourself. And if you thing doing that to any innocent person is ok I hope you take some time to reflect.
So I understand you feel the fetus is a child and that abortion is murder but what I care about is the legality of the situation. This seems to be a moral issue for you and laws are not built on morality ( otherwise adultery would be illegal.).
And even if I felt that abortion was horrific, I can’t honestly say I would support the government overriding someone’s autonomy in the case of abortion.
Some people would say I should be considered a mass murderer because I withdrew consent to be an organ donor causing multiple people to die. I don’t see that because people accept that bodily autonomy is a good enough reason even if you are dead.
They don’t understand consent . They think if you consent to sex you consent to pregnancy. Instead of consent being an ongoing thing, they believe it’s a blanket statement. It’s really fucked up.
No sex is for pleasure. Humans do not just act according to their body functions. Some people have sex to try and have a baby, others to get off. Idc if you think it’s murder nobody has a right to use someone else’s body to survive point blank.
If sex was only for pleasure the human race would never have seen a second generation. It is solely for reproduction bit we abuse it for pleasure. Once a man puts his penis into a willing womans vagina a child is ment o be created through sex. Any other form of sex, no, that's for pleasure. Nobody is using a body because the child never made a choice in being placed in the womb. The man and the woman made that choice by having sex. The baby shouldnt be murdered because you are to irresponsible to think about your actions. Its murder and murder only.
If I’m so irresponsible why do you want me having children?and the fetus would be using the body of the pregnant person to survive. They don’t have that right
The child shouldnt be murdered for your actions. Should all children in third world countries be aborted because their parents dont make a lot of money, and can't provide a great life for that child?
Not having access to resources because of your living situation isn’t the same as “not taking responsibility for your actions” I ask again if you feel so lowly of me why would you want me to be a parent.
Why not? That's being irresponsible. They could move, get better jobs, immigrate to a better country. I would want your child to live more than I wouldn't want you to be a parent. You keep trying to bring this to you when it's truly not about you. It's about the baby you want to murder.
If they’re in a developing country it wouldn’t really matter how much they work, and not everyone can afford to move so it’s not the same as being irresponsible lol and I’m well aware you care more about the fetus than the carrier. But I don’t care how you feel about it. The fetus cannot use someone else’s body to survive . Nobody at any stage of development has the right to do that. Your opinion means nothing to me. If my birth control fails and I end up pregnant I will terminate immediately. Legally or illegally idgaf. Fetus will be aborted. And there’s literally nothing you can do about it.
It does not have a choice to use it. It didnt magically pop up into a womb. It was placed their by the actions of the mother and the father. Do tax payers have the right to kill people living off their tax dollars that they physically have to go to work for? And there is something we can do about it as it is going to be overturned by the U.S. supreme court and many states are already cracking down on the illegal murdering of babies. Way to admit that this is all about killing someone. I really hope you get help.
The 9th and 14th amendments fight for our bodily autonomy and federal right to privacy. If Roe V Wade is overturned, the legitimacy of these amendments will also come under question. You no longer have privacy within your own home (internet searches, bank statements, medical records). Wire taps will become legal, reading your texts will be legal. Ohh and to all the anti vaxxers, since you no longer have bodily autonomy, you may be forced to take vaccines.
Home of the free 🇺🇸
We do not have consistent logic as far as legislating bodily autonomy. See also legality of drugs and right to death.
Abortion is a huge deal because of the breadth of people affected, but the state has already decided that you are not allowed full autonomy over your own body.
This mess is a horrendous step backwards and an assault on our freedoms and progress along these lines but there is precedent. We've never lived in a truly free country.
Sometimes I hear that it's because we don't have the consent of the fetus. Why that's assumed that the fetus would want to live is a bit sketchy to me, especially when the mother would normally be the decision maker on anything else that concerns the fetus's life, anyway. If I were a fetus I personally would rather die than my mother to feel I am a burden to her. Also, it seems suspect to assume that the state is could more closely represent the child's interests than the mother when they don't have any close relation to that fetus
I would say that we don’t get consent from a potential recipient if I withdraw being an organ donor. It is my choice and I understand that by no longer being a donor, a person or people could die. I am still not forced to stay a donor.
I believe this point from anti-abortionists is the only one with any merit from that side.
Nobody can be assumed to consent to death. So we have a critical disagreement between a woman and her baby on whether it should live, and it's rooted directly in issues of consent for both parties.
The only thing I can come up with to get me past that contradiction is that I believe a living woman trumps a potential baby. That's a little unsatisfying morally speaking but the issue of abortion makes you pick one or the other to respect. I choose to respect women and bodily autonomy. (It also helps me choose knowing that women will get one if they want one, so we should make it safe.)
None of the other arguments against abortion make any sense or carry any weight.
Let me help you get past that contradiction:
Only one party in this equation is USING ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY. When the pregnant person doesn't consent to staying pregnant (aka to their body being used) and has an abortion, they are defending their right to bodily autonomy and are effectively defending themselves from being used against their will (and self-defense is legal).
The fact that a fetus can't stay alive outside the womb is unfortunate but doesn't give it the right to use another person's body against their will (just like someone in need of a kidney transplant can't force a potential donor to donate their kidney even if that donor is the only match).
Agreed. A fetus is sort of like a parasite (probably a very unpopular thing to say, but hear me out). It survives from the woman's nutrients and the comfort of the uterus.
I had to make that connection when I began to struggle with malnourishment years ago. I still walk a fine line, and if I got pregnant, the fetus would be taking my much needed nutrition and put me in a dire situation. I wouldn't consent to being killed slowly from the inside by a parasite, nor a pregnancy.
>A fetus is sort of like a parasite (probably a very unpopular thing to say, but hear me out)
Oh, I fully agree with you on that count and have been saying it for a while (but yeah, still unpopular XD).
When I talk to my mother about her pregnancy with me I refer to myself as a parasite. Its mostly done in a joking manner but that doesn't make it any less true that I was basically using her as a life support system. Taking nutrients from her in the foods that she ate and oxygen from the air that she breathed. The mental and physical toll that it took on her to be pregnant with me is what made me pro choice. The fact that labour was so hard on her as well, if it wasn't for one vary knowledgeable and patient nurse, both of us would have died. I wouldn't have cared if she aborted me and I wouldn't have known.
This is a good point, and thank you for bringing it to me. I'm kinda sad I didn't quite get it even though it's basically spelled out for me above my own comment. There's always room to think better and more fully on a subject and I'm grateful for your help.
The retort for someone hardlining this angle (and intending to remain coherent/consistent) would be to ask if the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to live (implying it does not.) Again, I think it's misguided to treat a fetus and a live woman with equal rights, but if you did (they do) I can see where they're coming from, from a moral philosophy perspective.
Thankfully (in a sick way??) most of the arguments from the right aren't thoughtful, or moral, or made in good faith. Makes it less confusing to decide who's in the wrong.
Their body isnt being used against their will unless you are saying all sexual encounters are Esual assault. In the same note then that's saying fathers are 100% the reason a child is made therefore should have 100% say if his creation is murdered. But by choosing to have sex knowing that sex with a member of the opposite sex creates children you knowingly take that risk and use abortion as a way to remove yourself from any and all responsibilities when and only you see fit. Yet a father can't use any reason not to be a father. The fact that when a woman doesnt want the baby it's a "fetus" and she can murder it with no consequences yet when that same woman finally wants that "fetus" it's now magically a baby is mental gymnastics to try and lie to yourselfs.
Consent to sex does NOT equal consent to pregnancy.
Consent to beginning a pregnancy does NOT equal consent to stay pregnant.
So yes, if a person decides they don't want to be pregnant anymore for whatever reason, the fetus from that point on uses their body against their will.
And bringing fathers into a discussion about bodily autonomy of women is a strawman argument. When the father is the person who gets pregnant, he gets to decide about whether or not to terminate the pregnancy (alone then too). He does not get to decide about another person's body.
Honestly, I see so many losers post on these things about sex being exclusively for procreation only to look at their comment history and see them claim to have a wife and posting on various women they’d do various sex acts to…
Kinda the whole situation right there. Dudes who want to use women how they want to use them and lord over how irresponsible women are for having sex.
Effing wild.
Sex is designed to create children so you go into sex knowing fully aware it will happen, that is concent. Children cannot give concent because they lack the ability to fully comprehend the possible outcomes of their actions. Grown women having sex are not children and know the possible results of their actions. That's like saying well I can get drunk, drive a car, kill another person and not be held accountable. Men are the other half of creating the child you will so willingly murder. But men can be women and get pregnant now so I can bring fathers into the discussion.
So a uterus makes a woman now.? I thought anyone can just say they wanted to be a woman and its true.
Put any excuse you want out. The only thing you are doing is murdering a baby because you are too irresponsible to take accountability for your actions.
If they are Muslim or Jewish and the donor used to eat pork they can't accept it. Some might though. Or if they have a matched family member they may not take it. Like I said I would take an organ I needed but it can be denied.
I have read to many accounts of it being not that way but I may still be wrong. This point I can concede isnt 100% verified by me but a quick Google search says its possible.
That seems to be the opinion over on the conservative sub at the moment- 'the fetus deserves the safety of the womb', paraphrasing.
The thing people need to understand is that arguments for reduction of suffering & personal choice do not matter to them - they do not care. The only thing that matters in their view is preserving life, no matter what else happens or how anyone might feel afterward.
The real argument is bodily autonomy / personal liberty. Do you have the right to your own body or does the state?
Also divorcing what is morally right versus the role of government to enforce morality. There are plenty of morally wrong things we are allowed to do because it's morally wrong for the government to get involved.
What I don't get is that these people are also allll about the parent's right to do whatever the hell they want to their kids because THEY are the parent and the kid belongs to them. Corporal punishment? Refusing medical treatment? Mandatory vaccines? PARENT RIGHTS! Their kid's consent doesn't matter if they're refusing to treat cancer instead of praying it away. But the baby is in the womb, and suddenly the kid's consent matters over the parent.
You're talking about the same people who believe that consent to marriage is consent to sex. By their logic if you consented to sex you consented to pregnancy, even though that's not how consent works.
And of course their logic on non-consensual situations is that _handwavey deflection about silver linings and "it's not the baby's fault" and huge dollop of "she probably secretly liked it" on top_
Because dead women are already receiving God's justice while live ones defy God's will to be subject to man's will as described in the Bible. At least that's what I was told.
I agree with you and everything your saying. My opinion on why it’s not good enough for them is they distinguish you being different from the thing growing inside of you and they’re saying that things rights override yours.
I don’t agree with it at all. But that’s their argument :(
The logical answer, at least that’s in accordance with the draft opinion, is that you don’t have the right to refuse to donate a kidney or part of a lung, or blood, etc.
because the government sees those of us with uterus’s as incubators and not real people until we are dead. they need more workers so they can stay rich and in power. pro-lifers don’t give a fuck about the child after it’s been born. it’s never been about life. it’s about control.
People I know who feel that way state it more like... you made your choices and all choices have pros and cons. I think it is how many people come to terms with exceptions for rape etc. If you didn't make the choice, you shouldn't have to live with the consequence.
I don't agree with them but I can see why they think that way.
Because donor consent restrictions would not only restrict womens' bodily autonomy, they would also restrict men's rights. Voter restrictions also restrict men's rights. Anti-LGBTQ+ laws also restrict men's rights. See a pattern here? If men's rights are involved, no restrictions.
But we do have voter restrictions (remember all the drama over mail-in voting?), and anti-LGBTQ+ laws are likely coming. Any men who are in "out" groups (as seen by those in power) will be affected sooner or later.
It's because making a donation to save someone's life and carrying a pregnancy are really not at all comparable, I'm not sure why people seem to think it's the "be all, end all" pro-abortion argument.
The truth that people just can't accept is that once a child is conceived, the "donation" HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. There is now a human life growing and developing, regardless of his/her size or age. So "withdrawing consent" for that is more akin to donating a kidney to someone, then changing your mind and demanding it back after it has already been transplanted. No doctor or court of law or government would ever consent to that.
I am not pro abortion.
I would point out that by giving an organ away means that it is no longer mine to ask back. It is now the recipients who is considered an autonomous person.
I also disagree with the donation part. A woman who is pregnant is not donating their uterus to another separate person. It is still hers and she should be able to withdraw consent, just as I can with organs still within my body.
Edit: I would also make the distinction of living donation vs organ donation after death. You are talking about the first while I am talking about the second.
The idea of "consent withdrawal" being more harmful than "never giving consent" still stands though.
The central point here is, when did consent occur?
fooduvluv's point is that with births, *consent was already given at conception*. Withdrawing consent later on causes harm (to parents, to unborn child).
With organ donation after death, consent was never given. Nothing was promised to anyone or expected of anyone. So changing one's mind later on does no harm...Along this line of thought, a parallel with abortion might be, giving your consent and organs after today's death, then taking your organs back 20 years later when communications with the afterlife is possible and resurrection tech is possible - thus ending the recipient at that point.
As I said before even if it hurts the fetus a woman still has the right to withdraw consent because I can do the same with organ donation. No one can overrule my decision because I gave consent before to be an organ donor even if it results in someone’s death or harms a person.
Also I am not sure I understand your second point. The government requires consent in order to harvest organs. And even if I am dead and I don’t need the organs anymore the government can’t override my wishes.
>As I said before even if it hurts the fetus a woman still has the right to withdraw consent because I can do the same with organ donation. No one can overrule my decision because I gave consent before to be an organ donor even if it results in someone’s death or harms a person.
Your point is likely that a person has full sovereignty over their own body, period. They can do as they wish with it, regardless of the consequences. There are 2 counters to this (not that I necessarily believe in the counters):
1. People do not have full sovereignty over their own bodies. Full sovereignty suggests that self-harm is also acceptable. Yet suicide is a crime in many places. Abortion is a form of possible self-harm and may be disallowed on similar grounds.
2. People cannot do as they wish, even if it is their right to do so. Utilitarians will weigh the relative harm/benefit of each action, while natural law theorists will probably draw red lines from "morality" or their holy texts. Do men similarly have the right to sovereignty for their lives/bodies? The father has to provide child support for the next 18 years or so. It would be utterly ludicrous to suggest that the father has the right to abort the fetus in the pregnant woman's body in the name of sovereignty for the next 18 years.
I wouldnt equate abortion to self harm because abortion is usually done by a doctor. Also there are exceptions for abortion for rape, incest and some genetic defects. Should these cases be disallowed as well?
I would also point out for that paying child support has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Men/women can give up their parental rights and no longer have to pay child support.
>I would also point out for that paying child support has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Men/women can give up their parental rights and no longer have to pay child support.
You might want to consult with a lawyer. I don't think men can avoid paying child support by giving up parental rights. Probably have to go on the lam, move to another state/country, etc.
If consent happens at conception for men, it should be the case for women too.
As for special circumstances like rape, incest, etc...a utilitarian perspective of the law would likely agree that those could be allowable cases for abortion. A natural law perspective may depend on individual morality. Legal positivist view (e.g. Hart) of the law would depend on complex things like, how (is it valid) is this law becoming a law to allow/disallow abortion.
Yes in some states if you abandon your child or fail to pay child support your parental rights can be revoked and you don’t have to pay child support. It is not an easy thing to do but you can do it. Men/women can also sue for sole custody or ask for reduction in child support.
https://www.breedenfirm.com/legal-blog/does-signing-away-parental-rights-stop-child-support/
https://steinberglawgroup.com/termination-parental-rights-affects-child-support/
Observe this line in your first link:
"Also, termination is not something you can do to avoid your responsibilities. You may not voluntarily terminate your parental rights for any reason, particularly to avoid paying child support."
The courts have to terminate one's parental rights...it's not something some guy can voluntarily give up to avoid paying child support.
The guy can voluntarily not pay child support or abandon the child. Then the courts can revoke parental rights. If you read further it says that. You stated that men have to pay child support and that is not the case.
“Termination also ends your legal responsibilities to take care of your child. Any child support obligation is lifted, and it is as if you and the child are strangers.”
Of course the uterus still belongs to the woman, but considering that another human being, her own flesh and blood, already exists and will absolutely die if she decides to "withdraw consent", the two situations are just not comparable.
The legitimate ability to withdraw consent can only apply to a woman saying she wants to have children and then changing her mind BEFORE getting pregnant.
Which is why comparing it to organ donations (whether made while alive or after death) is in fact quite the opposite situation. By donating, you opt to intervene to change the natural course of things and save a life (a noble deed, but not one that anyone could hold you legally responsible for). With abortion, you intervene to voluntarily END a life which already exists and would continue to develop into a fully functioning human.
So if I understand correctly you are saying because someone will absolutely die than consent can not be withdrawn and can only be done before the woman is pregnant?
I disagree on the organ donation not working. From what I understand the problem with abortion as you stated above is that it harms or kill the embryo or fetus which could become a human being. With organ donation I became an organ donor which is analogous to becoming pregnant. If I agree to remain on the list I am continuing to consent just like a woman continuing the pregnancy. The birth would be equivalent to the operation being completed.
Now if I withdraw consent to be a donor other people are negatively effected and would die. This has happened. This situation is worse because multiple people die due to one person withdrawing there consent. The government still does not force them to be a donor. So the reasoning you stated is not sufficient enough to warrant suspending a pregnant woman bodily autonomy.
Only saw your reply now, late I know but I just realized how you completely missed my point, which was: A person can't ask for their kidney back from a random stranger once it has been donated. So how can a woman demand her uterus back from her own child who she helped create?
If you honestly think a person removing himself from a donor's list and the act of purposely ripping a healthy, growing human life from within its mother's womb are equal and comparable examples of exercising bodily autonomy, then you are beyond deluded and there is no point in continuing this discussion.
So the issue I have is the over riding of consent and bodily autonomy. The organ donation is to highlight that I can revoke consent for donating an organ but a woman can’t revoke consent from being pregnant. In one instance my choice to take myself off of the list would kill not one but multiple people, I know that and so does the government. But I am still allowed to do that so the life of someone else is not enough to override my ability to revoke consent.
But why can’t this be done for pregnant women? This is an inconsistency that should be resolved. The reason I asked the question is to see peoples solution to the issue.
It is not inconsistent at all! Like I said in my first comment: Once the child has been conceived, the "donation" has been made, and there is no turning back without ending a human life. This is why consent can't be revoked. You're not simply "taking your name off a donor's list", you are physically going to the recipient of your kidney/liver/whatever, demanding it back, and killing them in the process.
If I understand correctly do you view the consent to sex and the consent to pregnancy as the same thing?
So for example: A woman consents to have sex; a potential donor puts their name on the list. She has sex; donor stays on list. She becomes pregnant; organ transplant is done.
Is this what you mean?
Yes, once the pregnancy starts, the "transplant" has been completed- Because there is another human life and body inextricably involved now. And there is no going back without deliberately ending that life.
Currently there is no birth control (besides abstinence) which is 100% effective. So yes, in a way, by consenting to sex, a woman should also be accepting the risk of pregnancy that may happen as a result.
Ah I understand. I would disagree in your reasoning for these reasons:
1. Just because someone consents to one thing doesn’t mean they consent to something else. She may accept the possibility that pregnancy could happen but that doesn’t mean she automatically agrees to staying pregnant. Just because I got into a car doesn’t mean I consented to getting into a car accident. If that was the case then insurance wouldn’t be a thing.
2. As I explained before the law allows someone to withdraw consent of organ donation even if someone would die of organ failure. So saying a life would be taken by the act of abortion is not a sufficient reason to ban it.
3. Also I don’t think the transplant being completed is analogous to becoming pregnant because if a woman is raped or health is in danger there is no recourse.
I agree. That is the ultimate reason I believe that abortion should be legal.
However, some people believe that you can't withdraw consent once you have given it and have become pregnant (I don't agree). I think this is why anti-abortion people allow exceptions for rape and child pregnancy.
from what I gather, for them it is like withdrawing consent for an operation after it is completed. Again, I don't agree, but I think the logic makes sense to them.
For one friend, it isn't a consent thing, it is that the life of the fetus is more important to her than the consent thing. Kind of like a trolley problem where your choice is "ignore consent" or "kill baby" and if you have to pick "ignore consent" is the less bad option. She doesn't agree with any abortion exceptions because all of them, no matter what, to her result in murdering a child.
I don't agree, but I see the logic in her argument.
.. because a small group of people have decided to use abortion as a wedge issue to consolidate their power, overthrow secular democracy, and install a christofacist theocracy.
Really, it's that simple. This isn't about babies. This isn't about morals. This isn't about logic, or reason, or compassion.
This is about power.
Because republicans do not gain power by seeking to control the bodies of the dead (yet). I think the problem here is that this issue cannot be discussed rationally or logically. Republicans want to reduce personal freedoms and privacy, while destabilizing democracy. Taking away a woman's right to choose achieves this. Is it morally abhorrent and ethically illogical? Yes - of course. Does it gain power for republicans? Yes - of course. That's why they did it
The answer is because there's a baby involved.
Im not playing devils advocate, Im not pro forced birth. Literally, they see it as a baby and go "we must do everything in our power to save it." With organ donoration, it like "oh well he lived a long life. We cant disturb the dead to save his life, even if it means fucking over his wife, their three kids and his cute little puppy." These people are so blindsided to the fact that this is a procedure 40x safer than birth, no one is forcing you to get, and is sometimes indistinguishable from natural causes (i.e. miscarriage). Not to mention the fact that if it aint your baby, its none of your goddamn business
There are children on the organ recipient list. If my 4 year old dies and I say I don’t want them to be a donor the government still can’t override my wishes even if a 3 or 2 year old might die.
Yeah, but that child is already alive and therefore no longer a concern of the pro-forced-birth lot. They only care about *potential* human lives; *actual* human lives are a wasteful drain on good, hard-working folks.
I really, really wish I could /s this.
Pro birth people are actually the only ones that have logical consistent thought. The mental gymnastics pro abortion people have to jump through to justify murdering a baby is astounding.
I think the idea is that informed consent to sex is consent to the possibility of creating a human; while no one consents to having organs or to random other people existing
You can consent to being an organ donor. There is rarely verbal or written consent towards having a fetus, especially an accidental fetus.
Consent is definitely more formal and therefore valid when donating an organ.
With organ donation I don’t need to say I don’t want my organs donated. This is the default position. Just because I didn’t formally say I don’t want to be a organ donor doesn’t mean the government can assume I want to be.
Hmm maybe it’s like how smoking cigarettes is consent to the risk of getting lung cancer but people don’t object to removing cancer because it isn’t a human fetus
We are not in a formal medical community, I was just explaining the other side. Just because you don’t formally consent to a fetus being created doesn’t mean you didn’t know it would happen. OP asked about the difference
We are discussing a medical topic so it's best not to confuse consent with common knowledge.
Common knowledge is also only common to some. Due to religion, not everyone receives sex-ed in school. Furthermore people raped as children (gross, but yes it happens) definitely don't have this understanding.
Sex and pregnancy are not two different things. The act of sex is literally intended to create children. You want to talk about medical jargon, yet fail to somehow see this fact. Abortion solely is a way to remove women specifically from having any accountability or responsibility for their actions until they choose to. No matter how many babies they have to kill first.
I think it's ultimately about control. The people at the top will be able to get the abortions they need and if they have them they can likely withstand the economic shock that is having a baby. It keeps the bottom at the bottom and keeps businesses going. I don't think it's ever been about morality. They want to win. The rich want to get richer. They have never cared about wanting to support charity or raising children already born.
Because to pro-lifers it is good and right that women never have the ability to consent to anything in the first place. Stop me if you heard this one before:
First, look closely at how they'd like to (or already) run their families & their churches: a woman's place is married, at the side of her husband, with no voice or mind of her own, dinner on the table every night at 6:00pm with no backtalk, doing all the housework and doing everything for the children so he can relax after a hard day's work, and she doesn't get to say no, or yes; she is totally passive and serving God by knowing her place and simply allowing him to use her body as he sees fit for sex and making babies.
Second, it's impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband. If a woman is raped by a male member of the congregation not her husband, she must have deserved it by tempting the rapist. The church will tell her she must forgive her rapist, they'll tell her husband he must forgive his wife for her failure to be a good-enough Christian because she's only a woman, and the rapist must forgive himself because he just gave in to his natural male desires.
Third, if she gets pregnant by rape, there's no question that she'll carry it and raise it as her own. Her husband will probably punish her and the child for it, but that's fair because if she hadn't been a temptress responsible for the fall of man she wouldn't have been raped.
And so it goes.
you have to understand this is NOT a 'good-faith' argument
they dont give a fuck ; they are hypocrites ; bad-faith-actors
of fucking course consent is/should be a good enough reason
but that's not the issue
the issue is tyranny and corruption
eventually the citizen of this country are going to realize that they are going to have to start tearing down some of this corruption ; following the 'rules' and not breaking the 'laws' has clearly failed this country ; things are either going to get worse, or there is going to be violent rebellion =/ its unfortunately come to this
If one presumes that the fertilized egg possesses a soul and is therefore a human with equal rights to the woman, then you have a situation where two people are reliant upon one set of organs. Removing one would be the equivalent of taking a person off life support.
This is, however, irrelevant. Using a human as a life support machine is unethical at best, and if that person does not consent to being used in that way it’s effectively enslavement. Whatever one’s feelings about abortion, the pregnant person deserves the right of autonomy, which means having the choice to end such an arrangement at any time. Neither the state nor medicine can offer any alternative which would suffice to maintain such a life in the absence of its host.
And so the self-serving politicians reframe the argument to make themselves seem to be championing the rights of children in the face of lethal neglect, and declare that the intent to let an unborn child die is equal to murder, therefore the violation of the child’s rights by its parent justifies the violation of the parent’s rights. Not because they know (or care) whether there is a living soul to protect, but because they know the imagery can be used to manipulate the populace into maintaining their power.
As long as the argument revolves around whose rights take precedence, opponents of state-mandated pregnancy will be stuck on the defensive. The best alternatives I can see are
1. No person should be forced against their will to be pregnant. This should be enshrined as a human right and protected by law.
2. Any and all measures which are available to avoid unplanned or risky pregnancies, and supported by verifiable evidence to be effective, must be funded by everyone collectively and offered openly and freely to anyone who wants it. If there is no need for an abortion, there is no debate.
3. Men must bear primary responsibility for avoiding unplanned pregnancy. Impregnating someone without their consent must be a punishable offense, and the burden of proof must be on the source of the sperm in the event of a challenge by the pregnant person.
To your first point, if I withdraw my consent to be a organ donor I could be condemning not just one person but multiple to death.
To your second point, while I do agree that someone not giving someone else blood would be a bit “dickish”, that is their right to exercise at any time and they don’t need a reason.
To your third and final point, I can withdraw my consent at any time and any reason when it comes to organ donation. This could cause multiple deaths which I , the government and even the potential recipient knows. If multiple people die due to my decision am I a mass murderer?
Also vaccines and masks are mandated to protect people who cant be vaccinated including very young children, the sick and the elderly.
I think there is some miscommunication. The woman is asking to no longer be pregnant, she is not asking that the fetus or embryo be killed. That is a result of ending the pregnancy. I would also add that incest, rape and sometimes medical defects are accepted as reasons for abortion even by the more stringent pro lifers. In the US we do not euthanize people based on genetics or defects. If as you said this is equivalent to smothering someone with a pillow why in these cases is it ok to “murder”?
And for the mandates point the government does not force people to get vaccines or wear masks. The government does not send people to jail for making those choices.
Edit: Also the law is not determined by morality. There are plenty of things the government allows that are immoral.
Not going to debate you. You're opinion is wrong from the start that you're owed a woman's body for a clump of cells. Forced birth cultists have already proven they'll lie when proven wrong so I'm treating your idiocy with the respect it deserves.
Once again a clump of cells is not a person and doesn't get to make women property no matter how many lies you pieces of shit tell.
Can't have a rational discussion with a forced birth cultist has you already proven. You want women to be property over a clump of cells, you're wrong. There is no debate with sexists and liars.
I wish you what a sexist deserves.
You by definition are. Thanks for proving you'll result to lying. If you think a woman loses her right to body autonomy to a clump of cells you consider her property. That is a fact. Thanks for proving forced birth cultists are terrible people and liars.
You know you won't change your mind because you've already shown a willingness to lie when called out. There is no debate either you see women as people then they have a right to control their bodies or you're wrong.
It is a lie. You think a clump of cells trumps woman control of her body then you see them has property. Thanks for proving you are a liar. A clump of cells aren't a person that's simple fact, another lie from you.
Please keep proving me right. There is nothing to debate. If you aren't pro choice you are wrong and are the enemy. Women will not go back to being property and dying because forced birth cultists want to believe in fairy tales and own women again.
Please keep proving all forced birth cultists are terrible people and the enemy of every decent person.
I mwan if you believe the fetus is already its "own person" then obviously the difference vs organ doners is "i let you die" vs "i kill you myself". Now obviously the main point of contention is if you take the former as a given.
Even if the fetus was considered to be equal to a person, the government lets people abort in cases of rape, incest or some genetic defect. Why can I “kill” the fetus in those situations?
Imo a problem in these discussions often is that both sides are looked at with too much absolutism. Naturally, if you view it as a clash of different, non-absolute rights then thered be circumstances that push it in favor of either direction. Which circumstances are to be considered and by how much is another discussion.
well they state "allows" you to kill people in other extenuating circumstances such as self defense or whatever so im sure the line can always be pushed up or down
https://abcnews.go.com › story
Abortion Addict Confesses 15 Procedures in 16 Years - ABC News
Like how many procedures you can have there are people who have had 30 abortions I think that that become a complete lack of trying. Not using any protection or means of contraception.
Abortions are actually bad for your reproductive health and can have consequences. Also I think it become immoral after a certain extent to use abortion as the only form of contraceptive is irresponsible and immoral after so many times doing it. This is just my opinion you don't have to agree I think aborting a full term child is heinous that should also not be a thing unless your livelihood is on the line
I understand I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly. I would point out that the government allows people to do things that are irresponsible ( buying a house they can’t afford, diabetics not taking their insulin or making bad investments). I don’t think the government should block or punish these people for their decisions.
I would also point out that laws or restrictions are not determined by morality since people have different views on what is and is not moral.
I understand your point of view I think that the difference is none of those things end another person's life unless it's their own. The government intervenes when it comes to the well being of children all the time in homes filled with drug addicts or alcoholics. I just think it's a fine line because this is another person's life we are talking about not just their own. But the government shouldn't really have the right to regulate anything in my opinion so I can't argue too much.
Because you aren't talking about donating anything. You are already dead, but there are religious reasons, health reasons ect. that keeps people from donating. If you are wanting to opt out of being a parent its murdering a child. 100% it's not your body and you 100% knew what could happen from having sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex. I am never going to tell anyone they cant have sex if they choose to, however I will always advocate to only sleep with people you could see yourself having in your life forever and also if you are ready to care for the product(the child) of said sexual encounter. We have people who believe eating an unfertilized egg from a chicken is literal murder, yet removing a baby by ripping it apart or stabbing it in the head with a poison needle is perfectly fine.
If I opt out of donation I would be condemning not just one but multiple people to death. And whether or not I knew the consequences ( because there are ( usually young) people who don’t know that sex leads to pregnancy)
I can still take myself off the organ donor list and I don’t need a reason to do that.
I would also say that the woman is not asking to kill the embryo or fetus she is just asking to end the state of being pregnant. The fetus dies because it is no longer attached to the mother and if it is viable the doctors do try to save it.
I have seen people equate the embryo or fetus to a baby or child. Under the law, it is not. We allow abortion in the case of rape, incest and some genetic defects but we do not euthanize children who are a product of rape/incest or who have debilitating genetic abnormalities. If they were equal these exceptions would be illegal.
Kids as little as 5 know how babies are made so to try and act as if grown adults or even older teens dont know sex creates babies is laughable. And a baby, or even a young child, outside the womb without intervention from the parents would die. Are you allowed to murder a 5 year old? So yes she is asking to kill the child because the child is what she is trying to not have, the pregnancy isnt what she doesnt want because the pregnancy means nothing without the baby. Also the fetus is a child in all aspects of law EXCEPT when a mother decides she wants to murder it. If a mother gets hit by a vehicle and they both die it's a double homicide. If a person beats the mother and the baby dies they are charged with homicide. If a father gives a mother an abortion pill, as is the case going on in NY, the father is charged with homicide. The ONLY legal way a fetus isnt a baby is when the mother is running from responsibilities and murders her baby.
Children have sex ( or are raped ) and don’t understand how babies are made. Teenagers who are taught to abstain only do not understand how babies are made. Adults who have developmental defects don’t understand either.
I have already explained that the law makes exceptions for abortion therefore it is not murder. Murder is considered the unlawful and premeditated killing of another person. And in the examples you listed above the DA can bring whatever charges they wish but abortion is currently not against the law.
Also, if your child’s organs are failing you are not required to donate your organs to save them. ( I would agree that would be messed up but it is not required by the law.)
And anyone who violates those people in your first paragraph should be put to death. Period. But the law can make exceptions all it wants doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal, did that make it ok or was it still an abhorrent act?
Slavery was made on the premise that there are people who are subservient or subhuman. We realized those laws have no place in a civilized society for a variety of reasons. We also realized that people have bodily autonomy and to enslave a person would violate that.
Using that reasoning, if the government is blocking someone’s ability to withdraw consent is that violating their bodily autonomy? If not, why does the government allowing me to withdraw consent in organ donation ok ( this would cause multiple people to die.) but not in the case of abortion ( one fetus/embryo dies).
Thats what calling a baby a "fetus" or " a clump of cells" does. It turns them into something subhuman dispite the babies being infact a human baby. It's not blocking their autonomy because they, as consenting adults, knew what the possible outcome of their act could be. That's like buying a business knowing 100% about it. Knowing there's a chance of you going under and when the business flops you try and sue the person you bought it from. No. Abortion is only an act to prevent the mother from being accountable for her actions. And or fathers who push for it.
Those are scientific terms and are used to describe the state of development. If you use baby, child, fetus and embryo interchangeably it gets confusing ( in courts and medical settings).
As I pointed out before people can consent to sex without knowing that it results in pregnancy. Mentally disabled adults can have sex with each other. In those cases is it ok then to abort?
All stages are a human child. It can be nothing else? Like what, it it a chicken until it passes the vaginal canal? No it's a human. They cannot consent to sex without also consenting to a pregnancy it literally goes hand in hand. The people having sex know that by placing a penis inside a vagina a child could be created. No because there have been many examples of the mentality handicapped couples having families.Unless you are implying that we need to regulate their bodily autonomy? Theirs and only theirs. Not the child they are creating.
No I am not implying we should regulate mentally impaired people autonomy but you said that people who have sex know 100% that there is a chance they could become pregnant and I pointed out there are people that cannot understand that.
Which makes understanding the risks of having sex irrelevant because you agreed that mentally handicapped people can have sex even though they don’t understand the risks.
There's no logical answer to your questions because crazy anti abortion people don't care about logic and nothing in this debate is rational.
It isn't a debate, so rules of logic don't apply, but it is, for the most part rational. I read a fascinating article about why cult leaders champion beliefs that are relatively easy to disprove (e.g. Trump won in 2020). The argument goes like this: If you are a cult leader and you make a big, bold, true statement, you cannot tell if people agree with you based on logic or on following you. However, if you statement is readily proven false, then people who agree with you are either willing to ignore reality or willing to say false things, all to be part of your group. Thus lies serve as a technique by which members of a group can identify as part of that group. And it works too, right? If someone tells you Trump won in 2020 you already know a lot about them! The abortion argument is much the same. Leaders call for policies that are so non-sensical that the only reason to follow them is to demonstrate you are part of their group. And for many people, the urge to belong is so strong, they readily do so. It is precisely because the policy is abhorrent that it works as a way to establish group identity. And if they can make that policy the law of the land, it demonstrates they are in control. Something they very highly value.
This is what George Orwell illustrated in 1984, “1+1=3”
^(2+2= 5)
Thanks, I hate it :(
This was such a good explanation. Thank you.
Asch conformity experiments.
Damn, I hate and love this explanation. Thanks
I think there is a logical explanation for the pro-forced birth people’s words: the desire to control and subjugate women. That’s the intent, and the words are whatever they think gets the job done, regardless of the soundness of the verbal arguments.
[удалено]
And usually by men who are firmly pro-bodily autonomy when it comes to masking and vaccines. And who are firmly 'keep the govt off my back and away from my guns, but give them the keys to your vagina, Carole, you fucking slut'
Well said!
I think most of them do care about logic and their argument is rational to them. They believe life begins at conception and that said life has rights protected by the constitution the same as you or me. Unless you dismantle the "life begins at conception" argument, you have no hope of changing a pro-lifer's mind. Unfortunately, most people just default to calling them sexist or bible thumpers despite the fact that over 40% of pro-life people are women (Gallup, 2019) and the main argument has nothing to do with "muh Jesus." I'm pro-choice and I've convinced some conservatives I know that conception doesn't equal life. You can change mines as long as you argue against what they're saying rather than vilifying them as people. Not much you can do against the religious folks though.
There probably are many explanations but it is also understandable that one can run out of empathy and understanding for people who make zero effort to do the same. That being said, thank you very much for putting in the effort to try to change minds (and even succeeding!). There's another explanation that was posted here recently (by u/MutationIsMagic ) that is also quite convincing: [https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/03/11/this-is-what-abortion-politics-is-for/](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/03/11/this-is-what-abortion-politics-is-for/)
You can't use logic because the majority of the arguments anti-choicers make are emotional, primarily via religion. They see the fetus as a person separate and equal to the woman. You can't argue with people who just make up their own reality and demand people abide by it. They think consent was given when you agreed to sex and cannot be rescinded. Nevermind those who never consented in the first place. So don't have sex with these people because if you say "no" at any point it doesn't matter and they will happily rape you.
As a Christian, I personally could not have an abortion. As a woman born in the USA, knowing I have rights, I can't tell another woman what to do. My main argument is that Christ said hate the sin, love the sinner. It doesn't work with the people I know who are pro-life. When they found out I wasn't one of them. I received videos to watch. I didn't watch them. That is what I have freedom to do. If Roe vs Wade is overturned, I will know I am considered less then.
I agree with you and everything your saying. My opinion on why it’s not good enough for them is they distinguish you being different from the thing growing inside of you and they’re saying that things rights override yours. I don’t agree with it at all. But that’s their argument :(
Which is crazy because everyone has the right to self defense. What’s his face Rittenhouse chose to go to a riot; killed 2 people and still got off on self defense. He was able to defend himself even though he made the decision to put himself in danger. But I have to put a fetus above my own life because i had sex. Make it make sense.
I agree it’s absolute bullshit! I’m just saying this is their thought process.
>My opinion on why it’s not good enough for them is they distinguish you being different from the thing growing inside of you and they’re saying that things rights override yours. I mean fine. Then let's outlaw cancer treatment for anti-abortionists. Let's see them put their money where their mouth is.
Yeah, I agree with every single argument for abortion rights that’s been posted to this sub. But the problem is I can tell immediately that most if not all of them will be discarded by anti abortions, I already know what they’ll say in contrast
Their argument is that you consented to being pregnant by having sex and that consent is irrevocable. They think even married women should just be abstinent if they don’t want a baby.
>They think even married women should just be abstinent if they don’t want a baby. Yep. And those same people who say that will also say she consented to sex by getting married. So "stay abstinent but also you can't actually say _no_ "
And it’s also bad to be be unmarried, under-loved Cat Ladies, according to Matt Gaetz.
Oh yes can't forget that. Tying women's worth to their relationships with men, telling them they can't say yes before marriage and can't say no afterwards, but also they should "just be responsible" and not get pregnant by all that sex they owe their husband 🙃
I could say the same thing about organ donation. I already consented to being a donor and withdrawing could cause multiple people to die. If I didn’t want to be a donor I should not have consented and therefore the government can override my wishes? I don’t think so.
To improve your argument, a closer analogy would be if you removed consent after the donated organ was transplanted. Not saving a life does not equal taking a life. That said, it should not be up to any government (federal or state) to regulate medical procedures.
>I already consented to being a donor and withdrawing could cause multiple people to die. The counterargument would be that your scenario *could* cause people to die, while a woman withdrawing consent to pregnancy **would** cause the death of her baby. Potentiality versus certainty. Of course, this same argument is ignored by those same people when it comes to the certainty of a pregnant woman's death vis-à-vis complications.
I would say potential and certainty don’t matter due to the fact that there are people who have withdrawn consent ( deathbed or otherwise) and that someone definitely died because of it. The government still did not force them to be on the list.
[удалено]
We allow abortion for rape, incest and some genetic abnormalities. We do not euthanize people based on the above so in the eyes of the law the fetus/embryo is not considered equal to a child or baby.
Currently abortion is allowed 100% across the board. For any reason the mother dreams worthy. But this statement acts as if all pregnancies are rape or incest when infact it makes up only about 0.03%. The exception should never be the rule.
Well you equated killing the fetus to murder, murder is ok in the 0.03% of the cases? Also if I can “ murder” a fetus for the exceptions can I do that for babies and children who are a product of rape or incest? I would think not.
It's not ok to murder anyone that's the point. The child the mother is carrying is being murdered by the mother when she gets an abortion. That child never made a choice or concented to anything yet IT is the one being murdered for the mothers lack of responsibility. If you haven't seen how abortions are done I would suggest you look for yourself. And if you thing doing that to any innocent person is ok I hope you take some time to reflect.
So I understand you feel the fetus is a child and that abortion is murder but what I care about is the legality of the situation. This seems to be a moral issue for you and laws are not built on morality ( otherwise adultery would be illegal.). And even if I felt that abortion was horrific, I can’t honestly say I would support the government overriding someone’s autonomy in the case of abortion. Some people would say I should be considered a mass murderer because I withdrew consent to be an organ donor causing multiple people to die. I don’t see that because people accept that bodily autonomy is a good enough reason even if you are dead.
Oh, I get it. I was raised evangelical in the Deep South and I’m just stating their argument.
But their wives get hysterectomies. They’re hypocrites.
They don’t understand consent . They think if you consent to sex you consent to pregnancy. Instead of consent being an ongoing thing, they believe it’s a blanket statement. It’s really fucked up.
[удалено]
No sex is for pleasure. Humans do not just act according to their body functions. Some people have sex to try and have a baby, others to get off. Idc if you think it’s murder nobody has a right to use someone else’s body to survive point blank.
If sex was only for pleasure the human race would never have seen a second generation. It is solely for reproduction bit we abuse it for pleasure. Once a man puts his penis into a willing womans vagina a child is ment o be created through sex. Any other form of sex, no, that's for pleasure. Nobody is using a body because the child never made a choice in being placed in the womb. The man and the woman made that choice by having sex. The baby shouldnt be murdered because you are to irresponsible to think about your actions. Its murder and murder only.
If I’m so irresponsible why do you want me having children?and the fetus would be using the body of the pregnant person to survive. They don’t have that right
The child shouldnt be murdered for your actions. Should all children in third world countries be aborted because their parents dont make a lot of money, and can't provide a great life for that child?
Not having access to resources because of your living situation isn’t the same as “not taking responsibility for your actions” I ask again if you feel so lowly of me why would you want me to be a parent.
Why not? That's being irresponsible. They could move, get better jobs, immigrate to a better country. I would want your child to live more than I wouldn't want you to be a parent. You keep trying to bring this to you when it's truly not about you. It's about the baby you want to murder.
If they’re in a developing country it wouldn’t really matter how much they work, and not everyone can afford to move so it’s not the same as being irresponsible lol and I’m well aware you care more about the fetus than the carrier. But I don’t care how you feel about it. The fetus cannot use someone else’s body to survive . Nobody at any stage of development has the right to do that. Your opinion means nothing to me. If my birth control fails and I end up pregnant I will terminate immediately. Legally or illegally idgaf. Fetus will be aborted. And there’s literally nothing you can do about it.
It does not have a choice to use it. It didnt magically pop up into a womb. It was placed their by the actions of the mother and the father. Do tax payers have the right to kill people living off their tax dollars that they physically have to go to work for? And there is something we can do about it as it is going to be overturned by the U.S. supreme court and many states are already cracking down on the illegal murdering of babies. Way to admit that this is all about killing someone. I really hope you get help.
They're fascists, they don't care about reason. This is about power.
This. It isn't even attempting to be a logical argument. It is just about control and frankly keeping white men, specifically, in power.
The 9th and 14th amendments fight for our bodily autonomy and federal right to privacy. If Roe V Wade is overturned, the legitimacy of these amendments will also come under question. You no longer have privacy within your own home (internet searches, bank statements, medical records). Wire taps will become legal, reading your texts will be legal. Ohh and to all the anti vaxxers, since you no longer have bodily autonomy, you may be forced to take vaccines. Home of the free 🇺🇸
We do not have consistent logic as far as legislating bodily autonomy. See also legality of drugs and right to death. Abortion is a huge deal because of the breadth of people affected, but the state has already decided that you are not allowed full autonomy over your own body. This mess is a horrendous step backwards and an assault on our freedoms and progress along these lines but there is precedent. We've never lived in a truly free country.
Sometimes I hear that it's because we don't have the consent of the fetus. Why that's assumed that the fetus would want to live is a bit sketchy to me, especially when the mother would normally be the decision maker on anything else that concerns the fetus's life, anyway. If I were a fetus I personally would rather die than my mother to feel I am a burden to her. Also, it seems suspect to assume that the state is could more closely represent the child's interests than the mother when they don't have any close relation to that fetus
I would say that we don’t get consent from a potential recipient if I withdraw being an organ donor. It is my choice and I understand that by no longer being a donor, a person or people could die. I am still not forced to stay a donor.
I believe this point from anti-abortionists is the only one with any merit from that side. Nobody can be assumed to consent to death. So we have a critical disagreement between a woman and her baby on whether it should live, and it's rooted directly in issues of consent for both parties. The only thing I can come up with to get me past that contradiction is that I believe a living woman trumps a potential baby. That's a little unsatisfying morally speaking but the issue of abortion makes you pick one or the other to respect. I choose to respect women and bodily autonomy. (It also helps me choose knowing that women will get one if they want one, so we should make it safe.) None of the other arguments against abortion make any sense or carry any weight.
Let me help you get past that contradiction: Only one party in this equation is USING ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY. When the pregnant person doesn't consent to staying pregnant (aka to their body being used) and has an abortion, they are defending their right to bodily autonomy and are effectively defending themselves from being used against their will (and self-defense is legal). The fact that a fetus can't stay alive outside the womb is unfortunate but doesn't give it the right to use another person's body against their will (just like someone in need of a kidney transplant can't force a potential donor to donate their kidney even if that donor is the only match).
Agreed. A fetus is sort of like a parasite (probably a very unpopular thing to say, but hear me out). It survives from the woman's nutrients and the comfort of the uterus. I had to make that connection when I began to struggle with malnourishment years ago. I still walk a fine line, and if I got pregnant, the fetus would be taking my much needed nutrition and put me in a dire situation. I wouldn't consent to being killed slowly from the inside by a parasite, nor a pregnancy.
>A fetus is sort of like a parasite (probably a very unpopular thing to say, but hear me out) Oh, I fully agree with you on that count and have been saying it for a while (but yeah, still unpopular XD).
When I talk to my mother about her pregnancy with me I refer to myself as a parasite. Its mostly done in a joking manner but that doesn't make it any less true that I was basically using her as a life support system. Taking nutrients from her in the foods that she ate and oxygen from the air that she breathed. The mental and physical toll that it took on her to be pregnant with me is what made me pro choice. The fact that labour was so hard on her as well, if it wasn't for one vary knowledgeable and patient nurse, both of us would have died. I wouldn't have cared if she aborted me and I wouldn't have known.
This is a good point, and thank you for bringing it to me. I'm kinda sad I didn't quite get it even though it's basically spelled out for me above my own comment. There's always room to think better and more fully on a subject and I'm grateful for your help. The retort for someone hardlining this angle (and intending to remain coherent/consistent) would be to ask if the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to live (implying it does not.) Again, I think it's misguided to treat a fetus and a live woman with equal rights, but if you did (they do) I can see where they're coming from, from a moral philosophy perspective. Thankfully (in a sick way??) most of the arguments from the right aren't thoughtful, or moral, or made in good faith. Makes it less confusing to decide who's in the wrong.
Their body isnt being used against their will unless you are saying all sexual encounters are Esual assault. In the same note then that's saying fathers are 100% the reason a child is made therefore should have 100% say if his creation is murdered. But by choosing to have sex knowing that sex with a member of the opposite sex creates children you knowingly take that risk and use abortion as a way to remove yourself from any and all responsibilities when and only you see fit. Yet a father can't use any reason not to be a father. The fact that when a woman doesnt want the baby it's a "fetus" and she can murder it with no consequences yet when that same woman finally wants that "fetus" it's now magically a baby is mental gymnastics to try and lie to yourselfs.
Consent to sex does NOT equal consent to pregnancy. Consent to beginning a pregnancy does NOT equal consent to stay pregnant. So yes, if a person decides they don't want to be pregnant anymore for whatever reason, the fetus from that point on uses their body against their will. And bringing fathers into a discussion about bodily autonomy of women is a strawman argument. When the father is the person who gets pregnant, he gets to decide about whether or not to terminate the pregnancy (alone then too). He does not get to decide about another person's body.
Honestly, I see so many losers post on these things about sex being exclusively for procreation only to look at their comment history and see them claim to have a wife and posting on various women they’d do various sex acts to… Kinda the whole situation right there. Dudes who want to use women how they want to use them and lord over how irresponsible women are for having sex. Effing wild.
Sex is designed to create children so you go into sex knowing fully aware it will happen, that is concent. Children cannot give concent because they lack the ability to fully comprehend the possible outcomes of their actions. Grown women having sex are not children and know the possible results of their actions. That's like saying well I can get drunk, drive a car, kill another person and not be held accountable. Men are the other half of creating the child you will so willingly murder. But men can be women and get pregnant now so I can bring fathers into the discussion.
Only if that father has a uterus
So a uterus makes a woman now.? I thought anyone can just say they wanted to be a woman and its true. Put any excuse you want out. The only thing you are doing is murdering a baby because you are too irresponsible to take accountability for your actions.
No, I said if the father has a uterus he can be involved in the discussion. Only people with uterus get a say on what goes on in their uterus
Recipients can infact say no to an organ. Such as religious reasons.
Why would they do that if they are on the recipient list? They can’t pick and choose the organs they receive.
If they are Muslim or Jewish and the donor used to eat pork they can't accept it. Some might though. Or if they have a matched family member they may not take it. Like I said I would take an organ I needed but it can be denied.
I am not entirely sure but I think donations are anonymous unless it’s a family member/friend giving the donation.
I have read to many accounts of it being not that way but I may still be wrong. This point I can concede isnt 100% verified by me but a quick Google search says its possible.
That seems to be the opinion over on the conservative sub at the moment- 'the fetus deserves the safety of the womb', paraphrasing. The thing people need to understand is that arguments for reduction of suffering & personal choice do not matter to them - they do not care. The only thing that matters in their view is preserving life, no matter what else happens or how anyone might feel afterward. The real argument is bodily autonomy / personal liberty. Do you have the right to your own body or does the state?
Also divorcing what is morally right versus the role of government to enforce morality. There are plenty of morally wrong things we are allowed to do because it's morally wrong for the government to get involved.
What I don't get is that these people are also allll about the parent's right to do whatever the hell they want to their kids because THEY are the parent and the kid belongs to them. Corporal punishment? Refusing medical treatment? Mandatory vaccines? PARENT RIGHTS! Their kid's consent doesn't matter if they're refusing to treat cancer instead of praying it away. But the baby is in the womb, and suddenly the kid's consent matters over the parent.
You're talking about the same people who believe that consent to marriage is consent to sex. By their logic if you consented to sex you consented to pregnancy, even though that's not how consent works. And of course their logic on non-consensual situations is that _handwavey deflection about silver linings and "it's not the baby's fault" and huge dollop of "she probably secretly liked it" on top_
Because dead women are already receiving God's justice while live ones defy God's will to be subject to man's will as described in the Bible. At least that's what I was told.
So, either god makes us suffer or they will?
Yeppers...Judeo-Christian history doesn't lie.
I agree with you and everything your saying. My opinion on why it’s not good enough for them is they distinguish you being different from the thing growing inside of you and they’re saying that things rights override yours. I don’t agree with it at all. But that’s their argument :(
The logical answer, at least that’s in accordance with the draft opinion, is that you don’t have the right to refuse to donate a kidney or part of a lung, or blood, etc.
because the government sees those of us with uterus’s as incubators and not real people until we are dead. they need more workers so they can stay rich and in power. pro-lifers don’t give a fuck about the child after it’s been born. it’s never been about life. it’s about control.
Because religious people say that getting pregnant is your ‘fault’ and basically need to be punished for it
People I know who feel that way state it more like... you made your choices and all choices have pros and cons. I think it is how many people come to terms with exceptions for rape etc. If you didn't make the choice, you shouldn't have to live with the consequence. I don't agree with them but I can see why they think that way.
But they sure aren’t outraged over the states not making exceptions for rape/incest. :/
Because donor consent restrictions would not only restrict womens' bodily autonomy, they would also restrict men's rights. Voter restrictions also restrict men's rights. Anti-LGBTQ+ laws also restrict men's rights. See a pattern here? If men's rights are involved, no restrictions.
But we do have voter restrictions (remember all the drama over mail-in voting?), and anti-LGBTQ+ laws are likely coming. Any men who are in "out" groups (as seen by those in power) will be affected sooner or later.
It's because making a donation to save someone's life and carrying a pregnancy are really not at all comparable, I'm not sure why people seem to think it's the "be all, end all" pro-abortion argument. The truth that people just can't accept is that once a child is conceived, the "donation" HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. There is now a human life growing and developing, regardless of his/her size or age. So "withdrawing consent" for that is more akin to donating a kidney to someone, then changing your mind and demanding it back after it has already been transplanted. No doctor or court of law or government would ever consent to that.
I am not pro abortion. I would point out that by giving an organ away means that it is no longer mine to ask back. It is now the recipients who is considered an autonomous person. I also disagree with the donation part. A woman who is pregnant is not donating their uterus to another separate person. It is still hers and she should be able to withdraw consent, just as I can with organs still within my body. Edit: I would also make the distinction of living donation vs organ donation after death. You are talking about the first while I am talking about the second.
The idea of "consent withdrawal" being more harmful than "never giving consent" still stands though. The central point here is, when did consent occur? fooduvluv's point is that with births, *consent was already given at conception*. Withdrawing consent later on causes harm (to parents, to unborn child). With organ donation after death, consent was never given. Nothing was promised to anyone or expected of anyone. So changing one's mind later on does no harm...Along this line of thought, a parallel with abortion might be, giving your consent and organs after today's death, then taking your organs back 20 years later when communications with the afterlife is possible and resurrection tech is possible - thus ending the recipient at that point.
As I said before even if it hurts the fetus a woman still has the right to withdraw consent because I can do the same with organ donation. No one can overrule my decision because I gave consent before to be an organ donor even if it results in someone’s death or harms a person. Also I am not sure I understand your second point. The government requires consent in order to harvest organs. And even if I am dead and I don’t need the organs anymore the government can’t override my wishes.
>As I said before even if it hurts the fetus a woman still has the right to withdraw consent because I can do the same with organ donation. No one can overrule my decision because I gave consent before to be an organ donor even if it results in someone’s death or harms a person. Your point is likely that a person has full sovereignty over their own body, period. They can do as they wish with it, regardless of the consequences. There are 2 counters to this (not that I necessarily believe in the counters): 1. People do not have full sovereignty over their own bodies. Full sovereignty suggests that self-harm is also acceptable. Yet suicide is a crime in many places. Abortion is a form of possible self-harm and may be disallowed on similar grounds. 2. People cannot do as they wish, even if it is their right to do so. Utilitarians will weigh the relative harm/benefit of each action, while natural law theorists will probably draw red lines from "morality" or their holy texts. Do men similarly have the right to sovereignty for their lives/bodies? The father has to provide child support for the next 18 years or so. It would be utterly ludicrous to suggest that the father has the right to abort the fetus in the pregnant woman's body in the name of sovereignty for the next 18 years.
I wouldnt equate abortion to self harm because abortion is usually done by a doctor. Also there are exceptions for abortion for rape, incest and some genetic defects. Should these cases be disallowed as well? I would also point out for that paying child support has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Men/women can give up their parental rights and no longer have to pay child support.
>I would also point out for that paying child support has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Men/women can give up their parental rights and no longer have to pay child support. You might want to consult with a lawyer. I don't think men can avoid paying child support by giving up parental rights. Probably have to go on the lam, move to another state/country, etc. If consent happens at conception for men, it should be the case for women too. As for special circumstances like rape, incest, etc...a utilitarian perspective of the law would likely agree that those could be allowable cases for abortion. A natural law perspective may depend on individual morality. Legal positivist view (e.g. Hart) of the law would depend on complex things like, how (is it valid) is this law becoming a law to allow/disallow abortion.
Yes in some states if you abandon your child or fail to pay child support your parental rights can be revoked and you don’t have to pay child support. It is not an easy thing to do but you can do it. Men/women can also sue for sole custody or ask for reduction in child support. https://www.breedenfirm.com/legal-blog/does-signing-away-parental-rights-stop-child-support/ https://steinberglawgroup.com/termination-parental-rights-affects-child-support/
Observe this line in your first link: "Also, termination is not something you can do to avoid your responsibilities. You may not voluntarily terminate your parental rights for any reason, particularly to avoid paying child support." The courts have to terminate one's parental rights...it's not something some guy can voluntarily give up to avoid paying child support.
The guy can voluntarily not pay child support or abandon the child. Then the courts can revoke parental rights. If you read further it says that. You stated that men have to pay child support and that is not the case. “Termination also ends your legal responsibilities to take care of your child. Any child support obligation is lifted, and it is as if you and the child are strangers.”
Of course the uterus still belongs to the woman, but considering that another human being, her own flesh and blood, already exists and will absolutely die if she decides to "withdraw consent", the two situations are just not comparable. The legitimate ability to withdraw consent can only apply to a woman saying she wants to have children and then changing her mind BEFORE getting pregnant. Which is why comparing it to organ donations (whether made while alive or after death) is in fact quite the opposite situation. By donating, you opt to intervene to change the natural course of things and save a life (a noble deed, but not one that anyone could hold you legally responsible for). With abortion, you intervene to voluntarily END a life which already exists and would continue to develop into a fully functioning human.
So if I understand correctly you are saying because someone will absolutely die than consent can not be withdrawn and can only be done before the woman is pregnant? I disagree on the organ donation not working. From what I understand the problem with abortion as you stated above is that it harms or kill the embryo or fetus which could become a human being. With organ donation I became an organ donor which is analogous to becoming pregnant. If I agree to remain on the list I am continuing to consent just like a woman continuing the pregnancy. The birth would be equivalent to the operation being completed. Now if I withdraw consent to be a donor other people are negatively effected and would die. This has happened. This situation is worse because multiple people die due to one person withdrawing there consent. The government still does not force them to be a donor. So the reasoning you stated is not sufficient enough to warrant suspending a pregnant woman bodily autonomy.
Only saw your reply now, late I know but I just realized how you completely missed my point, which was: A person can't ask for their kidney back from a random stranger once it has been donated. So how can a woman demand her uterus back from her own child who she helped create? If you honestly think a person removing himself from a donor's list and the act of purposely ripping a healthy, growing human life from within its mother's womb are equal and comparable examples of exercising bodily autonomy, then you are beyond deluded and there is no point in continuing this discussion.
So the issue I have is the over riding of consent and bodily autonomy. The organ donation is to highlight that I can revoke consent for donating an organ but a woman can’t revoke consent from being pregnant. In one instance my choice to take myself off of the list would kill not one but multiple people, I know that and so does the government. But I am still allowed to do that so the life of someone else is not enough to override my ability to revoke consent. But why can’t this be done for pregnant women? This is an inconsistency that should be resolved. The reason I asked the question is to see peoples solution to the issue.
It is not inconsistent at all! Like I said in my first comment: Once the child has been conceived, the "donation" has been made, and there is no turning back without ending a human life. This is why consent can't be revoked. You're not simply "taking your name off a donor's list", you are physically going to the recipient of your kidney/liver/whatever, demanding it back, and killing them in the process.
If I understand correctly do you view the consent to sex and the consent to pregnancy as the same thing? So for example: A woman consents to have sex; a potential donor puts their name on the list. She has sex; donor stays on list. She becomes pregnant; organ transplant is done. Is this what you mean?
Yes, once the pregnancy starts, the "transplant" has been completed- Because there is another human life and body inextricably involved now. And there is no going back without deliberately ending that life. Currently there is no birth control (besides abstinence) which is 100% effective. So yes, in a way, by consenting to sex, a woman should also be accepting the risk of pregnancy that may happen as a result.
Ah I understand. I would disagree in your reasoning for these reasons: 1. Just because someone consents to one thing doesn’t mean they consent to something else. She may accept the possibility that pregnancy could happen but that doesn’t mean she automatically agrees to staying pregnant. Just because I got into a car doesn’t mean I consented to getting into a car accident. If that was the case then insurance wouldn’t be a thing. 2. As I explained before the law allows someone to withdraw consent of organ donation even if someone would die of organ failure. So saying a life would be taken by the act of abortion is not a sufficient reason to ban it. 3. Also I don’t think the transplant being completed is analogous to becoming pregnant because if a woman is raped or health is in danger there is no recourse.
I agree. That is the ultimate reason I believe that abortion should be legal. However, some people believe that you can't withdraw consent once you have given it and have become pregnant (I don't agree). I think this is why anti-abortion people allow exceptions for rape and child pregnancy.
from what I gather, for them it is like withdrawing consent for an operation after it is completed. Again, I don't agree, but I think the logic makes sense to them. For one friend, it isn't a consent thing, it is that the life of the fetus is more important to her than the consent thing. Kind of like a trolley problem where your choice is "ignore consent" or "kill baby" and if you have to pick "ignore consent" is the less bad option. She doesn't agree with any abortion exceptions because all of them, no matter what, to her result in murdering a child. I don't agree, but I see the logic in her argument.
I'm going to go out on a limb her and suggest that these pukes are not big fans of the concept of consent either.
.. because a small group of people have decided to use abortion as a wedge issue to consolidate their power, overthrow secular democracy, and install a christofacist theocracy. Really, it's that simple. This isn't about babies. This isn't about morals. This isn't about logic, or reason, or compassion. This is about power.
Because republicans do not gain power by seeking to control the bodies of the dead (yet). I think the problem here is that this issue cannot be discussed rationally or logically. Republicans want to reduce personal freedoms and privacy, while destabilizing democracy. Taking away a woman's right to choose achieves this. Is it morally abhorrent and ethically illogical? Yes - of course. Does it gain power for republicans? Yes - of course. That's why they did it
Because forced birth cultists don't actually care about the clump if cells, the point is to make women property.
The answer is because there's a baby involved. Im not playing devils advocate, Im not pro forced birth. Literally, they see it as a baby and go "we must do everything in our power to save it." With organ donoration, it like "oh well he lived a long life. We cant disturb the dead to save his life, even if it means fucking over his wife, their three kids and his cute little puppy." These people are so blindsided to the fact that this is a procedure 40x safer than birth, no one is forcing you to get, and is sometimes indistinguishable from natural causes (i.e. miscarriage). Not to mention the fact that if it aint your baby, its none of your goddamn business
There are children on the organ recipient list. If my 4 year old dies and I say I don’t want them to be a donor the government still can’t override my wishes even if a 3 or 2 year old might die.
Yeah, but that child is already alive and therefore no longer a concern of the pro-forced-birth lot. They only care about *potential* human lives; *actual* human lives are a wasteful drain on good, hard-working folks. I really, really wish I could /s this.
Because the arguments of forced birth people do not actually hold water logically and were never meant to. You can't fight brainwashing with logic.
Pro birth people are actually the only ones that have logical consistent thought. The mental gymnastics pro abortion people have to jump through to justify murdering a baby is astounding.
I think the idea is that informed consent to sex is consent to the possibility of creating a human; while no one consents to having organs or to random other people existing
I would say while people don’t consent to having organs they have the right to say what their organs are used for after their death.
You can consent to being an organ donor. There is rarely verbal or written consent towards having a fetus, especially an accidental fetus. Consent is definitely more formal and therefore valid when donating an organ.
With organ donation I don’t need to say I don’t want my organs donated. This is the default position. Just because I didn’t formally say I don’t want to be a organ donor doesn’t mean the government can assume I want to be.
Hmm maybe it’s like how smoking cigarettes is consent to the risk of getting lung cancer but people don’t object to removing cancer because it isn’t a human fetus
Consent has a formal meaning in the medical field and you aren't using it correctly. I think that is why you are confused.
We are not in a formal medical community, I was just explaining the other side. Just because you don’t formally consent to a fetus being created doesn’t mean you didn’t know it would happen. OP asked about the difference
We are discussing a medical topic so it's best not to confuse consent with common knowledge. Common knowledge is also only common to some. Due to religion, not everyone receives sex-ed in school. Furthermore people raped as children (gross, but yes it happens) definitely don't have this understanding.
When people talk about consent to sex they aren’t describing notarized forms but maybe that’s where this is all headed
Sex in pregnancy are two different things.
Yes….
Sex and pregnancy are not two different things. The act of sex is literally intended to create children. You want to talk about medical jargon, yet fail to somehow see this fact. Abortion solely is a way to remove women specifically from having any accountability or responsibility for their actions until they choose to. No matter how many babies they have to kill first.
Oral sex, anal sex, hand jobs, masturbation. Orgasms have health benefits for stress relief. I recommend you try one.
I should add that if sex was solely for copulation, you wouldn't have people having sex outside their fertile period or wanking it to porn.
I’m aware that I could get pregnant but that doesn’t mean I consent to carrying it to term
It IS a perfectly good enough reason for abortion.
I think it's ultimately about control. The people at the top will be able to get the abortions they need and if they have them they can likely withstand the economic shock that is having a baby. It keeps the bottom at the bottom and keeps businesses going. I don't think it's ever been about morality. They want to win. The rich want to get richer. They have never cared about wanting to support charity or raising children already born.
Because to pro-lifers it is good and right that women never have the ability to consent to anything in the first place. Stop me if you heard this one before: First, look closely at how they'd like to (or already) run their families & their churches: a woman's place is married, at the side of her husband, with no voice or mind of her own, dinner on the table every night at 6:00pm with no backtalk, doing all the housework and doing everything for the children so he can relax after a hard day's work, and she doesn't get to say no, or yes; she is totally passive and serving God by knowing her place and simply allowing him to use her body as he sees fit for sex and making babies. Second, it's impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband. If a woman is raped by a male member of the congregation not her husband, she must have deserved it by tempting the rapist. The church will tell her she must forgive her rapist, they'll tell her husband he must forgive his wife for her failure to be a good-enough Christian because she's only a woman, and the rapist must forgive himself because he just gave in to his natural male desires. Third, if she gets pregnant by rape, there's no question that she'll carry it and raise it as her own. Her husband will probably punish her and the child for it, but that's fair because if she hadn't been a temptress responsible for the fall of man she wouldn't have been raped. And so it goes.
you have to understand this is NOT a 'good-faith' argument they dont give a fuck ; they are hypocrites ; bad-faith-actors of fucking course consent is/should be a good enough reason but that's not the issue the issue is tyranny and corruption eventually the citizen of this country are going to realize that they are going to have to start tearing down some of this corruption ; following the 'rules' and not breaking the 'laws' has clearly failed this country ; things are either going to get worse, or there is going to be violent rebellion =/ its unfortunately come to this
If one presumes that the fertilized egg possesses a soul and is therefore a human with equal rights to the woman, then you have a situation where two people are reliant upon one set of organs. Removing one would be the equivalent of taking a person off life support. This is, however, irrelevant. Using a human as a life support machine is unethical at best, and if that person does not consent to being used in that way it’s effectively enslavement. Whatever one’s feelings about abortion, the pregnant person deserves the right of autonomy, which means having the choice to end such an arrangement at any time. Neither the state nor medicine can offer any alternative which would suffice to maintain such a life in the absence of its host. And so the self-serving politicians reframe the argument to make themselves seem to be championing the rights of children in the face of lethal neglect, and declare that the intent to let an unborn child die is equal to murder, therefore the violation of the child’s rights by its parent justifies the violation of the parent’s rights. Not because they know (or care) whether there is a living soul to protect, but because they know the imagery can be used to manipulate the populace into maintaining their power. As long as the argument revolves around whose rights take precedence, opponents of state-mandated pregnancy will be stuck on the defensive. The best alternatives I can see are 1. No person should be forced against their will to be pregnant. This should be enshrined as a human right and protected by law. 2. Any and all measures which are available to avoid unplanned or risky pregnancies, and supported by verifiable evidence to be effective, must be funded by everyone collectively and offered openly and freely to anyone who wants it. If there is no need for an abortion, there is no debate. 3. Men must bear primary responsibility for avoiding unplanned pregnancy. Impregnating someone without their consent must be a punishable offense, and the burden of proof must be on the source of the sperm in the event of a challenge by the pregnant person.
Religion.
[удалено]
What about sperm sorting?
[удалено]
To your first point, if I withdraw my consent to be a organ donor I could be condemning not just one person but multiple to death. To your second point, while I do agree that someone not giving someone else blood would be a bit “dickish”, that is their right to exercise at any time and they don’t need a reason. To your third and final point, I can withdraw my consent at any time and any reason when it comes to organ donation. This could cause multiple deaths which I , the government and even the potential recipient knows. If multiple people die due to my decision am I a mass murderer? Also vaccines and masks are mandated to protect people who cant be vaccinated including very young children, the sick and the elderly.
[удалено]
I think there is some miscommunication. The woman is asking to no longer be pregnant, she is not asking that the fetus or embryo be killed. That is a result of ending the pregnancy. I would also add that incest, rape and sometimes medical defects are accepted as reasons for abortion even by the more stringent pro lifers. In the US we do not euthanize people based on genetics or defects. If as you said this is equivalent to smothering someone with a pillow why in these cases is it ok to “murder”? And for the mandates point the government does not force people to get vaccines or wear masks. The government does not send people to jail for making those choices. Edit: Also the law is not determined by morality. There are plenty of things the government allows that are immoral.
[удалено]
I am just curious to see peoples point of view on consent and abortion.
A clump cells is not a person. You forced birth cultists need to learn a few cells don't make women property. You can fuck off now.
[удалено]
Not going to debate you. You're opinion is wrong from the start that you're owed a woman's body for a clump of cells. Forced birth cultists have already proven they'll lie when proven wrong so I'm treating your idiocy with the respect it deserves. Once again a clump of cells is not a person and doesn't get to make women property no matter how many lies you pieces of shit tell.
[удалено]
Can't have a rational discussion with a forced birth cultist has you already proven. You want women to be property over a clump of cells, you're wrong. There is no debate with sexists and liars. I wish you what a sexist deserves.
[удалено]
You by definition are. Thanks for proving you'll result to lying. If you think a woman loses her right to body autonomy to a clump of cells you consider her property. That is a fact. Thanks for proving forced birth cultists are terrible people and liars. You know you won't change your mind because you've already shown a willingness to lie when called out. There is no debate either you see women as people then they have a right to control their bodies or you're wrong.
[удалено]
It is a lie. You think a clump of cells trumps woman control of her body then you see them has property. Thanks for proving you are a liar. A clump of cells aren't a person that's simple fact, another lie from you. Please keep proving me right. There is nothing to debate. If you aren't pro choice you are wrong and are the enemy. Women will not go back to being property and dying because forced birth cultists want to believe in fairy tales and own women again. Please keep proving all forced birth cultists are terrible people and the enemy of every decent person.
I mwan if you believe the fetus is already its "own person" then obviously the difference vs organ doners is "i let you die" vs "i kill you myself". Now obviously the main point of contention is if you take the former as a given.
Even if the fetus was considered to be equal to a person, the government lets people abort in cases of rape, incest or some genetic defect. Why can I “kill” the fetus in those situations?
Imo a problem in these discussions often is that both sides are looked at with too much absolutism. Naturally, if you view it as a clash of different, non-absolute rights then thered be circumstances that push it in favor of either direction. Which circumstances are to be considered and by how much is another discussion.
well they state "allows" you to kill people in other extenuating circumstances such as self defense or whatever so im sure the line can always be pushed up or down
[удалено]
As far as I know there are no restrictions on withdrawing consent for organ donation. I am also not sure what you mean by abusing abortion.
https://abcnews.go.com › story Abortion Addict Confesses 15 Procedures in 16 Years - ABC News Like how many procedures you can have there are people who have had 30 abortions I think that that become a complete lack of trying. Not using any protection or means of contraception.
Why does it matter how many times someone has an abortion?
Abortions are actually bad for your reproductive health and can have consequences. Also I think it become immoral after a certain extent to use abortion as the only form of contraceptive is irresponsible and immoral after so many times doing it. This is just my opinion you don't have to agree I think aborting a full term child is heinous that should also not be a thing unless your livelihood is on the line
I understand I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly. I would point out that the government allows people to do things that are irresponsible ( buying a house they can’t afford, diabetics not taking their insulin or making bad investments). I don’t think the government should block or punish these people for their decisions. I would also point out that laws or restrictions are not determined by morality since people have different views on what is and is not moral.
I understand your point of view I think that the difference is none of those things end another person's life unless it's their own. The government intervenes when it comes to the well being of children all the time in homes filled with drug addicts or alcoholics. I just think it's a fine line because this is another person's life we are talking about not just their own. But the government shouldn't really have the right to regulate anything in my opinion so I can't argue too much.
I just know what I would do for myself I suppose it's up to others to choose
I've spent alot of time in the nicu with premature babies that will kindof change your mind once you experience it.
Because you aren't talking about donating anything. You are already dead, but there are religious reasons, health reasons ect. that keeps people from donating. If you are wanting to opt out of being a parent its murdering a child. 100% it's not your body and you 100% knew what could happen from having sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex. I am never going to tell anyone they cant have sex if they choose to, however I will always advocate to only sleep with people you could see yourself having in your life forever and also if you are ready to care for the product(the child) of said sexual encounter. We have people who believe eating an unfertilized egg from a chicken is literal murder, yet removing a baby by ripping it apart or stabbing it in the head with a poison needle is perfectly fine.
If I opt out of donation I would be condemning not just one but multiple people to death. And whether or not I knew the consequences ( because there are ( usually young) people who don’t know that sex leads to pregnancy) I can still take myself off the organ donor list and I don’t need a reason to do that. I would also say that the woman is not asking to kill the embryo or fetus she is just asking to end the state of being pregnant. The fetus dies because it is no longer attached to the mother and if it is viable the doctors do try to save it. I have seen people equate the embryo or fetus to a baby or child. Under the law, it is not. We allow abortion in the case of rape, incest and some genetic defects but we do not euthanize children who are a product of rape/incest or who have debilitating genetic abnormalities. If they were equal these exceptions would be illegal.
Kids as little as 5 know how babies are made so to try and act as if grown adults or even older teens dont know sex creates babies is laughable. And a baby, or even a young child, outside the womb without intervention from the parents would die. Are you allowed to murder a 5 year old? So yes she is asking to kill the child because the child is what she is trying to not have, the pregnancy isnt what she doesnt want because the pregnancy means nothing without the baby. Also the fetus is a child in all aspects of law EXCEPT when a mother decides she wants to murder it. If a mother gets hit by a vehicle and they both die it's a double homicide. If a person beats the mother and the baby dies they are charged with homicide. If a father gives a mother an abortion pill, as is the case going on in NY, the father is charged with homicide. The ONLY legal way a fetus isnt a baby is when the mother is running from responsibilities and murders her baby.
Children have sex ( or are raped ) and don’t understand how babies are made. Teenagers who are taught to abstain only do not understand how babies are made. Adults who have developmental defects don’t understand either. I have already explained that the law makes exceptions for abortion therefore it is not murder. Murder is considered the unlawful and premeditated killing of another person. And in the examples you listed above the DA can bring whatever charges they wish but abortion is currently not against the law. Also, if your child’s organs are failing you are not required to donate your organs to save them. ( I would agree that would be messed up but it is not required by the law.)
And anyone who violates those people in your first paragraph should be put to death. Period. But the law can make exceptions all it wants doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal, did that make it ok or was it still an abhorrent act?
Slavery was made on the premise that there are people who are subservient or subhuman. We realized those laws have no place in a civilized society for a variety of reasons. We also realized that people have bodily autonomy and to enslave a person would violate that. Using that reasoning, if the government is blocking someone’s ability to withdraw consent is that violating their bodily autonomy? If not, why does the government allowing me to withdraw consent in organ donation ok ( this would cause multiple people to die.) but not in the case of abortion ( one fetus/embryo dies).
Thats what calling a baby a "fetus" or " a clump of cells" does. It turns them into something subhuman dispite the babies being infact a human baby. It's not blocking their autonomy because they, as consenting adults, knew what the possible outcome of their act could be. That's like buying a business knowing 100% about it. Knowing there's a chance of you going under and when the business flops you try and sue the person you bought it from. No. Abortion is only an act to prevent the mother from being accountable for her actions. And or fathers who push for it.
Those are scientific terms and are used to describe the state of development. If you use baby, child, fetus and embryo interchangeably it gets confusing ( in courts and medical settings). As I pointed out before people can consent to sex without knowing that it results in pregnancy. Mentally disabled adults can have sex with each other. In those cases is it ok then to abort?
All stages are a human child. It can be nothing else? Like what, it it a chicken until it passes the vaginal canal? No it's a human. They cannot consent to sex without also consenting to a pregnancy it literally goes hand in hand. The people having sex know that by placing a penis inside a vagina a child could be created. No because there have been many examples of the mentality handicapped couples having families.Unless you are implying that we need to regulate their bodily autonomy? Theirs and only theirs. Not the child they are creating.
No I am not implying we should regulate mentally impaired people autonomy but you said that people who have sex know 100% that there is a chance they could become pregnant and I pointed out there are people that cannot understand that. Which makes understanding the risks of having sex irrelevant because you agreed that mentally handicapped people can have sex even though they don’t understand the risks.
It is Capitalism. Without breeding there is no work force to support the Capitalist machine.