Why are you pro-choice?

[Deianeira]

Not really a topic up for debate in my country. Personally no moral issues with it and I don't see the need for more unwanted children born into unfavorable situation.


However I've heard anecdoctal stories of women getting abortion in monthly intervalls using it as birth control. That's kinda fucked up.

Problem is "you have heard stories" from a afriend of a friend who read somewhere that it happens! Dont take those stories seriously , and even if that is the case there are women who are assholes aswell. Doesnt mean you strip the entire gender of their bodily autonomy.

[Deleted]

Because one person's right to bodily autonomy surpasses a person's right to live at another's expense. We can't even force somebody to donate blood, no matter the state of or relationship with the recipient, much less any vital organs. Ever heard of a forced kidney transplant? Me neither. Why should it be any different when it comes to carrying a child inside your body, if that's not what you want?

[Maletalana]

personhood is what grants bodily autonomy. children have limited bodily autonomy, as they can't consent to anything related to their body without parent approval(vaccines, medicines, etc.). when the fetus becomes a person, it of course would have limited bodily autonomy as well, it needs the mother to live.

its bodily autonomy for the most part should be equal to that of a child's, since it is a person, and therefore should not be able to be killed wantonly.

like i said. up to the point it is a person, that's fine, i see no problem with abortion. but once it's in there all shaped like a little person, it's no different from any other child. needing care to survive. in fact, it requires less care than an actual child, you just have to exist and it lives.

i don't see why there can't be a common sense on this. it's basic knowledge, either you're ok with killing people or you're not. i am not, in most cases. when there are extreme circumstances, sometimes people have to die. but when there isn't it should be entirely illegal to kill anyone.

So, the big ones sticking out to me are the two bolded pieces. Let's say a fetus is vaguely 'human-shaped'. You have said that it is no different from any other child, but 'any other child' eats food, drinks water, and breathes air. The fetus does none of those things. You have also said is requires less care than an actual child, but I would like to counter that it is much, MUCH more care than an actual child. The mother has to restrict her diet and be very careful about physical activity and sleep. Yes, the baby just sits there. However, that doesn't mean it requires less care, it means that it requires less direct-care. You don't have to hold it and talk to it, but it is still sucking nutrients out of you and in an extremely delicate position.

I also love this argument: If the fetus, being human-shaped, DOES deserve bodily autonomy rights equal to the mother, can it survive on its own? It isn't even much of a stretch to apply the definition of "parasite" to a human fetus. I believe I read somewhere that human fetus' are within the top five most destructive to the mother during pregnancy.

If a fetus is a person, cut the umbilical cord and see what happens

[Zeta333]

So if she's 8 1/2 months along, but gets bored and decides she doesn't want it anymore, it's ok for her to abort still, as it should be her "right" to her own autonomy?

Its not self aware, why does it matter what level it is untill then? It has the same potential to be a human as a sperm cell.

[Jtbrig7390]

So if she's 8 1/2 months along, but gets bored and decides she doesn't want it anymore, it's ok for her to abort still, as it should be her "right" to her own autonomy?

Bodily autonomy......

Her body her call and at 8 1/2 month's it can be removed and live outside the body on its own in some cases. Its also super rare for a baby to be removed that late and if it is its more then likely because of health issues.

[Astalnar]

Only crazy people would force people to choose a life of pain, misery and suffering.

You're missing the point. My argument is that people should be able to choose for themself if they want to live or die. Your argument is that their life will be full of pain, misery and suffering anyway, and thus should just be killed right away without consulting them first or even giving them an option to live.

Suicide begs to differ.

And once again, suicide is a conscious choice made freely by an individual. If he wants to off himself, by all means, I'm not going to stop him. But if you want to play a good samaritan and kill him "for his own good", that's when I'm going to intervene and stop you, from killing him. That is what it means to have it's own agency. He should be free to end his own life.

I guess you've never experienced what real pain is. When you can't think, you can't move, you can hardly scream or cry.
Or you've never seen a person that is in such amount of pain that he loses all that was human about him despite the fact that the dosage of narcotic painkillers that are given to this person are almost lethal.

So yeah there are circumstances in which a person might willingly choose death.

As I said: Nobody in their right mind who can avoid death would embrace it. It's like you don't even read what I say, and just decide to build a strawman to attack.

[Total Crica]

Why should it be any different when it comes to carrying a child inside your body

The argument for that goes like this :

if you put the life in your body, it must stay there until it is ready to come out - if you did not put the life in your body, you have the green light to remove it anytime you want to

in other-words, their argument is they will force you to use your body to continue to sustain any life you put inside your body (you can't let it die), but any life you did not put in your body they will give the ok for you to not use your body to continue to sustain that life (you can let it die)

- - - Updated - - -

My argument is that people should be able to choose for themselves if they want to live or die

They can choose that for themselves, as long as they have the ability to choose that for themselves

if they are unable to continue to sustain their own lives, they will die, however, and no one can be forced to continue to sustain their lives for them

- - - Updated - - -

You're missing the point.

And you are missing my point.

Forcing pregnant females to carry children to term against their wills is something only crazy people would do.

And I listed all the things that would increasingly result from such a choice in my OP that shows exactly why they are crazy.

Because they are forcing pregnant females who are unwilling to carry a child to term to choose a life of pain, misery and suffering.

[Deleted]

The argument for that goes like this :

if you put the life in your body, it must stay there until it is ready to come out - if you did not put the life in your body, you have the green light to remove it anytime you want to

in other-words, their argument is they will force you to use your body to continue to sustain any life you put inside your body (you can't let it die), but any life you did not put in your body they will give the ok for you to not use your body to continue to sustain that life (you can let it die)

Well, the problem is that that'd be an assertion, which you per definition cannot use as a valid argument when it comes to questions of "morality." It simply does nothing to explain why that should be the case.

[Total Crica]

Well, the problem is that that'd be an assertion, which you per definition cannot use as a valid argument when it comes to questions of "morality." It simply does nothing to explain why that should be the case.

The "why" was included. Because you put the life in your body.

[Symphonic]

Its not self aware, why does it matter what level it is untill then? It has the same potential to be a human as a sperm cell.

At 8 1/2 months she could give birth and then according to you the baby is somehow different than seconds earlier when it was inside the womb? What kind of science is that?

[Deleted]

The "why" was included. Because you put the life in your body.

No, that's just pushing back the "why" one step with another assertion. What you need to establish is why a person putting that life in their body qualifies a completely dependent and non-conscious lump of cells to be more important than that person's bodily autonomy, and that's without touching the potential health issues connected to a pregnancy.

[Venant]

No, that's just pushing back the "why" one step with another assertion. What you need to establish is why a person putting that life in their body qualifies a completely dependent and non-conscious lump of cells to be more important than that person's bodily autonomy, and that's without touching the potential health issues connected to a pregnancy.

Should the bodily autonomy of an individual be superior to the maintenance of a cohesive society?

[Symphonic]

No, that's just pushing back the "why" one step with another assertion. What you need to establish is why a person putting that life in their body qualifies a completely dependent and non-conscious lump of cells to be more important than that person's bodily autonomy, and that's without touching the potential health issues connected to a pregnancy.

One side views that as an individual baby with unique genes and a separate entity than the mother.
One side views that as part of the mothers body.

Can't really change peoples minds, but for a group that adores scientific evidence, it's a little embarrassing they seem to ignore the proof that it is a separate life. A man's sperm is his body. It's his own genes, so he can do what he wishes with them. A woman's eggs are her own body. Her own genes, so she can do what she wishes with her body. But combined they form into something that is neither his nor hers, and that while it is inside the woman, it's as separate as it can be, even so much that the placenta ensures the mothers blood doesn't mix with the fetus' blood.

[Total Crica]

Should the bodily autonomy of an individual be superior to the maintenance of a cohesive society?

Why should society force people to use their bodies to sustain life?

I think they should not for all of the points I highlighted in my OP.

As well as forcing people to do so means they are nothing more then robots obeying commands, and not free willed humans that can make their own choice.

[Ethris]

One side views that as an individual baby with unique genes and a separate entity than the mother.
One side views that as part of the mothers body.

Can't really change peoples minds, but for a group that adores scientific evidence, it's a little embarrassing they seem to ignore the proof that it is a separate life. A man's sperm is his body. It's his own genes. A woman's eggs are her own body. Her own genes. But combined they form into something that is neither his nor hers.

Like I said: I fully support the freedom for women to kill their unborn children and will gladly wash my hands of the matter.

And as an addendum, I would not begrudge their efforts with patriarchal tax dollars. Women are strong and perfectly capable of supporting themselves and purchasing an abortion without the assistance of a man.

[Venant]

Why should society force people to use their bodies to sustain life?

I think they should not for all of the points I highlighted in my OP.

And if you want your society to fall to pieces, a good method is to allow rampant promiscuity and children born out of wedlock.

Do you think that something like sharia law exists only because Muslims want to be 'mean' to women? No, it exists because it helps to promote cohesion in their societies, by inflicting extreme consequences upon individuals who act irresponsibly.

[Ethris]

And if you want your society to fall to pieces, a good method is to allow rampant promiscuity and children born out of wedlock.

Do you think that something like sharia law exists only because Muslims want to be 'mean' to women? No, it exists because it helps to promote cohesion in their societies, by inflicting extreme consequences upon individuals who act irresponsibly.

Infracted for is llama phobia

[Height]

- Single mothers with a ton of children would be enormously burdensome on the economy.
- 97% of abortions occur so early it's barely formed. The other 3% are usually due to complications that would kill the mother.
- It's not my choice. It's another person's freedom.

[Total Crica]

And if you want your society to fall to pieces, a good method is to allow rampant promiscuity and children born out of wedlock.

Do you think that something like sharia law exists only because Muslims want to be 'mean' to women? No, it exists because it helps to promote cohesion in their societies, by inflicting extreme consequences upon individuals who act irresponsibly.

It exists because they do not see women as anything more then property to be used as a man see's fit.

[TotemJoker]

Because its killing kids