Why are you pro-choice?

[Total Crica]

Thanks that was an articulated answer, I appreciate when people don't just stand by a slogan, nod to the consensus and claim the job's done.

Personally I believe that if the gestation is halfway through, and there's no problem in sight, then it's best just waiting some more and finish the job. I see that more or less falls in line with the 21 weeks you mentioned.

I know, it can be seen as a violation of this sacred "Bodily Autonomy", but in the end we all discard our rights to foster new generations of humans. Greater Good etc...

As for Axotl Tanks, that would be great indeed!

Depends on the pregnant female in question. One of my points (#5) highlighted the biggest issue that can arise from your position being legislated.

[Astalnar]

Different opinion? Check.
Several insults when I didn't insult you? Check.
Jabbing at my intelligence? Check.

If you're not interested in intellectual discussion - only insults and name calling - restrain from quoting me. There are plenty of individuals on this forum who will sling mud with you.

I'm all for intellectual discussion, but don't insult my inteligence by such shenanigans as you tried to pull earlier. You don't get to go crying around when I use your own logic to demonstrate its flaws.

[Underverse]

Neither are you, so should it be legal to kill you? Is it only illegal to kill children? A fetus is still alive. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to kill it. And it is human. Why should it be ok to kill a fetus?

This is not a logical argument.

I claimed that a fetus is not a child, and you countered by A) asking if it's therefore legal to kill me, since I am not a child (logical fallacy) and B) asking if it's only illegal to kill children (these points have no relation).

The fact that a fetus is both alive and human does not grant it with overwhelming moral value. Where does the value you're talking about come from? As in, why is it better to force a mother to carry the fetus to term than it is to kill the fetus? What is the equation you're doing?

[Endus]

This really shouldn't be a serious topic of debate.

The default position is pro-choice. Unless you've got a damn good reason to restrict someone's human rights, you don't, and you need to conclusively demonstrate that reason to have it apply. If you want to take a pro-life stance, you have to justify that attack on human rights; you're the one arguing for a special case.

Let's skip over the "is the fetus a human being" argument. I'm going to concede that for the sake of this point, to show that it doesn't even matter. Though I'll point out that if you can't conclusively prove that it's true at the stage of development, this argument becomes laughably moot; abortion is obviously something that should be allowed, in that case.

Bodily autonomy is the right we all have to our own bodies and our life. It's one of the most fundamental human rights. And with all human rights issues, it's not possible for another's rights to infringe on your own; their rights end where yours begin. There is never any conflict, by design.

So, while right to life is also a human right, that right to life in no other circumstances justifies an assault on another person's right to bodily autonomy. If it did, you could force people to donate blood, or even donate secondary/duplicate organs, like kidneys or lungs. Not just to family, but to strangers. Pro-life arguments are based on the same horrid position, that one person's right to bodily autonomy should be ignored, in favor of another's right to life. This is a position that is never accepted under any other circumstances, and I can't see how abortion is in any way a special case.

Worse, even if you made an argument that you could justify a temporary suppression of the pregnant woman's human rights for reasons that wouldn't apply to any other situation, all you've done is justify a non-harmful extraction of the fetus, not some obligation that forces the woman to bear to term.

That's why I'm pro-choice. Because even if I grant the pro-lifers every unproven and questionable premise they base their position on, it still fails to be a convincing argument as to why we should restrict women's human rights in this regard.

- - - Updated - - -

The question you have to answer is why it shouldn't be OK to kill a fetus. We start from a default position that all actions are acceptable and only those actions for which a prohibition can be justified shall be prohibited. I'll help you out here: Killing things isn't necessarily a problem and isn't strictly forbidden, even if we're talking about human things.

Also, as I went over above, it means the only argument they've made is one that bars abortifacients that cause the fetus to die directly; any abortifacient that causes detachment, leading to miscarriage, isn't "killing the fetus". It's just ending the pregnancy. And then the fetus dies naturally. "Letting something die that can't survive on its own" is a far cry from claiming it's "killing them".

[Jotaux]

Also, as I went over above, it means the only argument they've made is one that bars abortifacients that cause the fetus to die directly; any abortifacient that causes detachment, leading to miscarriage, isn't "killing the fetus". It's just ending the pregnancy. And then the fetus dies naturally. "Letting something die that can't survive on its own" is a far cry from claiming it's "killing them".

The problem with that argument is that it then comes back to when is the fetus considered a person because I'm pretty sure its illegal for a parent to let their child die.

[Endus]

The problem with that argument is that it then comes back to when is the fetus considered a person because I'm pretty sure its illegal for a parent to let their child die.

No, it isn't. It's illegal for a parent to let their child die due to neglect, but "neglect" does not include giving up your bodily autonomy rights. If your child's kidneys fail and you're a match and you're an asshole and say "I'm not giving them my kidney", you cannot and will not be charged with anything, because you're in no way legally obliged to sacrifice your bodily autonomy for your child's benefit. Not under any circumstances BUT abortion, for reasons that never really get explained beyond blind emotional appeals.

This is exactly what I mean. Determining when personhood begins doesn't matter, because if we applied the same arguments to a parent and their 3-year old (who's clearly and legally considered a "person" under the law), the parent's bodily autonomy cannot be overruled for the child's right to life. Can not, under any circumstances. Hell, if the child needs a kidney and their father is a match and their father dies in such a way that their kidneys are fine, unless they've previously agreed to let their organs be harvested, they cannot be used to save their child. Because their corpse has more rights than we grant to pregnant women, for some godforsaken reason.

[Independent voter]

There is only 9 months difference between a fertilized egg and a newborn child. Once group says the fertilized egg shouldn't be killed both say the newborn shouldn't be killed. Not that much difference to me.

[Deleted]

...

Your mother certainly was much more restricted in having a choice in aborting you or not compared to current western woman.
I always wanted to ask pro-choice people like you the following:

Do you regret your mother not having as much freedom when it came to having you or not? (before you try to argue that you were planned or wanted, think of social stigmas and the like which she certainly would have faced if she aborted you back then which certainly increased the chances of your birth.)
Now think of this comic book scenario: If there was a way, would you give your mother the chance to have the freedom by current standards and objective decision to abort you or not, with her aborting you meaning your entire existance and traces of it would be erased safe your aborted fetus? (any memory of you is erased during the choice and if she votes abort and she gets to choose again without the shackles of past stigmas and risks)

[Symphonic]

There is only 9 months difference between a fertilized egg and a newborn child. Once group says the fertilized egg shouldn't be killed both say the newborn shouldn't be killed. Not that much difference to me.

It is pretty incredible that within a 40 week span, (and more like 35 - the last weeks are mostly bulking up muscle and fat) an entire human with neural connections, heart, lungs, all the senses, is formed. I mean, it's pretty crazy to see your baby born and all their little toes and fingers, with fingernails (which can be quite long!)... it's amazing.

[Deleted]

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

Could you elaborate what you mean by "cohesive society"? And to what effect would absolute bodily autonomy prohibit this?

[Deleted]

Because if your daddy fucks you, i believe you should not be forced to have to keep the retarded incestuous baby. Then again I'm not a man of God. For all we know incest and retarded babies are his version mysterious ways.

[Endus]

Your mother certainly was much more restricted in having a choice in aborting you or not compared to current western woman.
I always wanted to ask pro-choice people like you the following:

Do you regret your mother not having as much freedom when it came to having you or not? (before you try to argue that you were planned or wanted, think of social stigmas and the like which she certainly would have faced if she aborted you back then which certainly increased the chances of your birth.)

Yes. Because lacking properly defended human rights is always bad.

And given that my parents were A> married for several years and B> wanting to start a family, they wouldn't have considered abortion for those reasons, not the legality.

It's also an irrational and nonsensical argument. If I'd been aborted, there wouldn't be a "me" to have a position on this in the first place. You're literally arguing about fantasies that only exist in your head. That's not a rational basis for discussion.

Now think of this comic book scenario: If there was a way, would you give your mother the chance to have the freedom by current standards and objective decision to abort you or not, with her aborting you meaning your entire existance and traces of it would be erased safe your aborted fetus? (any memory of you is erased during the choice and if she votes abort and she gets to choose again without the shackles of past stigmas and risks)

Yes, I would defend their rights, even if it meant I wouldn't exist. I don't see how it's even a hard question. What you're really asking is if I'd restrict someone else's human rights for my personal benefit, and that's an easy fucking "no" every damn time, because I'm not a sociopath.

[Super Kami Dende]

And that's the false conclusion. The majority of people are stupid enough to follow several of these ignorant things (often due to political views).

Wut, you said it was a False conclusion yet made my point again? Stupid people follow stupid things. Yes. thanks for re-iterating what I had already said twice.

[Deleted]

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.

Personally I'm not terribly bothered how you label the fetus, if it's "it's own thing" or how separate it is, because it's simply not relevant to the discussion. It's simply semantics that can be spun in any direction you want. The fact of the matter is, you still need to justify why that "thing/child/person/soul" has more right to the woman's body than she does. At this point it's no longer a scientific exercise, but a philosophical one.

[Deleted]

This really shouldn't be a serious topic of debate.

The default position is pro-choice.

Is that so Mr. Hitler?

Should vee throw all ze little fetuses in ze ovens, ja?

Sorry we aren't all immoral like you, some of us care about all forms of human life.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure its illegal for a parent to let their child die.

No, it isn't.

Hahahaha. Wonderful.

- - - Updated - - -

Because if your daddy fucks you, i believe you should not be forced to have to keep the retarded incestuous baby. Then again I'm not a man of God. For all we know incest and retarded babies are his version mysterious ways.

It's not the fault of the baby.

- - - Updated - - -

The question you have to answer is why it shouldn't be OK to kill a fetus.

Because it's a human being and it's wrong to kill a human being? Gee, that was hard.

And don't ask me why it's wrong to kill a human being.

[Annoying]

So, while right to life is also a human right, that right to life in no other circumstances justifies an assault on another person's right to bodily autonomy. If it did, you could force people to donate blood, or even donate secondary/duplicate organs, like kidneys or lungs. Not just to family, but to strangers. Pro-life arguments are based on the same horrid position, that one person's right to bodily autonomy should be ignored, in favor of another's right to life. This is a position that is never accepted under any other circumstances, and I can't see how abortion is in any way a special case.

This is almost always my argument.

If my kidneys were failing, and I needed your kidney to survive, could I force you to give me your kidney? It could even be temporary until a willing donor came along -- to better match the comparison.
If a fetus needs your womb to survive, can you be forced to to let the fetus use your womb?

The problem with that argument is that it then comes back to when is the fetus considered a person because I'm pretty sure its illegal for a parent to let their child die.

If your child needed an organ of yours to survive, it is, in fact, not illegal to let them die by not giving them that organ. That organ includes the womb.

[Deleted]

This is not a logical argument.

I claimed that a fetus is not a child, and you countered by A) asking if it's therefore legal to kill me, since I am not a child (logical fallacy) and B) asking if it's only illegal to kill children (these points have no relation).

What? You have not at all shown how this is an illogical argument.

The fact that a fetus is both alive and human does not grant it with overwhelming moral value. Where does the value you're talking about come from? As in, why is it better to force a mother to carry the fetus to term than it is to kill the fetus? What is the equation you're doing?

Because it's a human being? Sorry but where I live it's not ok to kill humans and we don't have to explain why.

[igualitarist]

I really would love to see where is written that the right of bodily autonomy is superior than the right of life.

I don't see the body autonomy as constitutional right in most western countries, but the right of life is always there. Sure, i am don't know the constitution of many countries, but of those i have already read, i've never seen this right.

Also, there's that Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on its 3rd article:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"

Don't get me wrong, i don't mean bodily autonomy is important, what i mean is that the most important right we have is the right of life.

I can't kill you because you touched me without my consent , but i can kill you if you threatened my life;
A doctor can perform a surgery on an unconscious victim of a disaster, that emergentially needs that surgery to survive. Even amputation.

Those examples clearly shows what i mean.

[Deleted]

It's also an irrational and nonsensical argument. If I'd been aborted, there wouldn't be a "me" to have a position on this in the first place. You're literally arguing about fantasies that only exist in your head. That's not a rational basis for discussion.

It's called a hypothetical scenario, dear.
And we do not know enough about consciousness to give a definitve statement. Consciousness might persist after death. If the total sum of energy in the universe is always constant, why not consciousness as well?

Yes, I would defend their rights, even if it meant I wouldn't exist. I don't see how it's even a hard question. What you're really asking is if I'd restrict someone else's human rights for my personal benefit, and that's an easy fucking "no" every damn time, because I'm not a sociopath.

I dont see anything sociopathic in trading non-life threatening inconvenience for a chance to live. Endus, I really think you are a nihilistic relativist.

[Anevers]

Because it's a human being? Sorry but where I live it's not ok to kill humans and we don't have to explain why.

It has human DNA, It isn't a considered a person yet.