Why are you pro-choice?

[Halicia]

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.

So if a minor is raped by her stepfather, and carrying the baby to term is determined by a doctor to have a high chance of fatality... you're ok with deciding that the child's life is worth less than the possibility of an infant surviving ?

In theory, I'm against abortion, and far more in favor of safe sex and contraception.... (an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure), and safe sex avoids other issues besides pregnancy.

However, in the US the issue usually falls to a binary choice. The same candidates lobbying against abortion, are largely against contraception as well.

I'm much more comfortable giving people the freedom of choice, instead of forcing my will on everyone.

Now, if we were in an age where underpopulation was an issue, I might be more open to hearing about regulation against contraception and abortion.

Even then though, I think I'd rather have the option of choice, but provide incentives to parents.

[Annoying]

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

My kidneys are failing. If the right to life is above bodily autonomy, I should be able to force you to give me a kidney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp

Right there, an actual case where one person attempted to force another to donate bone marrow.

[Deleted]

My kidneys are failing. If the right to life is above bodily autonomy, I should be able to force you to give me a kidney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp

Right there, an actual case where one person attempted to force another to donate bone marrow.

There are countries where a dead persons consent or lack thereof is ignored when it comes to harvesting his organs -> they are almost always harvested.
Do you agree or disagree with those countries?

[Axelond]

Embryo is not considered a human. It's a pre-human it haven't developed any of the characteristics that makes us human. It can't think. I also think it's better to just stop the pregnancy rather than either giving away the child or raising it poorly. It can screw up your life having a child at a bad moment. So if a person is gonna raise one kid better do it 5 years later and do it properly rather than be forced to do it when you don't want to.

[igualitarist]

My kidneys are failing. If the right to life is above bodily autonomy, I should be able to force you to give me a kidney.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp

Right there, an actual case where one person attempted to force another to donate bone marrow.

You know, forcing a person to perform a surgery is also a threat to his/her life. Also, your right ends when my right start. Unless you are threatening my rights i can't force you to do anything (be it for myself our trought the state).

A baby cant consent, so should we forbid surgery on babies ? No. Why ? Because his right to life is more important. Actually he's already born with the right of life, but only acquire the right of bodily autonomy later.

The right to life is the first and most important right one can have.

[rol3x]

I consider abortion to be deplorable BUT my feelings on the matter do not supersede bodily autonomy in almost all cases.

[Annoying]

There are countries where a dead persons consent or lack thereof is ignored when it comes to harvesting his organs -> they are almost always harvested.
Do you agree or disagree with those countries?

I agree with forced organ donation upon death.

[Endus]

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

Not "superior". But Person A's rights always end the moment they run into Person B's rights. Your right to life cannot overrule my rights in any respect. Not because my rights are "superior", but because your rights don't extend to overruling the rights of others in the first place. That's not how rights work.

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.

Again, just a failure to understand how rights work. There's no tiering of rights. Your rights don't affect MY rights, to begin with. You have a right to life, but your rights cannot be used as a justification to breach any of my rights. That's not how rights work. They all overrule each other, once you try and use them to attack someone else's rights.

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?

Magical thinking isn't an argument. What if we're all secretly spirit unicorns that are only puppeteering these meatsacks? Why is that something anyone should consider as an argument? They shouldn't, it's nonsense I invented that has no basis in fact, just like yours.

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.

You're attacking someone else's human rights for your own selfish benefit. That's an argument that's rooted in a complete lack of compassion for your fellow man, hence "sociopath".

I'm the one arguing for compassion and understanding, here. A recognition that you aren't the only being that matters.

[Symphonic]

The "he needs a kidney lets take yours" argument never ceases to amuse me. Comparing a kidney, which is part of you, and a fetus, which is inside you but not you, is laughable. Unless we're ignoring science again... heck, the baby could even have a different blood-type than the mother, whereas the kidney is just an organ. A baby has essentially every single body part you have. So to compare a kidney to a baby/fetus... hilarious.

[Total Crica]

The "he needs a kidney lets take yours" argument never ceases to amuse me. Comparing a kidney, which is part of you, and a fetus, which is inside you but not you, is laughable. Unless we're ignoring science again... heck, the baby could even have a different blood-type than the mother, whereas the kidney is just an organ. A baby has essentially every single body part you have. So to compare a kidney to a baby/fetus... hilarious.

The uterus is being compared to the kidney.

The fetus is being compared to the person who needs a kidney.

[Linkedblade]

It's just safer for it to be legal without restriction. That way, regardless of the situation, the abortion can be performed in a safe, sterile, and professional location.

You can have something be legal and be against it. That's the libertarian niche. I don't like smoking, but other people might, so why should I have say in what they do with their own body.

[igualitarist]

Not "superior". But Person A's rights always end the moment they run into Person B's rights. Your right to life cannot overrule my rights in any respect. Not because my rights are "superior", but because your rights don't extend to overruling the rights of others in the first place. That's not how rights work.

And thats why i said in my post above that the force surgery example does not illustrate how the bodily autonomy right can be above the right of live.

In situations that i exposed, like a doctor performing a surgery on an unconscious victim of a disaster to save his/her life, that we can see how the right of life is superior.

Again, just a failure to understand how rights work. There's no tiering of rights. Your rights don't affect MY rights, to begin with. You have a right to life, but your rights cannot be used as a justification to breach any of my rights. That's not how rights work. They all overrule each other, once you try and use them to attack someone else's rights.

I am not talking about a right tearing another, i am talking about ponderation between rights (Alexy and Dworkin have great works about this techinique). If you have a situation where 2 rights are being conflicted, then you need to find the better way to solve this conflict. Applying the ponderation technique i really don't see why bodily autonomy should even equal to the right of life. Why ? Because the second right is constitutionally protected by every democratic country in the world, usually right in the first articles to make its importance even more evident.

[Symphonic]

The uterus is being compared to the kidney.

The fetus is being compared to the person who needs a kidney.

So the real complaint is that the person who has the kidney already signed the release allowing the surgery, and now changed his mind after they've begun the surgery. Because that's what happened to the fetus. There was consent and now that it happened, someone wants to back out. Right?

- - - Updated - - -

It would help if you understood the analogy in the first place. You clearly don't.

It definitely doesn't get explained well because most probably understand it the way I did. (citation needed)

[Endus]

And thats why i said in my post above that the force surgery example does not illustrate how the bodily autonomy right can be above the right of live.

In situations that i exposed, like a doctor performing a surgery on an unconscious victim of a disaster to save his/her life, that we can see how the right of life is superior.

You're wrong, because you don't understand the concepts in queston.

An unconscious victim's rights aren't being violated by having surgery performed. It's presumed they would consent if they could. If they had previously signed legal documents barring procedures, like Jehovah's Witnesses do regarding blood transfusions, they would not perform those procedures, even to save that person's life. Because their body, their choice.

You're flat-out wrong, and it's because you don't understand how human rights work.

I am not talking about a right tearing another, i am talking about ponderation between rights (Alexy and Dworkin have great works about this techinique). If you have a situation where 2 rights are being conflicted, then you need to find the better way to solve this conflict. Applying the ponderation technique i really don't see why bodily autonomy should even equal to the right of life. Why ? Because the second right is constitutionally protected by every democratic country in the world, usually right in the first articles to make its importance even more evident.

There's no conflict. Your rights stop existing where someone else's rights begin. Your right to life doesn't overrule anyone else's rights, at any time. Because that's not how rights work. It isn't because their rights are "superior", it's because rights don't overrule each other to begin with.

As for your nonsense about constitutions, you've already cited the right to bodily autonomy in the UDHR. In the US Constitution, the 9th Amendment exists; rights not delineated in the Constitution still exist and are just as much "rights" as those which are. In Canada, it's part of #7 on our Charter of Human rights and Freedoms. Plenty of others have similar passages. Right to life is not some super-right that trumps everything else.

- - - Updated - - -

The "he needs a kidney lets take yours" argument never ceases to amuse me. Comparing a kidney, which is part of you, and a fetus, which is inside you but not you, is laughable. Unless we're ignoring science again... heck, the baby could even have a different blood-type than the mother, whereas the kidney is just an organ. A baby has essentially every single body part you have. So to compare a kidney to a baby/fetus... hilarious.

The kidney is being compared to the uterus. The fetus is being compared to the person who needs the transplant. I'm giving the fetus far more credit than it deserves, in this analogy, not too little.

[Total Crica]

So the real complaint is that the person who has the kidney already signed the release allowing the surgery, and now changed his mind after they've begun the surgery. Because that's what happened to the fetus. There was consent and now that it happened, someone wants to back out. Right?

A uterus is never removed from the original host and implanted inside another host.

The fetus is inside the uterus of the host and is removed from the uterus of the host.

[Endus]

So the real complaint is that the person who has the kidney already signed the release allowing the surgery, and now changed his mind after they've begun the surgery. Because that's what happened to the fetus. There was consent and now that it happened, someone wants to back out. Right?

Absolutely wrong on every level. There was no "consent" that was given to said pregnancy. That's garbage you're making up, and it's just factually incorrect. And wouldn't matter, because unless it was signed into a contract, it wouldn't be enforceable, and even if it were, it still wouldn't trump her human rights, it would just give you some potential for civil compensation, for that breach of contract. This stuff comes up with surrogacy sometimes, so it isn't even theoretical; we KNOW how the law works on that, and you're wrong. Surrogacy contracts to bear a child do not prevent the surrogate from getting an abortion. They just allow for that civil lawsuit, which is about breach of contract, not abortion.

[Adam Jensen]

Because outlawing abortion doesn't stop abortion, it simply makes abortion less safe.

Because I don't believe personhood begins at inception. While I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, I do not believe that early embryos are developed enough to have any humanity.

And because of the top two opinions, I don't see how it's my decision to make for other people. I don't know them, I don't know their situation. I don't know why or how she got pregnant, why she didn't use BC (or he didn't use BC) or why they don't want to put the child up for adoption. They might have good reasons, they might have shit reasons, either way I can't see how it's my business.

But what boggles my mind is how conservatives can't see how being against accessible BC or sexual education actually lowers the abortion rate, while doing the things they do (making it harder to get BC or teaching abstinence-only) raises the abortion rate.

[Deleted]

Magical thinking isn't an argument. What if we're all secretly spirit unicorns that are only puppeteering these meatsacks? Why is that something anyone should consider as an argument? They shouldn't, it's nonsense I invented that has no basis in fact, just like yours.

Your consciousness being randomly in this body in this moment in time and then fading forever after death is much more magical thinking than me believing there is a system in place where it persists after death and, like basically everything in the universe, gets recycled.
By the way, I saw this "magical unicorn" bullshit non-argument a mile away. It's predictable and tiring.

You're attacking someone else's human rights for your own selfish benefit. That's an argument that's rooted in a complete lack of compassion for your fellow man, hence "sociopath".

I'm the one arguing for compassion and understanding, here. A recognition that you aren't the only being that matters.

You call the right to live a selfish benefit, ignoring that a live can have tremendous positive benefits for others. Being denied an existence means the potential positivity you bring to the life of others is also being denied.

[Tikishock]

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?

Aborting that late is called birth. Stop listening to conservative sound bytes.

[Endus]

Your consciousness being randomly in this body in this moment in time and then fading forever after death is much more magical thinking than me believing there is a system in place where it persists after death and, like basically everything in the universe, gets recycled.

This is false, because consciousness as an electrochemical process isn't "magical" at all. Unlike your nonsense.

By the way, I saw this "magical unicorn" bullshit non-argument a mile away. It's predictable and tiring.

Well, stop making "magical unicorn" arguments. I agree that it's predictable and tiring, but if you want it to stop, stop making up baseless magical nonsense and expecting other people to believe in it because you want them to.

You call the right to live a selfish benefit, ignoring that a live can have tremendous positive benefits for others. Being denied an existence means the potential positivity you bring to the life of others is also being denied.

No, I call denying other people their basic human rights so that you can live a "selfish" thing.

You keep skipping over that deliberate denial of people's basic human rights part, which is the entire point of the discussion. Particularly in the case of abortion, since you're appealing to the rights of some hypothetical future person who wouldn't exist unless you got your way; you're oppressing people's rights over fantasies.