Why are you pro-choice?

[Dezerte]

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.

It isn't magic. Our consciousness exists because our brains can produce it, and our brains function because it's supplied by oxygen, nutrients and helped by other processes in our body. Why would our consciousness persist after brain death? That would break many physical laws.

[Total Crica]

Your rights stop existing where someone else's rights begin. Your right to life doesn't overrule anyone else's rights, at any time.

Wouldn't that also mean my right to bodily autonomy doesn't overrule anyone else rights?

Causing the conflict they mentioned about a fetus' right to life?

[Dezerte]

Wouldn't that also mean my right to bodily autonomy doesn't overrule anyone else rights?

So a woman has bodily autonomy, and then she becomes pregnant.

[Total Crica]

So a woman has bodily autonomy, and then she becomes pregnant.

Could you elaborate?

[Endus]

Wouldn't that also mean my right to bodily autonomy doesn't overrule anyone else rights?

Causing the conflict they mentioned about a fetus' right to life?

There's no conflict, because the fetus isn't a person, and has no such rights.

And even if we granted that, for the sake of argument, all it would mandate (to repeat my first post) is that we remove the fetus without undue harm, even if it dies naturally immediately after detachment. Most abortifacients work by detaching the fetus, not by directly killing it. It dies as a result, because it can't survive on its own, but that's like the child dying from a lack of kidney function; it isn't the fault of the person who won't give up their kidney, in this case the woman whose uterus it is.

Even in a hypothetical world where we declared personhood to begin at conception, all that "conflict of rights" stuff does is argue that you have to remove the fetus intact and let it die, which is how most abortions work already. Because the way it works is that nothing about the fetus can ever give it any right to the uterus it inhabits. It has a right to live on its own merits, but that right doesn't extend to enslaving others to support that life, which is what denying abortion rights amounts to.

[Dezerte]

Could you elaborate?

It was supposed to be funny.

[Total Crica]

There's no right to another's body, which is the point, so no.

Ok I think I get it now.

There is no conflict because no one can use my body to sustain their life without my consent.

And me putting them in my body doesn't mean I give them consent to stay there as long as they need to.

[SandmanActual]

OP seems to have started an echo-chamber thread. You don't seem to want other people's opinion, rather it seems you just want your own reaffirmed.

[Deleted]

there's some sea creatures whose sexual organs are autonomous. hypothetically, if penis has it's mind of its own (little worm), and goes outside hunting females and pregnating them... should owner of the penis pay alimony or penis itself should go to work later?

The actual fuck?

I am really not sure if you are trolling or if this level of derailing the thread with something only tangentially related is common

[Total Crica]

OP seems to have started an echo-chamber thread. You don't seem to want other people's opinion, rather it seems you just want your own reaffirmed.

I wanted to learn why other people are pro-choice. Now I will make a thread asking why people are pro-life because now I want to learn why other people are pro-life. I stated why I am against criminalizing abortion. If this makes me pro-choice or not, I am not sure. I might be, so I opened with why I was pro-choice just in case the reasons I have for being against criminalizing abortion made me pro-choice. It didn't feel like it would be a pro-life stance, that's all.

[Deleted]

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

Electrochemical processes can be recreated. Now create me some consciousness, please.

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.

No, my thinking just differs from your pre-conceived and one-dimensional notions. You'd have a point if I was talking about religion.

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.

Where am I oppressing someone's right? By making people think about a life and that the positivity it can bring generally outweighs the inconvenience it comes with giving birth to it? Give me a break.

Also, women who undergo abortion have a much higher mental health risks among others:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/fe...p-64-9-863.pdf
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/man...abuse-cjp-410/

[Zeta333]

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?

a child isnt self aware as soon as its borne.

[Deleted]

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.

Right, Actually I think it's reasoning like yours that explains itself. You're afraid of the end, You cannot tackle the big question of consciousness.

- - - Updated - - -

Electrochemical processes can be recreated. Now create me some consciousness, please.

we've observed the things that make conciousness, what we cannot do is recreate them because the devices that do so are sensative and require a fuck ton of factors.

[Deleted]

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

Can I have the courtesy of a link or a quote?

I'd really appreciate that thanks.

[Deleted]

Where am I oppressing someone's right? By making people think about a life and that the positivity it can bring generally outweighs the inconvenience it comes with giving birth to it? Give me a break.

Also, women who undergo abortion have a much higher mental health risks among others:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/fe...p-64-9-863.pdf
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/man...abuse-cjp-410/

You are oppresing a right when you force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, this right is called the right to bodily anatomy. If you want to make people think about your morals/right and wrong, you arn't doing anything wrong, the issues start to arise when you start legitlating on your morals (which is what a lot of christian conservatives are trying to do.

Also to touch on your issue about women undergoing abortion having a much higher mental health risk:

First of, check your sources, the second source literally says in the first words of the conclusion:

''First, the relative risk of mental health problems
among adult women who have a single, legal, first-trimester
abortion of an unwanted pregnancy for nontherapeutic
reasons is no greater than the risk among women who
deliver an unwanted pregnancy''

This means that the act of receiving an abortion isn't in any way affected by their mental health.

Secondly, I think what you are saying is actually true, this issue here is cause and effect.

Women who have mental health issues generally are:
-lower educated
-lower income
-low self esteem
-worse judgement
-worse ability to judge longterm effects

all of these issues are positively correlated with the chance of a woman getting unintentionally pregnant.

Obviously people who get unintentionally pregnant are more likely to get abortions.

I hope you understand the proper cause-effect now, if I am unclear anywhere I will gladly provide more insight.

[Grimfrost]

Because MAKING a woman keep a child inside of her that she doesn't want for 9 months is just messed up.
Imagine something you really don't want growing inside of you, and you know that popping it out will hurt like a MOFO.
Also because i don't think it's okay for the government to decide what you can do with your body.
What i also would like to see implemented is some kind of option for the man to write his parental rights off when the woman is pregnant, wants to keep it but the man doesn't want it. It would be like this : during the pregnancy a man can go to his lawyer, sign his rights off making him have no rights to see the child but also makes it so that he doesn't have to pay childsupport . This way the man has a say in having the child aswel.

[Deleted]

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?

Seriously, how many women do you think terminate their pregnancy (at 8.5 months) because they are bored of it?

The dis-ingenuity of this argument cannot be described with mere words.

Also to quote what I said in the trump debate thread when he made this same (retarded) argument:

''Most forms of abortion are actually pushing the womens body to push out the fetus, a process that is exactly the same as birth, so when you are talking about ''8.5 month abortions'' you are actually describing birth in most cases, especially since the fetus is viable to live outside of his/her mothers womb''

Also to whoever asked what the difference was between a baby before and after it was born: this is primarily how it sustains itself, in the womb the mother performs pretty much all the vital functions for the baby whereas outside the baby obviously has to do it all by him/herself.

From a legal perspective (which is what we are talking about here), the difference is that a baby inside the womb is a part of the mother whereas a baby outside of it is a legal entity with a lot more rights than it had previously.

Also @Endus I really appreciate you explaining the ''right to live vs right to bodily autonomy'' so clearly, first time I looked at it this way.

- - - Updated - - -

10% is not a lot and without reviewing the individual papers they used, it's entirely possible that either they or the authors of their source papers perhaps drew some bad conclusions. It happens from time to time.

To be fair to him, you are now handwaving a scientifically significant result from a meta study with ''sometimes scientists are wrong'' because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Having said that, that sentence doesn't claim what both of you think it claims.

It says that in the group of women who had abortions compared to the a random women on the street there were 81% more mental problems (which is to be expected from what I posted previously).

Of all the mental problems that these women had, 10% could be attributed to the pregnancy.

Again, this would make sense from my perspective, especially because abortion is a very impactful decision and often women are quite troubled by it afterwards, especially those who are more mentally unstable and therefore more prone to mental problems in the first place.

[kail]

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'm personally all for corpse harvesting, but our freedom's of bodily autonomy go far enough even postmortem. If you request such, your organs won't be touched after you die (which is a huge waste IMO). Even with that considered, pregnant women are somehow forgotten by a fraction of this country. Their logic is expecting women should have less autonomy rights than a corpse.

[Total Crica]

Can I have the courtesy of a link or a quote?

I'd really appreciate that thanks.

It's my OP. First page of this thread, first post.

"5) An explosive increase in the number of single/extremely young mothers which in turn leads to higher rates of death (pregnant female is so young she can't bear the pregnancy), suicide, crime, welfare dependency, aggressive tendencies in their children, child abuse of unwanted children, etc."

[Deleted]

And no, I'm not handwaving away anything. It is important to review primary sources, but I don't care enough about this discussion to go do that, so I am merely pointing out that it's something that should be done. It's part of reading research. You are supposed to approach it with a critical mindset and look for strengths and flaws because researchers are mortals and make mistakes. You are expected to be able to do this and adopt this mindset even as an undergrad. In the case of a meta study, where the sources are readily available as already published articles, there's nothing wrong with making sure the articles are 1) good and 2) fit the criteria they claim.

This is in fact the very definition of handwaving.
You are not doing any research or are bringing up any relevant points other than ''sometimes scientists are wrong, this might be that time''.

If someone does research and arrives at a certain conclusion, that conclusion is right until it is disproven, which means the burden of proof in this case lies on you.