Why is the abortion debate framed as pro-choice vs pro-life?

[Halyon]

Still not one person will answer the question. The cowardice is amazing. I'm not even a pro lifer guy, I'm just playing devil's advocate to prove both sides have at least some merit, regardless of where one falls overall.

Your question holds no merit. IF this magical method to remove a fetus from the womb that is non-invasive, she has to consent to it, same as an abortion, if she does (and it acts as an 'abortion' in the way that she relieves herself of any and all responsibility to the fetus and subsequent), then no, she doesn't have a right to then try and break the test-tube and kill the fetus. That's how bodily autonomy works.

It's not cowardice to recognize your question as 'but what if' as irrelevant to the situation.

[Deleted]

And yes, the classical resolution to the unconscious violinist is precisely that: killing versus letting die.
Presuming the right to live of a fetus, abortions are not about killing it but about withdrawing a uterus they don't have a right to, and thus they're left to die (unless we have the tech to put them in another womb). If we could do that we wouldn't hesitate to declare them persons at point of conception, and remove them unharmed.

I agree with you but people like Endus would call putting a fetus in another womb, instead of killing it, theft and would protest and screech it.

[Halyon]

I agree with you but people like Endus would call putting a fetus in another womb, instead of killing it, theft and would protest and screech it.

...That would require consent from both women to do...if it was even an option that existed. And consenting to do so has the stipulations that she relinquishes all responsibility and right to influence the fetus and subsequent child when the procedure is done, in any sane world.

Still, it would be an invasive procedure, hence the consent part. Bodily autonomy counts for this. If this was forced on a woman however, like those horror stories of waking up in a bath-tub full of ice and your kidneys gone, then it would indeed be theft, if not straight up aggravated assasult and kidnapping.

[Deleted]

...That would require consent from both women to do...if it was even an option that existed. And consenting to do so has the stipulations that she relinquishes all responsibility and right to influence the fetus and subsequent child when the procedure is done, in any sane world.

Still, it would be an invasive procedure, hence the consent part. Bodily autonomy counts for this. If this was forced on a woman however, like those horror stories of waking up in a bath-tub full of ice and your kidneys gone, then it would indeed be theft, if not straight up aggravated assasult and kidnapping.

No, I meant if science advances far enough for an artifical womb to be viable.
She reliquinshing all responsibility would easily be added to the clause when she signs the abortion.

Thus no more consent is required after this because she has no right to deny a fetus growing into a healthy child in an artificial womb in this scenario.

[Cwimge]

Because its easier to rally people around a cause then an opposing viewpoint. You gain more people by being pro-something then anti-whatever

[Halyon]

No, I meant if science advances far enough for an artifical womb to be viable.
She reliquinshing all responsibility would easily be added to the clause when she signs the abortion.

Thus no more consent is required after this because she has no right to deny a fetus growing into a healthy child in an artificial womb in this scenario.

Then I'm sure some women would do it, others would still choose a termination. Bodily autonomy includes deciding what procedure is done to your body. So yes. Consent matters.

[kail]

Then I'm sure some women would do it, others would still choose a termination. Bodily autonomy includes deciding what procedure is done to your body. So yes. Consent matters.

If the procedure is effectively the same, I don't see any harm with trying to preserve the fetus. The mother relinquishes all rights and responsibilities of the fetus/child/person. Her right to bodily autonomy extends to her body, if she wants it out it will be removed. After that, she can't decide "Yeah, don't even save it".

- - - Updated - - -

because murderers do not want to be called "pro-murder babies" they want to have it be called "a choice"
you fucking idiots i cannot wait until youre all purged out of existence

Is it murder to deny organ donations from you're body if another needs it to live? If the answer is no, enjoy living in hypocrisy.

[Halyon]

If the procedure is effectively the same, I don't see any harm with trying to preserve the fetus. The mother relinquishes all rights and responsibilities of the fetus/child/person. Her right to bodily autonomy extends to her body, if she wants it out it will be removed. After that, she can't decide "Yeah, don't even save it".

Aside from the extreme suspension of disbelief required to think that the procedure would ever be the same...then it doesn't matter. Just want to clarify that the majority of abortions nowadays are done with a pill, takes a few hours, and results in what is basically a heavy menstruation. I am severely doubting that a pill and subsequently secreting the fetus out can ever result in a viable transplant.

Even then... If the woman wants the result to be a terminated pregnancy, not a transplanted one, then that's her right to decide. Either way, it's purely an academic discussion this, it has zero bearing on the current state of abortion. At all.

[OrcsRLame]

Controversial opinion: We should pay women to get abortions so we have more stem cells to put towards tangible benefits like cancer research.

Friendly reminder: A blastocyst is made up of 150 cells by day 3. The brain of a fly has over a million cells in it. If you are okay with smashing flies but not aborting blastocysts so we can cure cancer, you may want to check the ethical calibrations of your brain.

[Endus]

No, I meant if science advances far enough for an artifical womb to be viable.
She reliquinshing all responsibility would easily be added to the clause when she signs the abortion.

Thus no more consent is required after this because she has no right to deny a fetus growing into a healthy child in an artificial womb in this scenario.

I'm not sure what you think your argument is.

You've moved the discussion from abortion, to giving a born child up for adoption. They aren't the same thing at all.

[Tennis]

Genuine question. Neither side is anti-choice or anti-life, so how are the terms of the discussion framed in this manner? Shouldn't we be discussing pro-abortion against anti-abortion points in a real discussion?

What? The baby is a human being hence pro life.

[kyoloco]

marketing!

[Klingers]

I just love that most pro-lifers are also fiscal neoconservatives. Before birth it's like... "That 8 cell embryo has a soul!" and after birth it's like "Screw that baby and its blood cancer. Why should MY TAXES pay for that baby's treatment?! It should pull itself up by its bootstraps if it wants to live."

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Because pro-choicers view having the personal choice as paramount. Pro-lifers (claim) to view saving life as paramount.

They claim that saving lives is paramount, right up to the point where the baby is born. Then they suddenly don't think that there is a "right to live".

[Zeth Hawkins]

As well as RISKING BOTH dying. When a woman doesn't WANT to remain pregnant, that cause ALOT of stress for them BOTH, and we ALL know it isn't going to survive if she doesn't.

Should the mother's life be in known danger, then abortion is an option. Extreme stress might increase the chance of a miscarriage, but such a link is not well established. This is an argument based on an idea, bereft of foundation.

- - - Updated - - -

100% pregnancy proof birth control without any negative side-effects, yes please. Until then, abortion it is. Less negative side-effects (for me) then ALL other birth control out there for women.

You would qualify death as "less negative" than some combination of nausea, weight gain, headaches, mood changes, etc?

- - - Updated - - -

That's what conservatives are pushing, and that's only on a single issue. If you like, we can discuss the war on drugs, immigration, gay marriage... and a host of other issues where conservatives have opted to be the purveyors of big government.

Such would be off-topic for this thread, but I would not mind informing you of my opinion in a relevant thread or private message.

- - - Updated - - -

4> The idea that sex itself is such "consent" is nothing more than religious misogyny that's meant to suppress women's sexuality and render them subservient to men. You may as well be trying to keep them in a burqa, for the attitude that represents.

Point of note, before others ascribe opinions and beliefs to me and claim they are mine, I am atheistic and not misogynistic. Also, this is not the place for religious discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

Does that mean your skin cells are also a person?

They are part of a person. They belong to a human.

- - - Updated - - -

And frankly, there's no sense nor reason in forcing someone to be enslaved to the imaginary hypothetical future you've invented in your own mind, denying them basic human rights to preserve your fantasy.

Classifying an embryo's future as such makes this a very broad category. Would the idea of the sun rising tomorrow be an "imaginary hypothetical future you've invented in your own mind"? And would it being so mean there is no reason to act as if it will rise? It would seem a great many things could be put under this blanket label and be made meaningless.

- - - Updated - - -

Not having sex is 100% effective for not getting pregnant. Absolutely.

Unequivocally true.

[Antiganon]

Quick question for all you pro lifers -

Do you have a uterus?

Are you comfortable with giving the government the right to decide what happens in said uterus?

If the answer to either question is no, kindly fuck off.

[Total Crica]

Still not one person will answer the question. The cowardice is amazing. I'm not even a pro lifer guy, I'm just playing devil's advocate to prove both sides have at least some merit, regardless of where one falls overall.

A woman must first give you permission in order for you to perform an abortion on her before your scenario can happen.

If she decides to perform her own abortion, you don't have legal access to it before, during or afterwards, causing your scenario unable to happen in that circumstance.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

someone got it into their head that they should decide what another person should do.

i get that all the time when i see criminal scum, especially if they're non-lethal and continuous offenders, who prove to ironically be the worst and most damaging and deadliest of them all.

[Machismo]

Should the mother's life be in known danger, then abortion is an option. Extreme stress might increase the chance of a miscarriage, but such a link is not well established. This is an argument based on an idea, bereft of foundation.

- - - Updated - - -



You would qualify death as "less negative" than some combination of nausea, weight gain, headaches, mood changes, etc?

- - - Updated - - -



Such would be off-topic for this thread, but I would not mind informing you of my opinion in a relevant thread or private message.

- - - Updated - - -



Point of note, before others ascribe opinions and beliefs to me and claim they are mine, I am atheistic and not misogynistic. Also, this is not the place for religious discussion.

- - - Updated - - -



They are part of a person. They belong to a human.

- - - Updated - - -



Classifying an embryo's future as such makes this a very broad category. Would the idea of the sun rising tomorrow be an "imaginary hypothetical future you've invented in your own mind"? And would it being so mean there is no reason to act as if it will rise? It would seem a great many things could be put under this blanket label and be made meaningless.

- - - Updated - - -



Unequivocally true.

Feel free to try and "inform" me about the hypocrisy of small-government conservatives. I have stated exactly why they are hypocrites, and I backed it up with multiple examples to demonstrate their hypocrisy.

[Vyuvarax]

What? The baby is a human being hence pro life.

Plenty of people do not view a fetus as a baby, much less a human being. Why are you trying to make the assumption without evidence that a fetus has the and traits we consider a human to have? You're willfully misrepresenting reasonable views.