Americans Becoming More Pro-Life

[Auralia]

Assuming a fetus is a person, you would only have the right to remove them from your body if you could do so without killing or injuring them. In just about every legal jurisdiction, deadly force is only permitted if serious injury or death is imminent. The reality is that your right to bodily sovereignty is not as important as your child's right to life, since the latter is the most fundamental of all rights.

That's the thing, see, you start by declaring (assuming) the fetus a person, then build your case on that. Unless it can survive outside the womb, it is not a person. Ultimately, it is none of your business what I do regarding my reproductive choices and it is insufferable arrogance for you to think it is.

So you concede that, if the fetus is a person, then abortions are murder? I'd be glad to get into that debate, but many are arguing that even if the fetus was a person, it would still be acceptable to kill them.

[Xeng He]

That's the thing, see, you start by declaring (assuming) the fetus a person, then build your case on that. Unless it can survive outside the womb, it is not a person. Ultimately, it is none of your business what I do regarding my reproductive choices and it is insufferable arrogance for you to think it is.

What about when it has a 50% chance of doing so? Do we consider it able or unable?

[The Steel Magnolia]

There's no "right to life", so no, not really.

Besides, even if it was a living, completely sentient and sapient person, bodily autonomy would still override everything else.

Deadly force is only authorized when you are at risk of death or serious injury.

Pregnancy carries the risk of death and serious injury.

Besides, a "right to life" (from non-legally binding documents), would a) only apply to a person, and b) not override bodily sovereignty.

[Farnhamia]

That's the thing, see, you start by declaring (assuming) the fetus a person, then build your case on that. Unless it can survive outside the womb, it is not a person. Ultimately, it is none of your business what I do regarding my reproductive choices and it is insufferable arrogance for you to think it is.

So you concede that, if the fetus is a person, then abortions are murder? I'd be glad to get into that debate, but many are arguing that even if the fetus was a person, it would still be acceptable to kill them.

Once removed from the womb, it becomes a person with all the rights a person has. That was my point. Debate all you like. It's still none of your business. It is mine. I don't consult random strangers about such things. Do you?

[Blakk Metal]

Because it's absolutely irrelevant? It's a principle of bodily autonomy, and while sentience/sapience is a great tool for convincing people one way or another, it doesn't actually matter.

Wait...so what you're saying is that you'd view the ousting of an object and the killing of an actual person to be the exact same issue?

The difference does matter when you're weighing one right against the other. Sure, bodily autonomy is important, but isn't life moreso?

The difference does matter when you're weighing one right against the other. Sure, property is important, but isn't life moreso?

I don't give a shit if you think it's human or not. If YOU were inside of me, I have every right to remove you. If a kitten was inside of me, I have every right to remove it. If the entire swedish government were inside me, well they can get right the fuck on out, too. Whatever it is, if it is inside my body, I have the right to remove it. Fetuses included.

Assuming a fetus is a person, you would only have the right to remove them from your body if you could do so without killing or injuring them. In just about every legal jurisdiction, deadly force is only permitted if serious injury or death is imminent. The reality is that your right to bodily sovereignty is not as important as your child's right to life, since the latter is the most fundamental of all rights.

Those laws sucked anyways.

[Farnhamia]

That's the thing, see, you start by declaring (assuming) the fetus a person, then build your case on that. Unless it can survive outside the womb, it is not a person. Ultimately, it is none of your business what I do regarding my reproductive choices and it is insufferable arrogance for you to think it is.

What about when it has a 50% chance of doing so? Do we consider it able or unable?

I don't know, I'm not a doctor. Were I in such a situation, I would decide then. My decision.

[Xeng He]

The difference does matter when you're weighing one right against the other. Sure, property is important, but isn't life moreso?

Actually, I am totally fine with that logic, a, and b, there's a difference given that the woman had a role in putting the fetus there and didn't abort up until week 23, when you actually could say that it wasn't a person.

[Auralia]

Pregnancy carries the risk of death and serious injury.

Given medical advances over the past few decades, the risk is minimal. It certainly isn't significant enough to meet the criterion required to apply deadly force in self-defense. It also isn't imminent.

Besides, a "right to life" (from non-legally binding documents), would a) only apply to a person, and b) not override bodily sovereignty.

What are you talking about? The right to life is the reason why we have laws against murder; it is certainly legally-binding. It also doesn't override bodily sovereignty, since the criterion for self-defense (the only acceptable justification for murder) includes the threat of serious injury or death, but not the violation of bodily sovereignty.

The personhood debate is one that I'm interested in having, but your argument seems to be that even if the fetus was a person, we would still be allowed to kill them, so let's put that aside for now.

[Auralia]

Assuming a fetus is a person, you would only have the right to remove them from your body if you could do so without killing or injuring them. In just about every legal jurisdiction, deadly force is only permitted if serious injury or death is imminent. The reality is that your right to bodily sovereignty is not as important as your child's right to life, since the latter is the most fundamental of all rights.

Those laws sucked anyways.

What?

[Auralia]

So you concede that, if the fetus is a person, then abortions are murder? I'd be glad to get into that debate, but many are arguing that even if the fetus was a person, it would still be acceptable to kill them.

Once removed from the womb, it becomes a person with all the rights a person has. That was my point. Debate all you like. It's still none of your business. It is mine. I don't consult random strangers about such things. Do you?

I'm not sure why you're on NSG, then.

[Xeng He]

That's the thing, see, you start by declaring (assuming) the fetus a person, then build your case on that. Unless it can survive outside the womb, it is not a person. Ultimately, it is none of your business what I do regarding my reproductive choices and it is insufferable arrogance for you to think it is.

I really don't understand how it's arrogance to dictate when life can and can't be taken once it enters the jurisdiction of a bag of meat.

Because that's what a body is, ultimately.

[No Water No Moon]

The personhood debate is one that I'm interested in having, but your argument seems to be that even if the fetus was a person, we would still be allowed to kill them, so let's put that aside for now.

"...killing them' is irrelevant, unless you're willing to accept abortion where the fetus is just removed an left to fend for itself?

Bodily autonomy is a strange thing. Even if you NEED my blood or you'll die, the law doesn't allow me to be compelled to let you have it. See, even if it would cost me nothing, I still have the right to keep my blood to myself. Similarly, the law won't compel me to give you one of my kidneys, even if you'll die right there in front of me. The law won't even compel me to let you USE my kidney, if doctors could hook you up to me.

And that's the thing about bodily autonomy. Even if you'll die without my body, I get to choose.

This is why the pro-choice platform is the only legally valid one.

[Auralia]

The personhood debate is one that I'm interested in having, but your argument seems to be that even if the fetus was a person, we would still be allowed to kill them, so let's put that aside for now.

"...killing them' is irrelevant, unless you're willing to accept abortion where the fetus is just removed an left to fend for itself?

Bodily autonomy is a strange thing. Even if you NEED my blood or you'll die, the law doesn't allow me to be compelled to let you have it. See, even if it would cost me nothing, I still have the right to keep my blood to myself. Similarly, the law won't compel me to give you one of my kidneys, even if you'll die right there in front of me. The law won't even compel me to let you USE my kidney, if doctors could hook you up to me.

And that's the thing about bodily autonomy. Even if you'll die without my body, I get to choose.

This is why the pro-choice platform is the only legally valid one.

Pregnancy is a strange situation, given that once you're aware of the pregnancy, the fetus is already using your blood and organs. It's a fait accompli. The question is whether you're allowed to discontinue the process; I don't believe you can. To use a more appropriate version of your kidney analogy, if someone stole one of your kidneys and placed it in their body, would you be allowed to remove it, even if it would mean their death?

[No Water No Moon]

"...killing them' is irrelevant, unless you're willing to accept abortion where the fetus is just removed an left to fend for itself?

Bodily autonomy is a strange thing. Even if you NEED my blood or you'll die, the law doesn't allow me to be compelled to let you have it. See, even if it would cost me nothing, I still have the right to keep my blood to myself. Similarly, the law won't compel me to give you one of my kidneys, even if you'll die right there in front of me. The law won't even compel me to let you USE my kidney, if doctors could hook you up to me.

And that's the thing about bodily autonomy. Even if you'll die without my body, I get to choose.

This is why the pro-choice platform is the only legally valid one.

Pregnancy is a strange situation, given that once you're aware of the pregnancy, the fetus is already using your blood and organs. It's a fait accompli. The question is whether you're allowed to discontinue the process; I don't believe you can.

I just showed you why that's not right.

[Auralia]

Pregnancy is a strange situation, given that once you're aware of the pregnancy, the fetus is already using your blood and organs. It's a fait accompli. The question is whether you're allowed to discontinue the process; I don't believe you can.

I just showed you why that's not right.

No, you didn't. You explained why it would be wrong for someone to violate your bodily sovereignty. In the case of abortion, the fetus has already violated your bodily sovereignty, and you are taking a direct action to halt that violation, which in turn results in the fetus's death. The two situations are different.

[Christian Democrats]

a human being cannot be haploid.

You've yet to prove that.

Why must the burden be on me to prove a negative?

A haploid human being is a biological impossibility.

[Cytania]

Next thing you know Sperm cells will be considered human, which would make masturbation Genocide.

You better not be saying that because you support abortion.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

I just showed you why that's not right.

No, you didn't. You explained why it would be wrong for someone to violate your bodily sovereignty. In the case of abortion, the fetus has already violated your bodily sovereignty, and you are taking a direct action to halt that violation, which in turn results in the fetus's death. The two situations are different.

It is continuing to violate her bodily autonomy. A more appropriate analogy would be that if a woman wakes up and is being raped, her bodily autonomy has already been violated and is continuing to be violated. By your suggestion, she should have no right to defend herself against her rapist, because she didn't ward him off before the violation began.

Problem with your analogy is that once your kidney is out of you, your bodily autonomy is no longer being violated, and you would be incorrect to take the kidney out of another person.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

You've yet to prove that.

Why must the burden be on me to prove a negative?

A haploid human being is a biological impossibility.

I have yet to see evidence of this claim.

[Christian Democrats]

Deadly force is only authorized when you are at risk of death or serious injury.

Pregnancy carries the risk of death and serious injury.

No, it doesn't. Death or serious injury is a realistic possibility for only certain pregnancies.

Besides, a "right to life" (from non-legally binding documents), would a) only apply to a person, and b) not override bodily sovereignty.

Why? "Bodily sovereignty" is not inviolate. For example, the community interest of security overrides any one person's rights, thereby allowing military conscription. There is a community interest in ensuring that there will be a next generation. Also, all of this ignores the fact that, in almost all cases, the woman consented to the possibility of becoming pregnant.

Why should any human being be considered a nonperson?

[Auralia]

No, you didn't. You explained why it would be wrong for someone to violate your bodily sovereignty. In the case of abortion, the fetus has already violated your bodily sovereignty, and you are taking a direct action to halt that violation, which in turn results in the fetus's death. The two situations are different.

It is continuing to violate her bodily autonomy. A more appropriate analogy would be that if a woman wakes up and is being raped, her bodily autonomy has already been violated and is continuing to be violated. By your suggestion, she should have no right to defend herself against her rapist, because she didn't ward him off before the violation began.

Problem with your analogy is that once your kidney is out of you, your bodily autonomy is no longer being violated, and you would be incorrect to take the kidney out of another person.

In the case of rape, you are at risk of death or serious injury. The rapist has a clear hostile intent. Therefore, deadly force is authorized. You can hardly call a fetus a rapist.

It's true that the kidney analogy isn't perfect, but the argument is still valid for a continuing violation of bodily sovereignty. Perhaps a blood transfusion or some other process would be a better example, rather than a one-time transplant.

[Cromarty]

You've yet to prove that.

Why must the burden be on me to prove a negative?

Because you have a habit of making unfounded claims and not backing them up?

A haploid human being is a biological impossibility.

Olook. Here's one now.

[Cromarty]

Also, all of this ignores the fact that, in almost all cases, the woman consented to the possibility of becoming pregnant.

Prove it.

[Auralia]

Also, all of this ignores the fact that, in almost all cases, the woman consented to the possibility of becoming pregnant.

Prove it.

She chose to have sex, aware of the risk of pregnancy.

[Cromarty]

Prove it.

She chose to have sex, aware of the risk of pregnancy.

That's not consent.