Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Okay, heroin is uncomfortable. Knowing someone who has a heroin addiction is inherently uncomfortable, because heroin is so deadly and bad for you. However, let's say you don't want to get involved. In other words, one should get involved, and try to help this friend, or at least try to help him to get rehab, but let's say one person says, "I don't wanna help them because it's an uncomfortable situation." Thus, "my body, my choice". Would it or would it not be unethical to decide not to help a friend with a heroin addiction along the lines that doing so would be uncomfortable to you?

It would be unethical to force them to do it. Whether it would have been more moral to help is a thing that they have to live with.

You keep conflating bodily sovereignty with a sense of having no responsibility to anyone. That's not the case.

[Arbolvine]

Heroin is a dangerous drug that only threatens people's lives and wastes money.
Abortion is a controversial, sometimes risky procedure that has its benefits and downsides for each individual woman.

Why is anyone comparing heroin to abortion?

[Godular]

It has been mentioned several times before in this very thread.

It is more pro-life to be in favor of allowing the woman to determine when and how she becomes a parent rather than forcing it on her, as it improves the quality of life of the mother and the child that would be born to a mother that is damned good and ready for parenthood. It is also better to allow her the unhindered option, because if she is truly determined to terminate the pregnancy even if it is illegal to do so, she will find a way to do it, and mayhap risk an agonizing death in the process.

I still wonder why, against all the arguments that have been thrown against your position, you continue to stick with your 'pro-life' stance essentially on the argument that it is 'icky'.

'Icky'? That seems like a straw man, to me. It's not simply that it's 'icky'. The entire moral line behind bodily sovereignty is illogical. It's:

1.) Inconsistent: Because if you say 'my body, my choice' during the pregnancy, then you can't say anything to a person who decides to abandon their child after the pregnancy, or we don't even have to have a child involved. We could have a person who is shooting heroin and dying of an overdose, which is terrible and tragic. And so we have a sort of...splice.

2.) Unethical: 'My body, my choice' cannot work with everything, because not only would it be unethical to say 'my body, my choice' when the baby is not even part of the woman's body, it would be unethical on a different level to say 'my body, my choice', when one doesn't want to get involved with a person who is dying from a heroin addiction because it would make the person uncomfortable.

3.) Unreasonable: We're not 'autonomous' beings, because, as a writer wrote once, we did not even get here on our own. We didn't just 'pop' up in this universe one day. I mean we all came from someone else, and I don't even have to say God, for all the atheists on the forum who might see this (you don't necessarily have to be Christian to be pro-life, and you don't necessarily have to be atheist to be pro-choice...BOOM!). I mean we all came from a mother and a father. Or even if you're a baby who was created through IVF, you came from somebody's egg and sperm.

There's lots of other reasons, of course, why I'm against abortion, but this seems to be the dominant pro-choice argument, so I'm just presenting some insights from what I have read and considered. So, no, you can't just say I'm against abortion because it's 'icky'.

You have repeatedly expounded upon the purportedly barbaric nature of a specific kind of abortion method. Shall I locate and repeat these instances? There were some instances within this very thread. Nevermind that it is the safest and least painful method of aborting a fetus at that point. You consider it 'icky' and seem to fall on this as your primary argument.

1. There is no inconsistency. You are drawing false equivalence between a fetus and a born child.

2. Explain to me how the fetus is not a part of the woman's body. The fetus is connected to and draws sustenance from the woman's body. Whether you like it or not, the fetus is parasitic in nature, and the mother should have the right to have it removed if she does not wish its continued presence.

Just because botflies eventually leave does not mean we should let them use us as a nursery.

3. Utterly irrelevant.

Your reasoning is weak at best. You have been corrected multiple times on this, and now you just ask odd questions here and there as if you are trying to prove that our logic does not hold up under scrutiny.

[Socialist Czechia]

It seems many people must first accept the fact, that fetus is not, and can not, be considered a full human being. Fetus is mindless piece of human DNA, which can be manipulated in any way without violation of any human rights. Only and when fetus has properly developed brain and heart, able to be alive on his/her own, it can be considered human being.

[Ifreann]

It seems many people must first accept the fact, that fetus is not, and can not, be considered a full human being. Fetus is mindless piece of human DNA, which can be manipulated in any way without violation of any human rights. Only and when fetus has properly developed brain and heart, able to be alive on his/her own, it can be considered human being.

That implies some unfortunate things about adults who cannot remain alive on their own.

[Luminesa]

Heroin is a dangerous drug that only threatens people's lives and wastes money.
Abortion is a controversial, sometimes risky procedure that has its benefits and downsides for each individual woman.

Why is anyone comparing heroin to abortion?

I was using an extreme to explain bodily sovereignty.

[Luminesa]

'Icky'? That seems like a straw man, to me. It's not simply that it's 'icky'. The entire moral line behind bodily sovereignty is illogical. It's:

1.) Inconsistent: Because if you say 'my body, my choice' during the pregnancy, then you can't say anything to a person who decides to abandon their child after the pregnancy, or we don't even have to have a child involved. We could have a person who is shooting heroin and dying of an overdose, which is terrible and tragic. And so we have a sort of...splice.

2.) Unethical: 'My body, my choice' cannot work with everything, because not only would it be unethical to say 'my body, my choice' when the baby is not even part of the woman's body, it would be unethical on a different level to say 'my body, my choice', when one doesn't want to get involved with a person who is dying from a heroin addiction because it would make the person uncomfortable.

3.) Unreasonable: We're not 'autonomous' beings, because, as a writer wrote once, we did not even get here on our own. We didn't just 'pop' up in this universe one day. I mean we all came from someone else, and I don't even have to say God, for all the atheists on the forum who might see this (you don't necessarily have to be Christian to be pro-life, and you don't necessarily have to be atheist to be pro-choice...BOOM!). I mean we all came from a mother and a father. Or even if you're a baby who was created through IVF, you came from somebody's egg and sperm.

There's lots of other reasons, of course, why I'm against abortion, but this seems to be the dominant pro-choice argument, so I'm just presenting some insights from what I have read and considered. So, no, you can't just say I'm against abortion because it's 'icky'.

You have repeatedly expounded upon the purportedly barbaric nature of a specific kind of abortion method. Shall I locate and repeat these instances? There were some instances within this very thread. Nevermind that it is the safest and least painful method of aborting a fetus at that point. You consider it 'icky' and seem to fall on this as your primary argument.

1. There is no inconsistency. You are drawing false equivalence between a fetus and a born child.

2. Explain to me how the fetus is not a part of the woman's body. The fetus is connected to and draws sustenance from the woman's body. Whether you like it or not, the fetus is parasitic in nature, and the mother should have the right to have it removed if she does not wish its continued presence.

Just because botflies eventually leave does not mean we should let them use us as a nursery.

3. Utterly irrelevant.

Your reasoning is weak at best. You have been corrected multiple times on this, and now you just ask odd questions here and there as if you are trying to prove that our logic does not hold up under scrutiny.

I'm not asking odd questions, I'm making statements.

1.) A fetus and a born baby have the same dignity, just as a kitten and a cat have the same dignity. It's just different stages of development in the same being.

2.) I mean in the sense that the fetus/baby has its own body, its own DNA, its own organs, its own developing brain and senses, etc.

3.) Not irrelevant, because it goes to the core of the argument, the idea of autonomy. Are we autonomous? Did we bring ourselves into this world? Because if we're not autonomous beings, then we do not have 'bodily autonomy'/'bodily sovereignty'.

[Lost heros]

You have repeatedly expounded upon the purportedly barbaric nature of a specific kind of abortion method. Shall I locate and repeat these instances? There were some instances within this very thread. Nevermind that it is the safest and least painful method of aborting a fetus at that point. You consider it 'icky' and seem to fall on this as your primary argument.

1. There is no inconsistency. You are drawing false equivalence between a fetus and a born child.

2. Explain to me how the fetus is not a part of the woman's body. The fetus is connected to and draws sustenance from the woman's body. Whether you like it or not, the fetus is parasitic in nature, and the mother should have the right to have it removed if she does not wish its continued presence.

Just because botflies eventually leave does not mean we should let them use us as a nursery.

3. Utterly irrelevant.

Your reasoning is weak at best. You have been corrected multiple times on this, and now you just ask odd questions here and there as if you are trying to prove that our logic does not hold up under scrutiny.

I'm not asking odd questions, I'm making statements.

1.) A fetus and a born baby have the same dignity, just as a kitten and a cat have the same dignity. It's just different stages of development in the same being.

2.) I mean in the sense that the fetus/baby has its own body, its own DNA, its own organs, its own developing brain and senses, etc.

3.) Not irrelevant, because it goes to the core of the argument, the idea of autonomy. Are we autonomous? Did we bring ourselves into this world? Because if we're not autonomous beings, then we do not have 'bodily autonomy'/'bodily sovereignty'.

1: Dignity? And there's a very big distinction between a fetus and a baby. Specifically, one survives solely on the nutrients of someone else as a parasite, one isn't.
2: So does a parasite.
3: There's a difference between personal autonomy and bodily autonomy.

[Kelinfort]

I don't understand the heroin parts.

It's the idea that you can't logically restrict the ideology of 'bodily sovereignty' to just pregnant women.
I'm not defending it, I'm just analyzing how it works. The whole idea of the 'my body, my choice' thing is, "I don't wanna do this because it will make me feel uncomfortable," or something along those lines. I'll try to clarify it better, maybe:

Okay, heroin is uncomfortable. Knowing someone who has a heroin addiction is inherently uncomfortable, because heroin is so deadly and bad for you. However, let's say you don't want to get involved. In other words, one should get involved, and try to help this friend, or at least try to help him to get rehab, but let's say one person says, "I don't wanna help them because it's an uncomfortable situation." Thus, "my body, my choice". Would it or would it not be unethical to decide not to help a friend with a heroin addiction along the lines that doing so would be uncomfortable to you?

I'd offer him help, but should he refuse, I will not help. This is a terrible analogy, anyhow.

[Luminesa]

I'm not asking odd questions, I'm making statements.

1.) A fetus and a born baby have the same dignity, just as a kitten and a cat have the same dignity. It's just different stages of development in the same being.

2.) I mean in the sense that the fetus/baby has its own body, its own DNA, its own organs, its own developing brain and senses, etc.

3.) Not irrelevant, because it goes to the core of the argument, the idea of autonomy. Are we autonomous? Did we bring ourselves into this world? Because if we're not autonomous beings, then we do not have 'bodily autonomy'/'bodily sovereignty'.

1: Dignity? And there's a very big distinction between a fetus and a baby. Specifically, one survives solely on the nutrients of someone else as a parasite, one isn't.
2: So does a parasite.
3: There's a difference between personal autonomy and bodily autonomy.

1.) Well, do you not believe that each person is born with some sort of inherent dignity that we should protect?
2.) And you could argue that both do that, just in different ways. A baby in the womb will take some of the nutrients from inside the mother, through the placenta. A baby out the womb will wake up momma at two in the morning because she wants her bottle, or because her diaper is full.
3.) Wouldn't 'personal autonomy' be a branch off the subject of 'bodily autonomy'?

[Godular]

You have repeatedly expounded upon the purportedly barbaric nature of a specific kind of abortion method. Shall I locate and repeat these instances? There were some instances within this very thread. Nevermind that it is the safest and least painful method of aborting a fetus at that point. You consider it 'icky' and seem to fall on this as your primary argument.

1. There is no inconsistency. You are drawing false equivalence between a fetus and a born child.

2. Explain to me how the fetus is not a part of the woman's body. The fetus is connected to and draws sustenance from the woman's body. Whether you like it or not, the fetus is parasitic in nature, and the mother should have the right to have it removed if she does not wish its continued presence.

Just because botflies eventually leave does not mean we should let them use us as a nursery.

3. Utterly irrelevant.

Your reasoning is weak at best. You have been corrected multiple times on this, and now you just ask odd questions here and there as if you are trying to prove that our logic does not hold up under scrutiny.

I'm not asking odd questions, I'm making statements.

1.) A fetus and a born baby have the same dignity, just as a kitten and a cat have the same dignity. It's just different stages of development in the same being.

2.) I mean in the sense that the fetus/baby has its own body, its own DNA, its own organs, its own developing brain and senses, etc.

3.) Not irrelevant, because it goes to the core of the argument, the idea of autonomy. Are we autonomous? Did we bring ourselves into this world? Because if we're not autonomous beings, then we do not have 'bodily autonomy'/'bodily sovereignty'.

1. Once again, false equivalency. A kitten is not a fetus, nor is a grown cat like a baby. Though I will agree that dignity is important... such as the dignity of the woman in being able to decide when and how she becomes a mother. That is quite important.

2. Irrelevant. If it draws resources from the mother, the mother has the right to deny those resources, in much the same way that nobody is obligated to cough up a kidney or a lung just because somebody else might need it to live.

3. We become autonomous beings when we are born. Therefore, a fetus is not yet autonomous, while the mother most certainly IS. As a result, your logic fails. As it has consistently done.

[Neutraligon]

1: Dignity? And there's a very big distinction between a fetus and a baby. Specifically, one survives solely on the nutrients of someone else as a parasite, one isn't.
2: So does a parasite.
3: There's a difference between personal autonomy and bodily autonomy.

1.) Well, do you not believe that each person is born with some sort of inherent dignity that we should protect?
2.) And you could argue that both do that, just in different ways. A baby in the womb will take some of the nutrients from inside the mother, through the placenta. A baby out the womb will wake up momma at two in the morning because she wants her bottle, or because her diaper is full.
3.) Wouldn't 'personal autonomy' be a branch off the subject of 'bodily autonomy'?

1) Depends on what means by inherent dignity and should protect
2) umm, and a paraste takes nutrients from the host, hence why a fetus can be described as parasitic

[Luminesa]

It's the idea that you can't logically restrict the ideology of 'bodily sovereignty' to just pregnant women.
I'm not defending it, I'm just analyzing how it works. The whole idea of the 'my body, my choice' thing is, "I don't wanna do this because it will make me feel uncomfortable," or something along those lines. I'll try to clarify it better, maybe:

Okay, heroin is uncomfortable. Knowing someone who has a heroin addiction is inherently uncomfortable, because heroin is so deadly and bad for you. However, let's say you don't want to get involved. In other words, one should get involved, and try to help this friend, or at least try to help him to get rehab, but let's say one person says, "I don't wanna help them because it's an uncomfortable situation." Thus, "my body, my choice". Would it or would it not be unethical to decide not to help a friend with a heroin addiction along the lines that doing so would be uncomfortable to you?

I'd offer him help, but should he refuse, I will not help. This is a terrible analogy, anyhow.

It's not meant to be an analogy, it's meant to be two situations that I'm putting side-by-side and saying, "This is why this system of thinking is not consistent. It's also quite dangerous, because if you say you can do whatever you want with your body, even allowing harm to come to others or yourself, then by this line of thinking, there are no limits to what you can do, (ex: the movie "The Purge"). But there are limits to what you can do, and that is why we have laws." Something like that.

[Godular]

1: Dignity? And there's a very big distinction between a fetus and a baby. Specifically, one survives solely on the nutrients of someone else as a parasite, one isn't.
2: So does a parasite.
3: There's a difference between personal autonomy and bodily autonomy.

1.) Well, do you not believe that each person is born with some sort of inherent dignity that we should protect?
2.) And you could argue that both do that, just in different ways. A baby in the womb will take some of the nutrients from inside the mother, through the placenta. A baby out the womb will wake up momma at two in the morning because she wants her bottle, or because her diaper is full.
3.) Wouldn't 'personal autonomy' be a branch off the subject of 'bodily autonomy'?

1. Born.

2. And the mother has decided that she is ready for that responsibility. It should not ever be forced on her.

3. The only one that really matters is bodily autonomy.

[Luminesa]

I'm not asking odd questions, I'm making statements.

1.) A fetus and a born baby have the same dignity, just as a kitten and a cat have the same dignity. It's just different stages of development in the same being.

2.) I mean in the sense that the fetus/baby has its own body, its own DNA, its own organs, its own developing brain and senses, etc.

3.) Not irrelevant, because it goes to the core of the argument, the idea of autonomy. Are we autonomous? Did we bring ourselves into this world? Because if we're not autonomous beings, then we do not have 'bodily autonomy'/'bodily sovereignty'.

1. Once again, false equivalency. A kitten is not a fetus, nor is a grown cat like a baby. Though I will agree that dignity is important... such as the dignity of the woman in being able to decide when and how she becomes a mother. That is quite important.

2. Irrelevant. If it draws resources from the mother, the mother has the right to deny those resources, in much the same way that nobody is obligated to cough up a kidney or a lung just because somebody else might need it to live.

3. We become autonomous beings when we are born. Therefore, a fetus is not yet autonomous, while the mother most certainly IS. As a result, your logic fails. As it has consistently done.

2.) The difference is that baby/fetus needs those resources to live. A person can live with one kidney or one lung (though I think the only example I can think of is...Pope Francis? Yes, if I remember correctly, he only has one good lung...)

3.) From Dictionary.com: Autonomous- "Existing or acting separately from other things or people." This is the definition I look at when I see "autonomous". I don't mean the "independent" definition. Is the mother independent? Yes. And the baby is indeed not. However, does the mother come into existence without her mother? No. We don't just...pop up.

And if you mean the "independent" definition, then is a five-year-old autonomous? No, he/she still relies on her parents. A twelve-year-old? Also not autonomous. They still require their parents to live, though they are more developed than the five-year-old. You get what I'm trying to say?

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Does a sperm and egg cell in a petri dish next to each other have inherent dignity? Why does this collection of DNA magically begin to have dignity when you push the one into the other so it can burrow in and start swapping DNA?

[Luminesa]

1.) Well, do you not believe that each person is born with some sort of inherent dignity that we should protect?
2.) And you could argue that both do that, just in different ways. A baby in the womb will take some of the nutrients from inside the mother, through the placenta. A baby out the womb will wake up momma at two in the morning because she wants her bottle, or because her diaper is full.
3.) Wouldn't 'personal autonomy' be a branch off the subject of 'bodily autonomy'?

1) Depends on what means by inherent dignity and should protect
2) umm, and a paraste takes nutrients from the host, hence why a fetus can be described as parasitic

1.) Well, what do you think of, when you hear 'inherent dignity' and 'should protect'?
2.) By that same line of thinking, couldn't a baby outside the womb be considered the same thing?

[Neutraligon]

1) Depends on what means by inherent dignity and should protect
2) umm, and a paraste takes nutrients from the host, hence why a fetus can be described as parasitic

1.) Well, what do you think of, when you hear 'inherent dignity' and 'should protect'?
2.) By that same line of thinking, couldn't a baby outside the womb be considered the same thing?

1) Not sure hence why I said it depends.
2) nope since they are not directly removing nutrients from the body of the "host"

[Godular]

1. Once again, false equivalency. A kitten is not a fetus, nor is a grown cat like a baby. Though I will agree that dignity is important... such as the dignity of the woman in being able to decide when and how she becomes a mother. That is quite important.

2. Irrelevant. If it draws resources from the mother, the mother has the right to deny those resources, in much the same way that nobody is obligated to cough up a kidney or a lung just because somebody else might need it to live.

3. We become autonomous beings when we are born. Therefore, a fetus is not yet autonomous, while the mother most certainly IS. As a result, your logic fails. As it has consistently done.

2.) The difference is that baby/fetus needs those resources to live. A person can live with one kidney or one lung (though I think the only example I can think of is...Pope Francis? Yes, if I remember correctly, he only has one good lung...)

3.) From Dictionary.com: Autonomous- "Existing or acting separately from other things or people." This is the definition I look at when I see "autonomous". I don't mean the "independent" definition. Is the mother independent? Yes. And the baby is indeed not. However, does the mother come into existence without her mother? No. We don't just...pop up.

And if you mean the "independent" definition, then is a five-year-old autonomous? No, he/she still relies on her parents. A twelve-year-old? Also not autonomous. They still require their parents to live, though they are more developed than the five-year-old. You get what I'm trying to say?

2. Irrelevant. If the woman is unwilling to confer those resources, she does not and should not be forced to do so.

3. Utterly irrelevant.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

3.) From Dictionary.com: Autonomous- "Existing or acting separately from other things or people." This is the definition I look at when I see "autonomous". I don't mean the "independent" definition. Is the mother independent? Yes. And the baby is indeed not. However, does the mother come into existence without her mother? No. We don't just...pop up.

And if you mean the "independent" definition, then is a five-year-old autonomous? No, he/she still relies on her parents. A twelve-year-old? Also not autonomous. They still require their parents to live, though they are more developed than the five-year-old. You get what I'm trying to say?

That's why I prefer 'bodily soveirenty.' The government can't force you to keep a fetus in your womb any more than the government can force you to undergo surgery if you don't want it.

Because you own your body and yourself.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

And if you mean the "independent" definition, then is a five-year-old autonomous? No, he/she still relies on her parents. A twelve-year-old? Also not autonomous. They still require their parents to live, though they are more developed than the five-year-old. You get what I'm trying to say?

Do pray tell what this has anything to do with abortion other than its utter irrelevance

[Malkorian Empire]

And if you mean the "independent" definition, then is a five-year-old autonomous? No, he/she still relies on her parents. A twelve-year-old? Also not autonomous. They still require their parents to live, though they are more developed than the five-year-old. You get what I'm trying to say?

Do pray tell what this has anything to do with abortion other than its utter irrelevance

There are MASSIVE differences between a five year old child and a fetus, both mentally and physically. Do not try to compare the two.

[The Rich Port]

Do pray tell what this has anything to do with abortion other than its utter irrelevance

There are MASSIVE differences between a five year old child and a fetus, both mentally and physically. Do not try to compare the two.

... Furry isn't doing that. Luminesa is.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Do pray tell what this has anything to do with abortion other than its utter irrelevance

There are MASSIVE differences between a five year old child and a fetus, both mentally and physically. Do not try to compare the two.

Obviously, however there is a problem. The person in question is comparing something that is, not only mentally and physically incapable of comparing to that of a matured fetus that has been passed out of the womb, or officially a baby by definition of law, it is saying as if twelve year olds or five year olds have such a comparison between the two. The problem is that neither of the two require their parents. Such a loophole can be exposed when adoption is brung into the situation.

I'd also like to point out more irrelevant points, basically moot from the creation and moot now, which have no point in existing

The difference is that baby/fetus needs those resources to live.

That is correct.

A person can live with one kidney or one lung (though I think the only example I can think of is...Pope Francis? Yes, if I remember correctly, he only has one good lung...)

This, however gives me a problem, since such a thing would actually be in favor of destroying bodily autonomy, and making forced donations a thing. The phrasing makes it seem as if Pope Francis had his lung removed during his current age and time, which is not the case, and in which case, would have most likely killed Pope Francis if such a infection had stayed at his current age, which also proves such irrelevant point wrong.

[Kelinfort]

I'd offer him help, but should he refuse, I will not help. This is a terrible analogy, anyhow.

It's not meant to be an analogy, it's meant to be two situations that I'm putting side-by-side and saying, "This is why this system of thinking is not consistent. It's also quite dangerous, because if you say you can do whatever you want with your body, even allowing harm to come to others or yourself, then by this line of thinking, there are no limits to what you can do, (ex: the movie "The Purge"). But there are limits to what you can do, and that is why we have laws." Something like that.

The Purge?! The Purge has shit to do with bodily sovereignty. Hurting another autonomous being is fundamentally against personal sovereignty. Oh and I do support legalising all narcotics.