Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, yeah. It has to do with you insisting on the right to life being trumped to the right to bodily integrity while refusing to substantiating why, despite the fact that the opposite is the precedent in all similar cases. We don't, for example, force people to donate organs, which would definitely save more lives. We also don't tell a woman who has killed a rapist, "How DARE you take away his right to life!?" So why should this precedent be changed?

Except opposite examples exist as well.
The right to bodily sovereignty being overruled by the right to life in cases wherein one is injured and unable to accept or deny treatment, treatment is given immediately (which can only be overruled after the fact in certain instances by DNR and other similar provisions in wills relating to the injuries specifics) to save the life, even if that means surgery.

The woman killing her rapist doesn't really have to do with ending his right to life because of her bodily sovereignty, but her protecting her own right to life and placing it over his as she likely, and quite reasonably, fears for her life in the situation. Self-defense is only tangentially related to bodily sovereignty through the avenue of a right to life (self-defense generally approved only if one fears for their life or for grievous bodily injury that could endanger their life).

Point being, bodily sovereignty over the right to life is a rather major sticking point.

Bodily Sovereignty is not absolute, but it is damn near absolute as to the choices we are given to do for ourselves.

Abortion in this instance is dictating a choice over a being that, quite frankly, the law isn't concerned about because they have no societal impact. The only societal impact it exists is once the being is born as a baby, not before.

[Mavorpen]

Except opposite examples exist as well.

Yes. It isn't like I denied that they do.

The woman killing her rapist doesn't really have to do with ending his right to life because of her bodily sovereignty, but her protecting her own right to life and placing it over his as she likely, and quite reasonably, fears for her life in the situation.

It's a mixture of both, and is first and foremost a reaction to bodily sovereignty being violated.

Self-defense is only tangentially related to bodily sovereignty through the avenue of a right to life (self-defense generally approved only if one fears for their life or for grievous bodily injury that could endanger their life).

Which completely misses the point of the argument. The point is that with rape, that isn't even a concern, whereas with abortion it is. It's nonsensical.

Point being, bodily sovereignty over the right to life is a rather major sticking point.

In this case, not at all.

[Mavorpen]

So if a woman consents to sex and then she decided that she doesn't want to continue, the man has the right to continue, right? After all, you're apparently arguing that revoking consent doesn't mean anything. Which is a fantastic argument for rape.

Why are you so focused on things that are virtually nonexistent?

Isn't that what happened when the first humans began to populate and grow in population? That it was rape the one that drove our species?

I don't know where I read it, but I might be wrong tho.

I don't know what you're talking about.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

>women's rights
>no right is absolute. the right to life should trump the right to bodily integrity
>fetuses aren't living beings so they have no right to life duh
>whether something is in or out of a womb is a pretty trivial criterion for whether or not it's alive
>it doesn't matter whether we consider the unborn to be living humans
>why not
>women's rights

do you see the circular nature of his argument yet? and why there is no meaningful discussion to be had?

Well, the problem is this, and this is a problem that I see springing up everytime we have these discussions;

Why the hell is it so God damn important the life of a fetus when we consider the lives of criminals as less than trash? And why would we care so much about the life of the fetus whereas we don't care about the woman in the equation?

Criminals?

I think you may be attacking a bit of a strawman there.

I may be mixed on abortion, but I'm socially liberal, and an atheist. So no, I'm no "law and order" hawk if that's who you think you're talking to.

The woman in the equation is being cared for. 5 months is plenty of time to get an abortion. If she doesn't want the kid she should have access to a C-section as quick as possible, and have him/her be put up for adoption.

I'm not caring about the life of the fetus that much ; I hold no belief that our survival as a species is some God-given objective to be pursued, or even that more humans around is an inherently good thing. Quite the opposite for what it's worth.

However I find killing living humans morally reprehensible. Killing a freshly newborn baby is wrong. And I don't find viable fetuses different enough for me to be able to honestly say I don't believe they're living humans. And to say that a woman's right to bodily integrity trumps this living being's right to life makes no sense to me as it's not like you're denying her her right, it's saying that it must be done in a reasonable amount of time.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Except opposite examples exist as well.
The right to bodily sovereignty being overruled by the right to life in cases wherein one is injured and unable to accept or deny treatment, treatment is given immediately (which can only be overruled after the fact in certain instances by DNR and other similar provisions in wills relating to the injuries specifics) to save the life, even if that means surgery.

The woman killing her rapist doesn't really have to do with ending his right to life because of her bodily sovereignty, but her protecting her own right to life and placing it over his as she likely, and quite reasonably, fears for her life in the situation. Self-defense is only tangentially related to bodily sovereignty through the avenue of a right to life (self-defense generally approved only if one fears for their life or for grievous bodily injury that could endanger their life).

Point being, bodily sovereignty over the right to life is a rather major sticking point.

Bodily Sovereignty is not absolute, but it is damn near absolute as to the choices we are given to do for ourselves.

Abortion in this instance is dictating a choice over a being that, quite frankly, the law isn't concerned about because they have no societal impact. The only societal impact it exists is once the being is born as a baby, not before.

You'd have no idea.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, the problem is this, and this is a problem that I see springing up everytime we have these discussions;

Why the hell is it so God damn important the life of a fetus when we consider the lives of criminals as less than trash? And why would we care so much about the life of the fetus whereas we don't care about the woman in the equation?

Criminals?

I think you may be attacking a bit of a strawman there.

I may be mixed on abortion, but I'm socially liberal, and an atheist. So no, I'm no "law and order" hawk if that's who you think you're talking to.

The woman in the equation is being cared for. 5 months is plenty of time to get an abortion. If she doesn't want the kid she should have access to a C-section as quick as possible, and have him/her be put up for adoption.

I'm not caring about the life of the fetus that much ; I hold no belief that our survival as a species is some God-given objective to be pursued, or even that more humans around is an inherently good thing. Quite the opposite for what it's worth.

However I find killing living humans morally reprehensible. Killing a freshly newborn baby is wrong. And I don't find viable fetuses different enough for me to be able to honestly say I don't believe they're living humans. And to say that a woman's right to bodily integrity trumps this living being's right to life makes no sense to me as it's not like you're denying her her right, it's saying that it must be done in a reasonable amount of time.

And we already ban late-term abortions due to their controversy, or at least severely restrict it in the unites states to medical cases.

I don't find a 6-month fetus that different from a baby myself, but a 3 month old fetus? Yea, I have a hard time believing that it can make any sort of difference whether a woman aborts or not.

[Ifreann]

Because living humans aren't allowed inside the bodies of other living humans without permission.

You forgot to mention the part where the first living humans are the ones who created the second living humans in the first place, and also had a bit of time, like, you know, 5 months to not get cold feet at the last fucking second.

I didn't forget, I just don't see how it's relevant.

And human gestation lasts 9 months, not five. Unless "the last fucking second" refers to almost half of the pregnancy.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Criminals?

I think you may be attacking a bit of a strawman there.

I may be mixed on abortion, but I'm socially liberal, and an atheist. So no, I'm no "law and order" hawk if that's who you think you're talking to.

The woman in the equation is being cared for. 5 months is plenty of time to get an abortion. If she doesn't want the kid she should have access to a C-section as quick as possible, and have him/her be put up for adoption.

I'm not caring about the life of the fetus that much ; I hold no belief that our survival as a species is some God-given objective to be pursued, or even that more humans around is an inherently good thing. Quite the opposite for what it's worth.

However I find killing living humans morally reprehensible. Killing a freshly newborn baby is wrong. And I don't find viable fetuses different enough for me to be able to honestly say I don't believe they're living humans. And to say that a woman's right to bodily integrity trumps this living being's right to life makes no sense to me as it's not like you're denying her her right, it's saying that it must be done in a reasonable amount of time.

And we already ban late-term abortions due to their controversy, or at least severely restrict it in the unites states to medical cases.

I don't find a 6-month fetus that different from a baby myself, but a 3 month old fetus? Yea, I have a hard time believing that it can make any sort of difference whether a woman aborts or not.

I know they're outlawed already, which apparently runs contrary to some posters' beliefs here.

I've no problem with any abortion other than late-term non-medical ones.

Since these are supposedly so rare anyways, I wonder why so many people are making such a concerted effort at defending them..

[Genivaria]

Bodily Sovereignty is not absolute, but it is damn near absolute as to the choices we are given to do for ourselves.

Abortion in this instance is dictating a choice over a being that, quite frankly, the law isn't concerned about because they have no societal impact. The only societal impact it exists is once the being is born as a baby, not before.

You'd have no idea.

Of what?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

You forgot to mention the part where the first living humans are the ones who created the second living humans in the first place, and also had a bit of time, like, you know, 5 months to not get cold feet at the last fucking second.

I didn't forget, I just don't see how it's relevant.

And human gestation lasts 9 months, not five. Unless "the last fucking second" refers to almost half of the pregnancy.

So it's morally acceptable to kill a fetus, say, a day due? How about 2? A week? A month?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

You'd have no idea.

Of what?

Of the societal impact of an unborn baby.

Claiming there is none is extremely dishonest.

It exists, and is very significant for that matter.

[Ashmoria]

Because living humans aren't allowed inside the bodies of other living humans without permission.

You forgot to mention the part where the first living humans are the ones who created the second living humans in the first place, and also had a bit of time, like, you know, 5 months to not get cold feet at the last fucking second.

if you are going to be all anti-abortion like you need to at least be correct

no one gets an abortion at 5months because of COLD FEET.

to be against later abortions you need to be against saving a woman's life and pro forcing a woman to bear a child with defects (and pro forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy that will end with a dead baby no matter what.)

which also means that if you are going to be anti later abortions you really ought to be PRO making early abortion cheap and available so that no woman is forced into a later abortion for economic reasons.

[Ifreann]

I didn't forget, I just don't see how it's relevant.

And human gestation lasts 9 months, not five. Unless "the last fucking second" refers to almost half of the pregnancy.

So it's morally acceptable to kill a fetus, say, a day due? How about 2? A week? A month?

Ah, I see your problem. You don't know what abortion is. See, 'to abort' means to cease some on-going thing prematurely, before it is finished. You abort a countdown by stopping before you reach zero, for example. 'To abort' does not mean 'to kill'. So it would be nonsensical to talk about aborting a foetus, since a foetus is not some kind of process that can be stopped. What is aborted is the pregnancy. It is ended before it is finished, i.e. before the birth. I'm sure you can see that this does not necessitate the death of the unborn.

[Ashmoria]

Of what?

Of the societal impact of an unborn baby.

Claiming there is none is extremely dishonest.

It exists, and is very significant for that matter.

no there are none.

i mean there is the societal interest in making sure that the spontaneous abortion/miscarriage/preterm labor rate isn't spiking. there is a societal interest in making sure that public policy isn't leading to extra abortions that the women involved wouldn't have otherwise chosen. good prenatal care is a societal interest since it allows for fewer bad oucomes in general. i suppose there is an interest in making sure that women aren't selling their babies or being forced into adoptions--as in she was very pregnant yesterday, she isn't pregnant today, what happened to her baby?

but no, society has no interest in the prospective fruit of my womb until that fruit is born.

[Genivaria]

Of what?

Of the societal impact of an unborn baby.

Claiming there is none is extremely dishonest.

It exists, and is very significant for that matter.

No there's not.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

So it's morally acceptable to kill a fetus, say, a day due? How about 2? A week? A month?

Ah, I see your problem. You don't know what abortion is. See, 'to abort' means to cease some on-going thing prematurely, before it is finished. You abort a countdown by stopping before you reach zero, for example. 'To abort' does not mean 'to kill'. So it would be nonsensical to talk about aborting a foetus, since a foetus is not some kind of process that can be stopped. What is aborted is the pregnancy. It is ended before it is finished, i.e. before the birth. I'm sure you can see that this does not necessitate the death of the unborn.

How else are you going to end a pregnancy without killing the fetus or having a C-section, when possible?

[Cwonation]

Of the societal impact of an unborn baby.

Claiming there is none is extremely dishonest.

It exists, and is very significant for that matter.

No there's not.

One less baby could mean one less scientist, one less criminal, one less labourer, regardless, there's no denying a baby will have at least some impact in the future.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Of the societal impact of an unborn baby.

Claiming there is none is extremely dishonest.

It exists, and is very significant for that matter.

no there are none.

i mean there is the societal interest in making sure that the spontaneous abortion/miscarriage/preterm labor rate isn't spiking. there is a societal interest in making sure that public policy isn't leading to extra abortions that the women involved wouldn't have otherwise chosen. good prenatal care is a societal interest since it allows for fewer bad oucomes in general. i suppose there is an interest in making sure that women aren't selling their babies or being forced into adoptions--as in she was very pregnant yesterday, she isn't pregnant today, what happened to her baby?

but no, society has no interest in the prospective fruit of my womb until that fruit is born.

You pretty much spelled it out. Why an unborn baby does in fact have significant societal impact.

[Old Hope]

>women's rights
>no right is absolute. the right to life should trump the right to bodily integrity
>fetuses aren't living beings so they have no right to life duh
>whether something is in or out of a womb is a pretty trivial criterion for whether or not it's alive
>it doesn't matter whether we consider the unborn to be living humans
>why not
>women's rights

do you see the circular nature of his argument yet? and why there is no meaningful discussion to be had?

Well, yeah. It has to do with you insisting on the right to life being trumped to the right to bodily integrity while refusing to substantiating why, despite the fact that the opposite is the precedent in all similar cases. We don't, for example, force people to donate organs, which would definitely save more lives. We also don't tell a woman who has killed a rapist, "How DARE you take away his right to life!?" So why should this precedent be changed?

Forcing living people to donate organs is extemely dangerous.
Your second example is bad-partly because it is about someone forcefully and willingly attacking someone else, partly because deadly force can be illegal, even in this situation(if you have other options(well, that doesn't happen too often...) or if the act of killing wouldn't be self-defense but just revenge)
And those are different:
Ask yourself: Why is there any unborn inside the mother, needing her body?
Because the mother had chosen to perform an act potentially resulting in exactly that. She is responsible for the child.
And bodily integrity is not really a strong argument- because it has ceased to be exclusively the womans body.

[The Five Galaxies]

Well, yeah. It has to do with you insisting on the right to life being trumped to the right to bodily integrity while refusing to substantiating why, despite the fact that the opposite is the precedent in all similar cases. We don't, for example, force people to donate organs, which would definitely save more lives. We also don't tell a woman who has killed a rapist, "How DARE you take away his right to life!?" So why should this precedent be changed?

Forcing living people to donate organs is extemely dangerous.
Your second example is bad-partly because it is about someone forcefully and willingly attacking someone else, partly because deadly force can be illegal, even in this situation...
And those are different:
Ask yourself: Why is there any unborn inside the mother, needing her body?
Because the mother had chosen to perform an act potentially resulting in exactly that. She is responsible for the child.
And bodily integrity is not really a strong argument- because it has ceased to be exclusively the womans body.

It is most definitely still exclusively the woman's body.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

You forgot to mention the part where the first living humans are the ones who created the second living humans in the first place, and also had a bit of time, like, you know, 5 months to not get cold feet at the last fucking second.

if you are going to be all anti-abortion like you need to at least be correct

no one gets an abortion at 5months because of COLD FEET.

to be against later abortions you need to be against saving a woman's life and pro forcing a woman to bear a child with defects (and pro forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy that will end with a dead baby no matter what.)

which also means that if you are going to be anti later abortions you really ought to be PRO making early abortion cheap and available so that no woman is forced into a later abortion for economic reasons.

I've already said medical reasons are acceptable.. and I'm saying it wholeheartedly not just for the sake of saying it.

Really if it were up to me I think I'd probably make abortion free.

[Farnhamia]

Well, yeah. It has to do with you insisting on the right to life being trumped to the right to bodily integrity while refusing to substantiating why, despite the fact that the opposite is the precedent in all similar cases. We don't, for example, force people to donate organs, which would definitely save more lives. We also don't tell a woman who has killed a rapist, "How DARE you take away his right to life!?" So why should this precedent be changed?

Forcing living people to donate organs is extemely dangerous.
Your second example is bad-partly because it is about someone forcefully and willingly attacking someone else, partly because deadly force can be illegal, even in this situation...
And those are different:
Ask yourself: Why is there any unborn inside the mother, needing her body?
Because the mother had chosen to perform an act potentially resulting in exactly that. She is responsible for the child.
And bodily integrity is not really a strong argument- because it has ceased to be exclusively the womans body.

Sometimes contraceptive measures fail. Abortion should not be a first-line contraceptive measure but it should always be available when the first-line measures fail. Women should not be punished for having sex.

[Ashmoria]

if you are going to be all anti-abortion like you need to at least be correct

no one gets an abortion at 5months because of COLD FEET.

to be against later abortions you need to be against saving a woman's life and pro forcing a woman to bear a child with defects (and pro forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy that will end with a dead baby no matter what.)

which also means that if you are going to be anti later abortions you really ought to be PRO making early abortion cheap and available so that no woman is forced into a later abortion for economic reasons.

I've already said medical reasons are acceptable.. and I'm saying it wholeheartedly not just for the sake of saying it.

Really if it were up to me I think I'd probably make abortion free.

then why are you obsessing over something that doesn't happen?

[Ifreann]

Ah, I see your problem. You don't know what abortion is. See, 'to abort' means to cease some on-going thing prematurely, before it is finished. You abort a countdown by stopping before you reach zero, for example. 'To abort' does not mean 'to kill'. So it would be nonsensical to talk about aborting a foetus, since a foetus is not some kind of process that can be stopped. What is aborted is the pregnancy. It is ended before it is finished, i.e. before the birth. I'm sure you can see that this does not necessitate the death of the unborn.

How else are you going to end a pregnancy without killing the fetus or having a C-section, when possible?

The unborn can die in the womb, and with the exception of zombies and vampires it isn't possible to kill that which is already dead.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, yeah. It has to do with you insisting on the right to life being trumped to the right to bodily integrity while refusing to substantiating why, despite the fact that the opposite is the precedent in all similar cases. We don't, for example, force people to donate organs, which would definitely save more lives. We also don't tell a woman who has killed a rapist, "How DARE you take away his right to life!?" So why should this precedent be changed?

Forcing living people to donate organs is extemely dangerous.
Your second example is bad-partly because it is about someone forcefully and willingly attacking someone else, partly because deadly force can be illegal, even in this situation...
And those are different:
Ask yourself: Why is there any unborn inside the mother, needing her body?
Because the mother had chosen to perform an act potentially resulting in exactly that. She is responsible for the child.
And bodily integrity is not really a strong argument- because it has ceased to be exclusively the womans body.

Again, should I be responsible for my injuries and the hospital not provide emergency services if I am in a car wreck? After all, I engaged in an activity in which I knew that could happen.