Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[The V O I D]

No it doesn't. The fetus' rights end the instant they become an imposition upon the rights of the woman within which it resides. Saying that the fetus should be equally important in this situation confers upon it no additional considerations.

To claim otherwise would be unequal.

if your talking about equality between the foetus and mother, equality would mean that the foetus has the same power and rights as the mother, and don't see how equality could mean anything else

No. The equality he speaks of is relating between the fetus and born persons [as fetus/embryos are not persons]. Why should the fetus get to use the woman's body against her consent when no other born person has a right to do so? If we give this right to the fetus, to re-establish equality, we must assume that even if you declare you don't want to donate organs ever and refuse to be an organ donor, I can still have your organs stolen if I need them more than you do and it is perfectly within my legal right to do so. After all, if the fetus/embryo can use the woman's body against her will, what stops me from using your organs and such without your consent, if I need them more than you do?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sorry, are you saying it's not true that women own their own bodies?

my post clearly says nothing remotely similar to that.
I'm saying it's not true women have the right to end other peoples lives 'because they own their own body'

No, it actually is true.

The only reason why a woman should be pregnant and carry a pregnancy is if the woman wants said pregnancy (which to be fair, most women in a stable relationship and a stable financial position do).

[Ardavia]

No it doesn't. The fetus' rights end the instant they become an imposition upon the rights of the woman within which it resides. Saying that the fetus should be equally important in this situation confers upon it no additional considerations.

To claim otherwise would be unequal.

if your talking about equality between the foetus and mother, equality would mean that the foetus has the same power and rights as the mother, and don't see how equality could mean anything else

because affording the fetus rights no born person has and making its rights weigh more than those of the woman is inherently inequal

[Ifreann]

Sorry, are you saying it's not true that women own their own bodies?

my post clearly says nothing remotely similar to that.
I'm saying it's not true women have the right to end other peoples lives 'because they own their own body'

That's actually just as ridiculous. Women do have exactly that right. All people do. It's called self-defence.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No it doesn't. The fetus' rights end the instant they become an imposition upon the rights of the woman within which it resides. Saying that the fetus should be equally important in this situation confers upon it no additional considerations.

To claim otherwise would be unequal.

if your talking about equality between the foetus and mother, equality would mean that the foetus has the same power and rights as the mother, and don't see how equality could mean anything else

The fetus cannot exercise its rights, so the point of it having any implicit rights is moot.

[Alimprad]

my post clearly says nothing remotely similar to that.
I'm saying it's not true women have the right to end other peoples lives 'because they own their own body'

So, like Iffy said, you're saying it's not true that women own their own bodies.

could somebody please point out where I said this?
I clearly said the foetus has just the same right to live as the women carrying it. If, however your just disagreeing with my argument and see this as oppression of the mother, one could equally argue forcing a mum to buy food and clothing for their child is oppresive or discriminative, thats not to say the child has no right to expect care and protection from their mother.

[Godular]

No it doesn't. The fetus' rights end the instant they become an imposition upon the rights of the woman within which it resides. Saying that the fetus should be equally important in this situation confers upon it no additional considerations.

To claim otherwise would be unequal.

if your talking about equality between the foetus and mother, equality would mean that the foetus has the same power and rights as the mother, and don't see how equality could mean anything else

In this you are correct. But now you must consider two things.

One: One person's rights end when they become an imposition upon the rights of another. This is borne out in the concept of self-defense. The fetus presents such an imposition inherently. It is not a denial of the fetus' rights to terminate its connection to the woman within which it resides. That this unavoidably leads to the death of the fetus is unfortunate, nut ultimately irrelevant.

Two: in claiming that a fetus has equal claim to the woman's body, you are suggesting that a fetus has the right to control another person's body against their will. No born person has this right. A fetus does not get to be an exception.

That would be unequal.

[Ashmoria]

Yup. Because it isn't his body, it stands to reason that it is not his choice either.



Goodness gracious we were JUST over this. I'd say 'didn't read the OP +1', but for some reason the OP posts got transplanted to another thread about Poland going all-out on the regressive right.

ahh, the womans body argument. If we imagine this particular woman's body is the zenith of perfection and the moral basis for all human actions, this argument is very powerful. however, if someone is to point out that this (the basis of most pro-choice arguments) is not true, and the childs well-being is as important as the mother carrying it's, the argument falls apart pretty quickly.

yes it certainly does.

but why would anyone want to promote the idea that a woman shouldn't be an autonomous being whose well-being is paramount to herself?

[The V O I D]

So, like Iffy said, you're saying it's not true that women own their own bodies.

could somebody please point out where I said this?
I clearly said the foetus has just the same right to live as the women carrying it. If, however your just disagreeing with my argument and see this as oppression of the mother, one could equally argue forcing a mum to buy food and clothing for their child is oppresive or discriminative, thats not to say the child has no right to expect care and protection from their mother.

Um, you're not getting it. We're saying that no person who is born has the right to use another person's body against their will: it's called coercion, rape, assault, etc. if we do it as a born person. So what gives the fetus / embryo more rights than the mother, who is a born person? What gives the fetus / embryo the right to control the woman's body until it is carried to term?

Your analogy is flawed: child protective laws protect born children because they are born. Fetus/embryos are not born and do not get those protective rights.

[Ashmoria]

Sorry, are you saying it's not true that women own their own bodies?

my post clearly says nothing remotely similar to that.
I'm saying it's not true women have the right to end other peoples lives 'because they own their own body'

but the fetus-person DOES have the right to endanger someone else's life?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So, like Iffy said, you're saying it's not true that women own their own bodies.

could somebody please point out where I said this?

my post clearly says nothing remotely similar to that.
I'm saying it's not true women have the right to end other peoples lives 'because they own their own body'

I clearly said the foetus has just the same right to live as the women carrying it.

Indeed. However, that is irrelevant when it is infringing upon the woman's right to her own body.

[Alimprad]

Your analogy is flawed: child protective laws protect born children because they are born. Fetus/embryos are not born and do not get those protective rights.

this is what I'm trying to get at, just becuase a foetus may not be able demand it's rights (though someone earlier claimed they lack the ability to excercise them, they can exercise their right to life, just when that is questioned, it has no vioce to argue back with), it still has, or deserves, rights. An unborn child however, will always loose an argument with a mother which has the voice required to demand her rights.
The same applies to those who have compared the existance of a foetus to rape, and compare abortion to self-defence, doesn't the foetus have a right to self-defence? Of course not, it has no voice to demand this right with.

[Galloism]

Your analogy is flawed: child protective laws protect born children because they are born. Fetus/embryos are not born and do not get those protective rights.

this is what I'm trying to get at, just becuase a foetus may not be able demand it's rights (though someone earlier claimed they lack the ability to excercise them, they can exercise their right to life, just when that is questioned, it has no vioce to argue back with), it still has, or deserves, rights. An unborn child however, will always loose an argument with a mother which has the voice required to demand her rights.
The same applies to those who have compared the existance of a foetus to rape, and compare abortion to self-defence, doesn't the foetus have a right to self-defence? Of course not, it has no voice to demand this right with.

You better get to work on artificial wombs then. As long as the fetus exists inside the mother, it is threatening her health, life, and right to bodily autonomy. She has every right to defend herself.

If you can somehow remove that conflict, where a mother isn't having her rights and health infringed upon against her will, you can remove the right to abortion, but you must still preserve the right of extraction.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Your analogy is flawed: child protective laws protect born children because they are born. Fetus/embryos are not born and do not get those protective rights.

this is what I'm trying to get at, just becuase a foetus may not be able demand it's rights (though someone earlier claimed they lack the ability to excercise them, they can exercise their right to life, just when that is questioned, it has no vioce to argue back with), it still has, or deserves, rights. An unborn child however, will always loose an argument with a mother which has the voice required to demand her rights.
The same applies to those who have compared the existance of a foetus to rape, and compare abortion to self-defence, doesn't the foetus have a right to self-defence? Of course not, it has no voice to demand this right with.

No, they cannot.

Even if you give fetal rights, those rights are essentially useless since practice, and lack of any cerebral functions which resemble anything about personhood with which to establish that there is a legitimate interest in accepting a fetus as a person are simply not there.

By your logic, we should give the right to life to bacteria, and forget about pasteurization cause #bacterialifematters.

[Zoice]

Your analogy is flawed: child protective laws protect born children because they are born. Fetus/embryos are not born and do not get those protective rights.

this is what I'm trying to get at, just becuase a foetus may not be able demand it's rights (though someone earlier claimed they lack the ability to excercise them, they can exercise their right to life, just when that is questioned, it has no vioce to argue back with), it still has, or deserves, rights. An unborn child however, will always loose an argument with a mother which has the voice required to demand her rights.
The same applies to those who have compared the existance of a foetus to rape, and compare abortion to self-defence, doesn't the foetus have a right to self-defence? Of course not, it has no voice to demand this right with.

What separates a fetus from something like a puppy, which while it is heartbreaking to kill it, most people would agree you can kill it to remove it if it's lodged in your body and you want it out.

[AiliailiA]

... thats not to say the child has no right to expect care and protection from their mother.

That's a pretty dubious claim also.

I'd say a child has a right to care and protection, but as long as SOMEONE provides that it's not an obligation particular to the mother. Or father. Perhaps if no other adult is willing and for some reason the welfare state is so derelict that it can't even provide for orphans, then the responsibility remains with the mother and father (on the basis that without their act there wouldn't be a child needing care and protection). But surely this is the worst case scenario.

To use "a child has a right to care and protection from their mother" as justification for "a fetus has a right to care and protection from its host" fails, because in the former case it is possible for someone else to provide. In the latter case it is not.

Rather fine distinctions like that are why analogies can imperceptibly lead to absurd conclusions, and thus why analogies should only ever be illustrative not the foundation of an argument.

[White Sox]

Should be of mutual agreement between both the mother and the father. Other than that it's a choice in which the government shouldn't interfere with.

One party wants the pregnancy to be terminated. The other party doesn't.

Who wins?

Should still be of mutual agreement but after that any sort of discussion or action is their choice

[Kelinfort]

One party wants the pregnancy to be terminated. The other party doesn't.

Who wins?

Should still be of mutual agreement but after that any sort of discussion is their choice

The partner who carries the pregnancy gets to abort. Likewise, if a man wants to, during the course of the pregnancy, no long be considered the father of that child and basically perform a paper abortion, that should be possible as well.

[White Sox]

One party wants the pregnancy to be terminated. The other party doesn't.

Who wins?

Should still be of mutual agreement but after that any sort of discussion is their choice

Should still be of mutual agreement but after that any sort of discussion is their choice

The partner who carries the pregnancy gets to abort. Likewise, if a man wants to, during the course of the pregnancy, no long be considered the father of that child and basically perform a paper abortion, that should be possible as well.

[Ifreann]

One party wants the pregnancy to be terminated. The other party doesn't.

Who wins?

Should still be of mutual agreement but after that any sort of discussion is their choice

Did you not read my post?

One party wants the pregnancy to be terminated. The other party doesn't.

Who wins?

[Ashmoria]

One party wants the pregnancy to be terminated. The other party doesn't.

Who wins?

Should still be of mutual agreement but after that any sort of discussion is their choice

it usually is a mutual decision but if they don't agree then it has to be the woman's choice.

[White Sox]

Should still be of mutual agreement but after that any sort of discussion is their choice

Did you not read my post?

One party wants the pregnancy to be terminated. The other party doesn't.

Who wins?

Except mine is simply a suggestion. This should have been clear that these were suggestions rather than what should be enforced.

Going back to your point, once again should be consulted with each other and whatever the outcome should be left at that.

[White Sox]

Should still be of mutual agreement but after that any sort of discussion is their choice

it usually is a mutual decision but if they don't agree then it has to be the woman's choice.

It is but at the same time then it's the choice of a father who did not want a child to provide alimony.

[Ifreann]

it usually is a mutual decision but if they don't agree then it has to be the woman's choice.

It is but at the same time then it's the choice of a father who did not want a child to provide alimony.

Thread's about abortion, not alimony.

[White Sox]

It is but at the same time then it's the choice of a father who did not want a child to provide alimony.

Thread's about abortion, not alimony.

It's surprising you forgot the context faster than Ben Carson's campaign.