[Abortion Megathread] Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? REVISED POLL

[Godular]

1. Does the right of a person to control their own body supersede that of another individual’s right to live? Why or why not?
No, because right to life trumps bodily sovereignty. Even if one's bodily sovereignty is violated, one is still very well alive, but if a corpse is accorded bodily sovereignty, that changes very little for it.

No right 'trumps' another. One's rights end the instant they become an imposition upon those of another person.

2. Even though you might personally disagree with abortion, do you accept that others should have a right to it? Why or why not?
As I said, the right to life supersedes the right to control one's body. If that is the case, then the law should regard it as such.

As it is not, the law does not.

[Liriena]

New thread, still pro-choice.

[Stellonia]

Does the right of a person to control their own body supersede that of another individual’s right to live? Why or why not?
No, because right to life trumps bodily sovereignty. Even if one's bodily sovereignty is violated, one is still very well alive, but if a corpse is accorded bodily sovereignty, that changes very little for it.

No right 'trumps' another. One's rights end the instant they become an imposition upon those of another person.

In that case, not only does the fetus' right to life potentially impose upon the mother's bodily sovereignty, but the mother's bodily sovereignty potentially imposes upon the fetus' right to life.

[Socialist Nordia]

No right 'trumps' another. One's rights end the instant they become an imposition upon those of another person.

In that case, not only does the fetus' right to life potentially impose upon the mother's bodily sovereignty, but the mother's bodily sovereignty potentially imposes upon the fetus' right to life.

Bodily sovereignty outweighs right to life. That's why you can kill someone who's raping you in self defence. You take away their right to life because they are violating your bodily sovereignty. You may disagree that this comparison is apt, but an unwanted foetus does use a woman's body against her will in ways that could be potentially harmful to her.

[Alvecia]

Also consider that right to life > bodily soveriegnty also means that forced organ and blood donation would be a-okay.

[Aulesti]

I'm pro-life mostly because I (like to think) am a devout Catholic.

I would only support terminating the pregnancy if the woman's life was in grave danger.

[Godular]

No right 'trumps' another. One's rights end the instant they become an imposition upon those of another person.

In that case, not only does the fetus' right to life potentially impose upon the mother's bodily sovereignty, but the mother's bodily sovereignty potentially imposes upon the fetus' right to life.

Incorrect. As the fetus is the one doing the imposing, it has no rights to speak of. Or do you claim that the right to defend oneself from harm ends once it becomes a threat to the life of the attacker?

And yes, the fetus is an attacker. It is the cause of harm upon the woman. Without its presence there would be no such harm.

[Godular]

I'm pro-life mostly because I (like to think) am a devout Catholic.

I would only support terminating the pregnancy if the woman's life was in grave danger.

And what of those who are not Catholic? Why should your beliefs influence their actions?

[Ashmoria]

I'm pro-life mostly because I (like to think) am a devout Catholic.

I would only support terminating the pregnancy if the woman's life was in grave danger.

so you are outsourcing the thinking on this one?

[Italios]

I'm pro-life mostly because I (like to think) am a devout Catholic.

I would only support terminating the pregnancy if the woman's life was in grave danger.

So you support banning abortion, as a whole, because it interferes with your personal beliefs?

[Aulesti]

I'm pro-life mostly because I (like to think) am a devout Catholic.

I would only support terminating the pregnancy if the woman's life was in grave danger.

And what of those who are not Catholic? Why should your beliefs influence their actions?

Because, the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ the Savior/s

It is simply my belief and I do not care if others share it. I am from a Catholic country and I would like my government to respect the role of the Church in society.

I'm pro-life mostly because I (like to think) am a devout Catholic.

I would only support terminating the pregnancy if the woman's life was in grave danger.

So you support banning abortion, as a whole, because it interferes with your personal beliefs?

Yes, that is correct. I consider it immoral and I think it should be banned in most cases.

I'm pro-life mostly because I (like to think) am a devout Catholic.

I would only support terminating the pregnancy if the woman's life was in grave danger.

so you are outsourcing the thinking on this one?

Not really, I would have been pro-life even if I didn't believe in God.

[Godular]

And what of those who are not Catholic? Why should your beliefs influence their actions?

Because, the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ the Savior/s

Rejected. You have no evidence to back this claim.

It is simply my belief and I do not care if others share it. I am from a Catholic country and I would like my government to respect the role of the Church in society.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

so you are outsourcing the thinking on this one?

Not really, I would have been pro-life even if I didn't believe in God.

You cannot make that claim.

[Aulesti]

-snip-

/s stands for sarcasm

You don't have to be religious in order to be pro-life.

[Godular]

-snip-

/s stands for sarcasm

You don't have to be religious in order to be pro-life.

But you cannot make the claim that you would be such even were you not religious. You have no evidence to support such a claim.

You haven't tried it.

[Aulesti]

/s stands for sarcasm

You don't have to be religious in order to be pro-life.

But you cannot make the claim that you would be such even were you not religious. You have no evidence to support such a claim.

You haven't tried it.

You can't really "try" not being religious.

But yes, I have no proof. I simply made an assumption about myself. Even if in a few years I stopped being religious for whatever reasons, I would no longer need God to tell me that killing a fetus is alright.

[Socialist Nordia]

But you cannot make the claim that you would be such even were you not religious. You have no evidence to support such a claim.

You haven't tried it.

You can't really "try" not being religious.

But yes, I have no proof. I simply made an assumption about myself. Even if in a few years I stopped being religious for whatever reasons, I would no longer need God to tell me that killing a fetus is alright.

Question: is entering someone's body, extracting their resources, using them as waste disposal, and causing them health risks a right?

[Godular]

But you cannot make the claim that you would be such even were you not religious. You have no evidence to support such a claim.

You haven't tried it.

You can't really "try" not being religious.

You might try critical thinking. Ask questions when you note inconsistencies. See how many questions might get you nasty glares rather than actual answers.

But yes, I have no proof. I simply made an assumption about myself. Even if in a few years I stopped being religious for whatever reasons, I would no longer need God to tell me that killing a fetus is alright.

But on what basis? The fetus is 'innocent'? That is a subjective term on its own.

When one discards religion as a motivator, the remaining concern is more grounded in fairness than 'morality'. So I ask you then, how is it fair to deny a woman the right to control her own body, and give the right to control and use another person's body without their consent to a fetus that will not possess this right the instant it leaves the birth canal?

A woman can defend herself from any person that threatens harm upon herself, why is it that she should lose this right in relation to a fetus?

[Aulesti]

You can't really "try" not being religious.

But yes, I have no proof. I simply made an assumption about myself. Even if in a few years I stopped being religious for whatever reasons, I would no longer need God to tell me that killing a fetus is alright.

Question: is entering someone's body, extracting their resources, using them as waste disposal, and causing them health risks a right?

If a woman is pregnant, in the majority of cases she didn't take the necessary precautions to prevent getting pregnant.

It seems quite strange to compare a fetus to a parasite when the primary function of sex is procreation. If the woman chose to have sex without knowing the possible consequences, the fetus isn't at fault.

But on what basis? The fetus is 'innocent'? That is a subjective term on its own.

When one discards religion as a motivator, the remaining concern is more grounded in fairness than 'morality'. So I ask you then, how is it fair to deny a woman the right to control her own body, and give the right to control and use another person's body without their consent to a fetus that will not possess this right the instant it leaves the birth canal?

A woman can defend herself from any person that threatens harm upon herself, why is it that she should lose this right in relation to a fetus?

As I said above, the woman knew the consequences of unprotected sex. A fetus is not something that seeks to harm the woman. Carrying the fetus is a step for the creation of life, and no life should be terminated due to the irresponsibility of it's mother, unless the woman's life is in grave danger and then neither the fetus/baby nor the woman will survive.

[The Alma Mater]

Question: is entering someone's body, extracting their resources, using them as waste disposal, and causing them health risks a right?

If a woman is pregnant, in the majority of cases she didn't take the necessary precautions to prevent getting pregnant.

It seems quite strange to compare a fetus to a parasite when the primary function of sex is procreation. If the woman chose to have sex without knowing the possible consequences, the fetus isn't at fault.

Assume you drive recklessly and cause an accident which requires me to be hooked up to a suitable blooddonor for 9 months.
You are a match.
Can you refuse me ?

[Aulesti]

Assume you drive recklessly and cause an accident which requires me to be hooked up to a suitable blooddonor for 9 months.
You are a match.
Can you refuse me ?

That is simply an entirely different thing, one because the hospital has various ways to hook you up with whatever blood you may need, and second, because I would be in jail for causing such an accident.

The major issue is that there is no alternative for the woman carrying the fetus.In your example, there may be other matches who could do that for you. In the case of the fetus, it has no other choice but it's mother.

[Godular]

Question: is entering someone's body, extracting their resources, using them as waste disposal, and causing them health risks a right?

If a woman is pregnant, in the majority of cases she didn't take the necessary precautions to prevent getting pregnant.

It seems quite strange to compare a fetus to a parasite when the primary function of sex is procreation. If the woman chose to have sex without knowing the possible consequences, the fetus isn't at fault.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Consent can also be revoked. It is also important to note that abortion is taking responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy, whether you agree with the method or not.

But on what basis? The fetus is 'innocent'? That is a subjective term on its own.

When one discards religion as a motivator, the remaining concern is more grounded in fairness than 'morality'. So I ask you then, how is it fair to deny a woman the right to control her own body, and give the right to control and use another person's body without their consent to a fetus that will not possess this right the instant it leaves the birth canal?

A woman can defend herself from any person that threatens harm upon herself, why is it that she should lose this right in relation to a fetus?

As I said above, the woman knew the consequences of unprotected sex.

And getting an abortion is dealing with those consequences. That you might not agree with that course of action does not make it any less valid a course of action.

A fetus is not something that seeks to harm the woman.

Doesn't matter. The fetus is a source of harm upon the woman. If she does not wish for this harm, it is wrong to force it upon her anyway.

Carrying the fetus is a step for the creation of life, and no life should be terminated due to the irresponsibility of it's mother,

It is wrong to assume that a woman was being irresponsible just because she is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. You know, I dealt with all of these points in the OP. Could people please just read the bloody thing and maybe see about addressing those points rather than just restating the same damn arguments over and over again?

unless the woman's life is in grave danger and then neither the fetus/baby nor the woman will survive.

All pregnancies are inherently life-threatening. If a woman does not wish to undergo these risks, it is wrong to force her to do so anyway.

[Godular]

Assume you drive recklessly and cause an accident which requires me to be hooked up to a suitable blooddonor for 9 months.
You are a match.
Can you refuse me ?

That is simply an entirely different thing, one because the hospital has various ways to hook you up with whatever blood you may need, and second, because I would be in jail for causing such an accident.

It is not at all a different thing. A person can refuse to donate. A woman can refuse to support the fetus that has taken up residence within her.

The major issue is that there is no alternative for the woman carrying the fetus.In your example, there may be other matches who could do that for you. In the case of the fetus, it has no other choice but it's mother.

Such is unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant.

[Aulesti]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Consent can also be revoked. It is also important to note that abortion is taking responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy, whether you agree with the method or not.

If unprotected sex may result in pregnancy, then how can you consent to sex but not consent to the pregnancy. How can in the case of simply sex, a woman withdraw consent after she has sex?

And getting an abortion is dealing with those consequences. That you might not agree with that course of action does not make it any less valid a course of action.

It sadly is in some societies, but not all countries have legalised abortion.

Doesn't matter. The fetus is a source of harm upon the woman. If she does not wish for this harm, it is wrong to force it upon her anyway.

One could say that causing harm to the fetus is wrong as well.

It is wrong to assume that a woman was being irresponsible just because she is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. You know, I dealt with all of these points in the OP. Could people please just read the bloody thing and maybe see about addressing those points rather than just restating the same damn arguments over and over again?

I didn't see such a statement in OP, only "If a woman becomes subject to an undesired pregnancy, despite any safeguards that might have been taken (though I do not consider this a crucial factor), she should have the capacity to terminate that pregnancy. It is not my business to ask why she might not desire to carry the pregnancy to term, nor is it my business to ask how the pregnancy came about. The only thing that matters to me is that the woman has the option available if she should have need of it.

And


This claim does a grave disservice to women in general and also passes an inherently subjective judgement upon the woman. and Sex is NOT just for procreation. In modern society, the concept of casual and recreational sex has become more and more accepted in society...

If a woman wants to have casual sex, she should face the consequences for not taking the necessary steps for not getting pregnant in the first place.

All pregnancies are inherently life-threatening. If a woman does not wish to undergo these risks, it is wrong to force her to do so anyway.

Most pregnancies go on without any life-threatening situations occurring to the woman. I am of the opinion that if such a situation arise, the pregnancy should be terminated. I have stated this before.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

1. Does the right of a person to control their own body supersede that of another individual’s right to live? Why or why not?
No, because right to life trumps bodily sovereignty. Even if one's bodily sovereignty is violated, one is still very well alive, but if a corpse is accorded bodily sovereignty, that changes very little for it.

2. Even though you might personally disagree with abortion, do you accept that others should have a right to it? Why or why not?
As I said, the right to life supersedes the right to control one's body. If that is the case, then the law should regard it as such.

Ashkera's three intersections of freedom come to mind.

[The Alma Mater]

Assume you drive recklessly and cause an accident which requires me to be hooked up to a suitable blooddonor for 9 months.
You are a match.
Can you refuse me ?

That is simply an entirely different thing, one because the hospital has various ways to hook you up with whatever blood you may need, and second, because I would be in jail for causing such an accident.

The major issue is that there is no alternative for the woman carrying the fetus.In your example, there may be other matches who could do that for you. In the case of the fetus, it has no other choice but it's mother.

Irrelevant. You were reasoning from the "it is the womans fault, therefor she has to bear the consequences" stance - I am now doing exactly the same by demanding your organs and bodily fluids.