"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[Salandriagado]

Sure. But those arrangements are freely available to everybody.

In some parts of the world, perhaps.

In those parts of the world where abandoning them is illegal, yes.

[Neutraligon]

I can however allow a person to die, I am not required to save a person from freezing. So I cut the connection on my side of the body and allow the fetus to die. Now what?

I mentioned that there are 10 states where there are laws somewhat like that on the books. They are called duty to rescue...and are ignored by the courts and law enforcement.

I'm pretty sure you are required to protect people in immediate danger of death if you can.

You are not.

Regardless of the legality of it, I think leaving someone to die in the cold if they are on your damn porch-step is morally equivalent to murder.

Sure it can be a shit thing to do, it is still legal. You can complain all you want that you think abortion is immoral, that does not mean it should be illegal.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Lengthy, yes. Uncomfortable, yes. But dangerous? No.(see my recent post.)

Yes, it's dangerous. It is the 6th most common cause of death for women of childbearing age.

800 deaths per year doesn't strike me as an impending danger. You're about as likely to die falling down stairs.

[Neutraligon]

In some parts of the world, perhaps.

In those parts of the world where abandoning them is illegal, yes.

Although since the law this thread was supposed to be about is from the US I am not sure why other parts of the world are particularly pertinent to the thread.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm pretty sure you are required to protect people in immediate danger of death if you can.

You are not.

Regardless of the legality of it, I think leaving someone to die in the cold if they are on your damn porch-step is morally equivalent to murder.

Sure it can be a shit thing to do, it is still legal. You can complain all you want that you think abortion is immoral, that does not mean it should be illegal.

I think it should be illegal. Things egregiously immoral should be made illegal.

[Hashirajima]

No it isn't, because one of them involves someone going through a lengthy and dangerous process against their will.

Lengthy, yes. Uncomfortable, yes. But dangerous? No.(see my recent post.)

You mean "But dangerous? Yes. (see this)"
FTFY, no thanks necessary.

[Neutraligon]

Yes, it's dangerous. It is the 6th most common cause of death for women of childbearing age.

800 deaths per year doesn't strike me as an impending danger. You're about as likely to die falling down stairs.

And that 800 deaths makes it the sixth cause of death for women of child bearing age, causing about 2% of deaths for women in that age range.

[Hashirajima]

You are not.

Sure it can be a shit thing to do, it is still legal. You can complain all you want that you think abortion is immoral, that does not mean it should be illegal.

I think it should be illegal. Things egregiously immoral should be made illegal.

I think your stance is egregiously immoral and hence by your line of reasoning should be made illegal.

Sorry to say this, but morality is *kinda* still questionable, or at the very least not absolute.

[United Muscovite Nations]

In some parts of the world, perhaps.

In those parts of the world where abandoning them is illegal, yes.

Let me ask you this: if those arrangements were not available, would it be justifiable to allow your child to die for convenience?

[Neutraligon]

You are not.

Sure it can be a shit thing to do, it is still legal. You can complain all you want that you think abortion is immoral, that does not mean it should be illegal.

I think it should be illegal. Things egregiously immoral should be made illegal.

Too bad, I disagree with abortion being egregiously immoral, and in fact think what you are suggesting, which I consider slavery to be among one of the most immoral things about. Now what? I also think the Bible is one of the most immoral books out there, based on that opinion should I be allowed to ban it and any religion based on it?

[The V O I D]

After seeing some of the arguments employed by the pro-life side and supporting side, I have come to the conclusion that they either cover their eyes or simply ignore the counterarguments that disprove their arguments in the first place. Let's see if I can fix that:

Bodily autonomy is always more important than life. The fetus does not matter - it doesn't matter if that fetus could become the next FDR/JFK or if that fetus could be the next Hitler - it does not matter. What is up for debate here is bodily autonomy, and pretty much all the pro-choicers here have been pointing that out. The woman has ownership and sovereignty over every aspect of her body. Even if we give human rights to the fetus, fine; sure. The fetus has bodily autonomy. It still resides in the woman's uterus, uses the woman's resources, and the woman's bodily space. This means the fetus is in constant violation of the woman's bodily sovereignty every single moment it resides inside the woman, if the woman does not wish to be pregnant and seeks an abortion. Abortion, if she chooses it, is the solution and protection of the woman's bodily sovereignty.

There, are we clear now? Don't think you can ignore this one. Try some new arguments, please.

If exercising of your rights involved murdering someone in cold blood, then I don't think those rights should be allowed. If you don't have the right to force your kids out of your home after they are born, you shouldn't have the right to before they are born, when they literally have no other option but death.

Bodily autonomy is still more important. I have every right to kill my parasitic twin if it won't kill me if I don't want it feeding on me. You have every right to kill a trespasser into your home, which is your property.

A woman's body is that same woman's property; not the fetus', and certainly not a man's just because the man happened to get her pregnant.

Honestly, is it really this hard to comprehend that bodily sovereignty and ownership is inherently greater than any "rights" the fetus may have, if only because defending the fetus' rights violates the mothers'/woman's?

[United Muscovite Nations]

800 deaths per year doesn't strike me as an impending danger. You're about as likely to die falling down stairs.

And that 800 deaths makes it the sixth cause of death for women of child bearing age, causing about 2% of deaths for women in that age range.

'My point is, that that is a statistic that is being used to make it sound much more dangerous than it really is.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If exercising of your rights involved murdering someone in cold blood, then I don't think those rights should be allowed. If you don't have the right to force your kids out of your home after they are born, you shouldn't have the right to before they are born, when they literally have no other option but death.

Bodily autonomy is still more important. I have every right to kill my parasitic twin if it won't kill me if I don't want it feeding on me. You have every right to kill a trespasser into your home, which is your property.

A woman's body is that same woman's property; not the fetus', and certainly not a man's just because the man happened to get her pregnant.

Honestly, is it really this hard to comprehend that bodily sovereignty and ownership is inherently greater than any "rights" the fetus may have, if only because defending the fetus' rights violates the mothers'/woman's?

Actually, I don't.

[Hashirajima]

And that 800 deaths makes it the sixth cause of death for women of child bearing age, causing about 2% of deaths for women in that age range.

'My point is, that that is a statistic that is being used to make it sound much more dangerous than it really is.

Question. Have you actually taken statistics?

[The V O I D]

And that 800 deaths makes it the sixth cause of death for women of child bearing age, causing about 2% of deaths for women in that age range.

'My point is, that that is a statistic that is being used to make it sound much more dangerous than it really is.

I wasn't aware causing the 6th most amount of deaths in a huge age group wasn't dangerous.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think it should be illegal. Things egregiously immoral should be made illegal.

Too bad, I disagree with abortion being egregiously immoral, and in fact think what you are suggesting, which I consider slavery to be among one of the most immoral things about. Now what? I also think the Bible is one of the most immoral books out there, based on that opinion should I be allowed to ban it and any religion based on it?

I would disagree with you, but I think abortion is literal murder and that abortion clinics often perform work morally equivalent to mass murder.

So, you tell me how I should just tolerate it?

[United Muscovite Nations]

'My point is, that that is a statistic that is being used to make it sound much more dangerous than it really is.

I wasn't aware causing the 6th most amount of deaths in a huge age group wasn't dangerous.

Causing 800 deaths isn't dangerous.

[Neutraligon]

And that 800 deaths makes it the sixth cause of death for women of child bearing age, causing about 2% of deaths for women in that age range.

'My point is, that that is a statistic that is being used to make it sound much more dangerous than it really is.

2% of deaths for women in that age range are due to pregnancy. That does not seem more dangerous then it really is. The fact that it can happen, that you are forcing the risk of being in that 2% of deaths against her will is a damned big problem. Once again is there any situation where I can force you to take on risks to your life against your will the same way you are advocating, even if that risk is small?

[The V O I D]

Bodily autonomy is still more important. I have every right to kill my parasitic twin if it won't kill me if I don't want it feeding on me. You have every right to kill a trespasser into your home, which is your property.

A woman's body is that same woman's property; not the fetus', and certainly not a man's just because the man happened to get her pregnant.

Honestly, is it really this hard to comprehend that bodily sovereignty and ownership is inherently greater than any "rights" the fetus may have, if only because defending the fetus' rights violates the mothers'/woman's?

Actually, I don't.

What are you on about? Of course you can - especially in cases where they are a threat to you. And if that trespasser is there and unwanted or even unknown about, you can't really assess their threat while they live.

[United Muscovite Nations]

'My point is, that that is a statistic that is being used to make it sound much more dangerous than it really is.

Question. Have you actually taken statistics?

Yes, and what he is doing is manipulating the wording to fit an agenda, because "kills 800 per year" sounds a lot less impressive than "6th leading cause of death".

[Walrusvylon]

How about a thought experiment? This is a popular one:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Although this situation would give you the right to unplug yourself from the violinist, it would not give you the right to kill him by mutilating his body.

In an abortion, the body of the fetus is destroyed, which is much more than just severing the connection between the pregnant woman and the fetus.

[Neutraligon]

Too bad, I disagree with abortion being egregiously immoral, and in fact think what you are suggesting, which I consider slavery to be among one of the most immoral things about. Now what? I also think the Bible is one of the most immoral books out there, based on that opinion should I be allowed to ban it and any religion based on it?

I would disagree with you, but I think abortion is literal murder and that abortion clinics often perform work morally equivalent to mass murder.

So, you tell me how I should just tolerate it?

And in my mind it isn't and instead you are advocating slavery. Now what? The same way i tolerate you immoral book and the form of religion you have used on this website.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Actually, I don't.

What are you on about? Of course you can - especially in cases where they are a threat to you. And if that trespasser is there and unwanted or even unknown about, you can't really assess their threat while they live.

Killing in self-defense is only legal if you have reason to believe that there is an immediate threat to your life. You cannot kill someone just for being on your property, that's ridiculous.

[The V O I D]

I wasn't aware causing the 6th most amount of deaths in a huge age group wasn't dangerous.

Causing 800 deaths isn't dangerous.

UMN, are you being intentionally ignorant or are you just so dedicated to the idea of being allowed to enslave women and remove bodily sovereignty that you resort to making things smaller than they are in the grand scheme of things?

[Hashirajima]

Question. Have you actually taken statistics?

Yes, and what he is doing is manipulating the wording to fit an agenda, because "kills 800 per year" sounds a lot less impressive than "6th leading cause of death".

800.

What's your sample population? What is the methodology behind the collection of this piece of statistic? What is the selection criteria for your sample population? Is your sample population representative of the greater population you wish to apply this statistic as a model for?