[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Crockerland]

Women and girls should be able to get hold of emergency contraception more easily without the need for a consultation with a pharmacist, say women's health experts.

A report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends the morning-after pill "should be sold straight off the shelf", like condoms.There are too many barriers to health services for women in the UK, it says.

The report, Better for Women, is also calling for women to be allowed to take the first abortion pill at home, as well as the second, if they know they are less than 10 weeks pregnant.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50601735

I have heard conflicting reports/studies as to whether the morning-after pill will kill a fertilized embryo (unborn human) or not.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

But it turns out, at least when it comes to Plan B, there is now fairly definitive research that shows the only way it works is by preventing ovulation, and therefore, fertilization.

"We've learned a lot about how these drugs work," says Diana Blithe, a biochemist and contraceptive researcher at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. "I think it's time to revise our speculations about how things might work in view of data that show how things do work."

For example, says Blithe, a study published just last year led the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics to declare that Plan B does not inhibit implantation. And some abortion opponents in the medical community are beginning to accept that conclusion.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/10/yes-plan-b-can-kill-embryos-donna-harrison/

If Plan B is taken five to two days before egg release is due to happen, the interference with the LH signal prevents a woman from releasing an egg, no fertilization happens, and no embryo is formed.

Current studies do not demonstrate a harmful effect on the embryo if Plan B is taken after egg release.

Many authors focus on these two facts to make the sweeping claim that Plan B has no effect on a human embryo. What they are forgetting is Plan B’s effect at step 3, the two-day window in which embryos can form but positive pregnancy tests don’t occur. That’s the window during which the studies mentioned above suggest that Plan B has a likely embryocidal effect in stopping pregnancy.

Hopefully, if the UK's experts reach the conclusion that the morning-after pill has embryocidal effects, it will be banned except where prescribed by a doctor to a rape victim or woman with an ectopic pregnancy or other condition causing a reasonable belief she will suffer death or other grave injury beyond the normal effects of a healthy pregnancy.

[Vassenor]

I have heard conflicting reports/studies as to whether the morning-after pill will kill a fertilized embryo (unborn human) or not.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say

But it turns out, at least when it comes to Plan B, there is now fairly definitive research that shows the only way it works is by preventing ovulation, and therefore, fertilization.

"We've learned a lot about how these drugs work," says Diana Blithe, a biochemist and contraceptive researcher at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. "I think it's time to revise our speculations about how things might work in view of data that show how things do work."

For example, says Blithe, a study published just last year led the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics to declare that Plan B does not inhibit implantation. And some abortion opponents in the medical community are beginning to accept that conclusion.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/10/yes-plan-b-can-kill-embryos-donna-harrison/

If Plan B is taken five to two days before egg release is due to happen, the interference with the LH signal prevents a woman from releasing an egg, no fertilization happens, and no embryo is formed.

Current studies do not demonstrate a harmful effect on the embryo if Plan B is taken after egg release.

Many authors focus on these two facts to make the sweeping claim that Plan B has no effect on a human embryo. What they are forgetting is Plan B’s effect at step 3, the two-day window in which embryos can form but positive pregnancy tests don’t occur. That’s the window during which the studies mentioned above suggest that Plan B has a likely embryocidal effect in stopping pregnancy.

Hopefully, if the UK's experts reach the conclusion that the morning-after pill has embryocidal effects, it will be banned except where prescribed by a doctor to a rape victim or woman with an ectopic pregnancy or other condition causing a reasonable belief she will suffer death or other grave injury beyond the normal effects of a healthy pregnancy.

Or we could stop legislating what women can do with their own bodies.

[Necroghastia]

Hopefully, if the UK's experts reach the conclusion that the morning-after pill has embryocidal effects, it will be banned except where prescribed by a doctor to a rape victim or woman with an ectopic pregnancy or other condition causing a reasonable belief she will suffer death or other grave injury beyond the normal effects of a healthy pregnancy.

Why is that a thing that you hope for?

[SD_Film Artists]

Hopefully, if the UK's experts reach the conclusion that the morning-after pill has embryocidal effects, it will be banned except where prescribed by a doctor to a rape victim or woman with an ectopic pregnancy or other condition causing a reasonable belief she will suffer death or other grave injury beyond the normal effects of a healthy pregnancy.

Why would it be banned? Surely the embyrocydal effects are just academic. Either way it's an important form of emergency contraception which should be available off the shelf.

[The New California Republic]

Hopefully, if the UK's experts reach the conclusion that the morning-after pill has embryocidal effects, it will be banned except where prescribed by a doctor to a rape victim or woman with an ectopic pregnancy or other condition causing a reasonable belief she will suffer death or other grave injury beyond the normal effects of a healthy pregnancy.

They won't, as you are basically hoping for the complete polar opposite to what they are recommending.

[The Free Joy State]

Hopefully, if the UK's experts reach the conclusion that the morning-after pill has embryocidal effects, it will be banned except where prescribed by a doctor to a rape victim or woman with an ectopic pregnancy or other condition causing a reasonable belief she will suffer death or other grave injury beyond the normal effects of a healthy pregnancy.

I mean, unless the UK majorly changes direction and takes its first steps to becoming a totalitarian theocracy -- and pray God we won't -- that' pretty certainly will never happen. You can already buy the morning-after pill from any pharmacist over the counter (unless they refuse to sell it, in which case, they should recommend the woman to another pharmacist).

The recommendations are just that they place the pill on the shelves, so it can be bought without supervision.

EDIT: And the morning-after pill would be useless for a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. It only has a hope in Hell of working within 72 hours of sex. By the time an ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed (about 12 weeks) -- or any pregnancy at all, now that I come to mention it -- you may as well give the woman sugar-water.

[Crockerland]

Hopefully, if the UK's experts reach the conclusion that the morning-after pill has embryocidal effects, it will be banned except where prescribed by a doctor to a rape victim or woman with an ectopic pregnancy or other condition causing a reasonable belief she will suffer death or other grave injury beyond the normal effects of a healthy pregnancy.

Why is that a thing that you hope for?

Well I don't think any human life should be ended outside of very specific circumstances, such as self-defense, consensual euthanasia, or war, so if the morning-after pill ends a human life (regardless of what stage of development it is at) outside of those circumstances, I would hope it would be banned because banning it would protect that life.

Or we could stop legislating what women can do with their own bodies.

Like taking crack while pregnant so their baby is born a drug addict with permanent physical damage? No thanks.

You are free to do more or less whatever you want with your body up until the point you harm another party. IE: My foot is part of my body, but if I walk into court and kick a judge, my bodily autonomy does not protect me from prosecution.

[Totenborg]

Why is that a thing that you hope for?

Well I don't think any human life should be ended outside of very specific circumstances, such as self-defense, consensual euthanasia, or war, so if the morning-after pill ends a human life (regardless of what stage of development it is at) outside of those circumstances, I would hope it would be banned because banning it would protect that life.

Or we could stop legislating what women can do with their own bodies.

Like taking crack while pregnant so their baby is born a drug addict with permanent physical damage? No thanks.

You are free to do more or less whatever you want with your body up until the point you harm another party. IE: My foot is part of my body, but if I walk into court and kick a judge, my bodily autonomy does not protect me from prosecution.

And how do you feel about antibiotics, anti-parasitics, or anti-fungals? How about eating meat? What about driving?
Do you feel that women do not constitute life?

[Vassenor]

Why is that a thing that you hope for?

Well I don't think any human life should be ended outside of very specific circumstances, such as self-defense, consensual euthanasia, or war, so if the morning-after pill ends a human life (regardless of what stage of development it is at) outside of those circumstances, I would hope it would be banned because banning it would protect that life.

Or we could stop legislating what women can do with their own bodies.

Like taking crack while pregnant so their baby is born a drug addict with permanent physical damage? No thanks.

You are free to do more or less whatever you want with your body up until the point you harm another party. IE: My foot is part of my body, but if I walk into court and kick a judge, my bodily autonomy does not protect me from prosecution.

So basically women are baby factories and nothing more because your fee-fees say so?

[The New California Republic]

I don't think any human life should be ended outside of very specific circumstances, such as self-defense, consensual euthanasia, or war, so if the morning-after pill ends a human life (regardless of what stage of development it is at) outside of those circumstances, I would hope it would be banned because banning it would protect that life.

This is a very specific circumstance. A foreign entity is inhabiting my body without my consent, it needs to get the fuck out. The fact that said foreign entity dies in the process of its removal is not enough to override my bodily sovereignty to create a situation of de facto enslavement of my body for 9 months. And the "human life" you are describing when the morning after pill is used is actually arguably non-existent:

Pregnancy does not happen during sex. Sperm can live inside your body for up to 6 days, waiting for an egg.

The morning after pills work in the time between the act of having sex and becoming pregnant. This can take anywhere up to 6 days. The pill temporarily stops the ovary from releasing an egg, thereby not allowing sperm the access it needs for fertilization. Without fertilization, a woman is unable to become pregnant.

https://www.birthcontrol.com/options/mo ... fter-pill/

---

I would hope it would be banned because banning it would protect that life.

As I said earlier, you are hoping for the complete opposite of current reality, as well as the opposite of what the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is recommending, so your hope is entirely unrealistic I'm afraid.

---

You are free to do more or less whatever you want with your body up until the point you harm another party. IE: My foot is part of my body, but if I walk into court and kick a judge, my bodily autonomy does not protect me from prosecution.

The fetus is not a person. And even if, if, it was, you would be giving it a right that no other person has, i.e. the woman being forced to sign over her body for the medical necessity of another. See McFall v Shimp.

And what you are describing is a criminal offence, abortion is not.

[Gormwood]

Well I don't think any human life should be ended outside of very specific circumstances, such as self-defense, consensual euthanasia, or war, so if the morning-after pill ends a human life (regardless of what stage of development it is at) outside of those circumstances, I would hope it would be banned because banning it would protect that life.


Like taking crack while pregnant so their baby is born a drug addict with permanent physical damage? No thanks.

You are free to do more or less whatever you want with your body up until the point you harm another party. IE: My foot is part of my body, but if I walk into court and kick a judge, my bodily autonomy does not protect me from prosecution.

So basically women are baby factories and nothing more because your fee-fees say so?

It would be interesting to see a Venn Diagram of anti-abortionists and an-cap/libertarians who want to abolish social welfare.

[Crockerland]

I don't think any human life should be ended outside of very specific circumstances, such as self-defense, consensual euthanasia, or war, so if the morning-after pill ends a human life (regardless of what stage of development it is at) outside of those circumstances, I would hope it would be banned because banning it would protect that life.

This is a very specific circumstance. A foreign entity is inhabiting my body without my consent, it needs to get the fuck out. The fact that said foreign entity dies in the process of its removal is not enough to override my bodily sovereignty to create a situation of de facto enslavement of my body for 9 months.

Without your consent? As I said, rape victims should be able to get the pill or other forms of abortion.

If you had consensual sex, it's not "without consent", if it was then the deadbeat dads of the nation would certainly not consent to paying their child support, and women who starve their children to death just wouldn't consent to the breach of bodily autonomy necessary to feed their child.

And the "human life" you are describing when the morning after pill is used is actually arguably non-existent:

Pregnancy does not happen during sex. Sperm can live inside your body for up to 6 days, waiting for an egg.

The morning after pills work in the time between the act of having sex and becoming pregnant. This can take anywhere up to 6 days. The pill temporarily stops the ovary from releasing an egg, thereby not allowing sperm the access it needs for fertilization. Without fertilization, a woman is unable to become pregnant.

https://www.birthcontrol.com/options/mo ... fter-pill/

The morning after pill may also kill an embryo as I stated above:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/10/yes-plan-b-can-kill-embryos-donna-harrison/

If Plan B is taken five to two days before egg release is due to happen, the interference with the LH signal prevents a woman from releasing an egg, no fertilization happens, and no embryo is formed.

Current studies do not demonstrate a harmful effect on the embryo if Plan B is taken after egg release.

Many authors focus on these two facts to make the sweeping claim that Plan B has no effect on a human embryo. What they are forgetting is Plan B’s effect at step 3, the two-day window in which embryos can form but positive pregnancy tests don’t occur. That’s the window during which the studies mentioned above suggest that Plan B has a likely embryocidal effect in stopping pregnancy.

Hence why I made it very clear IF it is determined that the morning after pill DOES cause death, it should be banned, and otherwise, it should remain legal.

You are free to do more or less whatever you want with your body up until the point you harm another party. IE: My foot is part of my body, but if I walk into court and kick a judge, my bodily autonomy does not protect me from prosecution.

The fetus is not a person.

A fetus is a living human being, but even non-human animals are entitled to legal protections. I cannot refuse to feed my dog and let it starve to death, regardless of my right to bodily autonomy. This does not make my dog a person.

And even if, if, it was, you would be giving it a right that no other person has, i.e. the woman being forced to sign over her body for the medical necessity of another. See McFall v Shimp.

If a woman refuses to feed her infant child and he starves to death, she can certainly try to claim in court that the precedence of McFall v Shimp protects her "right" to do so, since it would force her to surrender her autonomous ability to choose not to walk over to her child and give it food, dictating where her body can and cannot be, what she must and mustn't do with her legs and arms, etc. However, outside of perhaps New York or California, that defense would rather obviously not hold up to the scrutiny of any competent judge.

All children have a right to life, if you kill them, whether that be via depriving them of resources they need to survive, like food, water, or the numerous provisions the womb provides to the unborn, or drilling a hole in their head and sucking their brain out with a vacuum catheter, you have violated that right. Acknowledging that does not create any new right or bestow upon the unborn any right which is not already clearly and presently recognized for born children.

And what you are describing is a criminal offence, abortion is not.

1. It should be.
2. It is a criminal offense in many places. Do you mean just in the UK? Because if so I'm not sure why you cited a United States court case (McFall v Shimp) as if that has some effect on the UK's law. I guess other nations' laws are applicable when it's convenient for your argument, and not applicable when they aren't?

[The New California Republic]

This is a very specific circumstance. A foreign entity is inhabiting my body without my consent, it needs to get the fuck out. The fact that said foreign entity dies in the process of its removal is not enough to override my bodily sovereignty to create a situation of de facto enslavement of my body for 9 months.

Without your consent? As I said, rape victims should be able to get the pill or other forms of abortion.

If you had consensual sex, it's not "without consent"

Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy. We have said this time and time again. And you also seem to be forgetting that first line contraceptives like condoms can and do fail, hence the need for the morning after pill in such circumstances.

---

Hence why I made it very clear IF it is determined that the morning after pill DOES cause death, it should be banned, and otherwise, it should remain legal.

No. It is necessary as a second line in case the first line fails.

---

A fetus is a living human being, but even non-human animals are entitled to legal protections. I cannot refuse to feed my dog and let it starve to death, regardless of my right to bodily autonomy. This does not make my dog a person.

What a quite frankly weird and creepy comparison that is in no way equivalent to what we are talking about.

---

And even if, if, it was, you would be giving it a right that no other person has, i.e. the woman being forced to sign over her body for the medical necessity of another. See McFall v Shimp.

If a woman refuses to feed her infant child and he starves to death, she can certainly try to claim in court that the precedence of McFall v Shimp protects her "right" to do so, since it would force her to surrender her autonomous ability to choose not to walk over to her child and give it food, dictating where her body can and cannot be, what she must and mustn't do with her legs and arms, etc. However, outside of perhaps New York or California, that defense would rather obviously not hold up to the scrutiny of any competent judge.

On the basis of this and the previous example you gave, you seem to have a very confused understanding of what bodily autonomy is in regards to the abortion debate, as the scenario you are depicting here is not relevant at all.

---

All children have a right to life, if you kill them, whether that be via depriving them of resources they need to survive, like food, water, or the numerous provisions the womb provides to the unborn, or drilling a hole in their head and sucking their brain out with a vacuum catheter, you have violated that right.

Born children do. A fetus is neither born nor a child.

---

And what you are describing is a criminal offence, abortion is not.

It is a criminal offense in many places. Do you mean just in the UK? Because if so I'm not sure why you cited a United States court case (McFall v Shimp) as if that has some effect on the UK's law. I guess other nations' laws are applicable when it's convenient for your argument, and not applicable when they aren't?

I'm citing it as an example since this thread usually discusses US law in relation to abortion. The precedent in the abortion threads is that US and UK law are usually discussed, and occasionally others.

[Crockerland]

Without your consent? As I said, rape victims should be able to get the pill or other forms of abortion.

If you had consensual sex, it's not "without consent"

Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy. We have said this time and time again.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam

Again, if consent to sex wasn't consent to pregnancy, men would be able to abandon their children without paying child support and women with born children would have no duty to care for them.

And you also seem to be forgetting that first line contraceptives like condoms can and do fail, hence the need for the morning after pill in such circumstances.

That's cool up until the point it harms another human being, born or unborn.

Hence why I made it very clear IF it is determined that the morning after pill DOES cause death, it should be banned, and otherwise, it should remain legal.

No. It is necessary as a second line in case the first line fails.

As long as it doesn't kill an unborn child. The first line is just not having sex with anyone who you aren't willing to get pregnant by. After birth control pills, condoms, birth control implants, plan B is pretty far down the list.

A fetus is a living human being, but even non-human animals are entitled to legal protections. I cannot refuse to feed my dog and let it starve to death, regardless of my right to bodily autonomy. This does not make my dog a person.

What a quite frankly weird and creepy comparison that is in no way equivalent to what we are talking about.

Killing unborn children is weird and creepy. A fetus not being a person would not mean you could now deprive it of sustenance until it died. The quality or lack thereof of personhood does not determine whether you can or cannot kill a living being. The meaning of the example is very obvious and I really shouldn't need to explain it to you.

If a woman refuses to feed her infant child and he starves to death, she can certainly try to claim in court that the precedence of McFall v Shimp protects her "right" to do so, since it would force her to surrender her autonomous ability to choose not to walk over to her child and give it food, dictating where her body can and cannot be, what she must and mustn't do with her legs and arms, etc. However, outside of perhaps New York or California, that defense would rather obviously not hold up to the scrutiny of any competent judge.

On the basis of this and the previous example you gave, you seem to have a very confused understanding of what bodily autonomy is in regards to the abortion debate, as the scenario you are depicting here is not relevant at all.

Starving a child to death is a very relevant example. Either you should be able to kill human beings by depriving them of necessary sustenance or not.

All children have a right to life, if you kill them, whether that be via depriving them of resources they need to survive, like food, water, or the numerous provisions the womb provides to the unborn, or drilling a hole in their head and sucking their brain out with a vacuum catheter, you have violated that right.

Born children do. A fetus is neither born nor a child.

Okay, so then you were completely wrong to say "And even if, if, it [unborn baby] was [a person], you would be giving it a right that no other person has", because this is a right we are recognizing that these born children have. Hence the entire point of why I was talking about that in the first place. That's also why I ended the paragraph with "Acknowledging that does not create any new right or bestow upon the unborn any right which is not already clearly and presently recognized for born children," though you conveniently clipped this off when quoting me.

Also "Born children"? Okay, if you need to specify that they're "born children", then there's another class of children, namely, unborn children. So yes, it is a child.

[The Alma Mater]

Okay, so then you were completely wrong to say "And even if, if, it [unborn baby] was [a person], you would be giving it a right that no other person has", because this is a right we are recognizing that these born children have.

Born children do not have the right to demand a bloodtransfusion or use of their mothers internal organs. Nor do adults for that matter.

[The New California Republic]

Again, if consent to sex wasn't consent to pregnancy, men would be able to abandon their children without paying child support and women with born children would have no duty to care for them.

That does not follow at all, in the former because the man isn't the one getting pregnant (we are discussing bodily sovereignty after all), and in the latter because women can and do give up their children up for adoption, hence washing their hands of their "duty to care for them".

---

That's cool up until the point it harms another human being, born or unborn.

You said earlier that "special circumstances" override it. Isn't having a foreign entity inhabiting one's body a "special circumstance"?

---

As long as it doesn't kill an unborn child. The first line is just not having sex with anyone who you aren't willing to get pregnant by.

So we are back that same "pregnancy as punishment for sex" bs again. Everybody drink.

---

The quality or lack thereof of personhood does not determine whether you can or cannot kill a living being.

But it does determine how we view the fetus in legal terms. Something with personhood has vastly more rights than those without, as shown that many rights are dependent upon it.

---

Starving a child to death is a very relevant example. Either you should be able to kill human beings by depriving them of necessary sustenance or not.

It is not at all relevant to the bodily sovereignty argument. Quit it with the goalpost moving.

---

Okay, so then you were completely wrong to say "And even if, if, it [unborn baby] was [a person], you would be giving it a right that no other person has", because this is a right we are recognizing that these born children have.

Children do not have the right to usurp the body of the woman by inhabiting them and leeching nutrients, and neither does anyone else, so I don't know what the fuck you are trying to say here.

---

Hence the entire point of why I was talking about that in the first place. That's also why I ended the paragraph with "Acknowledging that does not create any new right or bestow upon the unborn any right which is not already clearly and presently recognized for born children," though you conveniently clipped this off when quoting me.

It was snipped off because it was nonsensical in relation to bodily sovereignty.

---

Also "Born children"? Okay, if you need to specify that they're "born children", then there's another class of children, namely, unborn children. So yes, it is a child.

No it doesn't, I said that to emphasise that children are by definition born, so your interpretation of what I said is entirely spurious, and your conclusion does not follow.

[Kernen]

Again, if consent to sex wasn't consent to pregnancy, men would be able to abandon their children without paying child support and women with born children would have no duty to care for them.

That society hasn't successfully managed to rectify an inequity doesn't mean we need to excuse further inequities.

Killing unborn children is weird and creepy. A fetus not being a person would not mean you could now deprive it of sustenance until it died. The quality or lack thereof of personhood does not determine whether you can or cannot kill a living being. The meaning of the example is very obvious and I really shouldn't need to explain it to you.

There's no penalty for a woman engaging in poor neonatal care, including depriving the fetus of necessary nutrients. The downstream consequences of that would be concerning. There's a difference between choosing to forego personal care that has an incidental effect on others and choosing to forego care of another.

[Agarntrop]

Why do some people on this thread bizarrely believe that preventing ovulation (morning after pill) constitutes an abortion?

[The New California Republic]

Why do some people on this thread bizarrely believe that preventing ovulation (morning after pill) constitutes an abortion?

Some people get confused and think that emergency contraceptive pills, or morning after pills, are the same as “abortion pills”. They aren’t. Emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy before it begins, and works primarily or perhaps exclusively by delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion.

https://ec.princeton.edu/questions/morningafter.html

[Agarntrop]

Why do some people on this thread bizarrely believe that preventing ovulation (morning after pill) constitutes an abortion?

Some people get confused and think that emergency contraceptive pills, or morning after pills, are the same as “abortion pills”. They aren’t. Emergency contraception is used to prevent pregnancy before it begins, and works primarily or perhaps exclusively by delaying or inhibiting ovulation; it does not cause an abortion.

https://ec.princeton.edu/questions/morningafter.html

I know. That's what I said.

[The New California Republic]

I know. That's what I said.

Indeed, I was just giving it added context.

[Agarntrop]

I know. That's what I said.

Indeed, I was just giving it added context.

Oh okay.

[Necroghastia]

This is a very specific circumstance. A foreign entity is inhabiting my body without my consent, it needs to get the fuck out. The fact that said foreign entity dies in the process of its removal is not enough to override my bodily sovereignty to create a situation of de facto enslavement of my body for 9 months.

Without your consent? As I said, rape victims should be able to get the pill or other forms of abortion.

What makes a zygote/embryo/fetus conceived via rape any different from one conceived through consensual sex?
Ah, wait, that's right, can't use the "sluts should be punished for opening their legs" logic.

If you had consensual sex, it's not "without consent",

Consent to an action is not consent to things that may arise from that action. Would you say that getting in a car is consenting to being in an accident, and thus hospitals should refuse to treat you and garages refuse to fix your car?

if it was then the deadbeat dads of the nation would certainly not consent to paying their child support, and women who starve their children to death just wouldn't consent to the breach of bodily autonomy necessary to feed their child.

In what world do you live in where kids can't be put up for adoption?

The fetus is not a person.

A fetus is a living human being, but even non-human animals are entitled to legal protections. I cannot refuse to feed my dog and let it starve to death, regardless of my right to bodily autonomy. This does not make my dog a person.

No one can stop you from killing a non-person animal in a humane way, though. That's kinda how meat farming works.

And even if, if, it was, you would be giving it a right that no other person has, i.e. the woman being forced to sign over her body for the medical necessity of another. See McFall v Shimp.

If a woman refuses to feed her infant child and he starves to death, she can certainly try to claim in court that the precedence of McFall v Shimp protects her "right" to do so, since it would force her to surrender her autonomous ability to choose not to walk over to her child and give it food, dictating where her body can and cannot be, what she must and mustn't do with her legs and arms, etc. However, outside of perhaps New York or California, that defense would rather obviously not hold up to the scrutiny of any competent judge.

Taking potshots at NY and Cali for being lolberuhl, everybody drink.

And what you are describing is a criminal offence, abortion is not.

1. It should be.

Nah. There's no logical reason for that.

2. It is a criminal offense in many places.

There's a lot of things that are law for no good reason in different countries. Should we all celebrate the Kims as the true gods of this planet just because North Korea does?

[Crockerland]

Again, if consent to sex wasn't consent to pregnancy, men would be able to abandon their children without paying child support and women with born children would have no duty to care for them.

That does not follow at all, in the former because the man isn't the one getting pregnant (we are discussing bodily sovereignty after all), and in the latter because women can and do give up their children up for adoption, hence washing their hands of their "duty to care for them".

A woman can wait 9 months, give birth, and then put her child up for adoption too.

That's cool up until the point it harms another human being, born or unborn.

You said earlier that "special circumstances" override it. Isn't having a foreign entity inhabiting one's body a "special circumstance"?

That's not what I said at all. I said:

I don't think any human life should be ended outside of very specific circumstances, such as self-defense, consensual euthanasia, or war,

"Very specific circumstances" not "special". "Meh, I don't really feel like having a child, guess I'll just murder it" is not among the specific circumstances.

As long as it doesn't kill an unborn child. The first line is just not having sex with anyone who you aren't willing to get pregnant by.

So we are back that same "pregnancy as punishment for sex" bs again. Everybody drink.

Yes.

The quality or lack thereof of personhood does not determine whether you can or cannot kill a living being.

But it does determine how we view the fetus in legal terms. Something with personhood has vastly more rights than those without, as shown that many rights are dependent upon it.

Well, I don't know of any definition of "people" which excludes children, and all unborn children are expressly conferred the title of "child" by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act signed into law by president Bush.

Starving a child to death is a very relevant example. Either you should be able to kill human beings by depriving them of necessary sustenance or not.

It is not at all relevant to the bodily sovereignty argument. Quit it with the goalpost moving.

The goalpost was always "I don't think any human life should be ended outside of very specific circumstances". Your inability to score does not mean it moved.

Okay, so then you were completely wrong to say "And even if, if, it [unborn baby] was [a person], you would be giving it a right that no other person has", because this is a right we are recognizing that these born children have.

Children do not have the right to usurp the body of the woman by inhabiting them and leeching nutrients, and neither does anyone else, so I don't know what the fuck you are trying to say here.

No right to leech nutrients? So if you refuse to give your newborn baby breast milk and it starves to death, you will not be charged with a crime?

Also "Born children"? Okay, if you need to specify that they're "born children", then there's another class of children, namely, unborn children. So yes, it is a child.

No it doesn't, I said that to emphasise that children are by definition born, so your interpretation of what I said is entirely spurious, and your conclusion does not follow.

From the Lexico Oxford dictionary:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/child

Children
1. A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

‘she'd been playing tennis since she was a child’
‘the film is not suitable for children’

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

1 a : an unborn or recently born person

Why do some people on this thread bizarrely believe that preventing ovulation (morning after pill) constitutes an abortion?

Well I specifically linked an article citing that two studies suggested it could kill a fertilized embryo... Twice.

Without your consent? As I said, rape victims should be able to get the pill or other forms of abortion.

What makes a zygote/embryo/fetus conceived via rape any different from one conceived through consensual sex?

The rape. It's the rape that makes it different. A woman was raped.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Ah, wait, that's right, can't use the "sluts should be punished for opening their legs" logic.

Well, rape victims aren't sluts, no. I don't think it's immoral to have sex with your boyfriend, it's murdering the unborn child I take issue with.

If you had consensual sex, it's not "without consent",

Consent to an action is not consent to things that may arise from that action. Would you say that getting in a car is consenting to being in an accident, and thus hospitals should refuse to treat you and garages refuse to fix your car?

You're absolutely right, if I get into my car and run a bunch of people down while driving blindfolded, I in no way consented to paying their medical bills.

if it was then the deadbeat dads of the nation would certainly not consent to paying their child support, and women who starve their children to death just wouldn't consent to the breach of bodily autonomy necessary to feed their child.

In what world do you live in where kids can't be put up for adoption?

Adoption is not instantaneous. I can't think of any non-arbitrary distinction between forcing someone to provide for a born child in the time needed to put it up for adoption and forcing someone to provide for an unborn child for 9 months until birth.

A fetus is a living human being, but even non-human animals are entitled to legal protections. I cannot refuse to feed my dog and let it starve to death, regardless of my right to bodily autonomy. This does not make my dog a person.

No one can stop you from killing a non-person animal in a humane way, though. That's kinda how meat farming works.

Are you killing the Fetus for meat? Well I suppose with Planned Parenthood at the helm of the industry it's possible.

But sure, you can euthanize an animal, assuming it's your animal, but the point is that the law requires you to provide for that animal up until the point at which you carry out that euthanasia. So to act like being required to provide for another living creature under penalty of law requires that that living creature be a legal person would be incorrect.

If a woman refuses to feed her infant child and he starves to death, she can certainly try to claim in court that the precedence of McFall v Shimp protects her "right" to do so, since it would force her to surrender her autonomous ability to choose not to walk over to her child and give it food, dictating where her body can and cannot be, what she must and mustn't do with her legs and arms, etc. However, outside of perhaps New York or California, that defense would rather obviously not hold up to the scrutiny of any competent judge.

Taking potshots at NY and Cali for being lolberuhl, everybody drink.

They're shitholes, and pretty far from Liberal. Liberal locales don't prosecute transgender men for being assaulted in transphobic hate crimes.

1. It should be.

Nah. There's no logical reason for that.

Killing unborn children is reason enough.

2. It is a criminal offense in many places.

There's a lot of things that are law for no good reason in different countries. Should we all celebrate the Kims as the true gods of this planet just because North Korea does?

No more than abortion should be legal everywhere just because it's legal in the UK.

[The V O I D]

>tHe WoMaN sHoUlD jUsT wAiT aNd PuT tHe ChIlD uP fOr AdOpTiOn

That doesn't solve unwanted pregnancy! If a woman doesn't desire to be pregnant, her only recourse is to abort the pregnancy. Adoption doesn't solve it - and it also implies the woman has to stick with the unwanted pregnancy until birth.

Are women broodmares for having the audacity to get pregnant by accident when they take the necessary precautions, now? If so, since fucking when and I'd like your sourcing on such matters. Where in the Constitution or literally any legal document on Earth and in international law are women acknowledged as broodmares? Go on, I'll wait.

Contraceptives can and do fail. Sex is not just for reproduction; sex is an activity that happens and a great many people do it for fun, or because they love their partner and want to fuck. That doesn't mean they want kids, or are ready for kids.

Stop with this fucking stupid argument, it has been dismissed over and over and over, and at this point, it pisses me off to see it brought up again.