The Right to Abort is the Moral Position

[maquiscat]

No, the unboorn cannot have rights under any circumstances. That is just an insane assessment. If the unborn has rights, then the woman does not have the right to abortion by bodily autonomy because that violates the "unborn's" bodily autonomy.

First off my point was only that even the existence of any rights for the unborn would not be enough to override the right of bodily autonomy for the woman. Any right of bodily autonomy for the ZEF does not override the woman's when the ZEF is the one taking from the woman. The ZEF's rights (assuming any) would only come into play if the woman was taking from the ZEF, or the ZEF is no longer in the woman's body. Let's look at a potential example. Artificial wombs are on the horizon, so this will not be too much of a stretch. Let's say that the woman agrees to terminate the pregnancy by having the ZEF transferred to an artificial womb. Once that ZEF is in the artificial womb, out of her body for that matter, she no longer has any right to terminate that ZEF, because it is no longer violating her bodily autonomy. Any rights it might have would then be overriding to hers, in so far as she can't legally bring direct harm upon it. We could say that it has a right to sustenance, but that right would still not require the woman to provide it, anymore than my right to bear arms requires someone to provide me with arms.

This ridiculous game of relativism you are playing is doing the anti-abortionists a big favour.

All rights are relative, and I am using this term as different from subjective. One has a right to go where ever they want, but that is relative to private property rights. One has the right to move their body in any way they wish, but that is relative to the proximity of others (i.e. your flailing arms do not have a right to strike others).

Only individuals have rights.

What is an individual? When does one become such? Keep in mind that this is not the same question as when does one obtain individual protection under the law. Right now that is at birth. Quite honestly, I don't care, because that point is irrelevant to the woman's bodily autonomy. And no, individuals are not the only ones with rights. Because rights are what are recognized by law, corporations have rights that are separate from the individual.

 

[maquiscat]

They do not have a single one that they can exercise independently.

Not all rights are or can be exercised, unless you mean something other than actively asserted. The right to life is one that no one exercises, save maybe in terminating their own life (which I do see as part of the right). The right to life is in operation even when one is unconscious and cannot "exercise" it. Keep in mind that while this right does not allow a direct killing in and of itself, it also does not override the bodily autonomy of another, thus allowing for killing in self defense or in the removal of life sustaining processes from another. Thus any right to life a ZEF might possess (with no claim that it actually does), still does not override the woman's bodily autonomy.

 

[Dacke]

First off my point was only that even the existence of any rights for the unborn would not be enough to override the right of bodily autonomy for the woman.

Yes, it would. If "the unborn" are granted rights, it implies that they are humans and in essence of humans, the woman would be a murderer for having an abortion. We are both humans and the reason I have no right to kill you or vice versa is because we both have the right to our own lives.

Giving "the unborn" rights is what those who oppose abortion are asking for because they, at least, understand this basic nature of rights.

Any right of bodily autonomy for the ZEF does not override the woman's when the ZEF is the one taking from the woman. The ZEF's rights (assuming any) would only come into play if the woman was taking from the ZEF, or the ZEF is no longer in the woman's body. Let's look at a potential example. Artificial wombs are on the horizon, so this will not be too much of a stretch. Let's say that the woman agrees to terminate the pregnancy by having the ZEF transferred to an artificial womb. Once that ZEF is in the artificial womb, out of her body for that matter, she no longer has any right to terminate that ZEF, because it is no longer violating her bodily autonomy. Any rights it might have would then be overriding to hers, in so far as she can't legally bring direct harm upon it. We could say that it has a right to sustenance, but that right would still not require the woman to provide it, anymore than my right to bear arms requires someone to provide me with arms.

The ZEF would still only be a potential human even if it was in a Huxley-like test-tube.

All rights are relative, and I am using this term as different from subjective. One has a right to go where ever they want, but that is relative to private property rights. One has the right to move their body in any way they wish, but that is relative to the proximity of others (i.e. your flailing arms do not have a right to strike others).

This is why the only rights are negative rights.

What is an individual? When does one become such? Keep in mind that this is not the same question as when does one obtain individual protection under the law. Right now that is at birth. Quite honestly, I don't care, because that point is irrelevant to the woman's bodily autonomy. And no, individuals are not the only ones with rights. Because rights are what are recognized by law, corporations have rights that are separate from the individual.

One is an individual when they are capable of living and acting on their own. When they are capable of using their own judgement to survive.

 

[maquiscat]

LOLOLOL Dont care...it's 100% accurate and unless I need to be specific on a developmental stage, suits my purposes 100% also. I appreciate brevity and accuracy.

It's no less valid than my typical use of "offspring". The word encompasses from conception to death (you are still someone's offspring even after they are gone), but is a good term for these discussions because it can deal with the potential for both before and after birth if the context warrants. There are times with nuance and semantics are valid to distinguish, but I don't see any need of such from your posts thus far.

 

[maquiscat]

You exist in reality and the nature of reality is objective. Morality's purpose is to teach you how not to suffer and how to live a happy life instead. In other words, morals come from reality and are thus objective.

What you consider suffering, another might not, and what makes you happy, is not automatically what makes others happy. Because those are subjective, by definition, morals are subjective.

No, first we perceived water coming from the sky and then we integrated and conceptualised it as 'rain'. 'Rain' is just a noise and nothing in itself. What actually is, is the water coming from the clouds in the sky.

What is objective is the fact that there is water coming from the sky. With new experience, we re-evaluated the concepts and created distintictions such as "liquid sunshine" or "heavy rainfall", "storm" and "light rainfall".

I agree that water coming from the sky is objective, be it a single drop or millions a minute. But that is separate from what you gave as your example. You talked about that person claiming it was raining. Does a single drop constitute rain? I've been in conditions where the precipitation is light enough that I feel no need for rain gear, but it is still "raining", and sunny. Now while I might not consider such quantity as raining, the one who claimed it was raining might. Precipitation is objective, the labels of such are subjective, or more accurately, the transitions points from one type to other. For example, does a single piece of ice falling from the sky constitute sleeting? That piece is objectively sleet, but is the weather sleeting? BTW, what is the transition point from sleet to hail? When does it stop flurrying and begin snowing?

Words matter. Different phenomenons are given different names because we have to conceptualise reality in order to survive. We are not like animals who can just stroll around and be purely instictive and impulsive. Had we stuck to that, we would have died out a long time ago. Man has has reason.

Agreed, but in the end many of our concepts are subjective especially when it comes transitions and the points thereof. Temperature is objective. The scales we use to measure temperature are subjective hence the freezing point being both 32F and 0C. But furthermore, our perceptions of temperature are highly subjective. My husband spend many years living in Minnesota. I have lived on Delmarva, a peninsula between the ocean and the Chesapeake Bay for most of my life. Winters here tend to be mild, but can get really cold. Thing is, what I perceive as freezing, he needs only a light jacket for.

Individual (negative) rights are objective and universal because everyone needs them to survive. If it is OK to steal, no one will ever own anything and if it is OK to kill, no one will ever survive. In order to be able to think and survive, you need full rights to your own body and mind.

They are not objective, but agreed upon, although I have stated that if there were to be any, theft and murder would be the only two universal ones. But they are still subjective. What is theft? Is taxation theft? Some say it is and thus immoral, and others say it's not and thus moral to tax. Even killing as a moral is subjective. This very topic proves it. Whenever we take life it is objectively killing. We kill plants and animals every day. And when we abort, we are killing the ZEF. But many see that as moral, and other do not. Still others see it as immoral, but the violation of the woman's bodily autonomy as even more immoral. We have the death penalty, which as been argued as moral and immoral, but is objectively killing. We kill in war, also argued as to whether that is moral or immoral. Morals are subjective.

 

[Dacke]

What you consider suffering, another might not, and what makes you happy, is not automatically what makes others happy. Because those are subjective, by definition, morals are subjective.

Happiness is happiness. Suffering is suffering. Emotions are objective because emotions are real. "Stimulis" and "triggers" may vary from person to person, but their reactions are still real.

All kinds of happiness are valid as long as they do not inflict upon another person's happiness. The capacity of feeling happy is objective and what is moral is to give everyone the right to pursue their happiness.

I agree that water coming from the sky is objective, be it a single drop or millions a minute. But that is separate from what you gave as your example. You talked about that person claiming it was raining. Does a single drop constitute rain? I've been in conditions where the precipitation is light enough that I feel no need for rain gear, but it is still "raining", and sunny. Now while I might not consider such quantity as raining, the one who claimed it was raining might. Precipitation is objective, the labels of such are subjective, or more accurately, the transitions points from one type to other. For example, does a single piece of ice falling from the sky constitute sleeting? That piece is objectively sleet, but is the weather sleeting? BTW, what is the transition point from sleet to hail? When does it stop flurrying and begin snowing?

If you and I sit at a café and a lady walks by our table and I tell she was cute and you are of the opposite opinion, our discussion about the lady implies that she exists. It also implies that you and I exist and that the cafeteria we are at exists. Us having different opinions also implies that our thoughts are real.

We abstract and organise what we perceive into concepts. If the first table we see is a small, square shaped wooden one with four legs, we might conclude that all tables are small, square-shaped and wooden with four legs. That is until we run into a large, round glass-table with one leg etc etc. We can then just hit ctrl+a and put them all into the concept of "table". Until we face a contradiction and do this again and again.

I do not know why I changed the example here, I just got lost in my train of thought and went with the flow. I am sure you will still be able to get the point.

Agreed, but in the end many of our concepts are subjective especially when it comes transitions and the points thereof. Temperature is objective. The scales we use to measure temperature are subjective hence the freezing point being both 32F and 0C. But furthermore, our perceptions of temperature are highly subjective. My husband spend many years living in Minnesota. I have lived on Delmarva, a peninsula between the ocean and the Chesapeake Bay for most of my life. Winters here tend to be mild, but can get really cold. Thing is, what I perceive as freezing, he needs only a light jacket for.

They are not objective, but agreed upon, although I have stated that if there were to be any, theft and murder would be the only two universal ones. But they are still subjective. What is theft? Is taxation theft? Some say it is and thus immoral, and others say it's not and thus moral to tax. Even killing as a moral is subjective. This very topic proves it. Whenever we take life it is objectively killing. We kill plants and animals every day. And when we abort, we are killing the ZEF. But many see that as moral, and other do not. Still others see it as immoral, but the violation of the woman's bodily autonomy as even more immoral. We have the death penalty, which as been argued as moral and immoral, but is objectively killing. We kill in war, also argued as to whether that is moral or immoral. Morals are subjective.

If we both watch the same basketball match that finishes 102 to 94, that is the objective score of the game. There cannot be any "subjective experience" of this. If I would claim that "But, I feel like it ended 0 to 0!" I would be wrong and probably a moron.

The game has objective rules and I cannot just decide to "subjectively" experience a three pointer as a "minust 55 pointer" or 20 points as "0 points". Things are what they are.

Now, whether the game was entertaining or not is indeed a subjective matter because as individuals we are separate beings with separte tastes, values and preference. However, these preferences do not change the facts of reality.

 

[maquiscat]

Yes, it would. If "the unborn" are granted rights, it implies that they are humans and in essence of humans, the woman would be a murderer for having an abortion. We are both humans and the reason I have no right to kill you or vice versa is because we both have the right to our own lives.

Your parallel does not work, because it lack a key factor. If I am somehow attached to your body, taking from your bodily resources, you have every right to have me removed, even if it means my death. My right to life does not come at the cost of your bodily autonomy. You have the right to have me removed even if you initially consented to me being attached to your body. Your bodily autonomy allows you the right to withdraw consent.

Giving "the unborn" rights is what those who oppose abortion are asking for because they, at least, understand this basic nature of rights.

Not really because they would otherwise understand that certain rights override others in certain conditions. If the right to life overrode bodily autonomy, then there would be the right to take available organs or blood without consent to preserve life.

The ZEF would still only be a potential human even if it was in a Huxley-like test-tube.

It's already human. The potential is in being a person, or being. But again, where is that line of cross over? Is it removal from the womb? If so that would mean that any ZEF at any stage would suddenly be a person or being, when removed, or even instantly when fertilized outside the womb. Some beliefs would have it not till they laugh for the first time. Others at the point of viability regardless of whether they are inside or outside the womb.

This is why the only rights are negative rights.

Already disproven this with the example of when we have a right to kill and how it may be moral or immoral.

One is an individual when they are capable of living and acting on their own. When they are capable of using their own judgement to survive.

That would eliminate all newborns. They have no capacity to use their own judgement to survive. And when that capacity develops will vary by individual.

 

[Dacke]

Edit: Duplicate

 

[Dacke]

Your parallel does not work, because it lack a key factor. If I am somehow attached to your body, taking from your bodily resources, you have every right to have me removed, even if it means my death. My right to life does not come at the cost of your bodily autonomy. You have the right to have me removed even if you initially consented to me being attached to your body. Your bodily autonomy allows you the right to withdraw consent.

I think you have missed the point. I am not anti-abortion.

Not really because they would otherwise understand that certain rights override others in certain conditions. If the right to life overrode bodily autonomy, then there would be the right to take available organs or blood without consent to preserve life.

Do you know what negative rights are?

It's already human. The potential is in being a person, or being. But again, where is that line of cross over? Is it removal from the womb? If so that would mean that any ZEF at any stage would suddenly be a person or being, when removed, or even instantly when fertilized outside the womb. Some beliefs would have it not till they laugh for the first time. Others at the point of viability regardless of whether they are inside or outside the womb.

A pregnant woman has the right to choose abortion because it is her body. This is very simple.

Already disproven this with the example of when we have a right to kill and how it may be moral or immoral.

No, you have not. If you are unfamiliar with negative rights, you should look it up.

That would eliminate all newborns. They have no capacity to use their own judgement to survive. And when that capacity develops will vary by individual.

No, it would not. Newborns do have the capacity to use their own bodies, judgement and mind to achieve their goals. Being an independent being does mean that you are self-supporting. The child is dependent upon its partens for survival because the child is a separate being. Once it is born, mommy eating does not mean that it gets to eat. It is its own individual now.

 

[maquiscat]

Happiness is happiness. Suffering is suffering. Emotions are objective because emotions are real. "Stimulis" and "triggers" may vary from person to person, but their reactions are still real.

All kinds of happiness are valid as long as they do not inflict upon another person's happiness. The capacity of feeling happy is objective and what is moral is to give everyone the right to pursue their happiness.

I agree, but that does not render morals objective. One might claim that it is immoral for someone to flog me, yet that is what make me happy and I do not suffer. That also holds true for flogging a willing partner. I see it as moral, others see it as immoral. It's subjective. It doesn't matter to others that it makes me and my partner happy, it's immoral to them. No claim of yours to objectivity will ever make such an act moral or immoral objectively. Morals are subjective.

If you and I sit at a café and a lady walks by our table and I tell she was cute and you are of the opposite opinion, our discussion about the lady implies that she exists. It also implies that you and I exist and that the cafeteria we are at exists. Us having different opinions also implies that our thoughts are real.

The woman and the cafe' and us, yes we are subjective. Beauty is subjective. But let's go even further. I'll even take the position that is not my actual one. I make a comment on how she is showing too much skin and is being immoral in her lack of modesty. You see nothing wrong. That moral is subjective between us. Morals are subjective.

We abstract and organise what we perceive into concepts. If the first table we see is a small, square shaped wooden one with four legs, we might conclude that all tables are small, square-shaped and wooden with four legs. That is until we run into a large, round glass-table with one leg etc etc. We can then just hit ctrl+a and put them all into the concept of "table". Until we face a contradiction and do this again and again.

And while we can objectively show a given table as smaller or larger in comparison to another, whether a given table is small or large would be subjective. I might point out that both are large tables, just one larger than the other.

I do not know why I changed the example here, I just got lost in my train of thought and went with the flow. I am sure you will still be able to get the point.

I hope I did, given the other similar examples I gave.

If we both watch the same basketball match that finishes 102 to 94, that is the objective score of the game. There cannot be any "subjective experience" of this. If I would claim that "But, I feel like it ended 0 to 0!" I would be wrong and probably a moron.

The game has objective rules and I cannot just decide to "subjectively" experience a three pointer as a "minust 55 pointer" or 20 points as "0 points". Things are what they are.

Now, whether the game was entertaining or not is indeed a subjective matter because as individuals we are separate beings with separte tastes, values and preference. However, these preferences do not change the facts of reality.

There are indeed things that are subjective and objective. The score itself is objective. The rules are objective. Whether something is a violation of a rule or not, can be (but not always is) subjective. How many times has there been a disagreement over whether or not a person actually violated a rule? It's one of the reasons games typically have multiple referees, aside from catching it from every angle. Obviously there are incidences that are objectively violations, but others have been subject to opinion as to whether or not it occurred.

The rules are constructs however. The game a construct. But we are not discussing morals as if they were constructs. And whether rights are constructs or not is a subjective view in and of itself. Precipitation, to fall back on your previous example, is not a construct. The varying degrees and what they are labeled are. And what is subjective is our perceptions of those degrees as to which labels apply.

Moral are objective in their existence. We all have them. But that objectivity only extends to the category or broad grouping. The specific things that fall under the heading of morals is what is subjective. Sure we can say that there are certain morals that seem to be universal such as don't kill and don't steal, or reworded, that killing and stealing are immoral, but I have shown already how even those two things are subjective in their detail.

 

[maquiscat]

I think you have missed the point. I am not anti-abortion.

Never claimed you were, nor is my post intended to you were. I was pointing out the flaw in your example. While we are separate, you have no right, in and of itself to terminate me, per my right of life (a negative right, BTW). However, if I am doing something that is violating your bodily autonomy (another negative right), you are within your rights to stop that violation, even if it results in my death, despite my right of life. That is why I said that even if the ZEF had rights (with no claim that they actually do), they would not be sufficient to override the woman's bodily autonomy.

Do you know what negative rights are?

A right which requires inaction on the part of others in order to prevent violation. Your right to life requires that I do not kill you, but does not obligate me to save your life.

A pregnant woman has the right to choose abortion because it is her body. This is very simple.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not the ZEF is human, or a individual or a person.

No, you have not. If you are unfamiliar with negative rights, you should look it up.

Is your right to life violated if you are killed in war? Is your right to life violated if you attack someone and they kill you in self defense? If so, then should not they be punished for the violations of your rights?

No, it would not. Newborns do have the capacity to use their own bodies, judgement and mind to achieve their goals. Being an independent being does mean that you are self-supporting. The child is dependent upon its partens for survival because the child is a separate being. Once it is born, mommy eating does not mean that it gets to eat. It is its own individual now.

There is no capacity for decision making in a newborn. All they have are autonomic functions, and a capacity to learn. They have to learn how to use their bodies, how to make judgements, and how to develop a goal yet alone reach it. Granted they can learn quickly. Reach shiny object and put in mouth. I actually agree with you that it is an individual, but I don't agree with your criteria that makes it so.

 

[Lursa]

Not all rights are or can be exercised, unless you mean something other than actively asserted. The right to life is one that no one exercises, save maybe in terminating their own life (which I do see as part of the right). The right to life is in operation even when one is unconscious and cannot "exercise" it. Keep in mind that while this right does not allow a direct killing in and of itself, it also does not override the bodily autonomy of another, thus allowing for killing in self defense or in the removal of life sustaining processes from another. Thus any right to life a ZEF might possess (with no claim that it actually does), still does not override the woman's bodily autonomy.

Please note that I said 'independently.'

And while at some point in people's lives, they may need to be on life support, they are not wholly integrated with another, they are a complete individual. And also, the person's legal representative (like the pregnant woman) in some cases has the legal right to end that life.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[weaver2]

There's a another way to look at this. Morals are subjective, so the question is not whether it is "immoral," but whether it should be illegal to abort an embryo/fetus.

Since I think we pretty much all agree that it should be illegal under almost any circumstances to deliberately kill a healthy newborn baby, we can use that as our gauge.

List all the concrete and non-conclusory reasons that it universally wrong to kill a newborn baby, but not to kill the baby calf you ate last time you had a veal parm sandwich.

Then cross off all the ones that don't apply to an X month embryo or fetus, that are based on your personal religious beliefs, or that essentially beg the question (e.g. "because it's human").

Then look at what is left, and ask yourself whether that outweighs a woman's right to bodily autonomy for the remainder of her pregnancy, including the added risk of delivery vs. abortion at that time. If you have any question about the value of a woman's right to bodily autonomy, ask yourself whether you'd support a law requiring the father to donate bone marrow or a kidney to save that same embryo/fetus.

If you do that exercise for a number of points throughout a pregnancy, then perhaps you can find a point during the typical pregnancy where it should not be legal to abort without a significant medical justification.

In their decision about Roe the SC stated clearly that the state had a vested interest in regulating abortion after viability of the fetus.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [p154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization).
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

The pro-choice women that believe abortion at any stage is the prerogative of the woman to decide have not read the Roe decision all the way through.

 

[Lursa]

The pro-choice women that believe abortion at any stage is the prerogative of the woman to decide have not read the Roe decision all the way through.

Yes we have. And it is indeed that way in some states. Which if they need to, they can travel to.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[weaver2]

Yes we have. And it is indeed that way in some states. Which if they need to, they can travel to.

You're right about that some states do not have a limit stated but their laws are written so that the abortion is a consultation between a woman and the doctor.

 

[Lursa]

You're right about that some states do not have a limit stated but their laws are written so that the abortion is a consultation between a woman and the doctor.

Any medical procedure is.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Atreus21]

Let's assume for a moment abortion is made illegal, 100%. We know a plurality of conceptions ends in miscarriage. This is undisputed scientific fact. Now, in this dystopian society, let's assume that there is a diet in this dystopian society, they discover a diet that absolutely increases the likelihood a pregnancy is carried to term. In this society, logic follows, women can be imprisoned for negligent murder of a miscarried baby, for refusing to use this diet.

A woman may use the best possible diet and still lose her baby. Women aren't responsible for natural deaths. Moreover this doesn't exactly apply to the abortion issue. Pro-lifers ask that no one deliberately kill their children, not be compelled to make every sacrifice to ensure the maximum possible health benefits, and that failure to do so is tantamount to murder. It's not illegal to smoke while pregnant.

Additionally, since we know sperm are a form of life, men could also be penalized and jailed for masturbation. Of course, this expulsion of life, and, by all reasonable standards, mass murder of human life, is a necessary function of the male body; if a male does not ejaculate for a long period of time, the body actively expunges those sperm via nocturnal emissions. This in turn dismisses the argument that life is something inherently worth saving, if our bodies are designed to expunge life on a mass scale every few weeks.

Neither sperm nor eggs are human beings.

Becky is a 24 year old college girl at a party. While at the party, Becky grinds up on Steve. Steve turns Becky on, Becky decides to join Steve in the bathroom. Bam, they ****, she ends up pregnant.

Becky drives home. On her way, she speeds through a red light, and smashes another car. She wakes up on the sidewalk.

Now - this scenario includes two situations wherein the known possibilities or outcomes are accepted by Becky. She knows if she drives, she can get into an accident. She also knows if she has sex, she can get pregnant.

While laying on the sidewalk, Becky is approached by an EMT, who says to her, unequivocally, the man in the other car is going to die unless Becky agrees to a blood transfusion.

Thanks to bodily autonomy - Becky can, and in this scenario, indeed does, say no. The other party dies.

Becky cannot be penalized for this. She cannot be fined, nor jailed. She cannot be penalized for exercising her right to bodily autonomy. She can indeed be penalized for running the red light. She can be fined, she can have her license suspended. But she cannot be penalized for exercising her right to bodily autonomy.

In the scenario of her pregnancy, Becky is under no legal obligation to provide her body to the entity inside her, and thus, can absolutely act to abort the pregnancy. Our moral imperative in this situation indeed is to protect her right to bodily autonomy. She can't be penalized for ****ing Steve, although plenty of right wing fascists would love to criminalize sex outside of marriage, they just don't want to admit that's the end goal.

First: If we developed an artificial womb by which a child could be safely removed from the uterus at an early stage, would you abandon this argument?

Second: There is no right to bodily autonomy in a society. Entering a society entails giving up some autonomy, for which you get the benefits of society in return. You can't claim the benefits of society while claiming exemption from the cost. If you can withdraw from that obligation, society can do the same to you. We are subject to the draft, to jury duty, to quarantine laws, etc. We can be compelled to fight and die against our will. We can also be compelled not to deliberately kill innocent human beings.

Third, Becky can not be forced to give the stranger a blood transfusion, but having run a red light and caused the accident which killed a man, she would and should be held responsible for that. This might lead to jail time for vehicular homicide or a similar charge, and I doubt you would complain against this outcome. Yet how is a blood transfusion to save a life considered an infringement of bodily autonomy where being forcibly imprisoned is not? Given the choice between being forced to donate blood to save his life or forced into prison for killing the man, which would you choose?

Rob passes out at the mall due to a panic attack. He wakes up in the hospital, 47 days later. On a drip. In the room with another human being on a gurney. The nurse says to Rob:

"You had a panic attack and have been here for 47 days. This man, Matt, is on a drip from your blood stream. You were a perfect match for Matt, and thus, we decided to rig you up to him so you could keep him alive long enough to get him a transplant."

This is analogous to pregnancy resulting from rape. The overwhelming majority of pregnancies are conceived with consent.

 

[OceanBlues1]

This is analogous to pregnancy resulting from rape. The overwhelming majority of pregnancies are conceived with consent.

So what. This doesn't matter to me in the least. It's the right of each girl and woman who gets pregnant to decide for herself whether or not the pregnancy will be continued. One woman's decision to have an abortion, for whatever reason, has no impact whatsoever on another woman's decision to continue her pregnancy and have a baby. Each choice is independent of the other.

Bottom line: It's her life that can and will be affected by the decision she makes regarding the pregnancy. Therefore, only she has the right to make that choice.

 

[Atreus21]

So what.

So the hypothetical isn't analogous to abortion in the vast majority of cases.

This doesn't matter to me in the least. It's the right of each girl and woman who gets pregnant to decide for herself whether or not the pregnancy will be continued. One woman's decision to have an abortion, for whatever reason, has no impact whatsoever on another woman's decision to continue her pregnancy and have a baby. Each choice is independent of the other.

Bottom line: It's her life that can and will be affected by the decision she makes regarding the pregnancy. Therefore, only she has the right to make that choice.

The bottom line, as the OP admits at the outset, is that the target of abortion is a human being, and that abortion deliberately kills it. The only question is what justifies doing that.

 

[OceanBlues1]

The bottom line, as the OP admits at the outset, is that the target of abortion is a human being, and that abortion deliberately kills it. The only question is what justifies doing that.

Here's the thing; the woman who wants an abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy doesn't need to "justify," apologize, defend, or explain her decision, to you or anyone else, regardless of how the pregnancy happened. Nor should she ever have to "justify" or explain her decision to have an abortion, as it is none of anyone's business.

As I said before, it is her (meaning the woman's) life that she is making a choice for, not yours or anyone else's. Therefore, it is simple common sense that only the woman who is pregnant has the right to decide for herself whether or not to stay pregnant.

 

[Atreus21]

Here's the thing; the woman who wants an abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy doesn't need to "justify," apologize, defend, or explain her decision, to you or anyone else, regardless of how the pregnancy happened. Nor should she ever have to "justify" or explain her decision to have an abortion, as it is none of anyone's business.

You think killing an innocent human being requires no justification? We can just kill innocents because we feel like it?

As I said before, it is her (meaning the woman's) life that she is making a choice for, not yours or anyone else's. Therefore, it is simple common sense that only the woman who is pregnant has the right to decide for herself whether or not to stay pregnant.

That plainly isn't true. She's making a choice which involves the life of her child. That's the source of the entire controversy with abortion.

 

[weaver2]

You think killing an innocent human being requires no justification? We can just kill innocents because we feel like it? That plainly isn't true. She's making a choice which involves the life of her child. That's the source of the entire controversy with abortion.

.

There is no controversy over abortion.There is no controversy over the personhood of the fetus. Each person, each organization, is entitled to their own beliefs. Pro-choice advocates believe everybody has a right to their choice of beliefs: no questions asked. There is no controversy. Conservatives Christians have a right to make their women follow their religious beliefs about life and fetuses.

There is no controversy. There is a fight.

The fight is to keep conservative Christians from packing the Supreme Court, over-riding the constitution and begin establishing conservative Christian theology as basic guiding principle of our government instead of the Constitution.

 

[Scrabaholic]

The bottom line, as the OP admits at the outset, is that the target of abortion is a human being, and that abortion deliberately kills it. The only question is what justifies doing that.

A zef is not a human being. FACT.

No justification is needed to have an abortion.

 

[weaver2]

......... The bottom line, as the OP admits at the outset, is that the target of abortion is a human being, and that abortion deliberately kills it. The only question is what justifies doing that.

Your beliefs are your private choice. You do not have to justify them to anyone. The beliefs of women who abort are their private choice. There are no problems here. You live what you believe and you allow others to believe as they wish. That's how our Constitution works: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects....."

The problem is not that you can't live your private life as you wish but that you are trying, through packing the Supreme Court, to control the private lives of other people by the imposition on them of your religious beliefs. You are trying to force the tenets of conservative Christian beliefs on all American women. For some reason you believe the US is a theocracy that evangelicals control.

 

[soylentgreen]

A woman may use the best possible diet and still lose her baby. Women aren't responsible for natural deaths. Moreover this doesn't exactly apply to the abortion issue. Pro-lifers ask that no one deliberately kill their children, not be compelled to make every sacrifice to ensure the maximum possible health benefits, and that failure to do so is tantamount to murder. It's not illegal to smoke while pregnant.



Neither sperm nor eggs are human beings.



First: If we developed an artificial womb by which a child could be safely removed from the uterus at an early stage, would you abandon this argument?

Second: There is no right to bodily autonomy in a society. Entering a society entails giving up some autonomy, for which you get the benefits of society in return. You can't claim the benefits of society while claiming exemption from the cost. If you can withdraw from that obligation, society can do the same to you. We are subject to the draft, to jury duty, to quarantine laws, etc. We can be compelled to fight and die against our will. We can also be compelled not to deliberately kill innocent human beings.

Third, Becky can not be forced to give the stranger a blood transfusion, but having run a red light and caused the accident which killed a man, she would and should be held responsible for that. This might lead to jail time for vehicular homicide or a similar charge, and I doubt you would complain against this outcome. Yet how is a blood transfusion to save a life considered an infringement of bodily autonomy where being forcibly imprisoned is not? Given the choice between being forced to donate blood to save his life or forced into prison for killing the man, which would you choose?



This is analogous to pregnancy resulting from rape. The overwhelming majority of pregnancies are conceived with consent.

There is every right to bodily autonomy. No doctor can perform an operation on a person without first gaining written consent. No one can be forced to donate any part of their body to save the life of another without their consent. Despite anti abortionists demanding that women do not have the right to consent.

Your examples are that of civic duty and not bodily autonomy.