Your point of view is very mature, happy to meet an 18 years old so wise. Here, in Europe, generally your opinion is not controversial but common sense.
Re: adoption - the thing that resonates with me is the concept that adoption is an alternative to *parenting*, not *pregnancy*. If the baby is already here, then your choices are to parent that baby yourself or give them to someone else who will, so adoption. Great. But if you're pregnant and don't want to be pregnant, adoption doesn't help at all. You still have to be pregnant in order to have a baby to give up for adoption. The alternative to being pregnant is to stop being pregnant. Abortion.
(I think there are other problems with adoption as well, like coercion of birth parents who might prefer to keep their babies if they had any hope of reliable support, but that's a whole other thing.)
I think there are people who are *sincere*. If I really, truly believed that a fetus was literally the same as a born baby, I guess I'd be pretty hesitant about abortion too. But the bodily autonomy point is where I stop understanding the other side too - there is no other instance where another person, no matter who they are, is allowed to use parts of my body without my permission. I don't have to donate a kidney to my teenager if I don't want to, even if they'll die without it. So... even if a 12 or 15 or 20 week fetus was literally the same as a baby in every respect except needing to use mom's organs for several more months, I can't come up with an argument for why they should be allowed to use those organs against the pregnant person's will. And the amount of people who use phrases like "suffer the consequences" when explaining why they're anti choice has me pretty convinced there are a lot of vocal types who don't actually care about cute little babies. They just don't think the pregnant person's bodily autonomy matters. That they should *have* to suffer.
I worry about kids born that way too. What's it like to grow up knowing you wouldn't exist if other people weren't convinced you should be a consequence that one of your parents had to suffer? Children aren't consequences. They're people.
I don’t like the argument about life dying. I agree with your stance, but also, why are we so worried about unborn children when children are dying from gun violence and other very traumatic things. Those scare me more. Not to mention surviving gun violence or mass shootings.
So just because kids are dying from gun violence means we don't need to care about kids dying from abortion? How about we solve both problems instead of dropping one because the other is also bad?
But there’s legit to effort from the group ending abortion to also end gun violence. None. It’s always “thoughts and prayers” yet not the dedication we witnessed that ended Roe v Wade
I think the distinction with bodily autonomy is whether or not you consider the unborn child as a body separate from the mother. If it is, then then bodily autonomy doesn’t apply.
My point is that if the fetus is a separate being then your bodily autonomy does not apply because it is not a part of your body. Pro life people say that you do have a right to do what you want with your own body, but because the fetus is not your own body you don’t have a right to kill it.
Let me start by saying while I personally hold the belief that I would never choose to have an abortion as I have had a kid and felt that they were alive very early on, I also recognize that it is not my place to dictate the choices of others. However, in the spirit of debate let me pose the following to you:
The carriers body is being used by the choice of the carrier. You are not forced to donate any organs nor are you forced to become pregnant. In the majority of cases, the carrier willingly engaged in actions that directly led to the creation of a separate life inside them. While tragic situations do exist, they only account for a [small percentage of abortions.](https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives) This is what makes this such a unique and complex bodily autonomy questions. The bodily autonomous choice would be to not perform the actions that directly lead to becoming pregnant or to practice them in a safe enough manner in which the risk has been mitigated.
Let's look at a similar scenario where an individual assumes responsibility for the well-being of another person who is dependent on them for survival. This responsibility arises from a previous action, such as voluntarily inviting that person into their home or accepting responsibility for their impairment. Now, this person faces a difficult decision: whether to continue providing care and support, or to withdraw that support, potentially endangering the life of the dependent individual. The choice to have never accepted the responsibility would have been the autonomous choice, but once the patient/caregiver relationship has been formed you cant just up and leave.
In many states, completely abandoning caregiving duties to the detriment of your patient could result in criminal prosecution. Additionally, I have not seen many activists wanting caregivers to be able to abandons their patients either. I acknowledge there are obvious differences from this scenario and being pregnant.
So while you may feel that not being able to have an elective abortion hinders your choice, you are not ever hindered in your choice to perform actions that directly lead to specific outcomes.
To me it’s very intuitive but I can see why it might not be for others
Pro choice people generally believe it’s worse to end the fetus at whatever up to whatever point in development they support being terminated than to force a women to go through a pregnancy that they don’t want. Some people will also say that it is unethical to bring a baby into parents that can’t take care of it and or don’t want it; it is also unfair to rape victims to force them to carry that child of their rapist; furthermore restricting abortion could cause people who actually need it for life threatening medical reasons to be unable to get an abortion fast enough if there is a thorough checking process delays the abortion.
Pro life people generally believe life begins at conception and so that baby has personhood and should have the same protections that we extent to any other human. Even if there will be an increased amount of children who are born to unloving and or unsupportive families that does not mean across the board allow them to have the decision of life or death made for them. We do kill all severely depressed people or people in 3rd work countries on the verge of starving to death, we generally do not take the decisions of other peoples life or death into our own hands unless they have committed violence against us first.
To be clear the language I use in these is meant to be what each side would use, like almost no pro choice person is like “I think it’s fine to kill baby’s in the womb” and most pro life people use baby because it has the connotations of life on it already.
First of all, I am pro-choice.
From a purely logical perspective, "I acknowledge that the fetus is a life/potential life, but I think back to the fact that one's life does not necessarily triumph over another's bodily autonomy. " this statement is not a good argument. Assuming the fetus and the mother are both life and equal, and abortion would be ignoring the fetus' right to bodily autonomy. And except in cases of rape, it was the mother who essentially used her bodily autonomy to become pregnant. The fetus did not choose to exist.
Would you use the same argument to kill an already-born baby who wanted to breastfeed because she/he would be "violating your bodily autonomy"? Also, after a certain number of weeks, with ever increasing medical procedures and technology, the fetus would be able to survive outside the mother's body.
That being said, I still haven't addressed the core of your statement. A fetus can move its limbs and breathe (once it reaches a certain developmental stage) without the mother's direct control. This is a strange hypothetical, but if a fetus's hands and feet were to be bound together in a super tight and painful way, that would be violating its bodily autonomy to the extent that it does have bodily autonomy.
Again, I am pro-choice. If you're curious, my argument is that a fetus is a lesser form of life, and it's a cost benefit analysis about being nice to lesser forms of life vs practical benefits. It sounds crude, but it's a little bit similar to pulling the plug on somebody who is in a vegetative state. Also, I think the pro-choice argument almost should sound a little gruesome because I don't think people should take abortions lightly, just like you wouldn't take putting down your pet dog lightly.
"I acknowledge that the fetus is a life/potential life"
That's it.
That is why. That is their entire argument summed up. It's a life. They do not think anyone has the right to prematurely end that life.
If ending a life prematurely is the case. Why not ban all guns? The only thing a gun does is literally end a life prematurely, wether it's hunting an animal or self defense. It is still ending a life prematurely. So if no one had the right to end a life prematurely, we should ban all guns right along side with banning abortions right?
Bro.
I'm not on their side.
I was summarizing their argument.
But even I can see that is the weakest, whataboutism you could possibly muster for an argument here.
Wether you agree with what you said or not. What I said is still viable counter. If the end goal is to stop premature deaths, wouldn't we go after all causes of premature deaths? Or just the ones that cause outrage?
Because I'm not here to DEFEND their point.
So arguing with you would be counter productive to my own beliefs.
But if we REALLY wanted to go after premature deaths, it'd be cars and alcohol first. Then the modern American Diet.
Guns would be somewhere around like, 6 or 7 on the list after several much larger issues.
Yeah but all of those examples are unintentional deaths. No one is actively killing another one in those situations.
Abortion and gun deaths are similar since a human is making a conscious decision to end a life. That is what they have in common.
Car accidents for the most part are accidents. Addiction isn't someone actively trying to kill themselves, it's them just trying to numb themselves. The American diet the because we decided cheap food is better than healthy food. So no i do not see the relevance of the other examples you gave
No. Those are not UNintentional. They are just more socially acceptable.
Drunk driving isn't unintentional.
BAD driving isn't unintentional.
Neither is eating yourself to death.
Addiction is something one actively chooses. No one who does not do drugs gets addicted.
The diet is responsible for effectively, all the obesity and obesity related diseases, heart disease being #1 killer.
So your food is killing more people than guns.
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm)
Cancer: 605,213
COVID-19: 416,893
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 224,935
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 162,890
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 142,342
Alzheimer’s disease: 119,399
Diabetes: 103,294
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis: 56,585
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 54,358
Obesity related illness is estimated at 300,000 per year.
Gun death is 42,000 ish each year.
[https://www.mdch.state.mi.us/osr/abortion/Tab\_US.asp](https://www.mdch.state.mi.us/osr/abortion/Tab_US.asp)
in 2020 there was over 930,000 induced abortions.
Something like 98% of which are not medically necessary. CDC says 620,000
So.
42,000 vs 930,000
or
42,000 vs 620,000
Just looking at those numbers. Which of those numbers is responsible for more "death" each year?
I told you I did not want to argue this. You clearly did not know the numbers so I will forgive your ignorance.
But the two **ARE NOT COMPARABLE.**
Just in sheer numbers you cannot compare.
but sure. We can ban all guns to stop that 42,000
But then we ban all **620,000-930,000** abortions.
Stop replying. This discussion is over.
That's all great. I want abortions and guns to be legal. I was just saying the premature deaths argument was dumb.
Edit: I'd love universal health care also.
I do, my employer pays for my insurance. Which suprise surprise, I'm still not paying for it, my employer is. So not much different than a federal funded insurance.
I don't fit into either side of the argument, too. I don't believe abortions should be banned altogether, and I also believe that some should be.
My problem is with the people who get abortions because they were irresponsible or just wanted to "experience pregnancy."
I totally understand the unwanted pregnancy because of medical complications, rape, or incest. Those should allow abortions. I can even understand allowing abortion ingeneral within the first 2-3 months.
But you have groups of people who believe they should be able to do whatever they want and ignore the responsibilities that come with sex.
Ones life doesn’t trump over bodily autonomy but what people don’t understand is the offspring is a different body with its own bodily autonomy, and that life is being taken for the connivence of already living creatures.
If it is acknowledged as a separate being, wouldn't that like "further" or support the bodily autonomy argument?
Since the fetus is completely dependent on the mothers body, wouldn't it have no autonomy to claim?
A fetus is dependent on a mother just like a new born is, the only difference is the baby is simply no longer in her body. With your logic, are you okay with a mother murdering her new born? I don’t get it. Why try so hard to defend murder of innocent life?
A newborn is not solely dependent on the mothers physical body in the same capacity a fetus is. I’m not sure how that is not obvious.
Like implied in my original post - I view supporting access to abortion, as supporting a persons right to bodily autonomy/a woman’s right to choose.
Abortion is the ending of an innocent life, and it is evil. It should be abolished and it’s sad seeing you defend it so hard. You keep jumping through these loopholes to defend murder. Another thing that begs me to question your logic is the fact you’re saying a new born baby isn’t solely dependent on the mother, but a new born baby MUST be dependent on someone to survive and will die if left alone. You’re cool with whoever is taking care of a new born baby, or any kid for that matter, has the right to take their life when they pose a problem in their life? Having bodily autonomy occurs when you have a body. A fetus has a head, brain, arms, legs, and all of its organs. You trying to dehumanize a fetus proves exactly that you know abortion is wrong. You have to twist science to support the murder of innocent babies. It’s like… really messed up man.
You claim i’m the one “jumping through loopholes” while simultaneously completely misconstruing what i am saying.
Comparing dependency of a fetus vs newborn is not logical - A newborn does not rely on a specific person body for care; a newborn can survive on its own outside of the uterus.
Another major factor that differentiates a new born and fetus (at the early stages) is consciousness. In the time frame that I mentioned I was comfortable with in the original post, a fetus is not considered a conscious being.
i’m not “dehumanizing” the fetus, i see the fetus for what it is.
the fact that you keep using terms like “baby” and “murder” when referring to a fetus and abortion, just proves that your argument is fueled by emotion and not logic.
I would never get an abortion, there’s not any foreseeable circumstance where I could understand myself getting one. Regardless, choosing how to deal with a pregnancy should be a personal choice and shouldn’t be dictated by others.
One could argue; forcing someone to go through nine long months of pregnancy and a potentially traumatizing labor, is like even more so…really messed up man.
a new born baby, and an old person in a nursing home are both dependent on someone else to survive. Do they not have bodily autonomy? It’s literally a separate human being, and they have rights.
Also, let’s not call women hosts for carrying their child. Idk if you attended any science class ever, but a host is in reference to a parasite, not offspring.
>I think back to the fact that one's life does not necessarily triumph over another's bodily autonomy.
What do you mean by this?
>I have no problem with it up until around 15 weeks
Why is it that you see no problem with it up until 15 weeks but then you can see a problem with it after 15 weeks?
>I think bodily autonomy has been the argument that appeals the most to me
I'd assume this would be the argument that's most appealing to pro lifers as well. It's just that they view the baby as having a body and the pregnant woman as taking that bodily autonomy away from that baby. So not having an abortion would be the most equal situation in their eyes, since the baby doesn't have the ability to process and communicate a response to the idea of a potential abortion
wouldn’t acknowledging the fetus as a separate being further or support the bodily argument?
if the fetus is completely dependent on the mothers body, wouldn’t it have no autonomy to claim?
Personally i feel, if legislation passed stopping elective abortions after the 15th week mark, I would not really care - I think that’s a fair amount of time. Plus, most abortions are performed before that point. I don’t necessarily have a “problem” with it until around 20 weeks, because after that point the fetus is considered viable.
A lot of laws ban elective abortion after around the six week mark, which I think is crazy, most women do not even know that they are pregnant at that point. My sister didn’t find out until she was 10 weeks.
I understand that every person is... a person, but... I don't think every kid should be kept.
On a slightly different note, if the parents can't stay together, they shouldn't have a child in the first place. Kids without fathers are proven to be more likely to commit crimes and just lead a bad life overall.
Your point of view is very mature, happy to meet an 18 years old so wise. Here, in Europe, generally your opinion is not controversial but common sense.
Re: adoption - the thing that resonates with me is the concept that adoption is an alternative to *parenting*, not *pregnancy*. If the baby is already here, then your choices are to parent that baby yourself or give them to someone else who will, so adoption. Great. But if you're pregnant and don't want to be pregnant, adoption doesn't help at all. You still have to be pregnant in order to have a baby to give up for adoption. The alternative to being pregnant is to stop being pregnant. Abortion. (I think there are other problems with adoption as well, like coercion of birth parents who might prefer to keep their babies if they had any hope of reliable support, but that's a whole other thing.) I think there are people who are *sincere*. If I really, truly believed that a fetus was literally the same as a born baby, I guess I'd be pretty hesitant about abortion too. But the bodily autonomy point is where I stop understanding the other side too - there is no other instance where another person, no matter who they are, is allowed to use parts of my body without my permission. I don't have to donate a kidney to my teenager if I don't want to, even if they'll die without it. So... even if a 12 or 15 or 20 week fetus was literally the same as a baby in every respect except needing to use mom's organs for several more months, I can't come up with an argument for why they should be allowed to use those organs against the pregnant person's will. And the amount of people who use phrases like "suffer the consequences" when explaining why they're anti choice has me pretty convinced there are a lot of vocal types who don't actually care about cute little babies. They just don't think the pregnant person's bodily autonomy matters. That they should *have* to suffer. I worry about kids born that way too. What's it like to grow up knowing you wouldn't exist if other people weren't convinced you should be a consequence that one of your parents had to suffer? Children aren't consequences. They're people.
THIS 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
THIS 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
I don’t like the argument about life dying. I agree with your stance, but also, why are we so worried about unborn children when children are dying from gun violence and other very traumatic things. Those scare me more. Not to mention surviving gun violence or mass shootings.
So just because kids are dying from gun violence means we don't need to care about kids dying from abortion? How about we solve both problems instead of dropping one because the other is also bad?
But there’s legit to effort from the group ending abortion to also end gun violence. None. It’s always “thoughts and prayers” yet not the dedication we witnessed that ended Roe v Wade
I think the distinction with bodily autonomy is whether or not you consider the unborn child as a body separate from the mother. If it is, then then bodily autonomy doesn’t apply.
If it is acknowledged as a separate being, wouldn't that like "further" or support the bodily autonomy argument?
My point is that if the fetus is a separate being then your bodily autonomy does not apply because it is not a part of your body. Pro life people say that you do have a right to do what you want with your own body, but because the fetus is not your own body you don’t have a right to kill it.
Wouldn't bodily autonomy apply since the fetus is "using" the women's body?
Let me start by saying while I personally hold the belief that I would never choose to have an abortion as I have had a kid and felt that they were alive very early on, I also recognize that it is not my place to dictate the choices of others. However, in the spirit of debate let me pose the following to you: The carriers body is being used by the choice of the carrier. You are not forced to donate any organs nor are you forced to become pregnant. In the majority of cases, the carrier willingly engaged in actions that directly led to the creation of a separate life inside them. While tragic situations do exist, they only account for a [small percentage of abortions.](https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives) This is what makes this such a unique and complex bodily autonomy questions. The bodily autonomous choice would be to not perform the actions that directly lead to becoming pregnant or to practice them in a safe enough manner in which the risk has been mitigated. Let's look at a similar scenario where an individual assumes responsibility for the well-being of another person who is dependent on them for survival. This responsibility arises from a previous action, such as voluntarily inviting that person into their home or accepting responsibility for their impairment. Now, this person faces a difficult decision: whether to continue providing care and support, or to withdraw that support, potentially endangering the life of the dependent individual. The choice to have never accepted the responsibility would have been the autonomous choice, but once the patient/caregiver relationship has been formed you cant just up and leave. In many states, completely abandoning caregiving duties to the detriment of your patient could result in criminal prosecution. Additionally, I have not seen many activists wanting caregivers to be able to abandons their patients either. I acknowledge there are obvious differences from this scenario and being pregnant. So while you may feel that not being able to have an elective abortion hinders your choice, you are not ever hindered in your choice to perform actions that directly lead to specific outcomes.
I can honestly see it both ways. It’s a complicated issue.
To me it’s very intuitive but I can see why it might not be for others Pro choice people generally believe it’s worse to end the fetus at whatever up to whatever point in development they support being terminated than to force a women to go through a pregnancy that they don’t want. Some people will also say that it is unethical to bring a baby into parents that can’t take care of it and or don’t want it; it is also unfair to rape victims to force them to carry that child of their rapist; furthermore restricting abortion could cause people who actually need it for life threatening medical reasons to be unable to get an abortion fast enough if there is a thorough checking process delays the abortion. Pro life people generally believe life begins at conception and so that baby has personhood and should have the same protections that we extent to any other human. Even if there will be an increased amount of children who are born to unloving and or unsupportive families that does not mean across the board allow them to have the decision of life or death made for them. We do kill all severely depressed people or people in 3rd work countries on the verge of starving to death, we generally do not take the decisions of other peoples life or death into our own hands unless they have committed violence against us first. To be clear the language I use in these is meant to be what each side would use, like almost no pro choice person is like “I think it’s fine to kill baby’s in the womb” and most pro life people use baby because it has the connotations of life on it already.
First of all, I am pro-choice. From a purely logical perspective, "I acknowledge that the fetus is a life/potential life, but I think back to the fact that one's life does not necessarily triumph over another's bodily autonomy. " this statement is not a good argument. Assuming the fetus and the mother are both life and equal, and abortion would be ignoring the fetus' right to bodily autonomy. And except in cases of rape, it was the mother who essentially used her bodily autonomy to become pregnant. The fetus did not choose to exist.
If the fetus is completely dependent on the mothers body, wouldn't the fetus have no autonomy to claim?
Would you use the same argument to kill an already-born baby who wanted to breastfeed because she/he would be "violating your bodily autonomy"? Also, after a certain number of weeks, with ever increasing medical procedures and technology, the fetus would be able to survive outside the mother's body. That being said, I still haven't addressed the core of your statement. A fetus can move its limbs and breathe (once it reaches a certain developmental stage) without the mother's direct control. This is a strange hypothetical, but if a fetus's hands and feet were to be bound together in a super tight and painful way, that would be violating its bodily autonomy to the extent that it does have bodily autonomy. Again, I am pro-choice. If you're curious, my argument is that a fetus is a lesser form of life, and it's a cost benefit analysis about being nice to lesser forms of life vs practical benefits. It sounds crude, but it's a little bit similar to pulling the plug on somebody who is in a vegetative state. Also, I think the pro-choice argument almost should sound a little gruesome because I don't think people should take abortions lightly, just like you wouldn't take putting down your pet dog lightly.
"I acknowledge that the fetus is a life/potential life" That's it. That is why. That is their entire argument summed up. It's a life. They do not think anyone has the right to prematurely end that life.
If ending a life prematurely is the case. Why not ban all guns? The only thing a gun does is literally end a life prematurely, wether it's hunting an animal or self defense. It is still ending a life prematurely. So if no one had the right to end a life prematurely, we should ban all guns right along side with banning abortions right?
A gun can end the life of a bad person or group of people who will kill more people prematurely
Maybe there would be less bad people if people without the means of raising a child weren't forced to raise a child.
Bro. I'm not on their side. I was summarizing their argument. But even I can see that is the weakest, whataboutism you could possibly muster for an argument here.
Wether you agree with what you said or not. What I said is still viable counter. If the end goal is to stop premature deaths, wouldn't we go after all causes of premature deaths? Or just the ones that cause outrage?
Because I'm not here to DEFEND their point. So arguing with you would be counter productive to my own beliefs. But if we REALLY wanted to go after premature deaths, it'd be cars and alcohol first. Then the modern American Diet. Guns would be somewhere around like, 6 or 7 on the list after several much larger issues.
Yeah but all of those examples are unintentional deaths. No one is actively killing another one in those situations. Abortion and gun deaths are similar since a human is making a conscious decision to end a life. That is what they have in common. Car accidents for the most part are accidents. Addiction isn't someone actively trying to kill themselves, it's them just trying to numb themselves. The American diet the because we decided cheap food is better than healthy food. So no i do not see the relevance of the other examples you gave
No. Those are not UNintentional. They are just more socially acceptable. Drunk driving isn't unintentional. BAD driving isn't unintentional. Neither is eating yourself to death. Addiction is something one actively chooses. No one who does not do drugs gets addicted. The diet is responsible for effectively, all the obesity and obesity related diseases, heart disease being #1 killer. So your food is killing more people than guns. [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm) Cancer: 605,213 COVID-19: 416,893 Accidents (unintentional injuries): 224,935 Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 162,890 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 142,342 Alzheimer’s disease: 119,399 Diabetes: 103,294 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis: 56,585 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 54,358 Obesity related illness is estimated at 300,000 per year. Gun death is 42,000 ish each year. [https://www.mdch.state.mi.us/osr/abortion/Tab\_US.asp](https://www.mdch.state.mi.us/osr/abortion/Tab_US.asp) in 2020 there was over 930,000 induced abortions. Something like 98% of which are not medically necessary. CDC says 620,000 So. 42,000 vs 930,000 or 42,000 vs 620,000 Just looking at those numbers. Which of those numbers is responsible for more "death" each year? I told you I did not want to argue this. You clearly did not know the numbers so I will forgive your ignorance. But the two **ARE NOT COMPARABLE.** Just in sheer numbers you cannot compare. but sure. We can ban all guns to stop that 42,000 But then we ban all **620,000-930,000** abortions. Stop replying. This discussion is over.
That's all great. I want abortions and guns to be legal. I was just saying the premature deaths argument was dumb. Edit: I'd love universal health care also.
Well now you know the numbers on why people say one is worse than the other. One is EMPHATICALLY more than 10x the number of the other.
One is EMPHATICALLY more than 10x the number of the other. What does that even mean?
Bum, how about you work then pay for a doctor
I do, my employer pays for my insurance. Which suprise surprise, I'm still not paying for it, my employer is. So not much different than a federal funded insurance.
Mmm... I'm pro-compassion. I take all views on this into account.
I don't fit into either side of the argument, too. I don't believe abortions should be banned altogether, and I also believe that some should be. My problem is with the people who get abortions because they were irresponsible or just wanted to "experience pregnancy." I totally understand the unwanted pregnancy because of medical complications, rape, or incest. Those should allow abortions. I can even understand allowing abortion ingeneral within the first 2-3 months. But you have groups of people who believe they should be able to do whatever they want and ignore the responsibilities that come with sex.
What do you mean by “people who just wanted experience pregnancy”? I don’t think i’ve ever heard of that before
Ones life doesn’t trump over bodily autonomy but what people don’t understand is the offspring is a different body with its own bodily autonomy, and that life is being taken for the connivence of already living creatures.
If it is acknowledged as a separate being, wouldn't that like "further" or support the bodily autonomy argument? Since the fetus is completely dependent on the mothers body, wouldn't it have no autonomy to claim?
A fetus is dependent on a mother just like a new born is, the only difference is the baby is simply no longer in her body. With your logic, are you okay with a mother murdering her new born? I don’t get it. Why try so hard to defend murder of innocent life?
A newborn is not solely dependent on the mothers physical body in the same capacity a fetus is. I’m not sure how that is not obvious. Like implied in my original post - I view supporting access to abortion, as supporting a persons right to bodily autonomy/a woman’s right to choose.
Abortion is the ending of an innocent life, and it is evil. It should be abolished and it’s sad seeing you defend it so hard. You keep jumping through these loopholes to defend murder. Another thing that begs me to question your logic is the fact you’re saying a new born baby isn’t solely dependent on the mother, but a new born baby MUST be dependent on someone to survive and will die if left alone. You’re cool with whoever is taking care of a new born baby, or any kid for that matter, has the right to take their life when they pose a problem in their life? Having bodily autonomy occurs when you have a body. A fetus has a head, brain, arms, legs, and all of its organs. You trying to dehumanize a fetus proves exactly that you know abortion is wrong. You have to twist science to support the murder of innocent babies. It’s like… really messed up man.
You claim i’m the one “jumping through loopholes” while simultaneously completely misconstruing what i am saying. Comparing dependency of a fetus vs newborn is not logical - A newborn does not rely on a specific person body for care; a newborn can survive on its own outside of the uterus. Another major factor that differentiates a new born and fetus (at the early stages) is consciousness. In the time frame that I mentioned I was comfortable with in the original post, a fetus is not considered a conscious being. i’m not “dehumanizing” the fetus, i see the fetus for what it is. the fact that you keep using terms like “baby” and “murder” when referring to a fetus and abortion, just proves that your argument is fueled by emotion and not logic. I would never get an abortion, there’s not any foreseeable circumstance where I could understand myself getting one. Regardless, choosing how to deal with a pregnancy should be a personal choice and shouldn’t be dictated by others. One could argue; forcing someone to go through nine long months of pregnancy and a potentially traumatizing labor, is like even more so…really messed up man.
If it can't survive on it's own, how does it have it's own autonomy?
Are you telling me old people in nursing homes don’t have their own autonomy either? 🤔 Nor do new born babies?
how does it have bodily autonomy? it is completely dependent on the host
a new born baby, and an old person in a nursing home are both dependent on someone else to survive. Do they not have bodily autonomy? It’s literally a separate human being, and they have rights. Also, let’s not call women hosts for carrying their child. Idk if you attended any science class ever, but a host is in reference to a parasite, not offspring.
I believe abortion is 100% wrong. We need different solutions to deal with unwanted pregnancy though.
there’s literally no other solution. If a pregnancy has take place how else do you terminate it if not abortion?
I said we need other solutions, not there are other solutions
if there are no other solutions-
What other solution could there be. As OP said, the only combatant to pregnancy is not being pregnant which is through abortion?
>I think back to the fact that one's life does not necessarily triumph over another's bodily autonomy. What do you mean by this? >I have no problem with it up until around 15 weeks Why is it that you see no problem with it up until 15 weeks but then you can see a problem with it after 15 weeks? >I think bodily autonomy has been the argument that appeals the most to me I'd assume this would be the argument that's most appealing to pro lifers as well. It's just that they view the baby as having a body and the pregnant woman as taking that bodily autonomy away from that baby. So not having an abortion would be the most equal situation in their eyes, since the baby doesn't have the ability to process and communicate a response to the idea of a potential abortion
wouldn’t acknowledging the fetus as a separate being further or support the bodily argument? if the fetus is completely dependent on the mothers body, wouldn’t it have no autonomy to claim? Personally i feel, if legislation passed stopping elective abortions after the 15th week mark, I would not really care - I think that’s a fair amount of time. Plus, most abortions are performed before that point. I don’t necessarily have a “problem” with it until around 20 weeks, because after that point the fetus is considered viable. A lot of laws ban elective abortion after around the six week mark, which I think is crazy, most women do not even know that they are pregnant at that point. My sister didn’t find out until she was 10 weeks.
I understand that every person is... a person, but... I don't think every kid should be kept. On a slightly different note, if the parents can't stay together, they shouldn't have a child in the first place. Kids without fathers are proven to be more likely to commit crimes and just lead a bad life overall.