Every pro-lifer always, without fail, gets it wrong on abortion.

Author: TWS1405
Abortion
pro-life
pro-choice
misnomer

Posts

Total: 313
#181
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@TWS1405
As such, there is NO child(ren) within the womb. None. That is just a FACT.
Sigh... Here we go...

I shall be using a biology dictionary and a medical dictionary since this is the nature of what we are discussing.

Offspring: New organisms produced by a living thing. [1]

As per the biology dictionary above on the entry for humans:

"The zygote that forms from fertilization divides mitotically and lodges in the uterus to develop into an embryo. The human embryo undergoes the following major embryonic stages: blastula » gastrula » neurula. The embryonic phase covers the first eight weeks of gestation. By the ninth week, the embryo develops into a fetus." [2]

An embryo is specifically called human by biologists for one simple reason, all humans begin their life process as an embryo. Think of it like being a tadpole before becoming a frog. We don't claim the tadpole isn't a frog, because it is one, just not a fully-developed frog. So a human embryo is still a human, we just call it a fetus or an embryo.

So an embryo also counts as an offspring, because the embryo is a new organism produced by a living thing. Therefore, embryos are both human offspring and also the first stage of life for a human.

This is why biologists state that human life begins at conception, even pro-abortion biologists will generally admit this fact.

However, you may argue that it is a cell. Well, human beings are simply collections of cells. This is evidenced from the entry for zygote from the same biology dictionary:

"The cells that sprung from the zygote will essentially have the same genetic composition throughout the body but eventually will acquire a special role or a distinct function as they are organized into tissues, organs, and systems." [3]

So why does it matter how the cells are arranged at all? I'm both cases it is merely cells. The tadpole and frog are both collections of cells. We do not claim a tadpole isn't a frog because it has fewer cells or a different structure. That is absurdity.

So the next question is why are humans different from tadpoles? This is the question of the soul. And there is no reason to believe that fetuses lack a soul. There is zero scientific justification for this. We also do not see a soul magically appear the second a baby is born. It comes out of the womb moving and even crying in some cases. This is clear evidence that fetuses have a soul.

So my question to you is why do you choose to ignore biological evidence? Why do you choose to ignore the cycle of life, the offspring created by us humans as human offspring, and choose to shut your ears to the biological facts that a baby is a baby even when it is an embryo?

SOURCES:
#182
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Public-Choice
Because we fucking hate you and want to murder babies for fun. At least until they're able to walk and then they're too much work to catch and kill. 
Topic's author
#183
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Public-Choice
Blah blah blah. 

It’s all taken out of context and filtered through an emotive lense. 

Facts don’t care about your feelings. 

I’m done for tonight. On iPhone now. I do t like writing lengthy retorts with cited sources on the phone. So, having said that, when I wake Up and have a cup of Java in hand, I’ll reply to this comment of yours. As I will why others who post this evening. Until then…
#184
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Public-Choice
Can you share your logic as to why the human in my uterus is entitled to its use?
I don't believe a fetus and a born person are equal, but you seem to, so let's assume that's true. 

An 80 year old is not legally or morally entitled to use of my uterus.
An 8 year old is not legally or morally entitled to use of my uterus. 
Why should an 8 week old fetus be legally and morally entitled to the use of my uterus?

Clearly, the answer can't be "because it needs it to survive". People in need of organ donations die every day while compatible donors go about their lives without a care in the world, yet no one things we should involuntarily harvest organs from the healthy.

Clearly, the answer can't be "because the mother put it there" when women can have all the sex they want without a man orgasming and no baby will develop. 

Clearly, the answer can't be "because the baby is human" when we've established through your own words that the baby and mother are equally human. 

So, assuming the full humanity of the baby, how does that change the fact that the mother has bodily autonomy and the baby has no right to her unconsenting body?
#185
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Uragirimono
I'd say the answer is the same as why a child is entitled to care by their parent, if, for the sake of 'argument, you are agreeing to the theoretical of a fetus and a born person.

A person's body belongs to them, yet they must use that body to work and gain money, to change diapers, to buy clothing,
For their child,
Work can be dangerous, unpleasant.

. . .

It's not that Pro Life people don't value autonomy,
Sliding scale perhaps,
Influenced by other items people value.
#186
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
I can agree to a sliding scale, but there comes a time when we're speaking from two different scales completely.  

I'd say the answer is the same as why a child is entitled to care by their parent
We can agree that a child is entitled to the care of a parent, but there are multiple societally-accepted (meaning legal and standardized, not necessarily universally cheered for) ways for parents to step away from their responsibilities to a child. A child can be put up for adoption, an individual parent can sign their rights away and never see the child again, a parent can pay someone else to tend to certain needs of the child they don't want to do. 

If a parent caring for a born child is completely equal to a pregnant person giving the unborn life, then what are the societally-accepted options for stepping away from the responsibilities of pregnancy? 

A person's body belongs to them, yet they must use that body to work and gain money, to change diapers, to buy clothing,
You have choice in when, how, and where to work, change diapers, or buy clothing. What is my choice regarding pregnancy if I can't step away from pregnancy? I am literally trapped for 9 months. 

It's not that Pro Life people don't value autonomy
This thread is convincing me Pro-Life people don't understand the meaning of bodily autonomy. 

Do you really think having a job in order to make money for your children is 100% equivalent to your child getting their oxygen from your lungs? Do you really think having to use your arms to make dinner for your child is the same as your heart pumping blood for your child? Do you really think going clothing shopping for your child is the same as giving up your bladder continence, your sight, your oral health, developing diabetes, or ripping from vagina to butthole for your child? 

Raising born children takes sacrifice, no doubt. But it requires actions, not the literal use of one's body to sustain life. If, for some reason, a parent of a born child can't meet all its needs, other people can step in and help. No one can step in and help when the child is in utero. It is completely, without exception, dependent on the mother it's inside of. No parent is responsible for all the needs of their child once they're born, and we don't expect them to be. That's why we have doctors, teachers, coaches, friends, grandparents, and a whole host of other roles to help parents raise their child. But absolutely no one can breathe for the child in utero except the mother. Absolutely no one can supply the child in utero with blood and nutrients except the mother. Absolutely no one can give the child in utero what it needs to grow into an autonomous person,

That's the point of the bodily autonomy argument. A 2 year old has autonomy because, though it has needs, those needs can be meet by anyone, and the 2 year old's body will function regardless of who meets those needs. A 8 week old fetus does not have bodily autonomy because its body will not function without the mother. 

Why then, do we force women who do not want to give life to someone using their very blood, lungs, and oxygen to do what no one else can do -- carry their pregnancy?
#187
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@TWS1405
I'll accept your insults and lack of evidence and reason as a resignation.
#188
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Uragirimono
Fair point,
I'd agree that a parent caring for a born child is not 'exactly the same as a pregnant person giving the unborn life,
But I 'do think the two situations similar.

It 'is a problem that once one has an unborn in them,
The unborn is 'stuck to them, so to speak.

Not always 'so easy to abandon one's child safely,
Recall the China and Greece examples in #61.

In my view the way to avoid having responsibility, would be in not getting pregnant,
Though sometimes situations come to people despite their will.

. . .

Assuming they have the options,
People can choose how they work,
People can choose how to carry their pregnancy,
There are positive and negative ways.

. . .

Situations compared are not 100% the same, but they are similar,
Ogres are not 100% like onions, but they do have layers.

If One is working, exerting myself at work, One is breathing harder than they would have breathed 'not working,
Whether pregnancy or work, One's lungs work,
One's blood pumps,
Some jobs kill people, stress, fishing boats that sink, mines that bury, heavy loads that break backs.

Is One's body and soul 'not given to One's children?
Stress mental, physical.

. . .

Am I confusing autonomy with freedom?

Not a gotcha question,
I seem to be confused at your use of the word autonomy.

. . .

A parent has a duty to their children, in my view,
A mother to their child, born or unborn,

A 2 year old can survive separated from their mother, I'd agree,
While a fetus cannot.

I don't understand what that has to do with autonomy though?

Said fact might be 'why parents are 'able abandon their children to other people.

. . .

I would talk more, but I work in two hours, need to get some sleep, even a nap of two hours is something.
Tomorow then.
#189
CoolApe
CoolApe's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 87
0
1
6
CoolApe's avatar
CoolApe
0
1
6
-->
@TWS1405
OP
None of them (pro-lifers) have the requisite intellect to grasp the simple fact that potentiality ≠ actuality. Never has. Never will. 

At conception the very (very) basic biological criterion for cellular “life” is met. That cellular life (ie, zygote) ≠ [a] human being. Neither does a blastocyst, embryo, or an unviable fetus. That’s just a scientific fact of human physiology and biology. 

The ONLY stage of gestational development where the fetus can be equates to that of [a] human being is the point of fetal viability. It is at this point of development within the womb that the viable fetus can survive outside the womb without further gestational development. With ir without medical intervention. 

To call a zygote, blastocyst, embryo and unviable fetus the emotively charged term, “baby,” is an implicit misnomer. It’s factually inaccurate on all levels. 
I think terminology is important here.  The point of fertilization meets the criterion for cellular life, but calling it cellular life muddies the waters. I am cellular life and a malignant tumor is cellular life. There is a vast range of cellular life that exists. While the blank statement "a fertilized egg is cellular life" is a fact, we can infer that a fertilized is the beginning of human being. If say no its not, I ask you what is the "cellular life" of a fertilized ovum. It can't be some kind of living thing. It's identifiable and we know what it is. If it's not the beginning of a human being's existence, then I'd like to know what is.

While I think a human being is used more as biological term, I don't think the term actually implies personhood. For the sake of argument,  I will agree with the notion that a human being in development isn't always a person. However, we now have the dilemma of drawing a line when a human becomes a person. I'm inclined not to make assumptions about when this happens, but I'll look at the game that others play.

Personhood begins at viability. The point of viability is not set in stone. Aforementioned, the viability of a birth can be assisted medically or not. Many births, especially premature births, require medical assistance. This means many births de facto are not viable, yet some want suggest that we should set the point of viability near 20-24 weeks. I think many people wouldn't like it if someone suggested that their unviable baby that died 10 minutes after birth was not a person. A good number of births in this range require continuous medical assistance. Besides that, we have had recent medical advances that have pushed back the point of viability.

There is the possibility of medical advances pushing back the point of viability even farther. Besides shedding more doubt on the moment of viability, it begs the question why should personhood be given to someone born and not to a pre-birth any points before. 

The problem leads us into a metaphysical question. What is it to be a person? How is a thing before its birth so different that it not the same thing after its birth?

I am not inclined to think an arbitrary point of viability tells us anything about personhood when I don't have explanation why a born person is any different than a pre-born.





#190
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Lemming
@CoolApe
A pre-born at 8 months and 29 days is obviously different to a 28-day embryo.

And then there is evolved social and intellectual waffle, often based upon a peculiar belief in the super-natural.

And then we shoot each other gloriously on the battlefield and adorn our chests with medals and pray in thanks to our chosen super-natural peculiarity.

Humans are brilliant.
#191
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Uragirimono
Well, the child didn't get there by accident did it?

I am a huge proponent of contract law. When you know the risks involved going in, and you choose to accept those risks, then you must live with the risks you accepted.

To me, terminating a pregnancy is no different than killing a newborn or a 2-year-old or your parents if they require assisted living. You don't just murder people because they get in your way, ESPECIALLY if you already agreed to the risks involved (like when having any form of sex).

So, to use an analogy, if you agree to love your husband and marry them, and you agree to love them in sickness and in health, and they become completely immobile, then you bear the responsibility to take care of them until they can take care of themselves, since that is the contract you signed. Nobody would seriously consider killing their husband as an option. The simple reality is that you chose a contract and you must live it out unless the other party also consents to a divorce or is abusive to you or cheats or does anything that breaks the contract.

So in the case of a baby in the womb. You are an adult. You know how sex works. You know the risks going in, and have agreed to them. Now it is up to you and your partner to live up to their responsibilities as two consenting adults who knew exactly what they were doing. It is a simple contract. All forms of sex where the penis enters the vagina carry with them a chance of pregnancy. It may be extremely slight or very probable, but either way there is still a risk and therefore consenting adults know this and accept it. So when the baby comes as a result of those actions, then it has every right to be there, since both parties accepted the risks. They willingly participated in the act knowing the consequences involved.

Also, to equate sex with organ donation is a major fallacy. In one instance, you engage in an act that CREATES a dependent human being. In the other, it is largely someone else's actions that cause them to be in a state where they are dependent. These are two completely different cases. In one YOU are the cause, in another THEY are.

FWIW, I also believe whomever you had sex with to create the child is contractually bound to be a husband, since it is his child. This isn't just on the woman. 

Now, if an expectant mother finds a suitable person who would be willing to care for the child once it is born, that is perfectly fine. But let's not kid ourselves and pretend the baby in utero has the same option for survival and call the two instances the same. Technology is not advanced enough to carry a baby to term and allow proper development of the baby. So until birth, pregnancy is the only option for the fetus. But, once again, CONSENTING adults know this and CONSENT to it as a risk.

But, and this is really a major axe to grind I have with many, though not all, abortionists, it is appalling how the conversation completely dehumanizes babies and calls them fetuses and risks and unwanted.

These are the very same people who would never dare say this about the Jews in Germany during the Holocaust, but here they are applying the same logic the German government did.

Germany owned the country. The country was basically a uterus for the citizens of Germany. And the government decided to abort Jews, even though they already accepted Jews, gave them residence, and consented to their living in Germany. Globally this was, and is rightly considered today by most, an outrage and affront to Jewish rights. If Jewish people had a right to be there, because they had a contract with Germany saying they could live there, then murdering them is a gross violation of those rights.

Abortion is no different. A baby has every right to be there. The contract was signed when the penis entered the vagina. The risks were clearly delineated and accepted, just like with the Jews in Germany. So to now double back and call it a non-human, treat it with malaise, and say it has no right to live there simply because it is an inconvenience to you is completely wrong, violates the contract, and is fearfully inhumane.

In both cases, the parties involved accepted the third party through a contract. Germany accepted Jewish people via immigration and two consenting adults accepted a child as a risk to their actions. In both cases the third party was accepted. So doubling back and asking what right a fetus has is basically like asking what right the Jews had. In both instances they have every right to be there, since both contracts involved accepting residency as an outcome.

I am not saying you actually believe these things because I don't know what your actual abortion stance is. I am mainly responding to your comment.
#192
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405
@Public-Choice
We’re not talking about when a fetus becomes a human being, we’re talking about when it becomes a person. That has almost nothing to do with biology.
Is this your way of delineating from a biological argument to a legal one?
No, it’s my way of delineating from what matters to what doesn’t.

Biology is about chemical compounds, personhood is about what makes a person an individual. Chemical compounds is not the reason we value life.

Do I really need to go into any further detail?
#193
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Public-Choice
This is the question of the soul. And there is no reason to believe that fetuses lack a soul. There is zero scientific justification for this.
There is also zero scientific justification for the assertion that souls exist.
#194
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Biology is about chemical compounds
Biology is the study of life. Chemistry is about chemical compounds.

There is also zero scientific justification for the assertion that souls exist.
Not true:





There is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest there is a soul.
#195
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Public-Choice
I am a huge proponent of contract law. When you know the risks involved going in, and you choose to accept those risks, then you must live with the risks you accepted.

So you support denying those in car wrecks treatment for their injuries (as they made a contract when they started to drive knowing a wreck was a risk), you support denying smokers who develop lung cancer medical treatment (as they made a contract when they started to smoke knowing cancer was a risk), and you support denying soldiers PTSD treatment (as they made a contract when they signed up with the military knowing medical trauma is to be expected).

No other decision is our society comes with "Well you knew the risk, so now you're stuck this way" except pregnancy. We do not deny medical care to anyone for any decision except this supposed decision to get pregnant. What makes that and that alone our exception?

 Nobody would seriously consider killing their husband as an option. 
No, but she would be completely legally able to divorce him and give his medical care to someone else. If she can step away from a husband she no longer wants, why can't she step away from a pregnancy she no longer wants?

Also, to equate sex with organ donation is a major fallacy.
I am not equating the action of having sex to organ donation. I am equating the use of my uterus, blood, bones, lungs, and brain to sustain another life (pregnancy) to organ donation.

This isn't just on the woman. 
The biological fact of pregnancy is 100% on the woman. I am not speaking of the parenthood responsibility that begin 9 months after the child is born. I am speaking of who will supply to child with oxygen, blood, and nutrients in the 9 months after sex. No man, no matter how supportive, can assist with that.


Now, if an expectant mother finds a suitable person who would be willing to care for the child once it is born, that is perfectly fine.
Adoption is not a solution to pregnancy. It is a solution to parenthood.

it is appalling how the conversation completely dehumanizes babies and calls them fetuses and risks and unwanted.
I've said multiple times that fetuses are human -- that is the opposite of dehumanizing. Tell me how one human is entitled to the use of another's organs without their consent in such a way that they cannot step away from. Maybe give me an example other than pregnancy. And fetuses can be risks, depending on the pregnancy. Some are unwanted. These are facts. Sad facts, but facts nonetheless.

And the government decided to abort Jews, even though they already accepted Jews, gave them residence, and consented to their living in Germany. 
Jews support abortion religiously, believing the life and health of the mother to be more important than that of the baby if/when one has to be prioritized over the other. This is a tone deaf exaggeration.
#196
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Uragirimono
So you support denying those in car wrecks treatment for their injuries (as they made a contract when they started to drive knowing a wreck was a risk), you support denying smokers who develop lung cancer medical treatment (as they made a contract when they started to smoke knowing cancer was a risk), and you support denying soldiers PTSD treatment (as they made a contract when they signed up with the military knowing medical trauma is to be expected).
These are blatant straw mans. Nothing I stated says we should refuse care to people. Furthermore, many people willingly volunteer to take care of people at hospitals and are paid by the state government and federal government to take care of these people.

Moreover, the hospitals accept the people voluntarily and care for them voluntarily. They willingly accept the risks associated with caring for them. That is, everyone involved willingly signs a contract to take care of these people. Nothing is coerced. This is how the system should work.

A baby is the same. You volunteered and signed the contract to take care of it should the situation arise. Just like the hospitals sign the contract to take care of the other people.
#197
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Public-Choice
A baby is the same. You volunteered and signed the contract to take care of it should the situation arise. Just like the hospitals sign the contract to take care of the other people.

Just like all of your other examples, hospitals can change their mind -- they can deny someone service even if they already promised it. Individual employees can also quit and find new jobs. Contracts can be nullified. If they can't, they're prison sentences. 

So if a hospital worker can consent to working and then say "never mind, I want to stop", how can a pregnant person who consented to being pregnant say "never mind I want to stop"?

Can you name another instance where a person, once they agree to something, is not legally allowed to change their mind?
#198
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Uragirimono
hospitals can change their mind
They shouldn't be allowed to be. Legality does not equal morality. But in the gross majority of cases in the western world, they are not allowed to if it is life threatening.

Individual employees can also quit and find new jobs.
Only because contracts are written with severance clauses in them either by a government law or through the contract itself.

So if a hospital worker can consent to working and then say "never mind, I want to stop", how can a pregnant person who consented to being pregnant say "never mind I want to stop"?
I'd argue that if it will murder the person they are caring for, and nobody can replace them, then they should not if they are contracted to do so. You can't just murder people. They have a right to life.
#199
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Likely many people Pro Life and Pro Choice, would be willing to meet in the middle of some situations,
I am unsure how many extremists exist though, percentagewise,
Who refer to an unborn 'moments from birth as an unperson fetus, Choice,
or would refuse an abortion even when the unborn has already died and the mother is in danger, Life.

Well, even the supernatural I don't need to waffle and be confused,
I just need not 'know the truth, facts, values.

I'd agree humans are often contradictory in their actions, ideas.
#200
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Public-Choice
Lol, okay if you think people shouldn't be able to legally quit their jobs we're going to be at an impasse. You clearly don't think people should be able to make decisions for themselves, so you go have fun with that kind of sad life. 
#201
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TWS1405
Being human in origin does not make [a] human being.

A human liver cell (take any organ for that matter/example), when analyzed, is human in origin, contains DNA identifying it as human and the genetic makeup allowing one to determine the kind of tissue that it is (i.e., what organ it is) within the human organism (and whether it is male or female). That cell =/= [a] human being. 


Potentiality =/= Actuality

Never has. Never will. 
A human is still a human even if it has less an organ or limb.

#202
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
-->
@Lemming
First, I'd like to thank you for your comment. You're the only pro-life leaning person on this thread that hasn't resorted to calling me names or coming up with ridiculous scenarios or making demonstrably false statements to prove their points. I appreciate your willingness for calm, rational discussion even if we continue to disagree. 

Not a gotcha question,
I seem to be confused at your use of the word autonomy.
I think people are misunderstanding the definitions of consent and bodily autonomy, so let's explore them. 

To consent means "to give permission for something to happen". The common argument from pro-lifers is consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, so let's look at what that means. When I give consent to sex, I am giving permission to my sexual partner to do sexual things with me. It's not an irrevocable consent, as I can take my permission away for whatever reason I want, whenever I want. Consent must be able to be revoked, or it can't be given freely. 

But who am I giving permission to when it comes to pregnancy? Surely not my sexual partner, that's simple misogyny. To the non-existent child? Can one give permission to someone who does not exist? Are there a line of baby souls somewhere in the universe that I'm saying yes to as I undress for sex? If there exists no one to give permission to, then I have not given permission. Consent must have an addressee. 

Second, it's important to realize that we can't consent to natural processes. I can't give my stomach permission to digest or not to digest. I can't give permission for my kidney to filter my blood. I can't give my hair permission to grow. So how then am I giving permission for my ovary to release an egg? Sex is part of the baby making equation, and a part I can consent to. But I could have sex nonstop and never get pregnant if my ovaries didn't release an egg. So, can I ever truly consent to pregnancy when it requires a natural process totally outside of my control?

As said above, consent is not consent if it cannot be revoked. Even if we want to argue that I 100% consent to pregnancy by having sex, if I cannot choose to walk away from it, then it's a prison, not something I consented to. Consent is ongoing and can be revoked at any time. If it cannot be revoked, it is not consent. I think we get so caught up in the value of babies and the building of legacies and such that we fail to realize those babies and legacies should never come at the cost of imprisonment. Babies are great, legacies are great, but we need to shape the world in such a way that women want to be pregnant. We do a dishonor to ourselves and our own species by thinking reproduction without choice is a good thing. 

For bodily autonomy, I think the mistake you're personally making it dropping the "bodily" part. Bodily autonomy is "is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies." It deals directly with the physical body. It's the idea behind "I own myself, and I'll do with myself as I desire." It is not "I need nothing from no one." The common pro-life rebuttal is "2 year olds can't take care of themselves so they aren't autonomous." Clearly if you think 2 year olds lack self-determination, you've never met one. 

We all need people to help us live. But there's a difference between "I need someone to cut the corners off my sandwich" and "I need one person's heart to beat and circulate my blood." We need community, but we have the freedom to choose what community we'll belong to. We need shoulders to cry on, teachers to teach us, and friends to laugh with, but we have freedom to choose who those people are. Fetuses lack bodily autonomy because (even if they were capable of making a choice) they do not have choice. We can't say "well, mom is tired of breathing for the baby, it's dad's turn now." We can't say "mom's kidneys are failing, best move the baby to auntie for the time being." The fetus is inextricably linked to mom, will die without mom, and cannot find what it needs from someone else. Personally, I think this is a terrible design for reproduction, but what can you do?

In every need of a 2 year olds life, mom has the option to give that responsibility to someone else. She can delegate teaching to teachers, bathroom duties to dad, handle cooking herself, and so on. Pregnancy is not something that can be delegated. It is therefore a violation of mom's ability to choose what to do with her body by saying "no one else on the planet can do this, so you must do this, and you don't get to say no or change your mind." That is imprisonment. 

If you drop "bodily" and just refer to "autonomy" that is more in line with the basic idea of freedom. Choosing what to eat, wear, what music to listen to, etc -- those are choices we all get to make. Imagine if there was only one song in all of existence. Would listening to that song be freedom? If my only choice is one song, it is not a choice. There must be an A to the B. Similarly, if my only choice is to be pregnant, then it's not a choice.

To say a woman deserves this lack of choice because a condom broke, a pill failed, a man raped her, or she just happens to fall into he small percentage of pregnancies that occur despite contraceptives is cold and callous. Why, if we value babies so much, would we want to bring one into the world under such negative scenarios? A baby should be cherished, loved, and wanted -- forcing it to be born to people that don't want it is cruel to all parties involved. Saying "well she can just put it up for adoption" is ignoring the very real stories of adoptees who suffered. Some adoptions are success, some are not, so to offer adoption as this painless solution is naive at best and intentionally dismissive at worst. And it still doesn't address the fact that, even in a successful adoption, the birth mother was denied choice for 9 months. 

To go slightly off topic now, there's a strange assumption among pro-lifers that pro-choicers hate babies. I don't hate babies. I want to fix healthcare and education and make the US safe and fix parental leave and a million other things that would make life for babies and children better here. I don't see the point in screaming about someone's "right to life" when so many living suffer. When so many living die in preventable ways every day. When so many living wish for death because that seems better than the life they're living now. Why would I force a baby into such a world? Why would I see my only duty as making sure they're born?

One day, maybe we'll fix the planet and the living won't suffer. Fixing systemic issues would change the abortion debate considerably so, if I don't like abortion, it seems like a better use of my time to fight for poor mothers rather than nonexistent babies. It seems like a better use of my time to fight for healthcare so mom and baby can both be healthy rather than outlawing procedures I don't agree with. 

Forced birth makes life better for no one. Being 'pro-life' should be about making life better, not making people miserable. And a central concept in a good life is the ability to choose how it will be lived. 


#203
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Raising a child is a bigger commitment than consenting to have sex. The person has to be prepared to raise, care and provide for the child which requires adequate financial, psychological, emotional maturity to undertake this  commitment. So unless the person is adequately equipped and prepared Abortion should be an option to prevent a lifetime of suffering and hardship on the child and parent.
Abortion was legal for 5 decades and it worked as a solution for the unprepared and unwilling.
With the world  population heading to 8 billion. There is no need to force the unwanted to be born. Learn to love and support what is already out there.
#204
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Uragirimono
You completely misinterpreted what I said. I said people need to live out their contracts. Every contract has a severance option. If it doesn't then that is the employee's fault. A contract can be negotiated or not accepted.

Furthermore, I said that if leaving your job directly causes someone's murder then that is wrong.

There is literally only one clause. People can leave for any option on the planet that is in a contract. And nobody is forcing them to even agree with a contract for employment. They can offer not to have one. But once a person does agree to a contract, then they need to adhere to it.
#205
Uragirimono
Uragirimono's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 74
0
0
5
Uragirimono's avatar
Uragirimono
0
0
5
 I said people need to live out their contracts.
Employment is an "at will" contract in the US. Employer or employee can walk away from the contract at any time for any reason. There's no "proper" way to quit or be fired, there is simply "I'm done." Both parties can discuss what the separation will look like (like severance packages or 2 week notices), or one can walk away without saying another word. This includes jobs where people might die. 

If you think I cannot walk away from a job I no longer want for any reason, then we're from different worlds. I don't owe my labor to anyone for any reason unless I choose to give it. 

To keep your hospital analogy, do you think nurses/doctors should've been legally forbidden to leave their jobs during the pandemic since hiring replacements was near impossible and people were actively dying from covid?
#206
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Public-Choice
@Uragirimono
--> @Public-Choice
A baby is the same. You volunteered and signed the contract to take care of it should the situation arise. Just like the hospitals sign the contract to take care of the other people.

Just like all of your other examples, hospitals can change their mind -- they can deny someone service even if they already promised it. Individual employees can also quit and find new jobs. Contracts can be nullified. If they can't, they're prison sentences. 

So if a hospital worker can consent to working and then say "never mind, I want to stop", how can a pregnant person who consented to being pregnant say "never mind I want to stop"?

Can you name another instance where a person, once they agree to something, is not legally allowed to change their mind?
Hospitals have to follow guidelines which are based on prevailing laws. If the law changes the hospital policy effected by the change also has to change.

Humans too are subject to these laws. If Abortion is deemed illegal in a State the person will suffer the consequences for violating the law.
Topic's author
#207
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Public-Choice
->@TWS1405
I'll accept your insults and lack of evidence and reason as a resignation.

LOL!!!! Delusions of grandeur and psychological projection shines bright once again. LOL!!!! 
#208
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Uragirimono
Oh, I already came up with ridiculous scenarios in a different thread,
Though I still think they have value as thought experiments and viewpoints.

"If a teleporter malfunctioned,
And I was half transported into your body, that we share it,
It doesn't feel quite fair to me, that you should be able to kill me for that.
'Especially when in time, we can be separated."
Especially if you pressed the teleport button without my consent.

I agree with your definition of consent,
But there 'are situations where one's consent is no longer a factor.
That 'sounds bad,
And it 'is bad,
Though the question of when an unborn ought be valued bothers me more.
After all, the South did not want to consent to the slaves being free,
But you 'specifically mean bodily autonomy, I know, I know,
Just my nature for my mind to drift,
I don't mean what I say as irrefutable.

I wouldn't say there is a 'line of baby souls,
But in a sense one 'is giving permission to one not yet 'there,
Perhaps it is a unique situation,
Or perhaps one could compare it with putting up a sign on one's door,
All visitors welcome.

It 'is perhaps a tricky line, at what 'moment has a new human come into the world,
But for many people, an unborn fully developed, moments from birth, is no different from a newborn.

If I eat some spoiled food, do I not accept the risk of food poisoning,
Can I not choose to sleep right after eating food, and gain weight,
. . .
Don't have sex, use protections, get sterilized, are all options I would think.
We have an amount of control over our bodies, I'd argue.

I don't think that Pro Lifers think that it's 'good,
If one is pregnant with a child they did not want,
But the situation occurred, and some people place value on the unborn.

I think it's too bad that a mother who does not want her child is pregnant,
Responsible for another person,
But they got pregnant, and it is what it is,
There are situations where people's right to do whatever they want with their body, is removed.
Military is an example, people are expected to stay in shape, expected to not damage their body, not really 'easy to just up and leave either.

Hm, I've gotten to the cruel and calloused part,
I agree my stance 'is cruel and calloused,
But is abortion 'not cruel and calloused?
I'd rather 'not take the unborns life,
An unborns permanent death, to the mother's temporary problem,
Though arguably we all die, and pregnancy/birth effect the mother in permanent ways.

I don't think you hate babies or the unborn,
I think instead we hold different values to different degrees,
Also likely different perceptions of what is.

If they didn't exist, I wouldn't be bothered,
But they 'do exist, to my mind, even unborn, at 'some point,
Whether materially, or personhood, (Maybe on personhood)
The death of new human life is simply not something I want to encourage.

I'd agree that it's valuable to have choice in life,
It's something many of us want,
Work to have.

#209
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
I don't think you hate babies or the unborn,
I think instead we hold different values to different degrees,
Also likely different perceptions of what is.

If they didn't exist, I wouldn't be bothered,
But they 'do exist, to my mind, even unborn, at 'some point,
Whether materially, or personhood, (Maybe on personhood)
The death of new human life is simply not something I want to encourage.

Raising a child is a bigger commitment than consenting to have sex. The person has to be prepared to raise, care and provide for the child which requires adequate financial, psychological, emotional maturity to undertake this  commitment. So unless the person is adequately equipped and prepared Abortion should be an option to prevent a lifetime of suffering and hardship on the child and parent.
Abortion was legal for 5 decades and it worked as a solution for the unprepared and unwilling.
With the world  population heading to 8 billion. There is no need to force the unwanted to be born. Learn to love and support what is already out there.

Topic's author
#210
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Double_R
>@Public-Choice @TWS1405
We’re not talking about when a fetus becomes a human being, we’re talking about when it becomes a person. That has almost nothing to do with biology.
Is this your way of delineating from a biological argument to a legal one?
No, it’s my way of delineating from what matters to what doesn’t.

Biology is about chemical compounds, personhood is about what makes a person an individual. Chemical compounds is not the reason we value life.

Do I really need to go into any further detail?
Nope. Crystal.