Question for 'pro-lifers'

Post Reply New Topic

You're still equating non-equals.
You're still giving a fetus a controlling interest over the woman's body, one that trumps her ownership of her body.

You wouldn't want to be forced to remain pregnant against your will either. You wouldn't want your 11 or 13 year old daughter to be forced to remain pregnant if she had became impregnated through a consensual sex act. Personally, I have more empathy for a person, a living woman than for a lump of human tissue with the size and self-awareness of a seahorse.

You can't care that much about sanctity of life, you've already said you're willing to allow a pregnancy started by rape to be terminated. The embryo resulting from rape is innocent of it's father's crimes, why does it not share the same sanctity of life as other unborn humans? You're lacking consistency.

Only the mother owns her body and may choose to remain pregnant, the state interfering in this matter is a gross violation of her bodily autonomy.

Are you unable to empathize with people in a coma then?

I think this issue is really complicated, if I had a gun pointed to my head I'd say legalize abortion until 8 or 9 weeks, whenever the neural pathways are formed. That gives plenty of time to terminate unwanted pregnancies without what I think begins to be taking away the human's right to live.

Why this is so hard, is what has already been pointed out: Where do you draw the line?
Killing a toddler is murder.
Killing a newborn is murder (by the way, this newborn is just as much of a "parasite" as the fetus).
Killing a baby days away from birth, IMO, is murder
etc.

I fail to see how this is relevant, unless people in comas are currently occupying other people's bodies without their consent.



Forced pregnancy is inherently wrong.
The line is clear, birth.

I'm not in favour of people choosing to terminate a late-stage pregnancy, but this is incredibly rare except for medical necessity so it's not a strong argument. Also, my problem is with the state interfering in one expressing ownership over their body, I have no issue with a doctor refusing to perform an abortion they feel uneasy about ethically, or where they feel safety is an issue. My issue is with the state usurping a person's ownership of themselves. This is why I make it clear that my argument is referring to the legality of abortion, and not the morality of abortion. There's plenty of behaviours people believe to be immoral that we wouldn't consider making illegal.

Newborns, having been born, are no longer directly drawing resources from the mother's body, additionally a mother can give custody of an unwanted born child to the state or she can adopt it out.

Framing the question in such a way that it ignores the issue of bodily autonomy effectively is admitting you're unable to address the issue of bodily autonomy. If you can't address bodily autonomy you have no argument; that's the core issue.

Push come to shove I probably would oppose it and do if it is passed a certain point, I can rationalize it because when pregnancy occurs from consensual sex then they've made their decision and have taken on the responsibility whereas that obviously isn't the case with rape. Think of it as the diction between justifiable homicide and cold blooded murder. You may think it is arbitrary but pretty every point after conception is arbitrary on some level.

At least you admit you might support forcing rape victims to bear their rapists child too.

Regarding the underlined bit: having sex still isn't consenting to become and remain pregnant. If someone used protection they quite clearly made the decision to limit the risk of becoming pregnant. They have no responsibility to remain pregnant against their wishes. In this case being responsible means terminating the unwanted pregnancy as early as they possibly can.

Many things in life involve ongoing consent, the individual affected must give consent throughout the entire process, consent may be retracted. Pregnancy is one of those things. If the mother is not willing remain pregnant no one as any right to overrule her decision on this matter. Anything else is usurping the mother's ownership over her own body. It's not the state's body, it's not her significant other's body, it's not the fetus' body. No other entity has an interest in controlling a person's body that outweighs that of the person in question.

so now you compare a "human" baby to a cow or pig?

so at what point does it stop? if the mom is 1 day from giving birth can she have the baby killed? what about after it's born? like up to a month just be like nah this is a burden can you just kill it? so if one wants a child its a baby and a life but if another doesn't now its a parasite? yet the baby is the same in both women? so its either a baby in both women or a non life parasite in each woman. laws work equally not based on individual events. so it would be like the old days where black people weren't people despite being the same as white people.

people in comas are drawing resources, resources that another person has to use "their body" to make via exchange of labor for money. so they are in connection forcing the use of another person's body, same with kids or other dependent people. like how many tea party people would want me dead cause I'm on ssi which is provided for by others people's use of "their body" to make that money then forcely taken.

lets say tomorrow a law is passed saying fetes are people with all the rights of others. then it comes down to similar cases of who's rights are more valid, the babies right to live of the mothers right to be unburdened. life over discomfort? there are other medical cases where this comes down to judgment. siamese twins who share a organ, but the organ is on one person's side. so there for the other is using the first's body. do you then find it ok to kill the 2nd twin?

you have condoms, the day after pill, then weeks of a non invassive aborth, the a month if you decide to wait months just for fun then you are committing murder just like those people who wait and have the baby and dump them in a dumpster.

there was a lady who got pregnate and waited the maximum amount of time allowed to have the abortion and threw a party etc . she knew long and advance she didn't want it but waited for fun. they had to cut the baby up to get it out. like wtf. how can you people defend this.

Edit: also why when a person murders a pregnate woman is it 2 murders? if the baby isn't a life then it should be just one until it's burn unless you were from asia back in the day, in which case the baby isn't alive until 1 year.
so on one hand the you say its alive and murder if another kills it but then if the mother does it then its not alive. what if it's a lady who was going get an abortion is it alive and murder or just a parasite, but what if the person was trying to kill the so called parasite and the lady died as just a un planned event.

so can' i decide to retract consent to a organ donation at the last moment and let the guy die on the operating table and throw my organ in the trash?

what about when i'm giving a dehydrating man water? or giving a person a ride, can I kick them out on the highway at 55 mph? theres actually a lot of consent that has limits of how long it can be retracted. which is why the current law is set at a month date, so that you have this many months to decide and if you wait til after that then too bad, you had all the time to decide and you went past the reasonable time limit. get rid of that and then people should be able to do whatever they want. hey 3 years later maybe I claim you stole that watch I gave you cause I retracted my consent to giving it.

If it were my choice only, the choice would be life, as I live life now.

But the cold hard facts are this:

Human beings have been effecting infanticide and other crude methods of 'getting rid' of unwanted offspring since human beings have been in existence.

And in Mexico where abortion is illegal, illegal abortions are just as frequent as legal medically safe abortions in the US, keeping in mind please, that that country, Mexico, is predominantly Roman Catholic.

The world health organization keeps records of the over one hundred thousand women yearly that either are permanently disabled or die from abortions that are not administered as medically safe.

The best CHOICE is effective birth control, freely accessible and widely accessible across the globe. A great antidote to over-population, as well, a continuing pressing issue globally too.

Unfortunately, a major fighter against abortions, the Catholic church, is also a major supporter against effective birth control, which is in the reality of mother nature, same as one as GOD, antithetical to human nature.

Of course part of that is basically ignorance of the scientific facts associated with human nature, easily accessible for those who want to gain a little enlightenment in life, and reduce human suffering through logical means, instead of voodoo ways, of wishing issues away, like standing in front of an abortion center CHANTING Hail Mary's.

And yes, I go to the Catholic Church every week, partly because change comes from within.

And I do my part, as eventually others will too, to support common sense, as freedom of information continues to spread, as well as light away from ignorance; yes, that illuminati stuff, in the REAL WORLD, not the conspiracy crap.

Define person.

I believe in the sanctity of persons, rational agents who are aware of their continuing existence and consciously desire for it to continue. The temporarily unconscious are also good.

You seem to think that you are the one respecting life here, but actually my respect for the sanctity of persons is much broader than your bigoted, irrational respect for the sanctity of humans. I respect pigs, dolphins, apes, dogs, parrots, crows, intelligent extra-terrestrials... you respect clumps of cells. You worry that some people might define you as a non-person, but you also do not respect the absolute sanctity of life. You just respect it based on DNA rather than mental processes. I don't think I am special because of my DNA, I am special because of my sense of self and my desire to continue living.

If I had been killed before birth then I wouldn't care. If I had been born a chimpanzee and hunted for bush meat then I would be terrified.

It really doesn't. Many women don't even know they're pregnant until that time or later.

Again, neural pathways are not sufficient for personhood. Lampreys are not persons.

As for "where do you draw the line?", I would suggest that birth is the best time because the baby is not dependent on the mother any more. Also, sentimental attachments in our society tend to grow beyond the parents after birth.

Yes. The pig in particularly comes out ahead in any rational comparison with a zef. And fwiw, you made that comparison when you said "if it has a brain and a body then it is a person".


IMO murder is wrong for two reasons:

1) It deprives the person of their life
2) It deprives other people of that life - we form very close attachments to other humans

The first of those is sufficient. I am not sure whether the second is. But I do think that the death of a foetus should be an aggravating factor in an assault, because expectant mothers who want to give birth are often very attached to their babies.

Regardless of whether the foetus is a person or not, it does not have the right to a woman's body. To force a woman to carry an unwanted baby is a violation of her right to autonomy over her body. The right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of the foetus. To force women to carry unwanted babies is the enslavement of a woman's body to someone's ideology.

If you promise me your kidney and then back out before it's been extracted for any reason, you're entitled to that.



You're under no obligation to provide anyone with water...



That would clearly be assault.



I understand that currently some places have legal restrictions on abortion after a certain time. Usually with exceptions for maternal health. Canada does not have any limitations of this sort. Interestingly this doesn't lead to people 'doing whatever they want' as you say. Doctor's can still refuse to perform an abortion if they feel the risk is too high, or for other ethical reasons. Late-term abortions are high-risk and only performed in cases of medical necessity.

Giving away a possession does not require ongoing consent, once you give it to someone it's theirs to have ownership over, not yours.



A born human seems to be the standard legal definition.



Because anti-choicers have pushed for laws that make that the case as a wedge issue. Since they can't out-right ban abortion they wish to try to create as much legal precedent in their favour as possible.



Personhood of the fetus is irrelevant; the mother's ownership over her own body would trump all else.

I would describe your views as bigoted and irrational, you respect the all living things except humans? You don't respect human life if you put it on the level of an animal. You call it a clump of cells when this child is clearly alive, of course I care more about human life than I do a pig or an ape.

If she became pregnant because of raped then perhaps you have a have a point, otherwise she made a decision and should be responsible for it. The right to life trumps all, when you've created a life it ceases being just your body. Murder is wrong.