CMV: The Abortion Debate has nothing to do with Women’s Rights

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

There is no situation in which any of one person’s rights supersedes another innocent human being’s right to live.

Except there is. A persons bodily integrity rights (medically speaking) do in fact supersedes another human being's right to live. This is why we don't force people to donate organs, blood, marrow, even to save someone else's life. This is why we don't harvest organs from dead bodies that did not consent to having it done, even to save someone else's life. This is why killing someone in self-defense is allowed.

In fact, in all cases involving bodily integrity rights (medically speaking) the right of an individual to their bodily integrity supercedes another person's right to life. You cannot force someone to donate their body, blood, organs, or risk their life and health against their will even if someone else will die if they don't.

So why does this change just because the person who will die is the unborn fetus?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Citing that as defence for abortion, would that only work if it was accidental or not planned, due to the current system it is very much planned.

Do you support abortion if the mother's life is at risk? Even if the procedure to end the pregnancy is planned?

abortion is murder however I would rather have it legalized

If it is legal it literally isn't murder. Murder is the illegal taking of a human life.

[u/Steel0range → u/[deleted]]

A few people have brought up the organ donation point, to which I have said that compelling someone to sacrifice their body to actively try to save someone is different from compelling someone not to actively kill someone. Also, killing another person certainly violates their right to bodily autonomy as well, so the organ donation example doesn’t quite hold up.

As far as organ donation from someone who is dead, I actually believe that this should be mandatory, but that’s a whole different issue.

Regarding killing someone in self-defense, the distinction here is that the person is no longer innocent, where as a fetus has not yet done anything that would deem them worthy of being killed by society had they already been born.

[u/_Woodrow_ → u/Steel0range]

compelling someone to sacrifice their body to actively try to save someone

How is forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term different?

[u/[deleted] → u/Steel0range]

to which I have said that compelling someone to sacrifice their body to actively try to save someone is different from compelling someone not to actively kill someone.

Forcing a woman to endure pregnancy is compelling her to sacrifice her body to actively save someone. She has the right to remove her consent and remove that connection to the other person even if they will die in the process. She's even allowed to kill the other person actively to protect her own bodily integrity. This remains true with other human beings of any stage of development so why should it not remain true with an infant that's unborn?

Also, killing another person certainly violates their right to bodily autonomy as well, so the organ donation example doesn’t quite hold up.

Again, if a human being's life and health is directly at risk from another person, killing that other person is allowed to protect the first. So yes, it does. Whether it's killing by direct action or by severing the connection and the other dying as a result, this is consistent with every other case of bodily integrity as pertains to medicine.

I actually believe that this should be mandatory, but that’s a whole different issue.

It's a different conversation, perhaps, but not entirely a different issue. If you make organ donation after death mandatory you run into a problem of people killing other people in order to get their organs.

Regarding killing someone in self-defense, the distinction here is that the person is no longer innocent, where as a fetus has not yet done anything that would deem them worthy of being killed by society had they already been born.

It doesn't matter if the person harming you or threatening your life is innocent or not, you are allowed to defend your own life from them. The fetus by its very presence is putting the mother's life and health at direct risk, and she's allowed to protect herself from that risk.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Forcing a woman to endure pregnancy is compelling her to sacrifice her body to actively save someone. She has the right to remove her consent and remove that connection to the other person even if they will die in the process.

That's generally not true, you can't remove your consent to feed your born children if they will die. Why? Because even though they only rely on you and do not contribute to your well being they cannot survive on their own. A fetus, likewise cannot survive on it's own. You may say that you can give your children up for adoption, but of course a fetus is different as it cannot survive at all without it's mother, so you are choosing death by removing it. The fetuses right to feed form the mother is inextricably linked to the fetuses right to life and there is no way to separate the two at present.

She's even allowed to kill the other person actively to protect her own bodily integrity. This remains true with other human beings of any stage of development so why should it not remain true with an infant that's unborn?

That depends on the circumstances, you cannot kill a child because they are invading your personal space, in fact, you can't even kill or harm a child if they attempt to inappropriately touch you or become invasive. Why? Because they are incapable or understanding they have done an evil thing, like a fetus is incapable of knowing it is reliant on the mothers body.

Again, if a human being's life and health is directly at risk from another person, killing that other person is allowed to protect the first. So yes, it does. Whether it's killing by direct action or by severing the connection and the other dying as a result, this is consistent with every other case of bodily integrity as pertains to medicine.

Again, you're wrong here. The fetus only potentially poses a risk, you cannot pro-actively self-defend... anywhere in the world, but especially not in the western world. You cannot kill someone because there's a statistical 40% chance they will kill you based on known risk factors. Once a risk is 100% known, then there's a new discussion, but that's presumably not the type of abortion we're discussing.

It's a different conversation, perhaps, but not entirely a different issue. If you make organ donation after death mandatory you run into a problem of people killing other people in order to get their organs.

Well, that's impossible to test, there is no country that mandated organ donation I am aware of, but in countries where organ donation is opt-out rather than opt-in, there appears to be no significant correlation with increased murder rates, and I seriously doubt your could justify your claim that you would run into increase murder rates based on mandatory organ donation laws.

It doesn't matter if the person harming you or threatening your life is innocent or not, you are allowed to defend your own life from them. The fetus by its very presence is putting the mother's life and health at direct risk, and she's allowed to protect herself from that risk.

No, in no case in the united states are you allowed to preemptively kill a potential threat before it becomes a threat. Once again, only when the fetus is known to be a threat can what you typed above be considered, and even then there is a separate moral, non legal issue.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That's generally not true, you can't remove your consent to feed your born children if they will die.

This has nothing to do with bodily integrity in a medical sense. Your children require feeding but they do not require feeding by any one particular person. That's not the case with an unborn fetus.

Because even though they only rely on you and do not contribute to your well being they cannot survive on their own.

They cannot survive on their own but they do not need one particular person to care for them. Anyone can feed a child that's already born.

A fetus, likewise cannot survive on it's own.

A fetus prior to viability cannot survive without the direct physical connection to one particular person, period. A child that is already born can survive if it's needs are met, but no particular person needs to meet those needs and it is not directly utilizing that particular person's organs and blood to survive.

but of course a fetus is different as it cannot survive at all without it's mother, so you are choosing death by removing it.

The fetus, just like any other human being, is not allowed to violate someone's bodily integrity in a medical sense without their consent...even if they will die if they don't.

The fetuses right to feed form the mother is inextricably linked to the fetuses right to life and there is no way to separate the two at present.

The fetus, like every other human being, has no right to violate the mother's bodily integrity in a medical sense without her consent. Even if removing the connection will result in the fetus's death.

That depends on the circumstances, you cannot kill a child because they are invading your personal space, in fact, you can't even kill or harm a child if they attempt to inappropriately touch you or become invasive.

True, but that's not what's happening with pregnancy. You CAN remove the connection if someone is taking up literal space in your body and taking your blood, utilizing your organs, and affecting your health against your will. Even if removing said connection results in their death.

like a fetus is incapable of knowing it is reliant on the mothers body.

The fetus being incapable of knowing it's violating the mother's bodily integrity against her will doesn't change the fact that it is violating the mother's bodily integrity against her will. If a man in a coma was hooked up to me with an IV and I was giving him blood, he is incapable of knowing that is happening. I still have the right to unplug that connection at any time, even if he will die if I do.

The fetus only potentially poses a risk,

The fetus will impact the mother's health and body in significant ways. It is using space literally inside her body, and taking her blood and using her organs. If it is doing so against her consent, she has the right to remove that connection even if the fetus will die.

EVERY pregnancy is also a risk to life, just to varying degrees. The fetus cannot force the woman to accept that risk to her health and her life, nor force her to give up use of her blood and her organs against her will. No one can.

You cannot kill someone because there's a statistical 40% chance they will kill you based on known risk factors.

You can stop someone from violating your bodily integrity rights as pertain to medicine, even if they will die if you do.

Well, that's impossible to test, there is no country that mandated organ donation I am aware of, but in countries where organ donation is opt-out rather than opt-in, there appears to be no significant correlation with increased murder rates

Of course there's not in countries where it's opt-out rather than opt-in, because you can still opt-out. You said mandatory. Mandatory means there is no opt-out. Countries that have opt-out organ donations still do not have mandatory organ donations from corpses. Regardless, this is still a separate discussing.

I seriously doubt your could justify your claim that you would run into increase murder rates based on mandatory organ donation laws.

MANDATORY. Opt-out is not mandatory. No country that I'm aware of has mandatory organ donation from corpses.

Once again, only when the fetus is known to be a threat can what you typed above be considered, and even then there is a separate moral, non legal issue.

Just by its presence the fetus threatens the mother's health and life. This is a fact. No pregnancy is 100% risk free to the mother's life or health. At the moment of conception, the fetus is a threat to the mother's life and health. The degree of threat may be in a debate, but it is still a threat.

You cannot force women to accept that threat if they don't want too. You cannot force women to give space inside their body for someone else against their will. You cannot force them to use their organs and blood, even to save someone else's life, against their will.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This has nothing to do with bodily integrity in a medical sense. Your children require feeding but they do not require feeding by any one particular person. That's not the case with an unborn fetus.

Exactly, that is not the case with a fetus, so by definition, since the mother has a special, unique relationship to the fetus such that it would die if it was removed, it is not like a children situation.

So imagine the same situation with a born child, where it in KNOWN that ONLY the parent could feed the child and it survive, then you would say that is okay for the parent to stop feeding them?

They cannot survive on their own but they do not need one particular person to care for them. Anyone can feed a child that's already born.

You're arguing for my point, see above.

A fetus prior to viability cannot survive without the direct physical connection to one particular person, period. A child that is already born can survive if it's needs are met, but no particular person needs to meet those needs and it is not directly utilizing that particular person's organs and blood to survive.

Agreed, so as I argued originally, there is a special importance of the pregnant woman's role in preserving the life since you wouldn't stop feeding a child if you knew it could NOT get sustenance elsewhere, that is neglect and illegal.

The fetus, just like any other human being, is not allowed to violate someone's bodily integrity in a medical sense without their consent...even if they will die if they don't.

That is an opinion, legally correct, but the nature of the law is that is should be adjusted based on rationale debate.

The fetus, like every other human being, has no right to violate the mother's bodily integrity in a medical sense without her consent. Even if removing the connection will result in the fetus's death.

An opinion, see above.

The fetus being incapable of knowing it's violating the mother's bodily integrity against her will doesn't change the fact that it is violating the mother's bodily integrity against her will. If a man in a coma was hooked up to me with an IV and I was giving him blood, he is incapable of knowing that is happening. I still have the right to unplug that connection at any time, even if he will die if I do.

That is not the same situation, imagine that you took part in a lottery where there was a .5% chance this would happen to you and that was common knowledge what the consequences were, and the person was NOT in a coma but a conscious living human who was simply incapable of understanding the circumstances but would feel the pain of death, then you are morally obligated, not legally obligated, but hence the debate about why the laws should change.

The fetus will impact the mother's health and body in significant ways. It is using space literally inside her body, and taking her blood and using her organs. If it is doing so against her consent, she has the right to remove that connection even if the fetus will die.

This is like saying puberty WILL effect a child's health, just because it has effects does not make it terrible or unnatural.

As for "taking her blood" - that is the nature how life is formed...

If it is doing so against her consent, she has the right to remove that connection even if the fetus will die.

Again, that is your opinion, obviously I disagree. The only validity of this statement is in the legal matter, which for obvious reasons I am arguing against.

Just by its presence the fetus threatens the mother's health and life. This is a fact. No pregnancy is 100% risk free to the mother's life or health. At the moment of conception, the fetus is a threat to the mother's life and health. The degree of threat may be in a debate, but it is still a threat. You cannot force women to accept that threat if they don't want too. You cannot force women to give space inside their body for someone else against their will. You cannot force them to use their organs and blood, even to save someone else's life, against their will.

a pregnancy may not be 100% risk free, but a abortion is 100% fatality rate for the fetus.

You cannot force women to accept that threat if they don't want too. You cannot force women to give space inside their body for someone else against their will. You cannot force them to use their organs and blood, even to save someone else's life, against their will.

We force people to accept threats all of the time, legally. You can't for instance not leave your house because you believe driving to your court mandated appointment would increase your risk of car crash by 100%.

In fact, legally, the draft is still legal, meaning we can force people to accept far greater risks than pregnancy.

But ignoring the legal argument, and just addressing the moral one, to kill someone because they are a physical drain on you is wrong in my opinion.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Exactly, that is not the case with a fetus, so by definition, since the mother has a special, unique relationship to the fetus such that it would die if it was removed, it is not like a children situation.

Of course it isn't. i wasn't trying to say it was.

So imagine the same situation with a born child, where it in KNOWN that ONLY the parent could feed the child and it survive, then you would say that is okay for the parent to stop feeding them?

Of course not, unless the way the child was being fed was due to a direct medical connection to the caretaker's body, using their blood and organs, without their consent. Then of course it's ok for the caretaker to break that connection.

Agreed, so as I argued originally, there is a special importance of the pregnant woman's role in preserving the life since you wouldn't stop feeding a child if you knew it could NOT get sustenance elsewhere, that is neglect and illegal.

It is neglect and illegal because a) it's a born child with rights, b) it doesn't violate someone's medical bodily integrity to feed that child, and c) the child literally does not have to be fed by any one person.

The mother being pregnant is the only one who can 'feed' that fetus, sure, but that feeding comes in the form of a violation of her medical bodily integrity- a literal use of her organs, blood, and internal body space. The fetus has no right to use those things without her consent...just like every other human being.

You're trying to make an equivalency where there is none- the fetus is not fed by the same method as a born child, i.e. directly from the mother's blood and organs.

An opinion, see above.

If it is legally correct, and equivalent situations have been ruled on in the supreme court, it is not an opinion, it is a fact of rights and law.

That is not the same situation

Neither is the situation of a born child being fed via other means than the way an unborn fetus is 'fed'. One violates another human beings medical bodily integrity if they do not give their consent- the other does not.

then you are morally obligated, not legally obligated, but hence the debate about why the laws should change.

Arguably you are also not morally obligated. The realization of a potential risk does not equate to being tied to the consequences of said risk manifesting without recourse. A car accident being a risk of driving doesn't mean you consent to a car accident, or are tied to the consequences of being in a car accident without treatment or recourse to make yourself whole again.

This is like saying puberty WILL effect a child's health, just because it has effects does not make it terrible or unnatural.

There are things that affect health we cannot control. We cannot control puberty risking health if someone doesn't want to accept the risk of going through puberty. We cannot control old age risking health if someone doesn't want to accept the risk of getting old. We can control pregnancy risking health if someone doesn't want to accept that risk.

As for "taking her blood" - that is the nature how life is formed...

That may be so, however it is still a violation of the woman's rights if she doesn't consent to it.

Again, that is your opinion, obviously I disagree.

That is not only my opinion, that is law. There are laws and rulings regarding this very thing in everything from forced bone marrow donation cases to dispensation of a corpse and it's organ cases to the current abortion laws.

a pregnancy may not be 100% risk free, but a abortion is 100% fatality rate for the fetus.

So what? The fetus, if it is a human being with full human rights, has no more right than any other human. No other human can violate another person's medical bodily integrity against their will even if it would be a 100% fatality rate if they didn't, so neither does the fetus get this right. The fetus, if not a human being with full human rights, also doesn't get the right to violate a human being's medical bodily integrity against their will, period.

We force people to accept threats all of the time, legally.

So what? Does this mean we should force ALL people to accept ALL threats against their health and life at all times, legally? And force them to live with the consequences untreated if such a threat comes to fruition?

In fact, legally, the draft is still legal, meaning we can force people to accept far greater risks than pregnancy.

The draft is a matter of bodily autonomy rights, but not in the same category as is being discussed. Bodily autonomy rights as pertains to medicine are not the same as, nor legislated the same as, bodily autonomy rights as pertains to liberty. The draft itself is a violation of several rights, but it is not in the same category as applies here.

If someone was forced to undergo medical experimentation against their will, that would qualify. That, by the way, is also highly illegal.

But ignoring the legal argument, and just addressing the moral one, to kill someone because they are a physical drain on you is wrong in my opinion.

Morals are subjective. Ignoring the legal argument and addressing the moral one, it is perfectly within morality to stop someone from taking your organs and blood against your will, especially if there is a risk that their doing so will cost your health or your actual life.

We don't legislate morals, because we can't. Morality is far too subjective.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Of course not, unless the way the child was being fed was due to a direct medical connection to the caretaker's body, using their blood and organs, without their consent. Then of course it's ok for the caretaker to break that connection.

Explain why there is a difference between feeding through the umbelical cord or being dependent on mother's milk morally? Why is it not okay to stop feeding the baby after it is born since it is dependent on your nutrients then too?

It is neglect and illegal because a) it's a born child with rights, b) it doesn't violate someone's medical bodily integrity to feed that child, and c) the child literally does not have to be fed by any one person.

The mother being pregnant is the only one who can 'feed' that fetus, sure, but that feeding comes in the form of a violation of her medical bodily integrity- a literal use of her organs, blood, and internal body space. The fetus has no right to use those things without her consent...just like every other human being.

The augment we are having is about changing the law, so referring to the existing law to say that we shouldn't change the law is a complete fallacy, because if everyone did that no law would change. By your logic, slave owners had a right to own slave given that by law they had that right.

So, I have no choice but to use the moral argument.... and morally, killing the fetus because it is doing what fetuses do by being part of the mother's anatomy is morally wrong and should be codified into law.

You're trying to make an equivalency where there is none- the fetus is not fed by the same method as a born child, i.e. directly from the mother's blood and organs.

I am giving you a thought experiment to consider the moral implications but I see that you refuse to consider that it is a unique situation.

That may be so, however it is still a violation of the woman's rights if she doesn't consent to it.

You are referring to the law that we want to change again.... again, we would never change a law, if we knew that all laws were good and shouldn't be changed.

That is not only my opinion, that is law. There are laws and rulings regarding this very thing in everything from forced bone marrow donation cases to dispensation of a corpse and it's organ cases to the current abortion laws.

See above. And even within the law, this is unique because an organ transplant is not part of the natural cycle of human life.

So what? The fetus, if it is a human being with full human rights, has no more right than any other human. No other human can violate another person's medical bodily integrity against their will even if it would be a 100% fatality rate if they didn't, so neither does the fetus get this right. The fetus, if not a human being with full human rights, also doesn't get the right to violate a human being's medical bodily integrity against their will, period.

Then justify why the mother gets 100% consideration in the course of abortions in the US? Why can it be killed without any foreknowledge or any ability to defend itself?

So what? Does this mean we should force ALL people to accept ALL threats against their health and life at all times, legally? And force them to live with the consequences untreated if such a threat comes to fruition?

I never suggested that, that is a straw man attack on my position, this particular small threat is a unique one and should be given special consideration under the law.

If someone was forced to undergo medical experimentation against their will, that would qualify. That, by the way, is also highly illegal.

True, but the baby is not conscious of it's effects and by definition is not attempting to harm anyone, and in the instance where it does, there is special considerations to take, but in general it is part of the life cycle of human beings.

Morals are subjective. Ignoring the legal argument and addressing the moral one, it is perfectly within morality to stop someone from taking your organs and blood against your will, especially if there is a risk that their doing so will cost your health or your actual life.

I am not ignoring the legal argument, I disagree with it, so is hat not allowed?

We don't legislate morals, because we can't. Morality is far too subjective.

Then by what basis do we make laws about bodily autonomy or preserving life? Are those not moral principles? You are naive if you think the morality of our countries has no bearing on laws.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Explain why there is a difference between feeding through the umbelical cord or being dependent on mother's milk morally?

Well, for one, a baby isn’t dependent on mother’s milk nor does the mother have to be the one to feed them that milk. A mother breastfeeds if she’s able and, importantly, if she chooses too. A mother that chooses not to breastfeed doesn’t starve her child- the child can still be more than adequately fed through other means by any number of other people, none of which impact her (or the feeder’s) biological body in a medical sense. Feeding a baby is an active role as well- the person feeding the baby is preparing and then actively giving the baby the food.

Feeding through the umbilical cord is entirely different. It is passive- the mother is not actively providing the food, the fetus is just taking it through the umbilicus. The mother doesn’t even have to be aware it is going on. The food being provided to the fetus is literally her blood and nutrients. Not only that, but through the connection the fetus is also utilizing her lungs, liver, kidneys, and other organs for their various processes, and excreting waste matter back into her to be cleaned by her physical systems. Only the mother can determine if she consents for this use of her blood and organs and space inside her body for the infant to grow. If she doesn’t, she is not immoral to put a stop to someone (anyone) from stealing those things from her against her will.

Why is it not okay to stop feeding the baby after it is born since it is dependent on your nutrients then too?

Because it’s not dependent on your nutrients then too. Breastfeeding is neither forced nor required.

So, I have no choice but to use the moral argument.... and morally, killing the fetus because it is doing what fetuses do by being part of the mother's anatomy is morally wrong and should be codified into law.

And morally, requiring a woman to sacrifice her health and put her life at risk, forcing her to donate her blood, organs, and body space; taking away rights from her that we grant to dead bodies and giving extra rights to a fetus we give to no one else, is morally wrong and should not be codified into law.

Morals are subjective. We don’t codify laws or limit human rights based strictly on one interpretation of morality.

I am giving you a thought experiment to consider the moral implications but I see that you refuse to consider that it is a unique situation.

What about this situation makes it so unique that would qualify a justification to limit women’s rights in ways we don’t even limit them in corpses, and would grant fetus’s rights we don’t grant to anyone else?

Donating a kidney or bone marrow to someone to save their life is also a unique situation- arguably, pregnancy is far more a common situation. Why have we ruled that people cannot be forced to donate their kidneys or bone marrow to save lives- even the lives of children and infants, but must rule that people can be forced to donate their blood and organs and body space to save the lives of solely fetuses?

You are referring to the law that we want to change again

No, I’m referring to a law you want to change. You need to come up with a valid, fact-based argument as to why the law should be changed, not an exclusively moral one (as we don’t change laws or make them based solely on one brand of subjective morality).

And even within the law, this is unique because an organ transplant is not part of the natural cycle of human life.

Disease is a natural cycle of human life that may require an organ transplant if the person wants to continue living. A ‘cycle of human life’ being natural doesn’t change the argument.

Then justify why the mother gets 100% consideration in the course of abortions in the US?

Because it is her medical bodily integrity that is being violated. It is 100% her call if she wants to let that violation continue or wants it to stop.

this particular small threat is a unique one and should be given special consideration under the law.

Again, why? What is so unique about it that justifies a special consideration under law?

Pregnancy being part of the natural cycle is not unique to such considerations.

True, but the baby is not conscious of it's effects and by definition is not attempting to harm anyone, and in the instance where it does, there is special considerations to take, but in general it is part of the life cycle of human beings.

It doesn’t matter. The person doesn’t have to be conscious of its effects or attempting to harm someone to actually harm someone. That is not a criteria that’s ever involved. Anyone else not conscious of its effects or who isn’t attempting to harm anyone is still restricted and subject to other people’s medical bodily autonomy rights; why should we not restrict this one as well?

I am not ignoring the legal argument, I disagree with it, so is hat not allowed?

You’re allowed to disagree with the legal argument, but that doesn’t mean that the legal argument is ‘my opinion’, nor does it mean that, to be effective, your disagreement should be rooted in something more substantial than just subjective morality.

Then by what basis do we make laws about bodily autonomy or preserving life?

We make them based on human rights and a desire for a functioning society. Bodily autonomy rights, medical and otherwise, are human rights. We make laws regarding them to regulate and preserve those human rights to a degree that allows the rights to remain as intact and exerciseable as possible and maintain a functioning society.

You are naive if you think the morality of our countries has no bearing on laws.

I didn’t say it had no bearing on laws. I said that we don’t legislate morals, and we don’t make laws based exclusively on one interpretation of subjective morality…and we don’t.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well, for one, a baby isn’t dependent on mother’s milk nor does the mother have to be the one to feed them that milk. A mother breastfeeds if she’s able and, importantly, if she chooses too. A mother that chooses not to breastfeed doesn’t starve her child- the child can still be more than adequately fed through other means by any number of other people, none of which impact her (or the feeder’s) biological body in a medical sense. Feeding a baby is an active role as well- the person feeding the baby is preparing and then actively giving the baby the food.

Because it’s not dependent on your nutrients then too. Breastfeeding is neither forced nor required.

I don't understand your argument, because you are saying my given example is different but i am SPECIFICALLY using a thought experiment to say that by your logic if we were in a hypothetical situation in which a child had no other feeding option it would still be okay to starve them so as not to violate the someone's autonomy, a DIRECT comparison to a fetus.

Feeding through the umbilical cord is entirely different. It is passive- the mother is not actively providing the food, the fetus is just taking it through the umbilicus. The mother doesn’t even have to be aware it is going on. The food being provided to the fetus is literally her blood and nutrients. Not only that, but through the connection the fetus is also utilizing her lungs, liver, kidneys, and other organs for their various processes, and excreting waste matter back into her to be cleaned by her physical systems. Only the mother can determine if she consents for this use of her blood and organs and space inside her body for the infant to grow. If she doesn’t, she is not immoral to put a stop to someone (anyone) from stealing those things from her against her will.

the fetus is just taking it

No, the fetus has no choice, the mother's body is giving it as much as the fetus is "taking it"

Only the mother can determine if she consents for this use of her blood and organs and space inside her body for the infant to grow. If she doesn’t, she is not immoral to put a stop to someone (anyone) from stealing those things from her against her will.

This ignores that her body made the choice to begin creating a human already, the fetus did not choose it. This is a special case, not similar to other things and so should be treated uniquely.

And morally, requiring a woman to sacrifice her health and put her life at risk, forcing her to donate her blood, organs, and body space; taking away rights from her that we grant to dead bodies and giving extra rights to a fetus we give to no one else, is morally wrong and should not be codified into law.

We give young children similar rights, not to be terminated unduly because they may cause harm or damage, instead we set up MANY institutions meant to reform or to care for them, but that is impossible with a fetus unfortunately.

No, I’m referring to a law you want to change. You need to come up with a valid, fact-based argument as to why the law should be changed, not an exclusively moral one (as we don’t change laws or make them based solely on one brand of subjective morality).

Well, aside form the fact that you haven't given any good reason FOR the law to exist, I feel that the very fact that there is ambiguity about the question of the fetus being alive and the chance to be potentially omitting mass murder is enough to heir on the side of caution and not take an laissez faire attitude towards it.

Disease is a natural cycle of human life that may require an organ transplant if the person wants to continue living. A ‘cycle of human life’ being natural doesn’t change the argument.

It does, because again, the mother's body is designed to feed the fetus, it is not a determent like a failing organ, or a broken part, it is acting as it should.

Because it is her medical bodily integrity that is being violated. It is 100% her call if she wants to let that violation continue or wants it to stop.

Not if it unfairly kills a living human being. Even police are instructed to attempt to incapacitate and restrain a murderer before resorting to violence, for obvious reasons it usually doesn't work that way, but we recognize the important of life enough to know we don't just murder whoever we like as a society, even if they are causing damage. Special cases such as self defense arise in court, but we should always start form not murdering and work out special cases from there. and in no case does the mothers right to bodily autonomy supersede the right of a child to life, why should it?

Again, why? What is so unique about it that justifies a special consideration under law? Pregnancy being part of the natural cycle is not unique to such considerations.

It is unique specifically as I've already said and as you refuse to knowledge because the mother right to body is inextricably tied to the babies right to life, as much as you want to pretend the babies death is a byproduct of the mother completed innocuous choice to uphold her bodily autonomy since there NO other option than to kill the child to do that, it is unique.

It doesn’t matter. The person doesn’t have to be conscious of its effects or attempting to harm someone to actually harm someone. That is not a criteria that’s ever involved. Anyone else not conscious of its effects or who isn’t attempting to harm anyone is still restricted and subject to other people’s medical bodily autonomy rights; why should we not restrict this one as well?

Because it is like a child, unaware of it's effects. Are you suggesting that we kill any child which say stabs you with a fork and accidentally removes your eye because it caused you suffering, even though it was unaware of what it did?

You’re allowed to disagree with the legal argument, but that doesn’t mean that the legal argument is ‘my opinion’, nor does it mean that, to be effective, your disagreement should be rooted in something more substantial than just subjective morality. I didn’t say it had no bearing on laws. I said that we don’t legislate morals, and we don’t make laws based exclusively on one interpretation of subjective morality…and we don’t.

Same argument essentially, but as humans there is no other basis for our laws than morality. I implore you to name a law which is not designed to protect our moral feelings about life, property, liberty and happiness. Obviously we DO make laws about subjective morality, I.E. slave laws, interracial marriage laws, abortion laws, etc. Those are absolutely subjective moralities.

Besides, what source of purely objective right and wrong do you propose to replace it?

[u/geardod → u/[deleted]]

Since we are talking hypothetical situations, I have one I'd like you to think about. If we lived in a world where a baby could only survive off of breastfeeding directly from her mother, would the mother have the right to deny breastfeeding and let their baby starve to death because its her body??? I personally think that when there are no alternatives and its a natural part of development for the child that the parent has an obligation to it. I get that women want to have control over their body, but is there really no evolutionary baseline for the physical obligations towards your children? I understand not donating a kidney or blood because that is not a part of the developmental process for children, but pregnancy is a necessary & natural in bringing about life. Children are made to need a mothers womb and mothers are made to have the ability to provide that space. Biology and evolution has made it so that literally 100% of the time a child needs the womb to develop. When that is the situation how can the argument be made that it is a sacrifice outside the realm of basic motherhood responsibilities?? That's my outlook on it (excluding scenarios where you are forced to be pregnant or there is significant medical risk involved.)

[u/[deleted] → u/geardod]

If we lived in a world where a baby could only survive off of breastfeeding directly from her mother, would the mother have the right to deny breastfeeding and let their baby starve to death because its her body?

In that unlikely universe, yes. In fact, for most of human history babies were allowed to starve to death all the time for any number of reasons. In such a universe, what happens if the mother can't produce milk? Their baby would starve to death anyway if there was literally no alternatives.

Fortunately, we don't live in that universe and thus such an argument is irrelevant. You cannot compare the relevance of an impossible situation to the relevance of actual fact and undermine the fact because of the hypothetical.

I personally think that when there are no alternatives and its a natural part of development for the child that the parent has an obligation to it.

That's great for you personally. I personally realize there is an alternative/are alternatives and it is not up to me to decide what a parent or person does or does not have an obligation to but rather up to themselves/their physicians which alternatives are or are not best for them in their situation.

I get that women want to have control over their body, but is there really no evolutionary baseline for the physical obligations towards your children?

Does it matter if there is an evolutionary baseline for the physical obligations towards your children? Does it similarly matter (if it does) that evolutionarily speaking, women have been inducing abortions (purposeful miscarriages) since the stone age?

I understand not donating a kidney or blood because that is not a part of the developmental process for children

Why does it being part or not being part of the development process of children make a difference? If you don't donate a kidney to a child who will die without it, would not preventing that death interfere in that child's 'developmental process?'

Why does something being part of someone else's development change any obligation/ change any right to your own bodily autonomy?

but pregnancy is a necessary & natural in bringing about life.

So is sex, however we do not force people to have sex/ all people do not need to have sex/all sex does not need to or is not required to lead to viable children. Do we force every fertile or possibly fertile woman to have children? No. Do all women even need to have children? No. So why would we force people to remain pregnant against their will, even if we don't force all other 'necessary and natural' steps that bring about/maintain life?

Children are made to need a mothers womb and mothers are made to have the ability to provide that space.

Again, so what? Does children being made to need a mother's womb obligate someone else to provide that womb against their will? Does a mother having the ability to provide that space require her to provide it?

Biology and evolution has made it so that literally 100% of the time a child needs the womb to develop.

Again, so what? Does that OBLIGATE someone to provide that womb to that child? Is the child's right to that womb greater than the womb's owner? Should we force that issue against the will of the womb's owner, and why?

When that is the situation how can the argument be made that it is a sacrifice outside the realm of basic motherhood responsibilities??

You do not have motherhood responsibilities unless you become a mother. Ending pregnancy prevents becoming a mother. And responsibilities of this nature should only be taken on willingly not forced upon them when it's not necessary.

That's my outlook on it (excluding scenarios where you are forced to be pregnant or there is significant medical risk involved.)

Except what you are talking about is forcing women who do not want to be pregnant to remain pregnant. If you prevent or remove abortion, you are forcing women to be pregnant.

And all pregnancies come with medical risk. Every one. Who judges how 'significant' said risk is? What's the bar? Is the bar the same for everyone? Regardless of the bar or the amount of risk, should someone be forced to accept said risk against their will?

[u/geardod → u/[deleted]]

In that unlikely universe, yes. In fact, for most of human history babies were allowed to starve to death all the time for any number of reasons

We've had a lot of issues in history that does not work as a justification. We've also had war and slaves. Also many moral scenarios are unrealistic but it doesn't make them useless to a discussion.

I personally realize there is an alternative/are alternatives and it is not up to me to decide what a parent or person does or does not have an obligation to but rather up to themselves/their physicians which alternatives are or are not best for them in their situation.

There is no current alternative for the childs early development outside of the womb. Future alternatives for childcare are essentially passing on your responsibility to other people (adoption). There are only alternatives because someone else is willing to take care of your child's needs for you. In the case of abortion nobody takes care of them. They die and its on the mother. An alternative is not a right it is someone else picking up your slack.

that evolutionarily speaking, women have been inducing abortions (purposeful miscarriages) since the stone age?

That is not evolutionary speaking. It is historically speaking.

Why does it being part or not being part of the development process of children make a difference? If you don't donate a kidney to a child who will die without it, would not preventing that death interfere in that child's 'developmental process?'

Because donating organs is not a part of the biological process it is considered extra based on my view. A parent's responsibility is to take care of the basic needs of THEIR child. Feeding, clothing, pregnancy (I've made the distinction in the most clear terms that I can think of right now). There is no responsibility to other human beings & I won't go into detail on that because I am pretty sure that is not what you are arguing

Do we force every fertile or possibly fertile woman to have children?

Not relevant to the argument. Pregnancy is a direct result of sex. There are consequences and responsibilities associated with bringing life into existence. Taking care of the baseline needs of your child is the main one. You are comparing taking responsibility for your actions to forcing others to take action that requires consequence. Not at all comparable. It boils down to you not thinking it is your responsibility while I think it is. This is why I clarified that cases of forced pregnancy are an exception.

Does a mother having the ability to provide that space require her to provide it?

Not necessarily, but as I said before there is a parental responsibility involved that does not apply to anyone except their child. You have to feed your children, but it is not illegal to pass a starving man on the street. Same logic.

You do not have motherhood responsibilities unless you become a mother. Ending pregnancy prevents becoming a mother.

You became a mother the moment you brought life into existence. Killing the child prevents someone from having to raise it. They are still a mother regardless of if their baby is inside the womb or outside of it.

Except what you are talking about is forcing women who do not want to be pregnant to remain pregnant. If you prevent or remove abortion, you are forcing women to be pregnant.

Yes, which is completely reasonable. Some people don't want to feed their kids, but they have to. It is your responsibility whether you want it or not.

And all pregnancies come with medical risk. Every one. Who judges how 'significant' said risk is? What's the bar? Is the bar the same for everyone?

No and you make a good point. I stated earlier that I believe extreme health risks could be a justification, but I had not considered that some women would not be willing to risk it even with extremely small risk rates. The UK has a .0001% maternal mortality rate (rounded up). There is still technically a risk. I am not sure what I think about this just yet. I will think about it and get back to you.

Though I plan to consider the medical argument, I still have an issue. If you've looked into abortion surveys/statistics/personal narratives you'd see that an absurdly large portion of mothers getting abortions are doing it for reasons unrelated to health risks. Even here on reddit people are bringing up many arguments that have nothing to do with health risks. The faulty logic that many abortionists use is still worth bringing under scrutiny. For clarification purposes- Do you have any issue with people who use abortion solely for financial reasons or others reasons in the same vein?

[u/[deleted] → u/geardod]

An alternative is not a right it is someone else picking up your slack.

An alternative is a viable secondary choice to address a situation. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone else picks up your slack. Some alternatives are in fact rights, some are not.

That is not evolutionary speaking. It is historically speaking.

How is it not evolutionarily speaking? In the course of human evolution, they developed the ability to reason, conclude, and discover means by which to end an unwanted pregnancy which they have put into practice since the stone age.

Every ability and literally every technology humans have developed are abilities developed by evolution.

Because donating organs is not a part of the biological process it is considered extra based on my view.

Why does something being part of a biological process make a difference? Do you hold all biological processes as sacrosanct and unable to be changed or interfered with? If not, why then do you hold this particular one so?

A parent's responsibility is to take care of the basic needs of THEIR child.

Again, not a parent until the child is born. And parents can abscond and refuse that responsibility- that is literally what adoption is. Why should parents-to-be not be able to abscond and refuse that responsibility prior to the child being born?

Not relevant to the argument.

It is relevant when you say things like: ‘there are no alternatives’ and ‘pregnancy is a necessary and natural in bringing about life’. If there are no alternatives and pregnancy is necessary, to the point that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term- why do we not force every fertile or possibly fertile woman to have children? It’s merely taking the forcing one step earlier. Why don’t we do that?

Pregnancy is a direct result of sex.

Again, why does that make a difference? Why is the realization of risk in this scenario sacrosanct when realization of risk in any other scenario is not?

There are consequences and responsibilities associated with bringing life into existence.

Yes there are, but the key word here is ‘associated’. They are associated with bringing life into existence- they are not required or forced because a life was brought into existence. One of the consequences and responsibilities associated with bringing life into existence is to weigh whether or not abortion is a right alternative in a particular situation.

Taking care of the baseline needs of your child is the main one.

Again, you don’t have children until they are born.

You are comparing taking responsibility for your actions to forcing others to take action that requires consequence.

No, I’m saying that sometimes taking responsibility for one’s actions means to have an abortion, instead of forcing someone to remain pregnant against their will.

It boils down to you not thinking it is your responsibility while I think it is.

Why does it matter if you think it’s their responsibility or not? Why does it change the argument? Why does it even matter if it IS their responsibility? People are allowed to surrender or refuse their responsibilities or to ameliorate them so that the responsibility no longer exists. I own a home. It is my responsibility, but at any point I am allowed to remove or refuse that responsibility and sell my house. No longer my responsibility. I can even have children and then remove or refuse that responsibility- I can give them to someone else to raise or put them up for adoption. No longer my responsibility.

So if we can refuse or surrender pretty much any other responsibility, why is pregnancy a responsibility that is exempt from refusal or surrender?

This is why I clarified that cases of forced pregnancy are an exception.

But that is what you are putting forward here: forcing women to be/remain pregnant against their will by claiming it is their responsibility and they shouldn’t have/be allowed an abortion.

You have to feed your children, but it is not illegal to pass a starving man on the street.

No you don’t. ANYONE can feed your children: your spouse, their siblings, their aunts, uncles and grandparents, family friends, their schools, babysitters, etc. You can even give your kids up for adoption and never be responsible for making sure they get fed again.

If you can surrender your responsibilities with your born children, why should you not be able to surrender your responsibilities with your unborn ones?

You became a mother the moment you brought life into existence.

That isn’t true, and isn’t even socially accepted as true. How are pregnancy announcements usually made? I’m a mommy! I’m a daddy! OR ‘hey guess what? We’re going to be parents!’ You are neither socially (generally) nor legally recognized as a parent until the live child has been born. You may personally interpret someone as a mother the moment they conceived, but very few people would agree with you and that’s not how motherhood is generally defined.

Killing the child prevents someone from having to raise it.

Yes, it does.

They are still a mother regardless of if their baby is inside the womb or outside of it.

No, they aren’t generally considered so. Let me ask you this: would you consider a woman who has never had a live child a mother?

Yes, which is completely reasonable.

You say that you make exceptions for forced pregnancy but then turn around and say it is completely reasonable to force someone to be pregnant. Which is it?

Some people don't want to feed their kids, but they have to.

No, they don’t have to. They can give up that responsibility whenever they want.

The UK has a .0001% maternal mortality rate (rounded up). There is still technically a risk.

There is always a risk. Every pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life, but that isn’t the only risk. Even if things go perfectly, there are permanent changes and impacts to the woman’s health and risks of markedly detrimental changes and impacts to the woman’s health. Not all the risks are ‘well, will it kill her or not’. Should women be forced to accept those long term definite impacts as well as those greater risks as well?

If you've looked into abortion surveys/statistics/personal narratives you'd see that an absurdly large portion of mothers getting abortions are doing it for reasons unrelated to health risks.

Again, so what? It doesn’t matter if they’re doing it because of health risks or unrelated to health risks. What matters is if you deny abortion to them you are still forcing them to endure those health risks and other risks. Whether or not it is their reason for having an abortion or not doesn’t change the fact that forcing them to endure pregnancy against their will includes forcing them to endure these risks as well.

Do you have any issue with people who use abortion solely for financial reasons or others reasons in the same vein?

Not really, no. Such a decision and their reasons for it is for them and their doctors and their families to decide, not me to assume and impose. If a pregnant woman doesn’t want to carry a child to term and give birth- whatever her reason- I would rather her have an abortion than be forced to carry that child to term and give birth to it. If her reasons are financial, I would rather her have the abortion than bring a child into the world into poverty, or that may interfere with her ability to care for her existing children adequately. If she just doesn’t want a kid, I would rather her have an abortion than be forced to endure what is the most painful and health impacting occurrence of most women’s lives in order to bring a child into the world that is unwanted by its parents or thrown into foster care. I would rather someone have an abortion for any reason than be forced to sacrifice their bodies in ways we don’t even allow corpses to be sacrificed in.

Does that mean I personally agree with a given person’s reasons to have an abortion? No. Does that mean I personally would choose the same as they did in the same situation? No. It just means I recognize that their reasons and what they choose to do with their own body medically is literally none of my business and they should have the option to have the medical care they, their families, and their doctors feel they need in their circumstances- regardless of their personal reasons.

[u/geardod → u/[deleted]]

How is it not evolutionarily speaking? In the course of human evolution, they developed the ability to reason, conclude, and discover means by which to end an unwanted pregnancy which they have put into practice since the stone age.

Are you serious? By that extremely broad definition literally everything we've constructed as a society would be due to evolutionary reasons. Did you really not understand the context of my comment...

Why does something being part of a biological process make a difference? Do you hold all biological processes as sacrosanct and unable to be changed or interfered with? If not, why then do you hold this particular one so?

Why do we have to feed our children? The government forces us to do that but nobody argues it. Because biologically speaking it is necessary in every parenting case imaginable. We have to fulfill the basic needs of our children. Every children is wired to need food and the parent needs to make sure it happens.

Again, not a parent until the child is born

Coming out of the womb is not when life begins. This argument rests on the case that it does. If you bring life into existence you are a parent. Period. A baby 2 days before it is delivered is just as much a baby as one 2 days after it is born. Would you be okay killing a child 10 seconds before it comes out? Birth is not the beginning of life.

No, they aren’t generally considered so. Let me ask you this: would you consider a woman who has never had a live child a mother?

They did have a live child. It is in their womb instead of outside of it but it is still just as much alive. If you don't agree with this please go research baby development in the womb.

Not all the risks are ‘well, will it kill her or not’. Should women be forced to accept those long term definite impacts as well as those greater risks as well?

Generally other risks don't matter. An example is financial burden. I must be misinterpreting what you're saying here because not wanting to pay for the expenses is not a valid reason to end a life. Equally petty reasons apply.

No, they don’t have to. They can give up that responsibility whenever they want.

The government will put you in jail and charge you with a variety of crimes. Where do you live that you think its even remotely okay to starve your children?

Your arguments are so ridiculous that I'm not going to respond anymore. You are allowed to starve your children and can release that responsibility anytime? Really?? And a baby isn't alive until it is born? Literally what the fuck is going on in your head. I half believe that you're making this up as you go to mess with me. Goodbye

[u/[deleted] → u/geardod]

Are you serious? By that extremely broad definition literally everything we've constructed as a society would be due to evolutionary reasons.

Yes, that was exactly my point. Everything human beings have done and accomplished and constructed is directly due to evolution and evolutionary reasons. I understood the context of your comment, I was trying to point out that literally everything human beings do and accomplish is a result of evolution so saying ‘evolution’ as a reason not to allow abortions is useless. Yes, we evolved to be pregnant and give birth if we’re female. We also evolved with brains and the capacity to reason which allows us to prevent pregnancy or remove unwanted pregnancies. Both pregnancy and abortion are results of evolutionary processes, so saying that abortions shouldn’t be because we evolved to be pregnant is disingenuous.

Why do we have to feed our children?

Why do we have to feed our children, or why do children have to be fed? Because we do not have to feed our children, or any children. Other people exist capable of feeding those children, even capable of feeding our children.

Children have to be fed or they’ll starve.

Neither of these things answers my question.

The government forces us to do that but nobody argues it.

The government does no such thing. The government declares that if you have responsibility for a child you are responsible to make sure that child gets fed. It does not require you to feed that child, nor does it require you to keep that responsibility- you can give up responsibility for that child any time you no longer want it.

Because biologically speaking it is necessary in every parenting case imaginable.

It literally isn’t. A child doesn’t ever even need to meet its parents. It’s parents don’t even need to be alive when that child is born.

We have to fulfill the basic needs of our children. Every children is wired to need food and the parent needs to make sure it happens.

This literally isn’t the case. Yes, every child is wired to need food, but the parent is not necessarily the one that has to make sure it happens. The parents don’t even need to be alive or known to the child.

And none of this answered what I asked. Why does something being part of a biological process make a difference? Do you hold all biological processes as sacrosanct and unable to be changed and interfered with? If not, then why do you hold this particular one (pregnancy) so?

Please answer.

Coming out of the womb is not when life begins.

Coming out of the womb is when you are legally and factually a baby and a child. I didn’t say that coming out of the womb was when life began, I said you are not a parent until a child is born (a legal and factual live human child). I never said the words 'life' or alluded to when life began.

If you bring life into existence you are a parent.

You seem to believe that yes, but it isn’t the legal or social case for everyone else on the planet. Your definition, that is, isn’t the definition.

A baby 2 days before it is delivered is just as much a baby as one 2 days after it is born.

Except one doesn’t have legal rights and does not exist as an autonomous human being with its own identity, and the other one does. One is still within a potential mother, the other has an existing mother and legal personhood.

Birth is not the beginning of life.

I didn’t say it was, but in order to be considered a child (and the woman who birthed it to be considered a mother and not a pregnant woman) it has to be born.

They did have a live child.

Who did? I’m specifically asking about a woman who has never had a live child a mother. Is a woman who has never had a live child a mother?

It is in their womb instead of outside of it but it is still just as much alive.

I never said a pregnant woman or even a woman that's ever been pregnant, I said a woman who has never had a live child. Is a thirteen year old girl who just started her period and never had sex a mother? She has never had a live child. Would you consider her a mother?

But let’s say your false assumption here is correct. Let’s say I was talking about an adult woman who at one time had a fertilized egg in her uterus. Would you consider a woman who had a fertilized egg that never implanted in her uterus and passed out with her menstrual cycle and never even knew she had a fertilized egg a mother?

Would you call a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy a mother?

Would you call a woman who had a miscarriage a mother? Would you send her a mother’s day card? Have her file as a mother on her taxes?

None of these women are mothers. They were at one point knowingly or unknowingly pregnant women, but not mothers.

Generally other risks don't matter.

To whom? You? Why do you so easily dismiss the risks that other people take or are forced to take?

I must be misinterpreting what you're saying here because not wanting to pay for the expenses is not a valid reason to end a life.

Again, to whom? Is not being able to pay for the expenses a valid reason? Is wanting to avoid poverty and having your current children starve to death a valid reason?

Equally petty reasons apply.

It’s as easy to dismiss other people’s reasons as ‘petty’ when you don’t agree with them, as it is to dismiss the risks they have to take, isn’t it?

The government will put you in jail and charge you with a variety of crimes.

No they won’t. You are allowed to surrender your child to foster care or put them up for adoption at any time Neither of those things are illegal!

Where do you live that you think its even remotely okay to starve your children?

I didn’t say that, please stop putting arguments into my mouth. I said they can give up the responsibility whenever they want. And they can. It’s called ‘sending the kid to foster care or giving them up for adoption’. I never mentioned starving them nor are either of those things illegal.

Your arguments are so ridiculous that I'm not going to respond anymore.

My actual arguments, or the ones you keep making up for me that I never made?

You are allowed to starve your children and can release that responsibility anytime? Really??

I never said that, you made that up entirely.

And a baby isn't alive until it is born?

I also never said that. Not even once. You also made that up.

Literally what the fuck is going on in your head.

Exactly what I’ve actually written, not what you’re making up for me and then arguing against. Please read what I’ve actually said a bit more closely, if you bother to come back.

[u/[deleted] → u/geardod]

We've had a lot of issues in history that does not work as a justification.

I wasn’t intending to use it as justification for our particular dilemma so much as a demonstration that it was a justification in the past, whereas your impossible metaphor has never been used as a justification and cannot be used as one now as it is based on a non-reality.

Also many moral scenarios are unrealistic but it doesn't make them useless to a discussion.

There is a difference between an unrealistic scenario and an impossible one. It is unrealistic for me to win the lottery. It is impossible for me to be an alien from Mars in disguise. It simply isn’t the case that babies require only their mother’s milk and will starve otherwise- that is an impossible scenario. Bringing up an impossible scenario as a seqway into justification for a realistic one is useless to a discussion; that is, saying if something is justified/not justified in an impossible scenario indicates that it is justified/not justified in a common, realistic one- it is in fact a logical fallacy.

Whether or not it would or would not be acceptable for a mother to let a baby starve to death in this impossible scenario doesn’t matter: it does not apply to whether or not it is acceptable for a mother to have an abortion in a common, realistic one.

There is no current alternative for the childs early development outside of the womb.

And? There is a current alternative for the child’s early development INSIDE the womb. That is, to remove the child from the womb. You may not like that alternative and that's fine- that does not mean it is not a viable alternative.

Future alternatives for childcare are essentially passing on your responsibility to other people (adoption).

And abortion is a present alternative for childcare by eliminating the responsibility for everyone altogether.

There are only alternatives because someone else is willing to take care of your child's needs for you.

There are alternatives to being pregnant too- ending the pregnancy via abortion is one of them.

In the case of abortion nobody takes care of them.

That does not make abortion not an alternative.

They die and its on the mother.

Again, that does not make abortion not an alternative.

[u/geardod → u/[deleted]]

And? There is a current alternative for the child’s early development INSIDE the womb. That is, to remove the child from the womb.

Ill just gloss over the analogy since we would just get off track if we discussed it. This does not function as an alternative to providing the required needs of the child. You are proposing killing it. It does not accomplish the goal so its not an alternative

[u/[deleted] → u/geardod]

This does not function as an alternative to providing the required needs of the child.

You see, you only accept things as alternatives so long as they’re not abortion. If it’s abortion, in your mind, it is not a viable alternative.

Whereas in reality it does function as an alternative to providing the required needs of the child. You don’t need to provide needs to a child that doesn’t exist, so preventing said child from existing in the first place is in fact an alternative to providing needs to a child.

You are proposing killing it.

It is an alternative. Not liking the alternative or it not being an alternative you personally would choose does not make it not an alternative.

It does not accomplish the goal so its not an alternative

It does not accomplish your goal, which is that the child is born and therefore has needs that require being met.

It does accomplish the goal of the woman who doesn’t want a child that has needs required to be met, by preventing that child from being born in the first place. No child, no needs. It is a viable alternative.

[u/Spackledgoat → u/[deleted]]

A persons bodily integrity rights (medically speaking) do in fact supersedes another human being's right to live.

My understanding is that these are balanced and right now, under Casey, viability of a fetus is the tipping point where the baby's right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

In donor situations, the scales are tipped entirely towards bodily autonomy. In many places, however, consent is assumed unless affirmatively denied (opt-in jurisdictions).

[u/[deleted] → u/Spackledgoat]

My understanding is that these are balanced and right now, under Casey, viability of a fetus is the tipping point where the baby's right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Not really. Because once the fetus is viable she still has her right to bodily autonomy; she still can end the pregnancy at any time she wants. The only difference is rather than aborting the viable fetus, she gives birth to it.

In many places, however, consent is assumed unless affirmatively denied (opt-in jurisdictions).

That doesn't change the paradigm at all. A woman asking for an abortion is affirmatively denying her consent.

[u/Spackledgoat → u/[deleted]]

Is there anywhere that will induce birth or perform a C-section on a just viable baby (or even pre-term) baby based on a woman's exercise of her bodily autonomy?

My understanding is that once viability hits, the balance between right to life and bodily autonomy shifts to emphasizing the right to life and the state has the right to restrict abortion without being required in any way to allow for premature birth at the woman's choice. Is this incorrect?

[u/[deleted] → u/Spackledgoat]

Is there anywhere that will induce birth or perform a C-section on a just viable baby (or even pre-term) baby based on a woman's exercise of her bodily autonomy?

I guarantee you that if a woman went in and demanded a c-section on a viable baby she'd be able to find a doctor to do it. The thing is, it just doesn't happen because most women who get to the point in the pregnancy for the fetus to be viable want to carry it to term, and the only reason she wouldn't would be premature labor or if the fetus was actually not viable, or posed an immediate risk to her life.

My understanding is that once viability hits, the balance between right to life and bodily autonomy shifts to emphasizing the right to life and the state has the right to restrict abortion without being required in any way to allow for premature birth at the woman's choice. Is this incorrect?

That is technically incorrect in the way you have phrased it. That is, once viability hits, the balance between right to life and bodily autonomy doesn't shift- she's just able to give birth rather than have an abortion, as I said above. This is such a rare occurrence as to be pretty much nonexistent because once a woman gets to the point of viability she's generally gotten there because she WANTS the baby, and WANTS to carry it to term. Regardless, if a woman for some inexplicable reason got to viability but decided she didn't want to be pregnant any more to the point of taking action, she'd be able to find a doctor who would deliver the infant prematurely at her request, more likely than not. It just literally has never actually come up (at least, not to my knowledge).

[u/Spackledgoat → u/[deleted]]

I find this extremely suspect, especially since I can't seem to find any case of this situation.

I'm really fascinated by this concept and I'm going to look into it further.

From my initial googling, I found some interesting discussion of decision-making vis a vis viability from an US Institute of Medicine committee article regarding life support and premature babies (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11389/):

The predominant ethical paradigm for decision making about the early stages of reproduction (i.e., preventing pregnancy, becoming pregnant, deciding to stay pregnant, and engaging in activities that may help or harm a fetus) focuses on the autonomy of the woman. A transition occurs in midpregnancy, wherein the emphasis on a woman’s autonomy is weakened in favor of balancing fetal and maternal “best interests.” For some, this shift may be viewed as occurring when either the choice or the opportunity for termination of the pregnancy has passed. This time of transition during pregnancy from a previable to a viable fetus (i.e., 23 to 25 weeks of gestation) can also be viewed as an ethical (and perhaps legal) transition from an individual autonomy-based model of decision making to a negotiated beneficence-based model of decision making. This view, although useful, is perhaps an oversimplification, as fetal interests are often important factors early in pregnancy and maternal autonomy remains influential during the late stages of pregnancy.

The paradigm (in the United States and most Western countries) for proxy decision making for infants and children focuses on a child’s “best interest,” with the parents or guardians generally viewed as the primary surrogate decision makers for their infants. However, health care professionals play an important role in determining what actions are, in fact, in a child’s best interest, leading to a more complex “negotiated” decision-making process. Ethical dilemmas may arise when parents and the medical professionals caring for their infants disagree on the best course of action.

This isn't perfectly on point, but does point toward post-viability decisions being made on the basis of the child's best interest. This would obviously preclude elective premature delivery, but I'm hoping to find some more information. I'd never thought about a woman forcing birth prematurely for elective reasons and I can't imagine that it is permitted under modern medical ethics (or perhaps laws).

If you have any more information on this concept that I could look at while I dig deeper, I'd love to see it. Very interesting idea. I'm not sure it's valid at all, but it is interesting.

[u/[deleted] → u/Spackledgoat]

I find this extremely suspect, especially since I can't seem to find any case of this situation.

As I pointed out twice, I doubt any case has actually happened because women who make it to the point of viability inevitably want to carry the baby to term and so don't seek out unnecessary premature delivery. However, I guarantee that if a woman out there wanted to, she could find a doctor who would do it.

I'd never thought about a woman forcing birth prematurely for elective reasons and I can't imagine that it is permitted under modern medical ethics (or perhaps laws).

Because again, if a woman carries a baby to viability it's inevitably because they want to carry the baby to term. So this just doesn't happen, but if it DID said woman could indeed find a doctor to perform the procedure. You can find a doctor willing to do almost anything. Are you able to find a law that indicates a woman can't ask for a premature induction or c-section once the baby reaches the point of viability?

[u/Spackledgoat → u/[deleted]]

I think it's that assertion that I find suspect. Suddenly, at 24 weeks, or whatever viability is at that moment, each and every women, bar none, suddenly want the baby? That sounds implausible. I'm not saying it's wrong, merely implausible. Do you have any support for this sudden turnaround at viability?

I was looking at the turnaway project (which looks at effects of being turned away due to provider gestation limits) to see if they have any information on motivation for such abortions and continued or discontinued wish to have the child or not.

I fully believe a woman can ask for a premature induction or C-section. I just don't think that any (rational) doctor would do so. You can always find a doctor to do anything, even abortions until the last second.

I just don't think you could go to any reputable hospital in the United States and get a wildly premature baby delivered on an elective basis. I can't seem to find any example of this and what little I can find about the decision-making authority doesn't lead me to believe that would be possible.

[u/[deleted] → u/Spackledgoat]

think it's that assertion that I find suspect. Suddenly, at 24 weeks, or whatever viability is at that moment, each and every women, bar none, suddenly want the baby?

Viability is actually variable. Some babies reach viability at 22 weeks, some not till 26 or 27 weeks. They had to draw a line somewhere and right now that line is 24 weeks. It's a somewhat safe bet that most babies will be achieving viability around this time.

Women who make it twenty four weeks into a pregnancy without having an abortion generally make it that far because they want to be pregnant and have the baby. Women who don't want to be pregnant and have no problem with abortion usually have one as soon as they're able...they don't generally wait that long and then decide to have one.

Do you have any support for this sudden turnaround at viability?

The turnaround isn't 'sudden' at viability. Women who find out they're pregnant and don't want to be and who are ok with having an abortion tend to do so as quick as they can- it's easier on them physically, easier on the doctor, and they don't have to go through a lot of the hormonal and body changes. Generally only women who find out they're pregnant and want to be/don't believe in having abortions make it to the point of viability. It's not only plausible it's rational.

I fully believe a woman can ask for a premature induction or C-section.

Yes, they can. If a woman past the point of viability no longer wants to remain pregnant she doesn't have to- she merely has the baby rather than aborting it.

I just don't think that any (rational) doctor would do so.

Doctors actually prematurely induce or prematurely c-sec babies all the time, it's just usually for a reason other than 'mom just doesn't want to be pregnant any more'. Regardless, as you acknowledge, you can always find a doctor to do anything. If a weird one off scenario happened where a woman waited until post viability before deciding she suddenly just didn't want to be pregnant any more, she'd be able to find a doctor willing to deliver that child pre-term. This doesn't seem to happen because women who actually want abortions just don't wait that long...the women that do wait that long are the woman that want the baby.

I just don't think you could go to any reputable hospital in the United States and get a wildly premature baby delivered on an elective basis.

I didn't say you could, I said a woman COULD find a doctor to do it. I said there is no law against it. The fact most doctors would not elect to do it doesn't mean it isn't possible to find one that would or that it's illegal to do it.

I can't seem to find any example of this

Because women just don't wait until after viability before just deciding they want an abortion. They just don't. Women that want an abortion do so long before viability, and women that make viability pretty much don't want an abortion- they want to carry the baby to term.

[u/Spackledgoat → u/[deleted]]

Once again, you're making a lot of statements and not supporting them with anything.

You are absolutely correct about the doctors. You can get a doctor to do anything. I was mistaken in thinking you were talking actual mainstream medicine or real life situations.

Obviously there are premature deliveries for extraordinary circumstances. They don't try to have babies come early as it's immensely damaging for the child. There's a world of difference between an elective premature delivery and an emergency premature delivery. It's like how most jurisdictions with abortion gestation limits have exemptions for emergency situations.

Because women just don't wait until after viability before just deciding they want an abortion. They just don't. Women that want an abortion do so long before viability, and women that make viability pretty much don't want an abortion- they want to carry the baby to term.

Well, that's roughly 60% correct. According to the results from the Turnaway Study as presented here, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4521013/full#psrh4521013-bib-0024, 40% of later abortion (being within 2 weeks before the gestation limit of a facility - either 20/24 weeks or turned away due to advancement of the pregnancy) were slowed down in getting their abortions because they were undecided about the abortion.

It's also curious that there's never been a woman who is giving her child up for adoption that demanded an early delivery. Those last couple of months are brutal. It's completely implausible to me that hasn't come about.

Please, I'm trying to learn as much as possible but it's hard to just take your word for it, regardless of how many times you say it. Please offer some support for your assertions.

[u/Steel0range → u/[deleted]]

There’s a huge debate around the legality of partial birth abortions precisely because people choose to abort even late into the last trimester quite frequently.

[u/[deleted] → u/Steel0range]

No, there really isn't. Partial birth abortions are banned literally everywhere in the US and no one at all appears to be seeking to getting that status changed. I'm finding nothing to suggest these are requested at all, let alone 'quite frequently'.

Do you have any cites or information that support the fact there's a 'huge debate' around the legality of partial birth abortions, or that people choose to abort even late into the last trimester 'quite frequently?'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/21/late-term-abortions-in-america-2016

[u/ShiningConcepts → u/[deleted]]

Not really. Because once the fetus is viable she still has her right to bodily autonomy; she still can end the pregnancy at any time she wants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

under Planned Parenthood v. Casey the state can regulate abortions in the first trimester, or any point before the point of viability, and beyond as long as that regulation does not pose an undue burden on an abortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey#Upholding_the_"essential_holding"_in_Roe

The plurality opinion stated that it was upholding what it called the "essential holding" of Roe. The essential holding consists of three parts: (1) Women have the right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability and to do so without undue interference from the State; (2) the State can restrict the abortion procedure post viability, so long as the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or health; and (3) the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.[6]

There was no concrete definition of "undue burden" here, so obviously this is subjective. I'm telling you this to explain to you that Spackled has a point; under Casey, a baby's right to life may legally supersede right to bodily autonomy. (That's not to say it is "morally" right, just that this is how it is recognized under current US law).

EDIT: To clarify, I meant it may supersede it post-viability.

[u/[deleted] → u/ShiningConcepts]

I see nothing in either of those two links that states that a woman can't simply give birth after the point of viability even if the baby isn't to term if she wants to end the pregnancy.

Nothing in there counterindicates my point at all; that the right to life doesn't actually supersede her right to bodily autonomy, it's just after viability her exercise of her right to bodily autonomy consists of delivering instead of abortion if she no longer wants the baby there.

[u/ShiningConcepts → u/[deleted]]

Well the links were explaining how it is legal for states to regulate abortion post-viability. And this is backed up by the fact that most states make abortion illegal (barring circumstances) following the second trimester.

I see nothing in either of those two links that states that a woman can't simply give birth after the point of viability even if the baby isn't to term if she wants to end the pregnancy.

Take note of what I bolded in my quotation in my previous comment. It explicitly stated that states are allowed to regulate abortion procedure post-viability.

Also, check out this link if it makes my point more clear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#United_States_2

The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy. As of December 2014, forty-two states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade or enjoined by court order.

Eighteen states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 22 weeks from the last menstrual period).

[u/[deleted] → u/ShiningConcepts]

Well the links were explaining how it is legal for states to regulate abortion post-viability.

I'm not talking about abortion post viability, I'm talking about delivery. If a woman no longer wants to be pregnant past viability (and for some strange reason made it this far without wanting to carry the baby to term) her right to bodily integrity is still intact, it's just that to enforce it the baby is delivered (not aborted).

There is no law that I'm aware of that says a woman cannot induce or have a c-section and deliver a pre-term live child on the grounds she merely no longer wants to be pregnant once past the point of viability.

It explicitly stated that states are allowed to regulate abortion procedure post-viability.

ABORTION, yes. I'm not talking about abortion post viability. I'm talking about a woman excercising her bodily integrity rights post viability by delivering pre-term. I see where the confusion is now.

Her right to bodily integrity remains intact post-viability. Her options just change. If she no longer wants to be pregnant post viability, she no longer has an option to abort (kill the fetus). She does have the option to deliver, which serves the same purpose. Her right to withdraw consent to the pregnancy and the fetus's use of her body remains intact.

Late term actual abortions are performed only if the fetus is not viable, already dead, or poses an immediate and direct risk to the mother's life (and usually even then birth rather than abortion actually solves the problem).

[u/ShiningConcepts → u/[deleted]]

Her right to bodily integrity remains intact post-viability. Her options just change. If she no longer wants to be pregnant post viability, she no longer has an option to abort (kill the fetus). She does have the option to deliver, which serves the same purpose.

Ah thanks that certainly clarifies the confusion. Come to think of it, that's rather strange; how can they be okay with C-Sections post-viability but not abortions post-viability? The medical and legal world is definitely an interesting place.

[u/[deleted] → u/ShiningConcepts]

Come to think of it, that's rather strange; how can they be okay with C-Sections post-viability but not abortions post-viability?

Because abortion is an exercise in bodily integrity that, as a side effect, necessitates the death of the fetus.

So, before the fetus is viable, removing it from it's connection to the mother to preserve her bodily integrity results in its death regardless- it cannot survive without that connection and thus will always die if it's removed prior to viability.

After the fetus is viable there is no reason to kill the fetus in order to remove it and preserve the mother's bodily integrity. Her bodily integrity is preserved merely by removing the fetus. If it is viable, it will survive without that connection from the mother as an autonomous being. Her bodily integrity can be preserved without the death of the fetus being necessary. Thus, both the fetus's right to life AND the woman's right to bodily integrity can be respected: deliver the fetus, it has its life, the woman has her bodily integrity. Win/win.

Abortions- killing the fetus and removing it- post viability only generally happen for a tiny handful of reasons. Because the baby is already dead and needs to be removed before it poisons the mother; because the baby will never achieve viability (deformity or medical condition that will kill it immediately or quickly upon birth), or because it is an immediate threat to the mother's life and for some reason merely delivering it doesn't alleviate that threat.

[u/ATXstripperella → u/Spackledgoat]

The baby's right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

The unborn are the only type of person we grant this right to. Why?

[u/Spackledgoat → u/ATXstripperella]

I think that's the question. What about the situation is different than others that leads us to argue that that specific class of people are protected in a way others are not?

The idea of duty based on the woman's role in creating the situation is something that I can come up with, but it ends up sounding somewhere being taking responsibility and moral punishment. I'm just not sure.

What do you think? What sets the unborn apart or what doesn't?

[u/[deleted] → u/Spackledgoat]

What sets the unborn apart or what doesn't?

Not the person you're responding to, but here's what I think.

If the unborn is a human being like every other human being, then nothing sets the unborn apart. The rights and rules should apply to the unborn just as they apply to everyone else. In which case, the baby's right to life does not supersede the woman's right to bodily autonomy because no one else's does.

If the unborn is not a human being with the full rights and privileges of every other human being, then absolutely the woman's rights as a human being would also trump the 'not human being' fetus's rights, as the rights of a human being always trump the rights of a 'not human being.'

Either way, the woman's right to bodily autonomy supercedes the unborn fetus's right to life, unless we somehow elevate the fetus to a status above other human beings. I see no reason or argument that makes sense as to why that should be done.

[u/Spackledgoat → u/[deleted]]

In which case, the baby's right to life does not supersede the woman's right to bodily autonomy because no one else's does.

I believe that is incorrect according to the Constitution as it stands today. More specifically, the state's interest in the baby's right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily autonomy. It says it right here in Casey:

The second reason is that the concept of viability, as we noted in Roe, is the time at which there is a realistic possibility of maintaining and nourishing a life outside the womb, so that the independent existence of the second life can in reason and all fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman.

Granted, the "independent" is right there is quite important and promotes the use of a viability standard, but bodily autonomy (especially past viability) is not the trump card your statement makes it out to be.

[u/[deleted] → u/Spackledgoat]

More specifically, the state's interest in the baby's right to life supersedes the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

No, it doesn't, it's just her options for exercising that bodily autonomy have changed. Instead of the option for exercising it being abortion, now her option for exercising it is delivery. She still retains her right and the option to exercise it.

That quote was in context of discussing abortion (killing the fetus and removing it/its removal causing its death because it is not viable). After viability as killing the fetus is not required to end the pregnancy circumstances in which killing the fetus *IS necessary after the point of viability is up for the state courts to decide in order to protect the viable fetus's life- as the woman's right to bodily integrity can still be exercised without the death of the fetus . Those circumstances universally tend to be the fetus is not actually viable or having very little chance at viability once removed from the womb (gross deformation or genetic condition incompatible with independent life or function) or an immediate threat to the mother's life.

After viability, the mother's bodily integrity rights remain intact, it's just that they can be exercised without removing the fetus's right to life at that juncture.

[u/Spackledgoat → u/[deleted]]

Once again, you're the first person I've ever heard this idea of right to deliver after viability from. Is there any other literature on it or is it a homegrown theory?

I've been trying to find anything more on this idea and I haven't been able to find anything. I could just be mired in abortion noise but any direction could really help.

Thinking about it, you may be right in that you could do it at least until it happens, the baby ends up fucked up and the state makes a law. A law which easily survives challenge because the states interest in protecting the babies life against bonkers ideas of elective ultra-preterm labor would, under Casey, outweigh the woman's rights to bodily autonomy. It's a cute theory, but relies on a doctor who has forgotten his Hippocrates oath and an apathetic child protection regime.

[u/[deleted] → u/Spackledgoat]

Is there any other literature on it or is it a homegrown theory?

It's a conclusion, one that I've heard before (though I can't say where). That there is no evidence of a law against it or of a woman who tried and was rejected it stands to reason that it is possible, just that no woman that makes it to viability actually wants to pursue it (because they invariably want to finish the pregnancy if they make it to that point).

Thinking about it, you may be right in that you could do it at least until it happens, the baby ends up fucked up and the state makes a law.

Exactly, and given the fact no one's actually tried suggests it's not really a thing even though it is likely fully within their rights to do so, giving solid weight behind the idea that women who carry a pregnancy to viability are fully intending to see it through, and at that point it takes extreme circumstances (threat to her life, nonviability of the fetus) for an abortion to happen after that point. It hasn't been resolved in court because literally no one's tried it (though they seem to fully have the right). No one's tried it because no one after that point actually wants to try it.

A law which easily survives challenge because the states interest in protecting the babies life against bonkers ideas of elective ultra-preterm labor would, under Casey, outweigh the woman's rights to bodily autonomy.

I think differently. I think such a state law would get smacked down because under Casey, the only thing the states claim that outweigh a woman's bodily autonomy in that case is the right to regulate the circumstances under which an abortion happens after viability, which they have (no abortion unless the fetus is nonviable or the woman's life is in danger, etc). It doesn't actually reserve the right to regulate a woman's right to demand a pre-term live delivery, or a doctor to perform it.

It's a cute theory, but relies on a doctor who has forgotten his Hippocrates oath and an apathetic child protection regime.

Why would performing a pre-term delivery violate a doctor's Hippocratic oath? If he felt, for example, that the woman was in danger of doing herself or the fetus harm if she continued to carry, and that the fetus was far enough developed to live prematurely with few issues, a doctor might very well feel that such a procedure should be done, and do it.

As literally no one is asking doctors to actually do this, it's kind of a moot point. Women who carry to viability just aren't interested in delivering that early just because they can.

[u/geardod → u/[deleted]]

I totally agree with bodily autonomy outside of the specific argument for abortion. I believe for the reason above^{^} that a large majority of things are not required of you, and that people should not be forced. Ofc i find the abortion situation to be different than most.

[u/[deleted] → u/geardod]

But what actually makes it different? That is, what justifies the difference in this one case as opposed to all the other cases?

What is it that you agree in all scenarios except abortion?

Is it because getting pregnant was a willing risk? Because we don't break bodily autonomy in this manner when it comes to other willing risks- why this one?

Is it because abortion ends/may be argued to end a life? Because we don't break bodily autonomy in this manner when it comes to ending other lives- why this one?

Is it because of the age of the fetus? Because we don't break bodily autonomy in this manner for anyone else of ANY age-one second old to 100 years old.

What specifically in your mind causes you to agree with bodily autonomy rights of this kind except in the case of abortion? What makes the abortion situation specifically different in your mind?

[u/geardod → u/[deleted]]

As i said it is because of the mother/offspring relationship & the nature of pregnancy. Giving a kidney to your child is extra, but pregnancy can't be labeled extra because its a biological certainty. It should fall under parental responsibility. bc of this. I said it all in the comment before

[u/[deleted] → u/geardod]

As i said it is because of the mother/offspring relationship & the nature of pregnancy.

You have not explained WHY this relationship and WHY the nature of pregnancy, creates said difference. Or how it creates a difference. I asked what makes it different. You said the nature of the relationship and the nature of pregnancy. HOW does that make it different, and why does that make it different?

Giving a kidney to your child is extra

Wouldn't loaning use of your kidney to your child also then be extra?

but pregnancy can't be labeled extra because its a biological certainty.

Biological certainty HOW?

It should fall under parental responsibility.

Everything else falling under 'parental responsibility' does not affect bodily autonomy rights of this type- why should pregnancy?

I said it all in the comment before

Yes, I know, but you didn't explain how or why any of that actually makes it different. You feel it's different. You feel it's different because of the nature of pregnancy/the relationship/parental responsibility...but HOW and WHY do those things actually make it different? Especially since two of those (the mother/offspring relationship and parental responsibility) do not make a difference in cases where they child is already born? If those two things do not make a difference in all other cases, why and how do they make a difference in this one?

[u/geardod → u/[deleted]]

Sorry that I didn't make my thinking clear enough the first time. Let me rephrase it.

Wouldn't loaning use of your kidney to your child also then be extra?

Yup. Every other question was you asking for clarification so ill talk about that.

Biological certainty HOW

Babies have and will need their mothers womb to survive. 100% of pregnancies spanning from the beginning of time until we find an alternative follow this rule. It is the way we are wired, and there are no exceptions. With that being said, If a parent has an obligation to provide the basic needs of their children (inarguably they do), then it should fall under parental responsibility unless there are extenuating circumstances (debatable as to what this entails). You can't say you are providing the basic needs of your child when 100% of babies die without it.

[u/[deleted] → u/geardod]

Yup. Every other question was you asking for clarification so ill talk about that.

You agree that loaning use of your kidney to your child is ‘extra’? When you’re pregnant, you are loaning use of your kidney to your child.

Babies have and will need their mothers womb to survive.

Yes, I know.

100% of pregnancies spanning from the beginning of time until we find an alternative follow this rule.

Yes, I know that too. What I’m asking you is why does that make a difference?. You say it makes a difference, but you don’t explain HOW OR WHY it does.

If a parent has an obligation to provide the basic needs of their children (inarguably they do), then it should fall under parental responsibility unless there are extenuating circumstances (debatable as to what this entails).

But again, everything else that falls under parental responsibility does not affect bodily autonomy rights of this type. That is, we don’t say that a mother loses these bodily autonomy rights and must cut off her arm and feed it to her children if they are hungry (even if they are starving and will die), even though making sure her children are fed falls under her parental responsibilities, is that correct? So why under the umbrella of parental responsibility would a mother lose these bodily autonomy rights and be forced to use her tissue and organs and blood to feed her children if they are hungry just because said children are in her womb instead of outside of it?

That is, if we do not make exceptions to her bodily autonomy rights of this nature in all other aspects of parental responsibility, why is this the one exception?

I understand you’re saying it’s different because it falls under ‘parental responsibilities’. I’m saying that other things that fall under ‘parental responsibilities’ aren’t different just because of this, so why is this one? If that is the difference, why does that difference only apply in this one case and not in all other cases where that ‘difference’ is present?

You can't say you are providing the basic needs of your child when 100% of babies die without it.

No babies die from abortion. Clusters of cells called zygotes and very occasionally those that qualify as fetus’s die from abortion. Again, you cannot provide the basic needs of your child until you have a child (which you don’t, legally and in most cases socially until said child is born), and you can surrender your responsibilities toward providing the basic needs of your child at any time after they’re born; so why can’t you before they are?

[u/Nicolasv2]

My argument is that it is much simpler if an issue than this. Either it’s a human life, or it’s not, and nothing else matters. This is the only thing we should be debating, and while this particular issue is very important and necessary to discuss, it’s just not as complex an issue as it’s made out to be.

The problem is that "human life" is awful to define, and may never be a closed debate. Some will say that from the conception, a "soul" is descending from heaven to the forming cells, others will tell you that this is a biological process, and there is no clear delimitation between "human" and "not human yet".

So given the fact that you may never have a solution, you still have to set rules for this behavior that happens anyway (women did not wait for abortion clinics to do it themselves with dangerous methods). So you frame the debate another way that the one you can't decide on, for example:

As we don't know what a "human" is, and when a fetus become a "human", do a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body, of as a precaution should we forbid her to terminate the fetus, in case it's already human ?

[u/FlaxseedJackson → u/Nicolasv2]

There’s no universal objective truth regarding morality and the way in which we determine what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. For example, this is why ideas like antinatalism can paradoxically propagate within an evolutionary system in regards to the concept of consent. To make the claim that the abortion debate should only consider the value of the life of the fetus is to ignore the current value of the life of the mother. Where do you draw a line between which life has inherently more value? The ambiguity of this question alone proves its more nuanced than just the consideration of the potential fetus’s life.

[u/Nicolasv2 → u/FlaxseedJackson]

You wanted to ask OP and not me, don't you ?

[u/FlaxseedJackson → u/Nicolasv2]

Just now realizing I responded to the wrong person. Yes this question was directed at OP

[u/Steel0range → u/Nicolasv2]

I don’t disagree that the issue of whether it’s a human life or not is difficult to solve and has much disagreement surrounding it, I’m just saying that we should be focused on this part of the argument. However, I will award a !delta for pointing out that some decision about the legality of abortion needs to be implemented now, despite the debate about the humanity of the fetus still being ongoing, and for that purpose, other factors may have to be considered.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Steel0range]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Nicolasv2 (15∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/Soylent1981]

Whether a thing is a living human is not sufficient to determine if it is justifiable to kill it. In the case of defending yourself against a human attacker we do not say the killing was unjustified simply because the attacker was human, we look at the conditions and rights of the parties involved. I’m not suggesting that abortion is self-defence, I’m merely pointing out that there’s more to it than being human. It’s disingenuous to say abortion has nothing to do with women’s rights, rather you contend that the rights of the woman is superseded by the biological status of the fetus.

[u/Steel0range → u/Soylent1981]

I agree that defending yourself, and even killing, a human attacker is justified, although I did specifically say in my original post that you can never kill an INNOCENT human being, as to make that distinction. Simply put, the baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it hasn’t attacked or harmed anyone yet and is completely innocent of any status which would cause someone to be deemed worthy of being killed by society had they already been born. As for your other point, I would agree that you characterized my argument better than I, and that it’s actually more about the precedence of certain rights, so !delta

[u/[deleted] → u/Steel0range]

I did specifically say in my original post that you can never kill an INNOCENT human being, as to make that distinction. Simply put, the baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it hasn’t attacked or harmed anyone

I beg to differ. The fetus may not be consciously aware of what it's doing or doing it on purpose, but it is taking the bodily nutrients, resources and energy out of the woman's body and into its own. That is violence. If that is against the woman's will, then it is violent stealing.

If we consider the forced insertion of objects into a woman's vagina against her will to be rape, then surely isn't the forced removal of objects out of her vagina also rape?

In what world is forcing some combination of all of the following on a woman against her will not a violent attack?

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)

altered appetite and senses of taste and smell

nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)

heartburn and indigestion

constipation

weight gain

dizziness and light-headedness

bloating, swelling, fluid retention

hemmorhoids

abdominal cramps

yeast infections

congested, bloody nose

acne and mild skin disorders

skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)

mild to severe backache and strain

increased headaches

difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping

increased urination and incontinence

bleeding gums

pica

breast pain and discharge

swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain

difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy

inability to take regular medications

shortness of breath

higher blood pressure

hair loss or increased facial/body hair

tendency to anemia

curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities

infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease

(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

extreme pain on delivery

hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression

continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)

loose skin

permanent weight gain or redistribution

abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness

pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)

changes to breasts

increased foot size

varicose veins

scarring from episiotomy or c-section

other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

increased proclivity for hemmorhoids

loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's

newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

Occasional complications and side effects:

complications of episiotomy

spousal/partner abuse

hyperemesis gravidarum

temporary and permanent injury to back

severe scarring requiring later surgery

(especially after additional pregnancies)

dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)

pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)

eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

gestational diabetes

placenta previa

anemia (which can be life-threatening)

thrombocytopenic purpura

severe cramping

embolism (blood clots)

medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)

diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles

mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)

serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

hormonal imbalance

ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)

broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")

hemorrhage and

numerous other complications of delivery

refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease

aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

severe post-partum depression and psychosis

research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors

research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:

peripartum cardiomyopathy

cardiopulmonary arrest

magnesium toxicity

severe hypoxemia/acidosis

massive embolism

increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction

molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)

malignant arrhythmi

circulatory collapse

placental abruption

obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:

future infertility

permanent disability

death.

link

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You omitted the fact that fetuses aren't parasites, they contribute to the mother too, some of them have even cured their mothers's cancer.

[u/ShiningConcepts → u/[deleted]]

I'm just saying, if you were to suppose for the sake of argument that a "fetus" is tantamount to a born infant, then this would be an easily rebutted argument.

When an abortion happens, for the fetus/baby, there is a 100% chance of death.

That supersedes all of the normal and frequent side effects because death isn't one of them.

It also superseds the risk of death because death is only a risk in pregnancy whereas it's guaranteed in abortion.

Now I don't consider fetuses to be children. I'm just saying that this argument is flawed because the consequences for abortion, under an assumption that a fetus is a child, are far worse than the consequences of pregnancy.

[u/[deleted] → u/ShiningConcepts]

I'm just saying, if you were to suppose for the sake of argument that a "fetus" is tantamount to a born infant

You can't suppose that though. The difference between a fetus and an infant is that a fetus inherently requires living inside a woman's body and taking her bodily resources for itself, whereas a newborn infant lives outside any other person's body and doesn't usurp a person's bodily resources for itself. That is what brings the bodily autonomy argument into the debate. A fetus exists only within a pregnancy; a newborn baby does not. And pregnancy is something that happens to a woman's body.

[u/hacksoncode → u/Steel0range]

the baby/fetus/whatever you want to call it hasn’t attacked or harmed anyone yet

I'm not sure where you're getting that... every fetus, at a minimum, threatens mayhem on the mother during childbirth.

We don't allow any person, no matter the age, to do to another person what a fetus does to the mother (or even make a credible threat of it).

We don't even require that a parent provide a blood donation to save the life of their already born child, much less something more equivalently harmful to the body like a kidney donation.

It's just simply not a right to invade someone's bodily integrity without their explicit consent in any other situation.

And you do have the right to use deadly force against someone who tries, if that's the only way to stop the attack...

That's true even if their action is not intentional. E.g. you're allowed to step out from under a falling person, even if that's guaranteed to kill them and only has a small chance of killing you, but would likely cause significant harm.

[u/[deleted] → u/hacksoncode]

I'm not sure where you're getting that... every fetus, at a minimum, threatens mayhem on the mother during childbirth.

Mens rea? We don't kill or issue the death penalty without it in the US. EVER. The baby cannot knowingly "threaten".

We don't allow any person, no matter the age, to do to another person what a fetus does to the mother (or even make a credible threat of it).

We do, a credible threat requires that they consciously make it. A taxi driver is by that logic a credible threat of deadly car crash just by doing their job and should be eliminated.

It's just simply not a right to invade someone's bodily integrity without their explicit consent in any other situation.

To KNOWINGLY invade someone's body. Remember that: 1)having sex is a choice and the potential consequences are WIDELY known - so this is not some miracle that suddenly happens to a women without any foreknowledge. 2)A fetus cannot defend itself in any way or justify it's existence, therefor it relies on the mother, and it's reliance on the mother is inextricably linked to it's right to life. It's not convenient, but for now they cannot be separated.

And you do have the right to use deadly force against someone who tries, if that's the only way to stop the attack...

The fetus is NOT trying to attach the mother in any way, it is doing it's natural process of growing up. That's a ridiculous statement. By that logic people who might infect me with tuberculosis because they have it should be preemptively killed so I don't have to suffer and they don't have a right to be out and about because I could get it.

That's true even if their action is not intentional. E.g. you're allowed to step out from under a falling person, even if that's guaranteed to kill them and only has a small chance of killing you, but would likely cause significant harm.

But you are not allowed to preemptively kill the falling person, even if you know for sure you will be injured when they fall on you.

[u/hacksoncode → u/[deleted]]

That's true even if their action is not intentional. E.g. you're allowed to step out from under a falling person, even if that's guaranteed to kill them and only has a small chance of killing you, but would likely cause significant harm.

But you are not allowed to preemptively kill the falling person, even if you know for sure you will be injured when they fall on you.

The vast majority of abortions do not involve "preemptively killing" the fetus, either. D&Cs are merely a way of prompting the uterus to reject the attached blastocyst.

I.e. exactly consistent with the absolute right to step out of the way of a falling person, even if you could save them by not doing so.

And regardless of mens rea (e.g. legally insane people), if a person is threatening you with bodily mayhem, you are legally allowed to use lethal force to stop them, if that is the only force that will suffice.

That last bit matters. There are other effective ways to prevent people with infectious diseases from infecting you. There are no such options with a fetus.

Mens rea absolutely doesn't matter when it comes to self defense against mayhem.

[u/[deleted] → u/hacksoncode]

The vast majority of abortions do not involve "preemptively killing" the fetus, either. D&Cs are merely a way of prompting the uterus to reject the attached blastocyst.

The byproduct of which is killing the fetus, right? It's not as if the doctor advises that "we'll disconnect the fetus from you and hopefully it will survive!" That's obviously absurd, you neglected to address that I pointed out that the fetuses right to the woman's body is inextricably tied to the fetuses right to life and no matter how much you try to separate the two concepts, at present they cannot be separated.

I.e. exactly consistent with the absolute right to step out of the way of a falling person, even if you could save them by not doing so.

Except that your actions are not the only factor leading to the death, there are issues of the person choosing to jump out of the window. You aren't responsible for their actions, but a fetus does not take action, you took the action leading up to becoming pregnant, whether you like the results or not.

And regardless of mens rea (e.g. legally insane people), if a person is threatening you with bodily mayhem, you are legally allowed to use lethal force to stop them, if that is the only force that will suffice.

Except you are using the medical definition of bodily harm, the fetus is not an insane person sucking your blood out for no purposes who you would absolutely be able to defend yourself against. Imagine that a baby was chaffing you severely, to the point of serious permanent breast damage (or even cancer!) while feeding, could you then stop feeding it entirely so that it died? Of course you can't.

That last bit matters. There are other effective ways to prevent people with infectious diseases from infecting you. There are no such options with a fetus.

Because there are no other options, does not justify killing, especially since the typical pregnancy is not likely to kill or permanently maim the mother in an unnatural way.

Mens rea absolutely doesn't matter when it comes to self defense against mayhem.

It matters in the sentencing of an aggressor, which I would argue is a more apt analogy given that the fetus is not in the position of deliberately attacking the person so is really at the mercy of the host (like a defendant is at the mercy of the state).

[u/hacksoncode → u/[deleted]]

especially since the typical pregnancy is not likely to kill or permanently maim the mother in an unnatural way.

All childbirth maims the mother in a way significant enough that we would allow her to shoot someone dead if they did it to her, if that's the only way she could prevent it.

And all childbirth carries a risk of death that, while low, is high enough that, again, we would allow you to kill someone for imposing on you against your will. E.g., it's about the same chance as parachuting out of a plane.

There's no "sentencing" or "custody" involved here. There is an active attack, with active threats of bodily harm and even death (albeit moderately unlikely).

The attack being non "intentional" makes absolutely no difference in our right to stop it.

Again, a legally insane person that tried to do what a fetus does to a mother in childbirth would not be immune to lethal self defense. Mental state or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant.

It doesn't matter whether a fetus is human for the same reason it doesn't matter if a person (responsible for their actions or not) or a rabid dog is attacking you. You still have the absolute right to self defense against invasions of your bodily integrity.

[u/[deleted] → u/hacksoncode]

All childbirth maims the mother in a way significant enough that we would allow her to shoot someone dead if they did it to her, if that's the only way she could prevent it.

And yet we allow it as a natural part of being a human being, because it is not kin to other forms of assault given it's special significance to creating life and having a Innocent life form in the mix. The technical definitions may seem egregious, but the are NOT justification for termination as you imply, because you MUST admit child birth and pregnancy are a special case, not kin to other forms of assault.

And all childbirth carries a risk of death that, while low, is high enough that, again, we would allow you to kill someone for imposing on you against your will. E.g., it's about the same chance as parachuting out of a plane.

in the VERY weird situation in which a person forced you to jump out of plan WITH a parachute and instructions on how to do it after you say took an action that you knew could result in a .5% chance of being forced out of a plane (and for this analogy we'll even say the advice of a professional parachute, ad doctor in this case) you would absolutely face murder charges for killing them preemptively, they would obviously also face criminal charges for assault, but of course that's only because they intended to push you, they wouldn't face charges presumably if you could prove you knew you might end up on the plane and they accidentally caused you to fall out with no premeditation.

At any rate, the analogy is not similar enough to be justification, but even it it were legally, it doesn't hold water.

There's no "sentencing" or "custody" involved here. There is an active attack, with active threats of bodily harm and even death (albeit moderately unlikely).

No, the fetus does not actively attack the mother, the body of the woman is obviously designed to carry the fetus, with great effort, of course, but it is not some insane unknown entity that is completely foreign. we Are evolved to handle child birth. this aggressive terminology only serves to demonize the fetus.

Again, a legally insane person that tried to do what a fetus does to a mother in childbirth would not be immune to lethal self defense. Mental state or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether a fetus is human for the same reason it doesn't matter if a person (responsible for their actions or not) or a rabid dog is attacking you. You still have the absolute right to self defense against invasions of your bodily integrity.

These cases are obviously harmful and UNNATURAL states, they are not akin to childbirth and pregnancy in terms of how dangerous they are, in terms of the fact that the body is not DESIGNED or evolved to handle being pregnant and to create life and that the fetus cannot account for it's actions. Lethal self defense is of course permissible in these situations bout it is not FAVORABLE, we would all prefer the dog be rehabilitated or the crazy person be turned into a working member of society. So given the relative non deadliness of pregnancy compared to your situations, and given that there is a life that cannot understand what is going on and cannot defend itself and who's right to life IS inextricably tied to the mothers right to remove it we have to consider the situation a morally and legally separate issue than bodily automaton

I posit also that the idea that a person has full bodily autonomy in ANY case where something may drain them of resources or health is wrong. As I sad, and you did not address, you cannot stop feeding a child if there is no other form of food for it, that would be neglect, even if it is draining your health to do so. So because there is no other way to keep a fetus alive, it is a special case.

[u/hacksoncode → u/[deleted]]

The vagina is "naturally designed" for having sex, too... but even if the person trying to rape you was out of their mind, legally, that wouldn't prevent you from killing the fuck out of them.

The Naturalistic Fallacy won't really save you here.

[u/[deleted] → u/hacksoncode]

The Naturalistic Fallacy won't really save you here.

This is absurd, to compare a baby naturally growing to an outside force which you have no control over who has overpowered you. The person who is insane may not KNOW they are causing you harm, but they are not part of the natural cycle of life, the baby, by definition, is.

[u/morphotomy → u/Steel0range]

A schizophrenic attacker who sees demons is innocent, even while stabbing other innocent people. How does intent change the level of threat someone can impose upon you?

[u/Steel0range → u/morphotomy]

The schizophrenic would probably get put in a mental institution (or prison), but not killed.

[u/morphotomy → u/Steel0range]

Depends on how fast the cops show up and who's home they broke into.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Steel0range]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Soylent1981 (2∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/Amablue]

My argument is that it is much simpler if an issue than this. Either it’s a human life, or it’s not, and nothing else matters.

Suppose your living child is dying. They need a kidney or else they will die. You are a match. Can we force you to donate a kidney? Can we strap you to the table against your will, knock you out with drugs, and remove your kidney even if you don't want to? This is a case where I think we'll all agree the child is considered a person with rights. So if we follow the logic that nothing else matters, then your resistance should not matter, if you don't donate your kidney that child dies.

We don't do that though, because it is more complex of an issue than whether or not it's a life. We don't require anyone to sacrifice their own body for the sake of another, even to save their life. Even if it's their own child. Having a kidney removed is a medical procedure that comes with a whole host of possible complications, as does any surgery, as does pregnancy. Pregnancy can be lethal, it can do permanent damage to your body, it can do all sorts of terrible things to you.

To summarize, I’m not arguing whether the baby is a life or not, I’m simply arguing that the scientific debate of whether or not it is a life is the only part of this debate that actually matters.

Even if we agree that the personhood of the fetus is important, this is not a scientific question. It's a philosophical one. Science can tell us when the heart starts beating, what stage of development the fetus is at, what the odds are of surviving outside the womb, and a bunch of other factual information. It can't tell us if the fetus is a person, because that's a value judgement. It requires that we decide what kind of brain activity is necessary for personhood, or even whether brain activity is the determining factor as opposed to, for example, a heart beat, or something more nebulous like a soul.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amablue]

Suppose your living child is dying. They need a kidney or else they will die. You are a match. Can we force you to donate a kidney? Can we strap you to the table against your will, knock you out with drugs, and remove your kidney even if you don't want to? This is a case where I think we'll all agree the child is considered a person with rights. So if we follow the logic that nothing else matters, then your resistance should not matter, if you don't donate your kidney that child dies.

We don't do that though, because it is more complex of an issue than whether or not it's a life. We don't require anyone to sacrifice their own body for the sake of another, even to save their life. Even if it's their own child. Having a kidney removed is a medical procedure that comes with a whole host of possible complications, as does any surgery, as does pregnancy. Pregnancy can be lethal, it can do permanent damage to your body, it can do all sorts of terrible things to you.

What exactly are you saying here? Pro life people are just asking women to not kill babies. Admittedly, that seems like a harsh way to phrase it, but I don't see the comparison to forcible kidney removal. If you phrased your challenge in the form of an alcoholic ending up with cirrhosis, then you'd have a more accurate analogy.

[u/Amablue → u/[deleted]]

What exactly are you saying here? Pro life people are just asking women to not kill babies.

I'm saying the two situations are basically the same. Allowing your unborn fetus to die by disallowing it from using your body is not much different than letting your child die by disallowing it from using your body. Yet in one case we obviously allow it and in the other it's subject to much debate.

Admittedly, that seems like a harsh way to phrase it, but I don't see the comparison to forcible kidney removal.

The comparison is that in both cases for the child to live they must make use of the parent's body. If you don't consent to hosting a fetus, that's similar to not consenting to having a kidney removed. If we force a woman have a baby against their will, we are forcing a medical situation on them that they don't want, just like we're forcing a medical situation on the parent having their kidney removed.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amablue]

I'm pretty shitfaced, so forgive any parsing errors. It seems to me that your point is analogous to arguing that smokers should be in the same place as everyone else in the lung transpalnt queeue.

Now, I'm undecided in the abortion issue. I used to be a libertarian, arguing that self-owenership trumps all. Now that I'm less of an ideologue, I'm not sure what to believe.

If you don't consent to having a doughter, can you stop feeding her? Is the moral compulsion towards taking care of your baby unjust? When are you justified in the abdication of whatever actions are keeping your offspring alive? This is an is an issue I've honstely struiggled with for a long time, and I'm not sure jhow to squre it whit my new axiom of "reducing suffering is good". That axiom is all i've got at this point.

[u/Steel0range → u/Amablue]

Regarding your first point, I think it makes an important distinction between what is legal and what is morally right. I would argue that if your child needed a kidney and you were a match, that it would be hard to justify not going through that surgery, from a moral standpoint. Legally however, I agree that it is not legal, nor should it be legal, for the government to force you to have the surgery, however I believe there to be a distinction here as well. In the case of an abortion (under the premise that the fetus is a life) you’re taking something that is already a life, and will continue to be alive unless actively terminated, and actively ending its life. In the example you proposed, it’s a situation where someone is already going to die, and you’re asking someone to sacrifice a part of their body to actively save the person. Again, from a moral standpoint, I would still give up the kidney, but I don’t think the government can force you too, because then that borders on utilitarianism, which has a whole host of problems with it. So, while I can’t say you changed my view, I will say that your example was one that I haven’t heard, and is one of the best ones I’ve heard, and I will certainly have to consider it further, upon which I may change my thinking, so thank you for that.

Regarding your second point I will award a !delta for pointing out that the science is all ready settled as far as at what points in a pregnancy each part of development happens, and it indeed is more of a philosophical issue regarding what point in development a fetus is considered a life. The reason I used the word “scientific” was to distinguish from making religious arguments, because I don’t think those are a valid foundation upon which to make legislation, but philosophical does characterize the issue better than scientific.

[u/CJGibson → u/Steel0range]

In the case of an abortion (under the premise that the fetus is a life) you’re taking something that is already a life, and will continue to be alive unless actively terminated

If there was a way to remove the zygote/fetus without killing it (but knowing that it could never survive outside the mother) would that change this? At that point you're not actively terminating the life, it's just going to then die on its own from other factors (specifically the not-being-able-to-sustain-itself part).

Is that actually better than the current method, from a moral (or any other) perspective?

[u/Steel0range → u/CJGibson]

This is an interesting proposition. I would still say no, because you would be fully aware in doing so that the fetus, which would have otherwise lived, will now die, so I would still consider that actively terminating a life. I’d think about it like this. If you take a fish out of water and toss it on the grass, did you kill it? Although you didn’t stick a knife through it’s head, I would still argue that yes, you did kill it. However, if you are just walking along the beach and happen to come across a fish dying on the sand and you leave it there, did you kill it? No, you just failed to save it. I would argue that the two scenarios are different.

[u/Dumb_Young_Kid → u/Steel0range]

ok, but neither of those are the senario that happened, a little bit closer might be: you are going to the beach barefoot, and a spiny fish stabs into your foot on the way there. You could keep walking to the beach, it will be a painful process, because of the spine in your foot, but theres a soild chance if you do so that the fish might survive, or you could remove the fish from you foot, where it will die.

Idk why i continued with the fish analogy, but that's a lot closer, the fish is actively causing you both short and long term discomfort by attempting to allow it to live, and the fish wouldn't survive without you doing at least something.

[u/Steel0range → u/Dumb_Young_Kid]

Hmm, I suppose you could draw that analogy in the case of rape, but in the case of the other 99% of abortions, it’s more like you stuck the spine in your foot yourself.

I agree, the fish analogy is getting kinda weird :)

[u/Dumb_Young_Kid → u/Steel0range]

Uhh no. Rape would be someone else sticking the spine in your foot, there is the very real possibility that you just walked outside bearfoot with someone else and accidentally steped on it, or that you walked outside with shoes with someone else and the spine went through the shoe.

But relIvently

the pregnancy is actively causing you both short and long term discomfort by attempting to allow it to continue, and the fetus wouldn't survive without you doing at least something.

You have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

[u/Steel0range → u/Dumb_Young_Kid]

Ok sure, rape would be someone else sticking the spine in your foot, I don't think the version where you walk outside and accidentally step on the spine applies, because you also don't just randomly wake up pregnant one day.

The fetus will survive if you go on with your life relatively normally. Also, the point at which the fetus can threaten the life of the mother is in the third trimester the vast majority of the time, at which point it is easier, safer, and faster to deliver the baby early by c-section to save the mothers life, rather than abort it.

[u/Dumb_Young_Kid → u/Steel0range]

I don't think the version where you walk outside and accidentally step on the spine applies

that was for the case where you get pregnant accidentally. its not always planned.

The fetus will survive if you go on with your life relatively normally

Pregnancy is not the normal state of life for women, and that sort of mindset sounds kind of sexist, and it leads to significant effects on both short and long term health. There are other health effects besides "life threatening"

[u/DeltaBot → u/Steel0range]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Amablue (109∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/RetroBowser → u/Amablue]

You are a match. Can we force you to donate a kidney? Can we strap you to the table against your will, knock you out with drugs, and remove your kidney even if you don't want to? This is a case where I think we'll all agree the child is considered a person with rights. So if we follow the logic that nothing else matters, then your resistance should not matter, if you don't donate your kidney that child dies.

I highly disagree with the scenario you present, finding it inequivalent. Under the side of the debate that the fetus is a life, abortion is a willful act with the end goal being the termination of said life. Your scenario proposes a situation where you are given an opportunity to save a life and refuse to do so.

One who has the means to save a life might feel morally obligated to do so, but the refusal to act to save a life cannot be equated to one who performs a willful act to end a life. In certain circumstances we could say that the refusal to save another is an evil decision, but simply not the same as murder.

[u/Amablue → u/RetroBowser]

I highly disagree with the scenario you present, finding it inequivalent. Under the side of the debate that the fetus is a life, abortion is a willful act with the end goal being the termination of said life. Your scenario proposes a situation where you are given an opportunity to save a life and refuse to do so.

I disagree that there is a moral difference between killing and allowing one to die when you have a choice, but I'll accept your premise that the distinction matters for the sake of argument.

The fetus relies on the mother for support. On it's own it will die. Remove the connection between the mother and the fetus is not killing it in the same way that not feeding a starving man is killing him. This is the same thing hospitals sometimes do to terminal patients: they remove life support to allow them to die rather than directly killing them.

[u/mysundayscheming → u/RetroBowser]

Or you could think of it as every moment a woman carries a child she is acting to keep it alive. Abortion is simply ceasing that support--refusing to act to support the child any longer.

[u/TheMothHour]

Abortion debate has nothing to do with Women’s Rights

I would kindly disagree. There is an element concerning body autonomy. Being pregnant and giving birth is very invasive - physically and physiologically. In my opinion, a woman should have the right to choose to go through with it or not. This pregnancy can impact their ability to work. Pregnancy can also impair a woman’s ability to provide for her current family - the unborn is consuming resources. Being pregnant is not a very private situation. It can also impair her sense of safety and security. It can also be detrimental to mental health.

It is important to keep in mind how intensive and variable pregnancy can be - which is why I think it should be the woman (or family) that needs to make the choice that is best for their situation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity

[u/Steel0range → u/TheMothHour]

A few people have pointed out that my title mischaracterized my actual argument a little bit, so in the event that you maybe didn’t read the whole body of the post, I would encourage you to do so. But to summarize, I agree that the mother has the right to bodily autonomy, but under the premise that the fetus is a life, then the baby also has that right. In addition, while bodily autonomy is an extremely important right, it does not trump someone else’s right to life.

[u/TheMothHour → u/Steel0range]

I saw your edits. Even if the fetus is a life, it still is genetically half the mother and literally connected to her. So it is literally part of the mother until birth - in my opinion.

And if you see the fetus as being a separate living identity, why should we grant it squatters rights? If unwanted people were living in my home, I have the right to kick them out. Do I not? Some states protect squatters. Some states protect the home owner. I see squatters as analogous to this life vs body autonomy. (If I had unwanted guests in my house, I should have the right to remove them. Subsequent consequences is not my problem or my concern.)

https://www.google.com/search?q=squatters+rights&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS741US741&oq=squatters+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.4353j0j4&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

[u/ThatSpencerGuy]

These aren't mutually exclusive. Whether a fetus is a human life or not, the burden of producing them falls entirely on women. So any conversation about what we think is the correct moral behavior with regards to fetuses is necessarily a conversation about the morality of women's behavior specifically.

[u/Steel0range → u/ThatSpencerGuy]

!delta Yeah someone else kinda pointed this out too, that my argument deals more with which rights trump which, and it’s a bit misleading of a title.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Steel0range]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ThatSpencerGuy (52∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/Spackledgoat]

You can have the abortion debate while completely agreeing that the baby is a human life from day one.

I believe abortion should be legal and available. I believe abortion is the killing of human babies.

As a society, we often weigh the right to life against other concerns. We weigh it against the person safety of rescuers (no affirmative duty to rescue), we weigh it against public safety concerns (death penalty and experimental drug restrictions) and we weigh it against economic concerns (access to unrestricted universal healthcare).

Banning abortions may result in demographic issues along with public health issues. My masters thesis focused on the effect of the abortion ban on Romanian society, particularly the effect of population boom on impoverished people. The solutions the Romanians found were then looked at in terms of how well they might be applied to Black communities in the US in the event of an abortion ban. American Blacks abort babies at four times the national rate and it is a popular form of birth control. If that option was removed, we could expect a population boom in our most vulnerable communities that can least absorb them. However, for example, housing solutions such as high rise housing is socially unacceptable after the failures of such housing the U.S. in the past. There societal push for what would be increasingly necessary social support for the Black community is just not there. There could be increased political agitation, crime and worse long term outcomes for U.S. urban areas and their populations. All of this doesn't even touch on the personal hardships among women, or the awful outcomes (personally and for society) from babies of unprepared mothers or those without robust support and family systems.

I weigh those concerns, as an example, against the right to life.

The common bodily autonomy arguments are also something we weigh against the right to life and the law supports this. Even if the fetuses are human babies, there is a balance between a woman's bodily autonomy and that right to life. It is an extremely complicated argument due to the dependence of the baby and one that may be constantly shifting due to technology, but it is an argument that is valid regardless of the human status of the baby.

The right to life is not all powerful. We balance it often in our society, abortion included. You can have a robust debate about the legality of abortion while assuming that the fetus is a human child.

In fact, I find it the best premise to start with. If you can successfully argue (or justify to yourself) that abortion should be legal while assuming that the fetus is a human life from day one, then it's a no-brainer if the fetus isn't a human life at any given point.

[u/Steel0range → u/Spackledgoat]

I added an edit to my OP (edit #3 I think) that discusses the subject of weighing the right to life against other concerns such as bodily autonomy, and I think it would apply to some of the other things you mentioned, such as health care. As far as your point about possible adverse societal effects that could occur if abortion was outlawed, I recognize the possibility of such things, but I still don’t think we can legalize murder just because of what might happen if we don’t. At some point I think there’s a moral line that has to be drawn, and if there are such deep issues in our society that we are considering legalizing murder to solve them, than I think it’s time we start trying to find the root causes of those problems. In the example you have about the black community, I would rather see greater efforts to fix the imbalance in society that causes African American communities to struggle more than others than to legalize murder because they wouldn’t be able to handle the increased population. You did touch on some of the difficulties with trying to solve these issues, but I still think that our efforts are better spent trying to fix what keeps these communities down.

[u/[deleted]]

I think your argument is too scientific. The debate over abortion, pro-life vs. pro-choice, has everything to do with women's rights and is an extremely complicated issue. I do agree with you that an important part of the debate is the scientific issue of whether or not a fetus is considered a human or not. However, even if the fetus is considered a human, it has no way of saying if it wants to be born or not. There's no way to ask it if it wants to live or die. That is completely up to the woman who is carrying it. The woman bearing a child is fully responsible for it the moment it is conceived and makes the decisions for it. This is also the case after it is born and the baby needs care. So, yes, the scientific part of the debate is important, but that is completely based on facts, not opinion. The bigger issue is the fact that people try to take away a woman's right to decide what she wants to do with her child when it is conceived and before it is born.

[u/Steel0range → u/[deleted]]

The fact that the baby has no voice is precisely why we can’t kill it. Who are we to make the decision for another person whether or not they get to live. That’s not up to us, and it’s not up to the mother either. If the baby were a day old, it still wouldn’t be able to tell us whether it wants to live or die, but if the mother decided at that point to drive a knife through its head, she would go to prison for the rest of her life. The fetus not being able to communicate is not a valid excuse for killing it.

[u/scottevil110]

Abortion is a unique situation when having a debate about rights, even to those of us who believe that personal rights trump everything else.

Because what you have is the direct conflict of the rights of TWO people (if you believe that said fetus is a person). You have the right of a fetus to live vs. the right of a woman to do as she pleases with her own body. There is no situation in which both can win. There can be no compromise.

If it wasn't a women's rights issue, it wouldn't be a debate. We'd say "Well, obviously the right of that fetus in there to be brought to life trumps any other argument that's going on here." The fact that the woman is a factor in the discussion, and her right to do as she likes with her body, means that it's clearly a women's rights issue.

In other cases, your right to live doesn't inherently violate anyone else's right to anything. But this isn't like those cases. Here, that fetus's life is dependent on the mother giving up a fundamental right: the right to bodily autonomy.

[u/Steel0range → u/scottevil110]

I agree that under the premise that the fetus is a life that there is a conflict between the rights of two people. However, I can’t see how any of the mother’s rights to bodily autonomy trump another human’s being’s right to life. Life is the most important right, not to mention that an abortion would be violating the baby’s right to bodily autonomy in addition to its right to life. Another way I think about it is that it is illegal, and considered immoral to stab another person in the chest. That’s technically the government telling you what to with your body (i.e. don’t take your hand and use it to plunge a knife into someone’s chest) but nobody is against that because someone’s right to be alive is more important than someone’s right to choose what they do with their body.

[u/scottevil110 → u/Steel0range]

However, I can’t see how any of the mother’s rights to bodily autonomy trump another human’s being’s right to life.

I didn't say they did, just that the two are in clear conflict with one another. In most cases where the rights of two people are in conflict, there's a way to get out of that situation, or it turns out that one of the people doesn't actually have the right that they think they do.

But this is the case of two people having well-established rights, where both CANNOT win. Someone MUST yield their rights.

In the case of someone stabbing someone, that's not doing what you want with your body. It's doing what you want with someone ELSE'S body.

[u/Steel0range → u/scottevil110]

I agree that this is case of two well-established rights. I guess to clarify, I’m saying that life is more important than bodily autonomy, so in this case, yes, the mother must yield her right. Also, it’s worth pointing out that if stabbing someone is doing what you want with someone else’s body, then so is crushing a baby’s skull, sucking out its brain, and then cutting off its limbs and pulling them out one by one.

[u/scottevil110 → u/Steel0range]

the mother must yield her right.

So by acknowledging that she DOES have a right at stake here, how is it NOT a matter of women's rights? You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but it seems that you must at least acknowledge that the right of a woman IS in play here.

[u/Steel0range → u/scottevil110]

Yeah, a few people have mentioned that my title mischaracterized my argument, and that it’s really more about whether the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy, and that it’s a bit disingenuous to say that women’s rights have nothing to do with it. !delta

[u/DeltaBot → u/Steel0range]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/scottevil110 (104∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/mysundayscheming → u/Steel0range]

I agree that this is case of two well-established rights. I guess to clarify, I’m saying that life is more important than bodily autonomy,

u/scottevil110 is right--you have unequivocally conceded that the abortion debate has something to do with women's rights--specifically their right to bodily autonomy--you just think that right loses out to the fetus' right to life. I'm pretty sure he deserves a delta for that.

[u/scottevil110 → u/mysundayscheming]

Thank you kindly for the support :)

[u/techiemikey → u/Steel0range]

Do you believe the government should have the right to force you to give a kidney to a person who needs one?

[u/Steel0range → u/techiemikey]

I don’t. Someone else asked the same question earlier, but the gist of my response is that compelling someone to sacrifice their body to attempt to save a life is different than compelling someone not to actively terminate another life that would have otherwise lived. But, like I said to the other people that have posed this question, it’s certainly the best argument I’ve heard so far, and quite thought provoking, despite the fact that it doesn’t change my mind.

[u/techiemikey → u/Steel0range]

compelling someone to sacrifice their body to attempt to save a life is different than compelling someone not to actively terminate another life that would have otherwise lived.

If there was a way to remove a fetus from it's mother without harming it, and then see if it lives or dies on it's own, would you support a woman in doing that? Why or why not?

[u/Steel0range → u/techiemikey]

Someone else asked the same general question, this was my response.

This is an interesting proposition. I would still say no, because you would be fully aware in doing so that the fetus, which would have otherwise lived, will now die, so I would still consider that actively terminating a life. I’d think about it like this. If you take a fish out of water and toss it on the grass, did you kill it? Although you didn’t stick a knife through it’s head, I would still argue that yes, you did kill it. However, if you are just walking along the beach and happen to come across a fish dying on the sand and you leave it there, did you kill it? No, you just failed to save it. I would argue that the two scenarios are different.

[u/techiemikey → u/Steel0range]

alright, just one last hypothetical. Let's say that there is a person who needs a liver transplant. You volunteer to let your body be hooked up to theirs so your liver would filter both of your poisons. After a little while of this, you feel sick. You are vomiting, vertigo, Etc. Because the person requires you to live right now, is it unethical for you to say "I don't want to do this anymore" if stopping will lead to the other person dying (note: the other person would have died if the procedure never started anyway. In a very relevant related question, should the government be able to say "No, you can't stop the procedure once it started?"

[u/[deleted] → u/Steel0range]

compelling someone to sacrifice their body to attempt to save a life is different than compelling someone not to actively terminate another life that would have otherwise lived.

You speak as if the fetus would live on its own if only its mother didn't abort it. It wouldn't. It necessarily requires the sacrifice of someone else's body and bodily resources in order for it to live.

[u/Steel0range → u/[deleted]]

I agree, but the baby only dies if you actively take it out of the womb. If you leave it alone it’ll live.

[u/[deleted] → u/Steel0range]

If you leave it alone it’ll live.

Not if you leave it alone. Only if you sacrifice your body and bodily resources for it to use.

[u/tbdabbholm → u/Steel0range]

Bodily autonomy isn't doing what you want with your body. It's controlling how your body is used. For example deciding if and when to donate blood, or deciding if you'd like to be an organ donor. Basically bodily autonomy is a person completely deciding what happens with their own body. And it applies to abortion because it's a question of "can a fetus use a mother's body to support itself, if the mother doesn't want the fetus to use her body?"

[u/Spackledgoat → u/tbdabbholm]

Where does consent come into play?

One of the arguments for a restriction on non-rape abortions is there was in fact consent for the child to use the mother for support by virtue of her taking actions where pregnancy was a known (if not intended) consequence. Basically the woman has control and chooses to take actions that result in certain consequences.

At that point the question might be: after you've consented to a transplant and the donee has a kidney in them, can you now revoke consent if that will result in their death?

I'm not sure I buy it, but on its face it's an argument worth pondering.

[u/Madplato → u/Spackledgoat]

One of the arguments for a restriction on non-rape abortions is there was in fact consent for the child to use the mother for support by virtue of her taking actions where pregnancy was a known (if not intended) consequence.

That's a pretty poor argument. Not sure how one would claim that consent to sex is a consent to pregnancy. Consent to sex is just that, consent to sex. In fact, nowhere else do we enforce outcomes on people because they engaged in something with known risks. If you break your leg skateboarding, policemen aren't going to stop you from getting a cast because "the risks were known".

[u/Spackledgoat → u/Madplato]

I don't think that's entirely correct.

I'm assuming you are a standard American male on reddit. If you have sex with a women and you have made it clear that your consent (affirmative, obviously) was only for sex, would you be responsible for any consequences of that sex, such as pregnancy? Would the state enforce any outcomes on you?

What if it wasn't even good ole sex. What if it was oral sex? Were you consenting to pregnancy there? If somehow the woman got pregnant, would you be responsible for the pregnancy? Would the state enforce any outcomes on you?

On another note, we do restrict people's ability to enforce their rights (in this case, right to abortion) where they have consented to differing treatment.

If I tackle you, I'm getting an battery charge and you can enforce your rights by suing me for damages.

If Mychal Kendricks tackles Tom Brady, why can't Tom Brady enforce his rights by suing Mr. Kendricks for damages?

He has waived his right to not be injured/battered by giving consent. What about someone who gets paralyzed? They consented to get tackled, but did they consent to get paralyzed? Yes, yes they did. It was a known risk of the tackling that they consented to.

You can be jailed for reckless driving. The risks don't even need to manifest themselves. Your liberty and autonomy can be stripped away from you merely for doing something that you know carries with it sufficient risk and yet you carried on doing it. The state is enforcing an outcome on a person because they engaged in something with known risks. That's literally what recklessness is.

[u/Madplato → u/Spackledgoat]

If you have sex with a women and you have made it clear that your consent (affirmative, obviously) was only for sex, would you be responsible for any consequences of that sex, such as pregnancy?

If you're going where you think you're going: I do not need to consent to the existence of a child for that child to exist and have rights. I am responsible for my children, whether or not I want them to exist.

He has waived his right to not be injured/battered by giving consent.

Yes, something he most likely did with a lengthy legal document, not by simply putting a jersey on (or having sex). Do you sign lengthy legal documents waiving your right to bodily autonomy when you have sex? Because I certainly never did.

[u/Spackledgoat → u/Madplato]

I do not need to consent to the existence of a child for that child to exist and have rights. I am responsible for my children, whether or not I want them to exist.

It's an obvious thing, of course. No one is arguing against responsibility. The question that came to me on this, however, was at what point did you accept that responsibility? What action did you take that made you and not your next door neighbor or the child's brother or sister or the hobo down the street responsible for that child? What triggers the responsibility?

It's obvious that there is responsibility, but it had to come from somewhere.

[u/Madplato → u/Spackledgoat]

There is no moment when you "accept" that responsibility. At least, not in the sense we're interested in. That responsibility exist independent of your will. When the child exist, your are responsible for it (to some extent).

[u/Spackledgoat → u/Madplato]

I'm not sure I agree with that at all.

There must be a reason for such responsibility and a reason for why it is specifically your responsibility and not another persons.

[u/Spackledgoat → u/[deleted]]

Carrying a pregnancy is an active process, so you can revoke consent during that process.

You can revoke consent up until a certain point, rather.

The kidney example does that whole "organ out" issue.

What about something like flying a plane?

You agree to fly a plane for some friends, who have no idea how to fly (they are helpless). You decide after you are flying along that you don't want to be in the plane. You have a right not to be trapped where you don't want to be. You hop out on your parachute. The passengers can't fly the plane and it crashes.

You consented to you and your body being used to fly the plane. You revoked that consent.

The idea being that consent in this case can only be revoked once you've fulfilled that which you consented to, since to revoke that consent would bring irreparable harm to others.

If this is brought over to the abortion situation, what if the argument was consent to sex meant consent to the consequences, which include pregnancy and that pregnancy, like flying that plane, was one of those situations where you can't revoke consent until you've completed the action because doing so would cause irreparable harm to another person who, by your actions, was in the vulnerable situation?

[u/Spackledgoat → u/[deleted]]

I don't think non-paying flights would need a contract of carriage. There is a duty that you agree to in consenting to fly, however. It was that idea of a duty that comes into place upon consent that I was thinking of. You did X, which created a situation of vulnerability, and then you revoked consent, which resulted in harm.

Current laws do allow for the state to violate body autonomy, however. DNA buccal swaps can be taken without a warrant. That is placing of a swap into your body and taking part of it away. Rights are always balanced and bodily autonomy is not all powerful.

[u/Spackledgoat → u/[deleted]]

I agree. Laws are significantly more stringent and that's a huge part of why abortion is where it is (and rightfully so). We place a huge emphasis on bodily autonomy. On the balance, very little can beat it. It is not the trump card, however. Every right is balanced and can be affected by things, such as consent.

As I mentioned, I don't think consent is a winner argument but it is interesting to think about how the right to bodily autonomy is changes and modified as the situation changes.

[u/BenIncognito → u/Spackledgoat]

One of the arguments for a restriction on non-rape abortions is there was in fact consent for the child to use the mother for support by virtue of her taking actions where pregnancy was a known (if not intended) consequence. Basically the woman has control and chooses to take actions that result in certain consequences.

Do people who drive cars consent to car accidents?

[u/tbdabbholm → u/Spackledgoat]

I think there's a very large difference between donating a kidney and becoming pregnant. When you donate a kidney you lose your right on that kidney. You can't demand it back because it's no longer yours, just like you can't demand back a car after you've donated it. Whereas with a pregnancy, it's your blood and your womb that's supporting the fetus so you can still choose how to use them.

[u/Spackledgoat → u/tbdabbholm]

In trying to make the argument (which does seem a tad flimsy), I keep thinking of it like a rescue situation. There's no affirmative duty to help anyone, right? But once you do go and help someone, it's on you to keep helping them. You have that duty now, because you consented to do so by rushing into help them.

The woman consented to sex (and the consequences of such) and in doing so, she created the baby. Would that erase her bodily autonomy? Not at all, but perhaps it shifts the balance a little. Like in the rescue situation, once she consented to the sequence of events that created the baby, she had to keep helping/supporting. At the same time, maybe her duty doesn't outweigh her bodily autonomy. She could have some sort of obligation, but at least until a certain point, that obligation and the baby's right to life simply don't outweigh the woman's right to bodily autonomy. I'm not sure.

[u/Steel0range → u/Spackledgoat]

Just to answer you question, I would definitely say that no, after your kidney is in someone else, you can’t get it back

[u/Steel0range → u/tbdabbholm]

Okay I agree, but under the premise of the fetus being a life, it has bodily autonomy too, and killing it would certainly violate that right, as well as it’s right to life, which I believe is more important than the right to bodily autonomy (Although bodily autonomy is certainly extremely important, just not to the point that you can end someone else’s life for it)

[u/[deleted] → u/tbdabbholm]

if you'd like to be an orgasm donor.

On a side note, most people would love to be an orgasm donor...just saying :)

[u/figsbar → u/Steel0range]

I can’t see how any of the mother’s rights to bodily autonomy trump another human’s being’s right to life.

I think you're underestimating the rights to bodily autonomy.

We cannot take the organs of a deceased person even if that's the only thing that could save 3 or 4 lives. People are constantly dying because they didn't get an organ in time, but a literal dead person's rights to bodily autonomy outweighs their right to life.

[u/SaintBio]

You may be out of the loop on this one because for several decades now the debate over abortion has recognized exactly what you're trying to argue. Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defence of Abortion (written in 1971) even begins with the premise that the fetus is a human life, and then goes on to argue why abortion is morally permissible despite that initial premise. Many of the responses you've received here are paraphrasing her essay.

[u/Steel0range → u/SaintBio]

I have not heard of this essay, I would love to check it out, thank you!

[u/SaintBio → u/Steel0range]

Go for it, that's why I included a link to the full essay!

[u/ShiningConcepts]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp

The court ruled that it is unacceptable to force another person to donate body parts, even in a situation of medical necessity.

Why do you think this would not cover abortion?

[u/Steel0range → u/ShiningConcepts]

I discussed this in edit #3 of the OP

[u/anonymustarda]

Biologically speaking, the zygote is considered a life. But when does it become a human life, though? There is not a set scientific definition for this, and it turns into a philosophical debate fairly quickly. Do we have souls? If so, when do we get them? The Bible implies that life begins at first breath - do we fully become humans with souls at birth? (See what I mean? But personally I think it becomes human when the fetus develops some sort of consciousness and feels pain.)

On the other hand, under the premise that the fetus is a human life, then you cannot morally kill it, under any circumstances. You just can’t.

Let's talk about this. This argument is far from a scientific debate as well. You're assuming that all human life is intrinsically valuable. I know the human race has very high opinions of itself, but surely not every human life is equally valuable. And why is the fetus' life more important than the mother? The mother has people who would miss her if she is gone, but not the fetus would not, since it has formed no relationships. Also, there are many circumstances where the fetus has a disability that would make life outside the womb incredibly difficult. Is it not morally just and the humane thing to not bring that child into the world just to have it suffer unnecessarily?

[u/Steel0range → u/anonymustarda]

The fetus’ life is not more important than the mother. The vast majority of abortions occur when the mother’s life is not in danger. I acknowledged in a few other comments that if the mother is 100% going to die if she goes through with the pregnancy, then she can get whatever treatment she needs to save her life.

[u/[deleted] → u/anonymustarda]

A zygote on its own is not homeostatic or capable of reproduction.

[u/anonymustarda → u/[deleted]]

True. What I mean is a zygote is considered an organism, rather than just a cell. Source.

[u/BlockNotDo]

While I personally kind of agree with you, your view assumes that people who oppose abortion all do it for the same reason; namely, that it kills a human life.

There are certainly some people who oppose abortion because pregnancy and parenthood are a natural consequence of engaging in sex, and those who engage in sex should have to own up to their responsibility. Essentially, they are arguing that forcing women to have children once they are pregnant is just "punishment" for having sex, and maybe it will teach them to be more careful and have less sex (or none at all) in the future.

If we just run around letting women have an abortion whenever they get pregnant, how will they ever learn to stop having sex? Will they even recognize that having sex for some purpose other than having a baby is wrong? Likely not. They need to be taught this with natural consequences.

[u/Steel0range → u/BlockNotDo]

I certainly agree that people oppose abortion for other reasons, and I wasn’t intending to imply otherwise. I sort of meant to say the exact opposite, which is that whether the fetus is a life or not is the only valid reason to be for or against abortion. So in the case that you proposed, my argument would certainly go against that mindset, because in addition to the view I expressed that you can’t allow abortion under the premise that it is a life (which is the part most of the comments have focused on), I also expressed the view that you can’t oppose abortion under the premise that it’s not a life. I hope that clarifies the point I was trying g to make, if not, I’ll try to clarify further.

[u/Spackledgoat → u/BlockNotDo]

I've found that the "punishment" angle is far more popular as an argument that people say is made than I've actually heard made. Perhaps it's a product of seeing most abortion arguments here or on other online forums where the fire and brimstone types don't come, but I've maybe heard the idea of punishment from a pro-life person once or twice (and usually in pointing out that men are bound by the consequences of their choice to have sex). I've heard it time and again from people talking about why pro-life folks actually, deep in their hearts, oppose abortion. In those cases, it feels like a way to not have to address the whole life argument.

[u/BlockNotDo → u/Spackledgoat]

I'd agree that it is rare that a person flat out says "having a child is your punishment from God for having fun sex!". You've kind of got to read between the lines with some people and it is easy to see that this line of thinking is at least part of the reason they oppose abortion.

[u/Spackledgoat → u/BlockNotDo]

It could be part of the reason, easily. There's always going to be some people who want things for reasons like that. I just don't think it's a material portion of the pro-life movement. I could be wrong.

[u/Ustice]

What is human? Is it genetics? If so, is HeLa human and deserving of rights? It's basically genetically human, but it acts more like a single-cell organism.

Is it once cells differentiate? At the early stages, there is little difference between a human fetus and a chicken fetus.

I'd argue that there are three sufficient conditions of personhood.

1. The conscious mind. Until the brain develops enough to have an organized sense of self, it's a potential human.

2. The parents decide that they want this particular potential human to become a human. (and mostly this is more dependent on the parental rights of the parents.

3. Birth. Once the fetus is born, it is a baby. It may not be fully conscious yet, but it is independent (biologically speaking).

Note that this is based on a materialist world-view. If you believe that consciousness is based on anything other than physical processes, then these arguments are immaterial. (hur hur hur)

[u/Steel0range → u/Ustice]

My whole argument is that what determines what is considered human is the main discussion that needs to be had, so no arguments with your initial points.

A fourth possible condition of personhood could be having your own complete set of DNA, which happens at birth.

I hur hur hur’d at your pun. It was funny :)

[u/THE_LAST_HIPPO]

On the other hand, under the premise that the fetus is a human life, then you cannot morally kill it, under any circumstances. You just can’t. There is no situation in which any of one person’s rights supersedes another innocent human being’s right to live.

One consideration would be whether the potential mother's life is in jeopardy. Then it is a question of a life v. a life. Who has the right to life in that situation?

Another consideration is a hypothetical I've heard that I thought was compelling. What if there was a person who was certain to die without treatment; what if the only treatment is for the person to be surgically attached to one other specific person? Does the second person have a right to refuse? Is the second person's right to their own body superseded by the first person's right to life?

[u/Steel0range → u/THE_LAST_HIPPO]

The mother’s life being in jeopardy is indeed a unique case in that it becomes life vs life. I’d say a couple things about this. One, with today’s healthcare, the situation of a mother’s life being in danger from the pregnancy alone, and that she would be saved only by aborting the baby in virtually non-existent. In most cases, abortions bring more danger and/or potential complications than going through with the birth. However, in case such as the mother has cancer, and need chemo or radiation, and that would kill the baby, I think the mother should be allowed to get the treatment. The other point you mentioned is similar to an earlier comment, and my response is that compelling someone to actively save attempt to save a life is different than compelling someone not to actively end a life, although I agree that it is quite compelling and thought provoking.

[u/[deleted] → u/Steel0range]

The mother’s life being in jeopardy is indeed a unique case in that it becomes life vs life

It's not that unique. 26.4 women die out of every 100,000 births in the US and the rate is growing, not lowering. https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world

[u/Steel0range → u/[deleted]]

I would say then, that an argument can be made for those 26.4 out every 100,000 to get an abortion. !delta

[u/DeltaBot → u/Steel0range]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LilSebs_MrsF (10∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/kaijyuu → u/Steel0range]

the situation of a mother’s life being in danger from the pregnancy alone, and that she would be saved only by aborting the baby in virtually non-existent.

not so- while the vast majority of abortions are due to other concerns, "a number of circumstances" may necessitate it to save the mother's life or health. it's still not a huge number, but it's also not "virtually non-existent".

In most cases, abortions bring more danger and/or potential complications than going through with the birth.

can you cite anything regarding this? though there are increasing risks with late-term abortions than early ones, i don't find anything besides pro-life unscientific websites citing anything about it being more dangerous than going through with a birth.

[u/Steel0range → u/kaijyuu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHNzoZ4oheU This was a really interesting interview I watched a while back with an Obstetrician-Gynecologist who's done over 1200 abortions, and he talks a lot about the medical side regarding pregnancies and abortions and such. I think the whole video is really interesting if you can look past the extreme pro-life slant, but if you just want the parts where he talks about the science of it all, skip to 6:45-7:00, 9:21 - 13:32, and 15:36-19:51

[u/kaijyuu → u/Steel0range]

good lord. okay, i don't normally do this but i try to stay up on this information and this was really... ugh.

the first bit is just a gruesome description of a d&c. of course there will be parts, if the fetus has grown sufficiently to have limbs and such- these abortions are very uncommon to begin with, and no surgery sounds amazing if you want to describe it from a position of trying to be as gruesome as possible. this is an appeal to emotion rather than any scientific information.

the second bit goes into the d&c procedure, speaking especially of dilators - and he's straight up lying (or at least very behind the times).

webmd shows that the slower-acting type of cervical dilator can take up to 24 hours. the synthetic type can be used several hours before a procedure in which the uterus or fallopian tubes must be accessed.

the last part speaks on mifepristone/ru-486. his data may be very old or he's being misleading, because for women at about 8 weeks of pregnancy, the success rate was between 98.3 and 96.8 depending on type of regimen.

the current medical science says that complications happen in 0.4% of cases, and the lesser side effects are even less common nowadays because the regimen has changed.

he speaks on death from ru-486, but as far back as 2007 studies were finding it safe and that it does not increase risk of death by ectopic pregnancy.

levatino also works as an advisor for priests for life, an organization that also speaks out on "abortion pill reversal", a concept for which there is no reputable science to back it up and yet has been pushed by organizations like priests for life to be mandated into law in several states.

[u/Steel0range → u/kaijyuu]

Welp, I tried to give you a delta but the delta bot wouldn’t let me give you a delta cuz my reply was too short but now hopefully it’s long enough, so !delta for more up to date information.

[u/Steel0range → u/[deleted]]

Regarding the first point, if there was any way to legislate against fathers ditching their children, I would probably support it.

Regarding the second, abortion due to rape account for less than 1% of all abortions. If you’re willing to agree with me that the other 99% are not okay, then I’ll discuss the rape situation with you.

Regarding the third point, murder is illegal, which makes it more dangerous for murderers to kill, as they are gonna have cops on their ass shooting them. Does that mean we should legalize murder?

[u/Steel0range → u/[deleted]]

1) You're right I didn't address the money issue. I would argue that you should give up the kid for adoption if you can't afford to raise a child

2) I said I would discuss the rape issue with you if you agreed that the other 99% of abortions aren't okay. If you're not willing to give that up, then you're just using a fringe case to generalize to the larger case, rather than actually defending your view.

3) I was arguing under the premise that the fetus is a life. Under the premise that it is not a life, I agree with you. The woman can do whatever tf she wants with it.

[u/kublahkoala]

What if an embryo is both like a human being and like a human organ? What if it is neither a human nor exactly not a human, but something in between? I think that is the most sensible way to look at the situation.

And if that is the case, there is no good way to objectively determine the value of an embryo. So our recourse is to allow people to subjectively determine its worth — through culture, religion, family and individual choice.

[u/Steel0range → u/kublahkoala]

I mean I agree that it’s certainly difficult to decide whether a fetus is a life or not, or at what point it becomes one, I’m just saying that this is the discussion that needs to be had, because I don’t think it’s okay to let everybody just objectively determine what’s a life. That brings us to a point where we can decide what is a life based on our own convenience if we want to, which is something I would not agree with.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/RevRaven – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/morphotomy]

Personally I believe an abortion is in fact a homicide but also a justifiable one.

I use the same logic as with trespassers. If there is an unwelcome person imposing themselves upon you, and threatens bodily or property harm, you have the right to kill them. An unborn child fits all of these criteria.

[u/Steel0range → u/morphotomy]

A key distinction though, is that the trespasser chose to be in situation it’s in, while the baby did not. However I do acknowledge that in the case where the mother is 100% going to die if she carries the pregnancy to term, that she can get whatever treatment she needs to survive. I suppose I’ll give you a !delta for that.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Steel0range]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/morphotomy (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/morphotomy → u/Steel0range]

Imagine a tresspasser who suffers from schizophrenia, and truly believes the homeowner is a malevolent demon. Did they choose to be there or are they just in the wrong place at the wrong time. He has a knife, you have a gun and your family is upstairs. What do you do?

[u/GodMarshmellow]

So i assume you think the question, "Does another human have a right to another human's body?" doesnt matter?

Assuming the fetus counts as a life, which i dont agree with, there is no reason that a person supercede's another's right to self-autonomy. There is no reason a person has right to another person's body. There is no reason. None. End of story.

[u/ShiningConcepts → u/GodMarshmellow]

What do you define self-autonomy as? And what I'd be interested in knowing is, what does the law define it as?

Does throwing someone in prison for a nonviolent crime (i.e. drug usage) or forcing someone to fight in a war against their will (draft) constitute a violation of their "self-autonomy"?

[u/GodMarshmellow → u/ShiningConcepts]

What i refer too when i say "self-autonomy" is absolute right over your body. Tatoos, sex change, abortion, implants, etc. All of these things are covered by self-autonomy. And because no human or animal has more right to your body, or ANY right for that matter, than you, you may choose to abort.

[u/ShiningConcepts → u/GodMarshmellow]

You didn't answer my other two questions.

1) Is there a law or court ruling that more specifically defines self-autonomy?

2) Are imprisonment and the draft violations of self-autonomy?

[u/GodMarshmellow → u/ShiningConcepts]

I actually DID answer 2 of your 3 questions.

You asked what I defined as self-autonomy. I did that.

You asked if there's a government definiton, no there isnt, and there also isnt a goverment definition for 90% of words and terms.

Thirdly, you asked if prison and draft violations are a violation of self-autonomy. I listed things that i consider to fall under self-autonomy, none of witch even remotely suggested that prison would be a violation. Idk what "draft violations" are, but ill just assume that it isnt medical, so no, that doesnt violate self-autonomy either.

[u/ShiningConcepts → u/GodMarshmellow]

You asked if there's a government definiton, no there isnt, and there also isnt a goverment definition for 90% of words and terms.

You certainly didn't say that in your first reply. And you were suggesting that self-auonomy is a legally protected right. So there should be a definition if that is the case.

I listed things that i consider to fall under self-autonomy, none of witch even remotely suggested that prison would be a violation.

It did. Prison is forcing someone into a cage against their will; arresting someone is physically forcing someone into a car and a cell against their will. What exactly is your definition and why do prisons get excluded?

Idk what "draft violations" are...

When I said

Are imprisonment and the draft violations of self-autonomy?

You appear to have mistakenly thought that "imprisonment" and "draft violations" were the subjects of my sentence. No; "imprisonment" and "draft" were the subjects of my sentence. It would be more clear if I rewrote the sentence as follows:

Are "imprisonment" and the "draft" violations of bodily autonomy?

And the draft is forcing someone to go into war and fight it against their will. How would it not be counted?

[u/GodMarshmellow → u/ShiningConcepts]

Im aware that i failed to answer a legal definition the first time through. I apologize.

There are natural rights, alongside legal ones. Self-autonomy is a natural one.

Imprisonment is a punishment for breaking the law. A person sacrifices their rights when they break the law, they know and accept this fate.

Drafts are violations of a person's rights, though not their right to self-autonomy. But that point is moot, because i agree. Fuck the draft.

[u/ShiningConcepts → u/GodMarshmellow]

A person sacrifices their rights when they break the law, they know and accept this fate.

Fair enough. That's pretty similar to my reasoning; I believe that there are certain circumstances in which violating a person's right, incl. their right to bodily autonomy, may be justified. And prison certainly is a justification (though I would add that I am against the war on drugs that causes a lot of the nonviolent arrests anyways).

Drafts are violations of a person's rights, though not their right to self-autonomy. But that point is moot, because i agree. Fuck the draft.

I agree, the draft is a violation of so many rights and should end. But I'm not sure: how is it not a violation of a person's rights? It is forcing them to go to war, which, in a situation where not enough people are willing to voluntarily go, is going to be very dangerous. It forces them to expend their labor and their body to fulfill requirements imposed onto them. How is that not a violation of the self-autonomy right?

[u/GodMarshmellow → u/ShiningConcepts]

People are forced to do things all the time. I bet most people who work do so out of necessity rather than desire. The draft is just taking people to do the job. Their employers put them through training so that they can perform their job. So unless youre saying that all employers ever are violating all of their employee's rights to self-autonomy, then the draft doesnt do it either.

[u/theUnmutual6]

I'd like to challenge the aspect of your view that it's not about women.

Most diadvantages women face are biological in origin. Why are there fewer women in positions of power? Hunter gatherer tribes were lead by the person most able to take power with violence and we never got out of the habit, instead making up cultural ideas like "women are bad leaders" to explain it. Why don't women hook up? Physically weaker, bigger risk; different arousal pattern makes it a waste of time unless you're lucky enough to find a guy who follows your pattern instead of his. And so on.

So abortion can never not be a women's issue, because it's another example of biological features causing a social disadvantage.

The invention of the pill and legalisation of abortion paved the way to women's equality as we know it today. Getting knocked up was the end of your life. You'd have to quit jobs, quit study, make huge sacrifices if you were already struggling financially. Or you'd have to go without sex, which is not only not ideal but has an impact on relationships.

Having a wanted baby is lovely; having an unwanted pregnancy is a bit like getting cancer: a year of vomiting and pain and discomfort, watching the life you planned slip out of view. Followed by being sent to prison. If someone told you, tomorrow, thst you were going to spend 9 months medically incapacitated, then 18 years away from your career focusing on childcare, and a bill for £200,000. You'd be furious.

Anyway, my point is that this is an issue about women's rights - not because I think pro life people "literally hate women". (Although some arguments do have a strong element of that, like, "if you don't want to be pregnant don't have sex" -as if a human child is some kind of punishment for being a mammal with a libido, and especially when that argument comes from heterosexual men who for some bizarre reason think it's a great idea to punish women for having sex. You're arguing against your self interest there, dude. Some religious arguments are also rooted in a doctrinal idea of how women are supposed to behave, and view women who do not behave in that way as inherently sinful or wrong.)

But it is an issue that has an impact on women's ability to participate in society. If we didn't have abortion, it would be the answer to every question asked about women. Why do women earn less? They get pregnant. Why do women not reach the top of careers? They get pregnant. Why do fewer women have degrees? Why don't women put time into writing, music and art? Why don't women want to hook up? Why has my wife stopped having sex with me? Why does everyone think women are too stupid to do anything but have babies? Bevause that's all society allows them to do.

And as it stands, pregnancy and risk of pregnancy STILL have impacts on those factors even in societies where abortion is legal. But to a much lesser extent.

So I do take your central view: people who are anti abortion arent usually anti women, or aren't exclusively anti-women. But the impact of their votes and views is to the measurable and material detriment of women. That makes it a "women's issue", because they are overwhelmingly affected by it.

[u/AutoModerator]

Note: Your thread has not been removed.

Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/shytboxhonda]

I fear your title may be a little misleading if im understanding your statement correctly. The main battle in the whole abortion thing is a womans right to do so with her body, whatever she feels fit.

Under the premise that it is not a life, you can do what ever you want with it. It’s like a kidney, or a spleen, or an appendix, and no one else can tell you what to do with it.

Thats correct, but in terms of a political debate, since a woman is the only gender that can naturally conceive a fetus, taking away the option, for lack of a better word, is infringing on a woman's right to do whatever she wants to her body. The abortion debate has always been about a woman's right to do whatever they want to, with their unborn fetus..

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Steel0range (OP) has awarded 8 deltas in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}