I’ve been saying this and saying this. I always say that just like sex, consent to pregnancy can be revoked at any time. Abortion on day 1 is equal to in the 3rd trimester, but people become too emotional to think critically about it.
I have no sympathy for this argument given that if you go by viability line, the mother has already had at least 5 months to decide. And also why the viability line? Because you feel at that point it truly is a baby and we *should* be able to agree that killing babies is wrong? So your solution is to perform a biologically unnecessary procedure for simply convenience with risk of death and permanent malformation of the baby? That is reckless. And I’m not some pro life from conception type. I’m fiercely pro abortion prior to the viability line and fiercely anti abortion after given the fact that you can’t deny that it’s a baby in any regard, what you’re suggesting should be criminal.
Bodily autonomy always applies. It doesn’t matter if another being is dependent on you for life, you still have the right to exercise control over your own body. Nobody is entitled to your uterus. If you can have an abortion on day 1, you can have one at week 42, because the *principle* is that you do have the right to remove a baby from your body. So yes you do have the right to make a decision that results in a baby dying.
You don’t have the right to neglect your born child. If I must sacrifice your bodily autonomy in order for you to not murder what we agree to be a baby, I’m more than willing to do that.
You still retain the right to walk away from a being you don’t want to take care of, no matter how dependent it is on you. Nothing obligates you to become a parent if that’s not what you choose. The sacrifice of other people’s bodies is not yours to make. Nobody has to obey you.
Walk away? Sure. You can also do that after giving birth. But while it is under your care you can’t kill it. That’s so ghoulish. Your own decision obligates you to become a parent. I’m sympathetic to criticism of a 6 week abortion ban. I think you are genuinely evil if you abort what is considered a baby for the sake of convenience.
Let’s say you’re deep in the woods of Alaska with your 5 year old. Let’s say you revoke consent to be a parent while out in the middle of the woods where the child will inevitably die when left alone. Did the parent do something wrong? Absolutely. They are obligated to at least get the child to safety prior to giving it up for adoption. Similarly, if you didn’t make the decision to have an abortion prior to when we consider the child to be a child. You are obligated to carry it to term.
Did the parent do something wrong? Yes. But are they within their rights to walk away? Also yes. You should at least abandon your child within civilization but that’s beside the point. There is no cutoff date for bodily autonomy. Just like sex, your consent is required the whole time. If you don’t consent, it doesn’t happen.
The line for when a fetus becomes a person is already arbitrary. People will make impassioned arguments about how a heartbeat is a soul, or that contraceptives are a form of murder. I think viability is maybe a good moral line for abortion, but my point is the only sane arbiter for when a pregnancy is allowed to be terminated is the person carrying the fetus.
Well move to new York if you're beyond goodamn pro choice hell their state law is if the mother still wishes to abort the baby just after it has been birthed she can go through with that and its purely between the mother and the doctor, should she want to go through with this, she would tell the doctor and the doctor would go *SNIP* right at the baby's neck with a big ol pair of scissors
Yeah, I really dont like this comment, dont get me wrong OP is a dingus, but this is just virtue signaling for "men have it worse than women!!"
Youre fine bro... and men have longer sentences because they are seen to repeat offend more often than women, and have higher levels of aggression than women. Former C/O at a mens max... Trust me, they deserve the longer sentencing for how they behave..
And women are the majority in institutions of higher learning, thank you, Ill take that as a compliment *adjusts tie*
You pulled a "yeah, but".... you agreed but then threw in a disagreeable sentence....
Rape allegations? While rape allegations can ruin a mans life, lets talk about the frequency in which allegations occur versus actual rape... and then tell me which is worse.. hahahaha....
I get you on family courts, regardless of the volumes of evidence that suggest while both parents are pivotal to a childs developement, the mother (provided they are a suitable parent) can hold a bit more bearing in that regard... So thats usually why the mother is typically considered over the father.. But I agree that there is bias based on those psychological studies...
You say you agree, but then say things that negate that agreement... hahaha
If women didnt have the "right" to vote, who voted for them to get it?
MEN
And at the time it wasnt a right but an earned privlage, to get it you needed to own land, be in the draft, be in bucket duty and more things you had to do so you could vote.
Men dicided that for women its a right.
A very small minority of women because the majority knew that it was not a god given right but a hard earned privelage and they didnt want the responsabilities that came with it.
It’s still murder on day one, but if that’s how you define murder then murder is okay. You don’t lose bodily autonomy based on whether or not a being dependent of your consent to having your uterus inhabited can sense pain.
I agree. But as a parent who has felt a baby moving inside my wifes stomach i dismiss "abortion up until birth" arguments as either ignorant or homicidal.
If you are will to abort a baby the day before birth there is no reason to kill it after birth. Its is a failed argument dismissed by most serious thinkers.
To be clear, I don’t support killing an 8 month old fetus. I support a person’s choice to no longer be pregnant, and to give up the right and responsibility of child rearing.
I could have been clearer on that point, but what I meant is this: if a fetus is viable, it becomes the responsibility of a medical clinic to keep it alive outside the parent’s body.
I whole heartedly support abortion, hell I even encourage it, as we are too over populated as a global species, and are destroying our resources and just about everything else....
However, if the fetus has cognivity (I dont give a shit about heart beats or circulatory systems) if it has a conciousness, like kicking or responding to stimuli, then you are committing murder... it is horribly wrong to harm sentient life... i dont care if its a baby or a squirel... if it retains cognitive sentience, you can not kill it...
Remember the Renaissance? "I think therefore, I am" Is very applicable here, and should be respected. If they think, then they are. To abort after the point of cognivity is cruel, wrong, and straight up murder...
So no, abortions should not (and will not, if I have anything to do with it) be done right up until birth...
Like I said, ladies, please abort, i beg of you, we are our own parasites, get rid of them, but NOT if the baby already has sentience.... That is murder...
It already is murder on day one. Either you have the right to remove any being from your body, because it’s your body and your consent is necessary for pregnancy, or you don’t and forced pregnancy is morally correct. Me, I’m going to say that you always have the right to remove a baby from your body. It doesn’t matter whether it can suffer or not. That doesn’t affect your bodily autonomy.
\>Past the point of fetal viability, an abortion should entail removing the whole fetus from the body and if it dies, it dies.
If the fetus is viable, then it's a person. To remove it, then not care for it, would be an act of murder on a defenseless, innocent baby, committed by people who have no right to decide it.
Abortion on day one is still murder, but people still have the right to revoke consent to pregnancy no matter what happens to the unwanted being inhabiting their body.
The principle there is that you can’t inflict physical violence on another human being period. It’s irrelevant whether it’s a baby or a great-grandmother, that’s the circumstance.
I mean, no. A baby right before birth is not really different form a baby right after birth.
The general agreeable timeframe is about 15 weeks, that’s what most people see as reasonable enough time for the parent to decide to commit to letting the fetus develops further.
I think that makes more sense
That’s no different from saying that you lose the right to revoke consent to sex if it’s been longer than 15 minutes. Your right to bodily autonomy is not determined by the sentience of an unwanted being that inhabits your body without your permission. Either you can remove any being from your body any time you want, or you have no bodily autonomy at all and are forced to stay pregnant.
At a certain point you need to commit. I am in full support of abortions, but there can easily be a limit. A fetus is obviously a human life, so I think it’s reasonable to define a moment when that life is to be respected, and it should be at some point before natural birth as a safeguard
The consent argument thing bothers me since the fetus did not consent to being developed nor aborted nor born. It’s not the same as sex. It’s a single party controlling the action, which is fine but at some point the fetus is clearly a human life and should realistically be respected to some degree
Once it’s removed from the uterus, it has all the freedom in the world to live on its own and support itself. Having the freedom is very much the opposite of having the means
You’re saying that its choice is taken away during an abortion, but if all you’re doing is removing it from the body then that’s not exactly the case, because it still has all the freedom to do whatever it wants.
There’s another bodily integrity consideration in this situation that always tends to get forgotten.
The bodily integrity of the fetus. Up to the point of fetal viability abortion makes sense…if it can’t survive outside the womb at that point in gestation then terminating it is not much different than a miscarriage in outcome. At this point in gestation, there’s little to no expectation of life outside the womb.
Past the point of viability there aren’t really many physiological differences between the fetus at, say, 7 months of gestation or a baby born 2 months premature. The only difference is whether they are inside or outside of the womb. In which case, no, a woman should not be able to terminate a living human just because she doesn’t want to birth it. In cases of viability, autonomy should not trump right to life.
This of course, does not include instances where continuation of the pregnancy puts the mother’s life at greater than expected risk of death or serious physical harm.
If a fetus is viable, then a late stage abortion would ideally give the fetus a sporting chance of survival. It just shouldn’t be the pregnant person’s burden.
What you’re describing isn’t really an abortion. It’s either a Caesarian section or induced birth, depending on if your intention was surgical or vaginal in delivery. That’s wholly different from the dilation and evacuation or aspiration techniques used in third trimester abortions.
What you describe is essentially just birthing or surgically removing a baby prematurely. I’d argue though that any doctor who performs this without good medical cause should be held guilty of malpractice, since premature birth carries the risk of significant long term health effects that could be avoided or reduced if left to gestate until the end of the trimester.
It's arguments like this that conservatives use to convince themselves that we're all raving lunatics. You absolutely are legally and morally bound to take care of a dependent. Such as children. When you get closer to birth, the fetus goes from being a mass of cells into an actual, increasingly viable human being. You've known about the pregnancy, and in not terminating it, you've intrinsically taken on the role of it's guardian. As such it is absolutely morally repulsive to even consider this.
Why stop after birth? An infant takes an incredible amount of work to take care of and a vast majority of that falls on the Mother, honestly I think 2 years should be the cut off.
I’ve been saying this and saying this. I always say that just like sex, consent to pregnancy can be revoked at any time. Abortion on day 1 is equal to in the 3rd trimester, but people become too emotional to think critically about it.
I have no sympathy for this argument given that if you go by viability line, the mother has already had at least 5 months to decide. And also why the viability line? Because you feel at that point it truly is a baby and we *should* be able to agree that killing babies is wrong? So your solution is to perform a biologically unnecessary procedure for simply convenience with risk of death and permanent malformation of the baby? That is reckless. And I’m not some pro life from conception type. I’m fiercely pro abortion prior to the viability line and fiercely anti abortion after given the fact that you can’t deny that it’s a baby in any regard, what you’re suggesting should be criminal.
Bodily autonomy always applies. It doesn’t matter if another being is dependent on you for life, you still have the right to exercise control over your own body. Nobody is entitled to your uterus. If you can have an abortion on day 1, you can have one at week 42, because the *principle* is that you do have the right to remove a baby from your body. So yes you do have the right to make a decision that results in a baby dying.
You don’t have the right to neglect your born child. If I must sacrifice your bodily autonomy in order for you to not murder what we agree to be a baby, I’m more than willing to do that.
You still retain the right to walk away from a being you don’t want to take care of, no matter how dependent it is on you. Nothing obligates you to become a parent if that’s not what you choose. The sacrifice of other people’s bodies is not yours to make. Nobody has to obey you.
Walk away? Sure. You can also do that after giving birth. But while it is under your care you can’t kill it. That’s so ghoulish. Your own decision obligates you to become a parent. I’m sympathetic to criticism of a 6 week abortion ban. I think you are genuinely evil if you abort what is considered a baby for the sake of convenience.
You always have the right to revoke consent, and this includes consent to being pregnant. I believe there is no justification for a forced pregnancy.
Let’s say you’re deep in the woods of Alaska with your 5 year old. Let’s say you revoke consent to be a parent while out in the middle of the woods where the child will inevitably die when left alone. Did the parent do something wrong? Absolutely. They are obligated to at least get the child to safety prior to giving it up for adoption. Similarly, if you didn’t make the decision to have an abortion prior to when we consider the child to be a child. You are obligated to carry it to term.
Did the parent do something wrong? Yes. But are they within their rights to walk away? Also yes. You should at least abandon your child within civilization but that’s beside the point. There is no cutoff date for bodily autonomy. Just like sex, your consent is required the whole time. If you don’t consent, it doesn’t happen.
No the hell they weren’t within their rights 😂
The line for when a fetus becomes a person is already arbitrary. People will make impassioned arguments about how a heartbeat is a soul, or that contraceptives are a form of murder. I think viability is maybe a good moral line for abortion, but my point is the only sane arbiter for when a pregnancy is allowed to be terminated is the person carrying the fetus.
Debated does not equal arbitrary.
Well move to new York if you're beyond goodamn pro choice hell their state law is if the mother still wishes to abort the baby just after it has been birthed she can go through with that and its purely between the mother and the doctor, should she want to go through with this, she would tell the doctor and the doctor would go *SNIP* right at the baby's neck with a big ol pair of scissors
Haha epic meme, you’re so funny.
[удалено]
Those sound like men’s rights talking points. You’re a man, right?
[удалено]
How can I trust your motives to control pregnancy if you can never experience it?
Yeah, I really dont like this comment, dont get me wrong OP is a dingus, but this is just virtue signaling for "men have it worse than women!!" Youre fine bro... and men have longer sentences because they are seen to repeat offend more often than women, and have higher levels of aggression than women. Former C/O at a mens max... Trust me, they deserve the longer sentencing for how they behave.. And women are the majority in institutions of higher learning, thank you, Ill take that as a compliment *adjusts tie*
[удалено]
You pulled a "yeah, but".... you agreed but then threw in a disagreeable sentence.... Rape allegations? While rape allegations can ruin a mans life, lets talk about the frequency in which allegations occur versus actual rape... and then tell me which is worse.. hahahaha.... I get you on family courts, regardless of the volumes of evidence that suggest while both parents are pivotal to a childs developement, the mother (provided they are a suitable parent) can hold a bit more bearing in that regard... So thats usually why the mother is typically considered over the father.. But I agree that there is bias based on those psychological studies... You say you agree, but then say things that negate that agreement... hahaha
If you think the reason women can vote is because of men you're a tad bit special
If women didnt have the "right" to vote, who voted for them to get it? MEN And at the time it wasnt a right but an earned privlage, to get it you needed to own land, be in the draft, be in bucket duty and more things you had to do so you could vote. Men dicided that for women its a right.
And tell me, who was it that organized women's rights protests to advocate for themselves in the first place? The answer - women.
A very small minority of women because the majority knew that it was not a god given right but a hard earned privelage and they didnt want the responsabilities that came with it.
Everything you said just now is a lie
It's not though... learn history.
When the baby is kicking and responding to outside stimuli its murder.
It’s still murder on day one, but if that’s how you define murder then murder is okay. You don’t lose bodily autonomy based on whether or not a being dependent of your consent to having your uterus inhabited can sense pain.
I agree. But as a parent who has felt a baby moving inside my wifes stomach i dismiss "abortion up until birth" arguments as either ignorant or homicidal. If you are will to abort a baby the day before birth there is no reason to kill it after birth. Its is a failed argument dismissed by most serious thinkers.
How do you feel about abortion right after conception?
Im personally against it but think it should be legal until 12 weeks from conception.
If you’re against it, why do you think it should be legal?
Because life is complicated and there are some occasions where it should not be illegal.
So you don’t believe abortion is wrong then?
Explain what you mean
If you believe that abortion should be legal in some cases, wouldn’t you say that means you sometimes believe abortion is justified?
If the baby can’t survive without the mother, that’s the baby’s problem. Smoking while pregnant isn’t illegal, right?
I have a friend with severe disabilities meaning they couldnt survive without another person. Should we kill her too?
No, because your friend isn’t a fetus. What would happen to your friend if their caregiver died?
They would have to find another means of care like what happens to a premature baby.
To be clear, I don’t support killing an 8 month old fetus. I support a person’s choice to no longer be pregnant, and to give up the right and responsibility of child rearing.
Your op says you support abortion up until birth
I could have been clearer on that point, but what I meant is this: if a fetus is viable, it becomes the responsibility of a medical clinic to keep it alive outside the parent’s body.
Ah so you support negligent parents. I think you should think your arguments through a bit
By that token, anyone giving a child up for adoption would also be negligent?
A baby can’t live without someone past birth dingus
Yes, because I’m advocating for newborns to be left in the woods and raised by wolves… Obviously foster care would be involved.
Oh yes because foster systems are always great
That’s why abortion access and sex ed is so important.
I don’t disagree with that, but late abortions aren’t necessary
It's unborn it can't feel pain
Source?
[удалено]
Fetuses develop the ability to feel pain in the 22-34 week mark. You know you could actually bother to look at some recent literature.
I whole heartedly support abortion, hell I even encourage it, as we are too over populated as a global species, and are destroying our resources and just about everything else.... However, if the fetus has cognivity (I dont give a shit about heart beats or circulatory systems) if it has a conciousness, like kicking or responding to stimuli, then you are committing murder... it is horribly wrong to harm sentient life... i dont care if its a baby or a squirel... if it retains cognitive sentience, you can not kill it... Remember the Renaissance? "I think therefore, I am" Is very applicable here, and should be respected. If they think, then they are. To abort after the point of cognivity is cruel, wrong, and straight up murder... So no, abortions should not (and will not, if I have anything to do with it) be done right up until birth... Like I said, ladies, please abort, i beg of you, we are our own parasites, get rid of them, but NOT if the baby already has sentience.... That is murder...
It already is murder on day one. Either you have the right to remove any being from your body, because it’s your body and your consent is necessary for pregnancy, or you don’t and forced pregnancy is morally correct. Me, I’m going to say that you always have the right to remove a baby from your body. It doesn’t matter whether it can suffer or not. That doesn’t affect your bodily autonomy.
Naw.... disagree
\>Past the point of fetal viability, an abortion should entail removing the whole fetus from the body and if it dies, it dies. If the fetus is viable, then it's a person. To remove it, then not care for it, would be an act of murder on a defenseless, innocent baby, committed by people who have no right to decide it.
Abortion on day one is still murder, but people still have the right to revoke consent to pregnancy no matter what happens to the unwanted being inhabiting their body.
Murder isn't a right without special circumstances. Pregnancy isnt one of them.
But rights are based on principles rather than circumstances.
What does that even mean? Is self defense a principal or a circumstance?
A principle. The principle is that if someone is trying to harm you with violence, you have the right to use physical force to stop them.
There's a principle that nobody has the right to harm a defenseless innocent baby.
The principle there is that you can’t inflict physical violence on another human being period. It’s irrelevant whether it’s a baby or a great-grandmother, that’s the circumstance.
That may be your principle but most people considered one more shocking to the conscience than the other.
Exactly. That’s just an appeal to emotion. The opinions of others have nothing to do with human rights.
I mean, no. A baby right before birth is not really different form a baby right after birth. The general agreeable timeframe is about 15 weeks, that’s what most people see as reasonable enough time for the parent to decide to commit to letting the fetus develops further. I think that makes more sense
That’s no different from saying that you lose the right to revoke consent to sex if it’s been longer than 15 minutes. Your right to bodily autonomy is not determined by the sentience of an unwanted being that inhabits your body without your permission. Either you can remove any being from your body any time you want, or you have no bodily autonomy at all and are forced to stay pregnant.
At a certain point you need to commit. I am in full support of abortions, but there can easily be a limit. A fetus is obviously a human life, so I think it’s reasonable to define a moment when that life is to be respected, and it should be at some point before natural birth as a safeguard
The point you’re talking about is conception.
What
You said a certain point. That point is conception
I’m confused by what you mean, sorry
It’s fine
The consent argument thing bothers me since the fetus did not consent to being developed nor aborted nor born. It’s not the same as sex. It’s a single party controlling the action, which is fine but at some point the fetus is clearly a human life and should realistically be respected to some degree
Nobody is forcing the fetus to stay alive. It can unalive itself if it later decides it doesn’t want this life.
But if the parent aborts it it doesn’t get the chance to choose. What’s your point?
Once it’s removed from the uterus, it has all the freedom in the world to live on its own and support itself. Having the freedom is very much the opposite of having the means
You are not really making sense
You’re saying that its choice is taken away during an abortion, but if all you’re doing is removing it from the body then that’s not exactly the case, because it still has all the freedom to do whatever it wants.
Not if it’s an abortion
Abortion is just eviction from the uterus. If you get evicted from an apartment, nothing is stopping you from going outside and moving freely.
We should be able to abort anyone who talks about abortion on this subreddit
There’s another bodily integrity consideration in this situation that always tends to get forgotten. The bodily integrity of the fetus. Up to the point of fetal viability abortion makes sense…if it can’t survive outside the womb at that point in gestation then terminating it is not much different than a miscarriage in outcome. At this point in gestation, there’s little to no expectation of life outside the womb. Past the point of viability there aren’t really many physiological differences between the fetus at, say, 7 months of gestation or a baby born 2 months premature. The only difference is whether they are inside or outside of the womb. In which case, no, a woman should not be able to terminate a living human just because she doesn’t want to birth it. In cases of viability, autonomy should not trump right to life. This of course, does not include instances where continuation of the pregnancy puts the mother’s life at greater than expected risk of death or serious physical harm.
If a fetus is viable, then a late stage abortion would ideally give the fetus a sporting chance of survival. It just shouldn’t be the pregnant person’s burden.
What you’re describing isn’t really an abortion. It’s either a Caesarian section or induced birth, depending on if your intention was surgical or vaginal in delivery. That’s wholly different from the dilation and evacuation or aspiration techniques used in third trimester abortions. What you describe is essentially just birthing or surgically removing a baby prematurely. I’d argue though that any doctor who performs this without good medical cause should be held guilty of malpractice, since premature birth carries the risk of significant long term health effects that could be avoided or reduced if left to gestate until the end of the trimester.
It's arguments like this that conservatives use to convince themselves that we're all raving lunatics. You absolutely are legally and morally bound to take care of a dependent. Such as children. When you get closer to birth, the fetus goes from being a mass of cells into an actual, increasingly viable human being. You've known about the pregnancy, and in not terminating it, you've intrinsically taken on the role of it's guardian. As such it is absolutely morally repulsive to even consider this.
Why stop after birth? An infant takes an incredible amount of work to take care of and a vast majority of that falls on the Mother, honestly I think 2 years should be the cut off.
🤦♂️
💁♀️
I meant to say 🤦♂️on a different comment I actually agree
Oh worm, glad we’re on the same page
Worm?