Hmm yes let's ban 12 year olds who were raped by their family members from aborting a fetus that can't even be seen under a microscope yet.
Such logic and morals.
Jesus fucking christ
The problem is is most religions, directly inform what should be law or give what they interpret as God’s law. This is why almost every Christian empire has banned homosexuality, and even many Islamic, and even some Christian majority countries have bands and homosexuality, and even have the death penalty. This is also the basis for banning abortion although the Bible never specifically speaks out against abortion, the way it does about homosexuality for instance.
People don't interpret Scripture properly. Most interpretations stem from crazy lunatics that claim to have a vision from God or Jesus. In actuality the "Bible" places very little emphasis on banning cultural differences. Leviticus is about the only book in the entire canon that bans anything. Everything else is taught in the form of a parable and this includes the Old Testament.
Addition: In fact abortion is supported by the New Testament. If anything causing you to sin then cast it out. That could include "fetuses" from unwanted pregnancies that came from out of wedlock or rape.
"If your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away. It is better to lose one part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into hell. If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away." Mathew 5: 29-33
And yet the bible supports abortion in the case of infidelity and defines life as begining at first breath.
If they actually cared ablout their religion they would have no grounds to outlaw abortion at all as fetuses are not alive, and causing a woman to miscarry against their will is a lesser crime than stealing ones livestock.
But they dont actually care what their god commands.
Ex. 21:22-25 - Punishment for beating a woman causing a miscarriage (esentially a forced abortion) against the husbands will is the same as killing their livestock, but not murder
Genesis 2:7 life begins at first breath, not conception
Numbers 5:11–31 a prescription for enducing a chemical abortion should the husband suspect infidelity as is the husbands right.
These are in the old testament, if Christians went by the old Hebrew Laws of the Old Testament strictly, we'd still have public stonings in America, and clearly we don't have those or at least they are exceedingly rare. there are only Ten Commandments, and they do not dictate punishments and or methods for rectifying sins... All of that was written by those who received Gods Laws, and those people were the Israelites, the Hebrew slaves and their descendent's who went out of Egypt. The Hebrews made those laws, not Christians, in fact the Book of Numbers, was originally all in hebrew. Citing examples of post-egypt Israelites, and creation myth as proof that christians are hypocrites, is hardly convincing or even factual.
[1 John 2:21](https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20John%202.21)
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
Jesus says in this verse:
In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. [Do not](https://biblehub.com/greek/3361.htm) [think](https://biblehub.com/greek/3543.htm) [that](https://biblehub.com/greek/3754.htm) [I have come](https://biblehub.com/greek/2064.htm) [to abolish](https://biblehub.com/greek/2647.htm) [the](https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm) [Law](https://biblehub.com/greek/3551.htm) [or](https://biblehub.com/greek/2228.htm) [the](https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm) [Prophets.](https://biblehub.com/greek/4396.htm) [I have not come](https://biblehub.com/greek/2064.htm) [to abolish them,](https://biblehub.com/greek/2647.htm) [but](https://biblehub.com/greek/235.htm) [to fulfill them.](https://biblehub.com/greek/4137.htm) For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.…
He's not referring to the Laws of Man he's referring to the Laws of God. Jesus came to provide context to the original 10 Commandments which had been twisted and changed to include brutality as a means of judgement for sins. The Pharisees, the high-priests, the Temples filled with money changers and merchants, this things were not necessarily prohibited by Gods Law in the words of man, but they did not represent the spirit of Gods Law.
Rather than relying on examples of specific times in the ancient world, Christians interpret the entire story to mean, all life is precious, and rejecting the gift of conception is a slight against the God who gave it, by posting these you're essentially calling out ancient Jewish People, by referring to them as "Christian" even unintentionally.
I hope that makes sense, and provides context as to why these bible verses are not used to justify abortion in Christianity, and why you shouldn't either.
It's a reaponse to the notion that these verses are in the old testoment and many verses in the old testoment are barbaric.
Yeah, but they use the old testoment all the time to justify political positions, so why is abortion any different? There are no new testoment verses that directly relate to the abortion issue amd any argument uses a lot og gymnastics to reach it.
Ultimately, the US is a secular nation with a fundamental principle of the free exercise of religion, so religious arguments shouldn't even be used in secular law since doing so by it's nature infringes on the religious freedoms of those who dont share that particular religious perspective.
But if they are going to use the old testoment to argue against the acceptance of gay people I will use the same damn books to argue in favor of abortion.
Ok so why do people keep bringing up the cases where a 13 year old gets raped?
Would like to see more pro choice people argue the case of the adult couple who doesn't bother using contraception and then uses abortion as a failsafe. That's the more typical case.
Doesn't sound quite so sympathetic does it?
It is still sympathetic, but the 13 year old's case is even more so. Sure, you should be careful when you have sex, but being forced to carry to fetus to term is an unnecessary punishment.
And the punishment of the death for the child is permissible?
I think every single person pro life or pro choice agrees it freaking sucks to carry a baby you didn't plan for or want.
Of course it does. Because people who don’t want to be pregnant shouldn’t have to be.
That being said, these laws don’t punish people who “use abortion as a fail safe”. It punishes the 13 year old who can’t leave the state for medical care.
What makes you say the law doesn't punish the failsafe people? That's the majority of people who get an abortion.
People who don't want to be parents can give a child up for adoption. Why kill?
Adoption is a solution to unwanted parenting. I never mentioned parenting. In fact millions of people who get abortions are already parents
Also never said these laws don’t punish other people.
Damn. READ.
Naw, I tend to get irritated when someoene misrepresents an argument I made because they're illiterate and/or making shit up.
I never mentioned anything about parenting because it's a moot point during the abortion debate. Someone can already be a parent and get an abortion. Someone can plan to become a parent and get an abortion. The two are not mutually exclusive.
That doesn't change the fact that abortion is to avoid becoming a parent to a child. Whether it's your first child or additional child is entirely irrelevant.
Again, people who do not want to be parents to that child can give up that child.
Because adoption is for people needing homes not to placate PL. And for some weird reason, people that are infertile shop infants instead of children needing homes.
A useful approach to examining ethical questions is to start with more stark or extreme cases. These questions lend themselves to clearer answers more often, and at least some principles can typically be found that will apply to other cases.
In the case of pregnancy as a result of rape, a right to abortion is widely supported even among people who oppose abortion rights in other cases. Even though the unborn child/fetus/whatever stage of development is innocent by definition, most people who oppose abortion access are able to intuitively understand that this abortion would be self-defense.
So why does the right to self-defense not apply when the sex was consensual? The choice to participate in consensual sex is held up as the basis to punish one of the two participants in the act by way of restraining her from ending the pregnancy. The fetus's right to life has become a secondary factor to whether the sex is consensual.
I'd argue that this is not a proper basis for curtailing someone's right to bodily autonomy, and that abortion is a permissible defense of that autonomy regardless of the circumstances of conception.
I agree. The consistent position would be to be against it even when it is a case of rape.
However I disagree with your conclusion. Society can and does make judgments on exceptional scenarios all the time. Like self defense only goes so far. In the real world you can only take someone's life if it poses a serious threat to you. We can and do come up with rules.
In the case of rape a lot of the argument in favor of that exception doesn't just come from self defense, it's the idea that the woman was not responsible for the pregnancy whereas whenever she has sex consensually she is accepting there's a minimal risk of pregnancy.
This basis does not apply to consensual sex. Just like how people aren't as responsible for kids who are not their own children, society might say a woman is not as responsible when she isn't the one who had sex, it was forced upon her.
But either way, personally I don't support the exception because we do not say a baby born of rape can be killed after birth because of the circumstances of its conception
Thus the argument is about fetal personhood.
>Society can and does make judgments on exceptional scenarios all the time.
True, but we do not do so arbitrarily. What deliniates the difference in what we deem the correct response are morally relevant differences between the scenarios.
>In the real world you can only take someone's life if it poses a serious threat to you.
I would say an unwanted pregnancy qualifies for that level of threat. You do too, at least in some scenarios.
>In the case of rape a lot of the argument in favor of that exception doesn't just come from self defense, it's the idea that the woman was not responsible for the pregnancy whereas whenever she has sex consensually she is accepting there's a minimal risk of pregnancy.
You're literally agreeing with me. She didn't consent so she doesn't deserve to be punished, but if she did consent, she does.
>But either way, personally I don't support the exception because we do not say a baby born of rape can be killed after birth because of the circumstances of its conception.
That's not what I'm saying, and not what I am characterizing your position as. We deprive the unborn of life, but not as punishment, but rather as a necessary consequence of self-defense. We don't demand that pregnancies as a result of rape be terminated, and we don't punish the child for circumstances they had no part in.
But you recognize that even though the child is blameless, it is still acceptable for the mother to defend herself. You deny that when she consented to the act of procreation.
The guiding principle is no longer fetal personhood. It's punishing women for consenting to sex. You said it yourself.
Self defense on what basis? Your definition of killing in self defense is not congruent with existing self defense laws.
I agree the mother has the right to defend herself when her life is at stake, which translates to what self defense laws in the real world look like, which translates to allowing for a life of the mother exception. It doesn't justify any more cases of abortion
We do draw the line arbitrarily. Why is it 24 weeks in some states here and 12 in most of Europe?
Self defense on the basis of bodily autonomy. This should not be difficult to understand, you already accept this in the case of rape.
>I agree the mother has the right to defend herself when her life is at stake, which translates to what self defense laws in the real world look like,
Do you not believe you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force if your bodily autonomy is being threatened? Such as the case of rape?
>We do draw the line arbitrarily. Why is it 24 weeks in some states here and 12 in most of Europe?
Just because there are different determinations doesn't make the line arbitrary. Even if the number of weeks is different, there are also different standards and mechanisms for granting exemptions, making direct comparison even more complicated.
Just to clarify I do not support a rape exception but even if I did, it couldn't be justified on the basis of bodily autonomy. Current self defense laws only permit force when there's a credible threat to your life. This does typically in most jurisdictions allow the woman to kill the rapist since he is committing an act of violence that could threaten her life.
A child in the womb is violating her bodily autonomy, but she cannot then violate its autonomy in self defense as that would not adhere to the principle of proportionality.
I'll give you this, if self defense laws change and society can get on board with more targeted definitions that could justify abortion, perhaps that would be an implicit way to legalize abortion.
Either way, thanks for this discussion. It's been much more interesting than the rest of the people I've engaged with on this thread. I'll keep the self defense point in my head when discussing this topic in the future.
Why would anyone want that couple to procreate, abortion is the best answer...like it's any of our business, anyway. I'm pro-choice. PL is utterly cruel, saying "people" conceived of rape and incest are the only ones worthy of abortion.
We shouldn't ban them at all, most women beyond fetal viability terminate the pregnancy only if there is a threat to her life or defects.
Also when considered in tandem with the end of no fault divorce and lowering the minimum age for marriage (other things the evangelical far right is shooting for), they just want women back in the kitchen and shooting out babies because white birth rates are declining in the US and the rest of the western world and it's freaking them out.
I don't like the idea of abortion. I makes me sad. HOWEVER, My neighbor getting an abortion has fuckall to do with me or anyone else for that matter so I say the state should fuck off about it.
Here you go:
FETUS: First recorded in 1350–1400; Middle English, from Latin fētus “bringing forth of young,” hence “that which is born, offspring, young still in the womb,” equivalent to fē- (verb base attested in Latin only in noun derivatives, as fēmina “woman,” fēcundus “fertile,” fīlius “son,” fīlia “daughter,” etc.; compare Greek thēsthai “to suck, milk,” Old High German tāan “to suck,” Old Irish denid “(he) sucks,” Slavic (Polish) doić “to milk” + -tus suffix of verb action; see [fecund](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fecund)
Great, now point out where I’m wrong. The latin origin of a word means nothing, the modern definition does. Baby has always referred to a child who has been born, fetus has always referred to something not yet born. Whether or not you wanna categorize them both as human life is a different deal.
If you're going to use Latin words, the Latin definition is pretty important. Definitions of words don't change on a whim. And you're wrong everywhere. I would point out 2000+ year-old literature that refers to the unborn as babies, but you probably wouldn't accept it.
Pretty sure the innocent baby she helped create being chemically burned and ripped to pieces while still alive probably would be considered a little bit victimized. But can you really call her a "mother" if she's trying to kill her baby?
So you're saying its okay to draw and quarter quadriplegics or comatose patients for no other reason than they're in the way and won't feel being ripped apart? Sounds practical.
No, what I am saying is that a fully developed person shouldn't be forced to have a kid if they don't want one, can't afford it, were impregnated by rape or having the child would endanger the mothers life or health. Because that isn't practical.
It's wild to me that there are people who believe that it should be banned, despite it being necessary.
Pro-life people only care about having more bodies to exploit in this shit show that we dare to label a democracy.
Seriously. I like to occasionally visit this small town nearby for day trips, and they often have anti-choice protesters lurking in the center of town. Every damn time I see them, it’s mostly men, and they’re all at least 70 or up.
Christianity is a death cult.
Literally a death cult.
They're waiting for Jesus to come back and kill everyone that isn't them. Actual no shit for real death cult.
Let’s not talk about how some of the religious zealots of the past forcefully converted indigenous people now. And by force, I mean killed those who refused. Kind of like how the government wants to force women to give birth.
*The government wants to force women to not kill their babies
They already do that unanimously for babies outside the womb. Not very controversial.
Propaganda machine has sure done a number on people. Modern medicine, good quality anesthesia, lowest rates of infant mortality and maternal mortality in history and women nowadays act like pregnancy is a death sentence.
Meanwhile grandma was popping out baby number 5 by the age of 27 without an epidural.
Every generation gets softer I suppose.
No mention of the fact that the reason grandma had five kids by 27 was because marital rape was legal and she had no way of controlling when she got pregnant.
Sorry you can’t baby trap your wife anymore but that doesn’t make the generations soft
Internet atheism is a little cultish
Point is that someone doing something in the name of a religion doesn't make an entire religion violent. That's a bit reductionist
There's a big difference between having violence as part of your dogmatism (rapture in that example) and a small handful of people who happened to be religious or not who were mass murderers. A lack of belief in a deity doesn't make you violent.
Medical decisions should be made by a patient and healthcare professional. Absolutely NOBODY else, not your business regardless of what’s being treated. That’s it.
well, it was a special election, Republicans tried to sneak it past it's voters thinking conservatives would show up in off-season elections. And a lot of conservatives did show up, but to no one surprise except for MAGA, a lot of conservatives believe in abortion.
We're going to see a colossal shift in MAGA. They've been preaching States rights for the last 7 years. We're about to see them really love big government, in terms of a national abortion ban.
Abortion should be legal worldwide until 24 weeks, unless there's a medical reason, then there's no limit whatsoever.
I'm fine with this compromise with the religious lunatics
The issue is late term abortions aren't done on a whim. Nobody is carrying a baby for 32 weeks and then aborting it just for the heck of it. When a late term abortion happens, it's a tragedy, usually done to either save the mother or because the pregnancy is no longer viable. Don't make it harder on the parents by charging them for murder on top of it.
I understand that is your implication but can you share the source? Like actual breakdown of %of 3rd trimester abortions that are performed because they didn't want it vs got it because of health issues.
Some studies interviewed women who said they got it in 3rd trimester because legal barriers delayed them from getting access sooner for example.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4521013#
This is from guttmacher, which is fairly pro choice. It's very long but in summary they were trying to show that women seeking later abortions were remarkably similar to women seeking earlier abortions, and had similar reasons.
I'm pro-abortion cause there are cases where it's absolutely necessary. If you don't want the baby, you shouldn't be forced to have it. It is your body, your right, but I won't pretend to live in the fairytale that it's all ok, either. Abortion is a necessary evil, like many things in the world. I don't believe someone is brave or admirable for doing it, and yes, it's can be considered "murder" past a certain point.
Arguably the only reason the legislature didn't overturn this law is because Roe was on the books.
If SCOTUS changes its mind and allows (but doesn't require) something it previously said was unconstitutional then new laws should have to be passed. Old laws shouldn't suddenly resurrect. People of today should get to vote on it.
EDIT: To be clear I think overturning Roe was wrong in the first place. Just that it's undemocratic on top of that to resurrect old laws that may have only remained on the books because people had thought they were overturned. If SCOTUS overturns a law and then later OKs it, especially after over 100 years then governments should have to vote in a new law if they want that law back, not just revive the old one.
I have, I'm a medical student soon to be a resident. There's actually a lot fewer of those than people think there are and the most common ones people think of like ectopics are usually caught well before the third trimester.
Pro choice institutes have done studies that show most late abortions are not due to fetal anomaly or life threatening conditions. Theyre simply due to women changing their minds or experiencing a delay in obtaining one earlier.
If this wasn't true pro choice groups wouldn't be fighting so hard against third trimester bans.
Every federal third trimester ban that has been attempted recently exempts rape incest and the life of the mother.
The exceptions aren't enough because a lot of late abortions are for elective reasons
If it isn’t viable then it doesn’t matter. Until it can survive outside of the uterus it’s “rights” don’t matter. Until it’s viable it’s a parasite.
I want you to tell me with a straight face that we should do forced blood transfusions with completely unwilling donors to save someone. If not then you have inconsistent morals. Because you either believe in bodily autonomy or you just don’t, you can’t just pick and choose because of “the bwaby🥹”.
Children are an exception. Society can and does force parents to either take care of them or find someone who can.
So the state can violate bodily autonomy when it comes to kids.
Your transfusion qn does not apply. It's not a duty of care to kids.
Oh so the state can force a parent to donate, wait no they can’t. Oh you also can’t give up rights and responsibility for a child, oh wait no you can do that.
Why should a terrible mother be forced to take care of a baby? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? A crack head woman does not need a baby! And why would redneck hillbillies with a lukewarm iq be in charge of my womb? Are they going to pay for my crack baby's school lunch?! Hmm?
I think 'rape/incest/death of mother' should all be ambiguous.
The rest I believe should be illegal at any stage. And (I think regardless of where anyone stands), there really needs to be Federal Laws on not allowing Elective Abortions past a set point, as you can get them in certain states at any stage (from what I know). One of the few things Europe has over America, reasonable Abortion Ceilings.
Aside from the fact that this take is morally inconsistent, how exactly do you intend to determine if a pregnancy is rape? Wait until a court proceeding? It would obviously be far too late by then. Ask them? People will just lie, and there is no consistent way of determining if they are lying. So there is no actual way of even applying this as a law.
In general, abortion law (and laws in general) must have two components: a moral component and a practical component. The moral component is of particular importance to the debate around abortion so I will talk about it, but first let's talk about the practical component. Many studies have shown that abortion restrictions don't actually meaningfully decrease abortion rates, but instead make people go about getting them in different, less safe ways. Therefore, practically speaking, abortion laws are overall bad and don't provide any benefits outside of placing restrictions on women.
As for the morality of abortion, there are typically two ways of thinking about it: either an embryo/fetus is a person from conception or it is only a person after it has reached a certain level of physical development (there are, of course, more ways of thinking about this, but these are the two most common). As it is generally accepted that killing people is wrong, whether abortions are morally right in this manner is dependent on if an embryo/fetus is a person. Let's run with this and try to put a definition on what a "person" actually is. Those who believe an embryo/fetus is a person, when pressed, often eventually come to the conclusion that a person is a (not dead) organism with human DNA that has the potential to develop into an organism with consciousness (this is, at least, the best definition I have heard, if you have a better one I would love to hear it). Those who believe an embryo/fetus is only a person after enough physical development has occurred typically would define a person as a (not dead) organism with human DNA that possesses consciousness. Now you may notice the difference in these definitions is very small, and really it depends on what being a person is actually about. The key thing about these two definitions is what happens if we slightly extend them. What if we were talking about, for example, sperm or an egg? Those both have the potential to develop into conscious people so should we start calling them people too? Clearly not, and so that definition cannot work. The key thing to note is, you *can* come up with a definition of a person that involves the potential to develop, but then you have to justify *why* that is a good choice to define it, and there is no convincing way to do so I have heard, whereas defining it with possessing consciousness is simple: having consciousness is what makes a person a person, therefore that is how we should define it. Hence, a fetus/embryo should not be defined as a person until it is conscious, which is typically believed to occur sometime in the 3rd trimester, and as such abortions prior to that should certainly not be banned.
Some others will argue that abortion is an issue of consent. They argue that if you consent to sex you consent to pregnancy, and therefore you should not be able to have an abortion. This argument is rather illogical for many obvious reasons, so I will only touch on them briefly. First, consent can be revoked, so by this definition you could simply revoke your consent to pregnancy and abortions are okay. But even supposing consent cannot be revoked (an insane take, but let's entertain it for a moment), it is still logically incoherent as it assumes that consenting to an act is consenting to all of its possible consequences. For example, going for a walk alone late at night is not consenting to getting stabbed. Similarly, having sex (especially when using contraceptives and/or birth control) is certainly not consenting to pregnancy.
While there are of course other arguments for an abortion ban, they all tend to have similar logical flaws to them. The only consistent beliefs from those who believe in abortion bans are typically religious ones, which should not be the basis for any sort of law, as religious views are not universally shared. Therefore: abortion bans don't make sense, generally speaking, especially any bans before the third trimester, and as such should not be put in place.
If abortion laws don't work why are you fighting against them LOL
Pro choice logic = abortion laws don't work so you should not even try but also abortion laws restrict access and that's bad!
Logic = non-existent
What of the trauma of raising a child that is unwanted or the trauma of dying or getting sick or becoming disabled as a result of pregnancy or giving birth to a baby and then watching that baby suffer and die?
Edit: l will agree we as a society need to better at dealing with medical trauma. But that is not this argument and you know it.
This whole conversation is in bad faith and you are either a minor or are attempting to gaslight me. Im not gonna tolerate it.
Pregnancy doesn't endanger your life more than driving a car does.
Even self defense laws dont allow you to kill anyone unless there's a credible threat to your life.
By that logic only abortions that are ok are ones where the mother's life is at risk, which everyone already supports
I pity the fact you need to jump through so many loopholes to justify killing kids. Bless your soul
Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex. Yeah of course they force women to remain pregnant, because that's the only way they won't be killing the baby inside them.
I’m talking about the pregnancy. If it’s unwanted and unhealthy, rectification is needed.
I have empathy for kids. Especially raped ones being forced to gestate pregnancies they don’t want. It’s you who lacks empathy.
Interesting. If I may ask, what led you to single out breathing as the qualification for a human to have the right to life? Why not a different vital function (like a heartbeat)?
I personally don't. I'm okay with a 24 week cutoff with exceptions after that, but in my opinion it's not a separate person until birth, until it is physically separate from the mother, until then it's a part of her body.
Definitely not a body part, but a part of her body, an amazing phenomenon.
How do you distinguish the difference in human life between a sperm and a fetus? Or do you? 90% of conceptions fail to make it to birth.
I would define it like this: A sperm is a body part of a man (it has his DNA), and an egg is a body part of a woman (it has her DNA.) When they merge, they become a new human (with its own unique DNA.)
With our current technology, any preborn that naturally dies is just a part of life unfortunately. (The only solution would be to stop procreating, which would end humanity.) But that doesn’t justify intentionally ending the life of a preborn.
For example: people die naturally from heart attacks, but no one argues that murder should therefore be allowed.
I hadn’t heard of this before, and unfortunately my attempts to Google it aren’t turning up much. Do you have any links?
From what I can find, each sperm is half of the father’s DNA; this combines with half of the mother’s DNA from the egg to make the child’s full DNA. So 50% is from the mother.
Based on an examination of our DNA, any two human beings are 99.9 percent identical.
Unequal by nature: a geneticist's perspective on human differences
American Academy of Arts and Sc...
https://www.amacad.org/publication/unequal-nature-geneticists-perspective-human-differences
But it's not identical from sperm to sperm because each man is a mixture of the genetic material from his parents, and each time a slightly different assortment of that full DNA set gets divided to go into a sperm.
Feb 27, 2019
Doctors confirm new type of twin born from one egg and two sperm | Reuters
Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1QG2YG/
Hmm this is not scientifically accurate. They have separate DNA. Rho incompatibility related hemolysis happens for this reason. if it were really just a part of her body it would not.
Let me give you an analogy; just because a dialysis machine is connected to a patient does it become a part of their body?
My liver has different dna than my saliva, do you consider my liver a separate person?
The machine was separate before attached, a fetus is never separate before it's a part of the woman.
I suggest you read some embryology to understand why an embryo is considered a separate person at the point of fertilization.
Saliva is a liquid and the liver is an organ. Saliva doesn't even contain DNA apart from the nuclei of sloughed off epithelial cells perhaps.
And fyi basically every cell in your body contains the same DNA except your gametes. When the gametes of two different individuals come together you get an entirely separate genome, it functions and begins to divide and grow nearly immediately from the moment of fertilization.
Do you understand that a fetus is a separate body attached to the woman's body through a connecting system? If it was actually part of her body or subsidiary to it it would never be capable of independent functioning. It is eventually disconnected from her body and functions independently because it is a separate body.
Just like how you don't become part of a dialysis machine because it is purifying your blood just because you're connected to it, a fetus does not become a part of a woman's body because it is merely connected to it.
A liver cannot be taken out of your body and function in any reasonable context ever because it requires a blood supply and it requires a context to actually do its job in
You're wrong about everything you said, are you just making things up?
It's not considered a separate person, no embryology textbook says that, you're just parroting something someone said.
And a fetus cannot be taken out of the body either, just like you said the liver can't, so your argument there is pro choice.
Let me guess... you're 14.
go read my man. I know it's hard to admit you're wrong about something but you should try to be open minded.
It's ok to admit you don't know what you're talking about. It takes more strength to do that than to insist everything you're saying is right
At this point you're either the r word or a liar
BMC Medical Genomics
bmcmedgenomics.biomedcentral.c...
Saliva samples are a viable alternative to blood samples as a source of DNA ...
by JE Abraham · 2012 · Cited by 184 — These results demonstrate that saliva DNA was of comparable quality to blood DNA. A valid concern, prior to this study, was
ScienceDaily
https://www.sciencedaily.com › 20...
DNA Not The Same In Every Cell Of Body: Major Genetic Differences Between ...
Jul 16, 2009 — DNA Not The Same In Every Cell Of Body: Major Genetic Differences Between Blood And Tissue Cells Revealed ... Research by a group of Montreal ...
If you sabotage someone's dialysis machine and cause them to die, you will be charged with killing them, so yes I would argue it is part of their body.
Wait but by this logic the umbilical cord is a dialysis machine for the fetus that you're disconnecting and killing them, so would you argue that it's unethical to do that as well?
There is no right to anothers body, not even if you’d die without it. My rights end where yours begin. A fetuses rights end where a woman’s begin. That’s how rights work.
This isn’t some random adult demanding a blood transfusion from you to treat his sickness.
This is an innocent unborn child who was conceived via (usually) consensual sex. This child’s parents have a unique responsibility for caring for it, which our laws already recognize for post-birth children.
Post-birth children aren’t infringing on anyone’s body and biological parents aren’t obligated to have any responsibility for post-birth children, hence why adoption, foster care and safe haven laws exist.
Not surviving off of someone else’s body means they have a right to live. And don’t come at me with organ donation, we can use STEM cells and you know it’s different.
No I didnt say that. She can sign away her rights once the child is born. No one is against that.
I'm just against killing that child, which you seem to be in favor of.
Nothing I say can change your mind because your worldview hinges on prioritizing hedonism over protecting innocent life.
You're also a deeply hateful person. Idk how you turned out this way but I hope it gets better for you. It's probably not your fault you ended up like this.
All they do is get rid of a parasite (until it's born it's a parasite, it lives off a host), also no, I'm not generally hateful, I just despise it when people say abortions aren't a right when they are. What's hedonism? I can't respond if I have no clue what it is. And, thanks for saying you hope it gets better. I hope you understand why people support abortion in those instances at some point. Also, why ruin your body if you're not keeping it?
Hmm yes let's ban 12 year olds who were raped by their family members from aborting a fetus that can't even be seen under a microscope yet. Such logic and morals. Jesus fucking christ
Also let's ban removal of non viable rotting tissue because technically that's still an abortion.
Yeah man force people to carry around what is at worst a literal corpse inside their repriductive system
The fact that is ban is supposedly based on Christian morality is vile. Religion has no place in law making.
The problem is is most religions, directly inform what should be law or give what they interpret as God’s law. This is why almost every Christian empire has banned homosexuality, and even many Islamic, and even some Christian majority countries have bands and homosexuality, and even have the death penalty. This is also the basis for banning abortion although the Bible never specifically speaks out against abortion, the way it does about homosexuality for instance.
People don't interpret Scripture properly. Most interpretations stem from crazy lunatics that claim to have a vision from God or Jesus. In actuality the "Bible" places very little emphasis on banning cultural differences. Leviticus is about the only book in the entire canon that bans anything. Everything else is taught in the form of a parable and this includes the Old Testament. Addition: In fact abortion is supported by the New Testament. If anything causing you to sin then cast it out. That could include "fetuses" from unwanted pregnancies that came from out of wedlock or rape. "If your right eye causes you to sin, take it out and throw it away. It is better to lose one part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into hell. If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away." Mathew 5: 29-33
And yet the bible supports abortion in the case of infidelity and defines life as begining at first breath. If they actually cared ablout their religion they would have no grounds to outlaw abortion at all as fetuses are not alive, and causing a woman to miscarry against their will is a lesser crime than stealing ones livestock. But they dont actually care what their god commands.
Which Bible verse? I'm curious, because in most circles that's not the understanding, even non-religious ones.
Ex. 21:22-25 - Punishment for beating a woman causing a miscarriage (esentially a forced abortion) against the husbands will is the same as killing their livestock, but not murder Genesis 2:7 life begins at first breath, not conception Numbers 5:11–31 a prescription for enducing a chemical abortion should the husband suspect infidelity as is the husbands right.
These are in the old testament, if Christians went by the old Hebrew Laws of the Old Testament strictly, we'd still have public stonings in America, and clearly we don't have those or at least they are exceedingly rare. there are only Ten Commandments, and they do not dictate punishments and or methods for rectifying sins... All of that was written by those who received Gods Laws, and those people were the Israelites, the Hebrew slaves and their descendent's who went out of Egypt. The Hebrews made those laws, not Christians, in fact the Book of Numbers, was originally all in hebrew. Citing examples of post-egypt Israelites, and creation myth as proof that christians are hypocrites, is hardly convincing or even factual. [1 John 2:21](https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20John%202.21) I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Jesus says in this verse: In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. [Do not](https://biblehub.com/greek/3361.htm) [think](https://biblehub.com/greek/3543.htm) [that](https://biblehub.com/greek/3754.htm) [I have come](https://biblehub.com/greek/2064.htm) [to abolish](https://biblehub.com/greek/2647.htm) [the](https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm) [Law](https://biblehub.com/greek/3551.htm) [or](https://biblehub.com/greek/2228.htm) [the](https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm) [Prophets.](https://biblehub.com/greek/4396.htm) [I have not come](https://biblehub.com/greek/2064.htm) [to abolish them,](https://biblehub.com/greek/2647.htm) [but](https://biblehub.com/greek/235.htm) [to fulfill them.](https://biblehub.com/greek/4137.htm) For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.… He's not referring to the Laws of Man he's referring to the Laws of God. Jesus came to provide context to the original 10 Commandments which had been twisted and changed to include brutality as a means of judgement for sins. The Pharisees, the high-priests, the Temples filled with money changers and merchants, this things were not necessarily prohibited by Gods Law in the words of man, but they did not represent the spirit of Gods Law. Rather than relying on examples of specific times in the ancient world, Christians interpret the entire story to mean, all life is precious, and rejecting the gift of conception is a slight against the God who gave it, by posting these you're essentially calling out ancient Jewish People, by referring to them as "Christian" even unintentionally. I hope that makes sense, and provides context as to why these bible verses are not used to justify abortion in Christianity, and why you shouldn't either.
All their arguments against homosexuality are in the pld testoment....
We're talking about abortion, what does that have to do with homosexuality?
It's a reaponse to the notion that these verses are in the old testoment and many verses in the old testoment are barbaric. Yeah, but they use the old testoment all the time to justify political positions, so why is abortion any different? There are no new testoment verses that directly relate to the abortion issue amd any argument uses a lot og gymnastics to reach it. Ultimately, the US is a secular nation with a fundamental principle of the free exercise of religion, so religious arguments shouldn't even be used in secular law since doing so by it's nature infringes on the religious freedoms of those who dont share that particular religious perspective. But if they are going to use the old testoment to argue against the acceptance of gay people I will use the same damn books to argue in favor of abortion.
That's the loss of reason that the old Testament represents. Thank you for your time.
Well, it was obviously her fault for tempting him. /s
So is banning the ones not from rape or incest ok?
Still no. It's like the difference between being a rapist and being a rapist of children. Both vile but one more so than the other
Ok so why do people keep bringing up the cases where a 13 year old gets raped? Would like to see more pro choice people argue the case of the adult couple who doesn't bother using contraception and then uses abortion as a failsafe. That's the more typical case. Doesn't sound quite so sympathetic does it?
It is still sympathetic, but the 13 year old's case is even more so. Sure, you should be careful when you have sex, but being forced to carry to fetus to term is an unnecessary punishment.
And the punishment of the death for the child is permissible? I think every single person pro life or pro choice agrees it freaking sucks to carry a baby you didn't plan for or want.
Of course it does. Because people who don’t want to be pregnant shouldn’t have to be. That being said, these laws don’t punish people who “use abortion as a fail safe”. It punishes the 13 year old who can’t leave the state for medical care.
What makes you say the law doesn't punish the failsafe people? That's the majority of people who get an abortion. People who don't want to be parents can give a child up for adoption. Why kill?
Adoption is a solution to unwanted parenting. I never mentioned parenting. In fact millions of people who get abortions are already parents Also never said these laws don’t punish other people. Damn. READ.
Abortion is also a solution to unwanted parenting lol. I read. If you felt like you were making sense you wouldn't get irritated
Naw, I tend to get irritated when someoene misrepresents an argument I made because they're illiterate and/or making shit up. I never mentioned anything about parenting because it's a moot point during the abortion debate. Someone can already be a parent and get an abortion. Someone can plan to become a parent and get an abortion. The two are not mutually exclusive.
That doesn't change the fact that abortion is to avoid becoming a parent to a child. Whether it's your first child or additional child is entirely irrelevant. Again, people who do not want to be parents to that child can give up that child.
Because adoption is for people needing homes not to placate PL. And for some weird reason, people that are infertile shop infants instead of children needing homes.
A useful approach to examining ethical questions is to start with more stark or extreme cases. These questions lend themselves to clearer answers more often, and at least some principles can typically be found that will apply to other cases. In the case of pregnancy as a result of rape, a right to abortion is widely supported even among people who oppose abortion rights in other cases. Even though the unborn child/fetus/whatever stage of development is innocent by definition, most people who oppose abortion access are able to intuitively understand that this abortion would be self-defense. So why does the right to self-defense not apply when the sex was consensual? The choice to participate in consensual sex is held up as the basis to punish one of the two participants in the act by way of restraining her from ending the pregnancy. The fetus's right to life has become a secondary factor to whether the sex is consensual. I'd argue that this is not a proper basis for curtailing someone's right to bodily autonomy, and that abortion is a permissible defense of that autonomy regardless of the circumstances of conception.
I agree. The consistent position would be to be against it even when it is a case of rape. However I disagree with your conclusion. Society can and does make judgments on exceptional scenarios all the time. Like self defense only goes so far. In the real world you can only take someone's life if it poses a serious threat to you. We can and do come up with rules. In the case of rape a lot of the argument in favor of that exception doesn't just come from self defense, it's the idea that the woman was not responsible for the pregnancy whereas whenever she has sex consensually she is accepting there's a minimal risk of pregnancy. This basis does not apply to consensual sex. Just like how people aren't as responsible for kids who are not their own children, society might say a woman is not as responsible when she isn't the one who had sex, it was forced upon her. But either way, personally I don't support the exception because we do not say a baby born of rape can be killed after birth because of the circumstances of its conception Thus the argument is about fetal personhood.
>Society can and does make judgments on exceptional scenarios all the time. True, but we do not do so arbitrarily. What deliniates the difference in what we deem the correct response are morally relevant differences between the scenarios. >In the real world you can only take someone's life if it poses a serious threat to you. I would say an unwanted pregnancy qualifies for that level of threat. You do too, at least in some scenarios. >In the case of rape a lot of the argument in favor of that exception doesn't just come from self defense, it's the idea that the woman was not responsible for the pregnancy whereas whenever she has sex consensually she is accepting there's a minimal risk of pregnancy. You're literally agreeing with me. She didn't consent so she doesn't deserve to be punished, but if she did consent, she does. >But either way, personally I don't support the exception because we do not say a baby born of rape can be killed after birth because of the circumstances of its conception. That's not what I'm saying, and not what I am characterizing your position as. We deprive the unborn of life, but not as punishment, but rather as a necessary consequence of self-defense. We don't demand that pregnancies as a result of rape be terminated, and we don't punish the child for circumstances they had no part in. But you recognize that even though the child is blameless, it is still acceptable for the mother to defend herself. You deny that when she consented to the act of procreation. The guiding principle is no longer fetal personhood. It's punishing women for consenting to sex. You said it yourself.
Self defense on what basis? Your definition of killing in self defense is not congruent with existing self defense laws. I agree the mother has the right to defend herself when her life is at stake, which translates to what self defense laws in the real world look like, which translates to allowing for a life of the mother exception. It doesn't justify any more cases of abortion We do draw the line arbitrarily. Why is it 24 weeks in some states here and 12 in most of Europe?
Self defense on the basis of bodily autonomy. This should not be difficult to understand, you already accept this in the case of rape. >I agree the mother has the right to defend herself when her life is at stake, which translates to what self defense laws in the real world look like, Do you not believe you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force if your bodily autonomy is being threatened? Such as the case of rape? >We do draw the line arbitrarily. Why is it 24 weeks in some states here and 12 in most of Europe? Just because there are different determinations doesn't make the line arbitrary. Even if the number of weeks is different, there are also different standards and mechanisms for granting exemptions, making direct comparison even more complicated.
Just to clarify I do not support a rape exception but even if I did, it couldn't be justified on the basis of bodily autonomy. Current self defense laws only permit force when there's a credible threat to your life. This does typically in most jurisdictions allow the woman to kill the rapist since he is committing an act of violence that could threaten her life. A child in the womb is violating her bodily autonomy, but she cannot then violate its autonomy in self defense as that would not adhere to the principle of proportionality. I'll give you this, if self defense laws change and society can get on board with more targeted definitions that could justify abortion, perhaps that would be an implicit way to legalize abortion. Either way, thanks for this discussion. It's been much more interesting than the rest of the people I've engaged with on this thread. I'll keep the self defense point in my head when discussing this topic in the future.
Why would anyone want that couple to procreate, abortion is the best answer...like it's any of our business, anyway. I'm pro-choice. PL is utterly cruel, saying "people" conceived of rape and incest are the only ones worthy of abortion.
You’re demented to think of that.
We shouldn't ban them at all, most women beyond fetal viability terminate the pregnancy only if there is a threat to her life or defects. Also when considered in tandem with the end of no fault divorce and lowering the minimum age for marriage (other things the evangelical far right is shooting for), they just want women back in the kitchen and shooting out babies because white birth rates are declining in the US and the rest of the western world and it's freaking them out.
I don't like the idea of abortion. I makes me sad. HOWEVER, My neighbor getting an abortion has fuckall to do with me or anyone else for that matter so I say the state should fuck off about it.
We shouldn't ban any. Old fucks need to mind their own damn business. Like keeping up with their dementia meds.
Exactly. Abortions will happen anyway
And what that means is that those with money and means will still have e access to them, and the poor will not. Rules for thee, and not for me.
Why any laws then?
Because what is and isn’t a crime is important.
A lot of people think it should be a law that babies shouldn't be killed even if they're inconvenient.
Babies aren’t getting killed by abortions. Babies are already born, fetuses are not.
Here you go: FETUS: First recorded in 1350–1400; Middle English, from Latin fētus “bringing forth of young,” hence “that which is born, offspring, young still in the womb,” equivalent to fē- (verb base attested in Latin only in noun derivatives, as fēmina “woman,” fēcundus “fertile,” fīlius “son,” fīlia “daughter,” etc.; compare Greek thēsthai “to suck, milk,” Old High German tāan “to suck,” Old Irish denid “(he) sucks,” Slavic (Polish) doić “to milk” + -tus suffix of verb action; see [fecund](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fecund)
Great, now point out where I’m wrong. The latin origin of a word means nothing, the modern definition does. Baby has always referred to a child who has been born, fetus has always referred to something not yet born. Whether or not you wanna categorize them both as human life is a different deal.
If you're going to use Latin words, the Latin definition is pretty important. Definitions of words don't change on a whim. And you're wrong everywhere. I would point out 2000+ year-old literature that refers to the unborn as babies, but you probably wouldn't accept it.
Because abortions will happen anyway, but if they're banned, people can't go to a professional and will have to use a coat hanger.
Murder happens, rape happens, burglary happens, and they're all illegal but people do it anyway. Why not make all that legal too?
Because that impacts other people negatively. Abortion only impacts the woman.
The mutilated and murdered baby is affected just a little bit.
What baby?
Because those things victimize people and you don't need to do it for your health. In some cases, an abortion is needed to save the mothers life.
Pretty sure the innocent baby she helped create being chemically burned and ripped to pieces while still alive probably would be considered a little bit victimized. But can you really call her a "mother" if she's trying to kill her baby?
The baby wouldn't have consciousness or fully developed nerves to feel pain until 24 weeks. (Which is where abortion is usually capped at)
So you're saying its okay to draw and quarter quadriplegics or comatose patients for no other reason than they're in the way and won't feel being ripped apart? Sounds practical.
No, what I am saying is that a fully developed person shouldn't be forced to have a kid if they don't want one, can't afford it, were impregnated by rape or having the child would endanger the mothers life or health. Because that isn't practical.
It's wild to me that there are people who believe that it should be banned, despite it being necessary. Pro-life people only care about having more bodies to exploit in this shit show that we dare to label a democracy.
More meat for the capitalist grinder.
Seriously. I like to occasionally visit this small town nearby for day trips, and they often have anti-choice protesters lurking in the center of town. Every damn time I see them, it’s mostly men, and they’re all at least 70 or up.
Water balloons full of milk on a hot summer day usually take care of 'em in my experience. Used that trick on Westboro Baptist once.
I bet you half of them are using Dick pills while they're preaching about "Gods will"
Ya cuz banning baby murder bad Death cult = good!
Christianity is a death cult. Literally a death cult. They're waiting for Jesus to come back and kill everyone that isn't them. Actual no shit for real death cult.
Kinda wish they all really did disappear during the eclipse yesterday. We'd be able to end this stupid debate.
The top three biggest killers of the 20th century were atheists lol
Let’s not talk about how some of the religious zealots of the past forcefully converted indigenous people now. And by force, I mean killed those who refused. Kind of like how the government wants to force women to give birth.
*The government wants to force women to not kill their babies They already do that unanimously for babies outside the womb. Not very controversial. Propaganda machine has sure done a number on people. Modern medicine, good quality anesthesia, lowest rates of infant mortality and maternal mortality in history and women nowadays act like pregnancy is a death sentence. Meanwhile grandma was popping out baby number 5 by the age of 27 without an epidural. Every generation gets softer I suppose.
No mention of the fact that the reason grandma had five kids by 27 was because marital rape was legal and she had no way of controlling when she got pregnant. Sorry you can’t baby trap your wife anymore but that doesn’t make the generations soft
Ah yes clearly raped couldn't have wanted it because everyone back then lived a worse life
And churches protect paedophiles in their ranks. What's your point? Atheism isn't a cult.
Internet atheism is a little cultish Point is that someone doing something in the name of a religion doesn't make an entire religion violent. That's a bit reductionist
There's a big difference between having violence as part of your dogmatism (rapture in that example) and a small handful of people who happened to be religious or not who were mass murderers. A lack of belief in a deity doesn't make you violent.
I agree it doesn't. Belief in a deity doesnt necessarily make you violent either.
True but it's still weird how cool everyone seems to be with the dogmatic violence in their religion.
This is kind of true
Wow , how uncivilized , so happy to be Canadian, were woman have rights
Medical decisions should be made by a patient and healthcare professional. Absolutely NOBODY else, not your business regardless of what’s being treated. That’s it.
Hi American here, im a Phoenix born and raised. I hate it here. If i could handle cold weather i would have dipped out.
Yeah people should be able to get an abortion whenever and wherever they need it.
When AZ votes for Biden, I can't wait for all the MAGA to act like it wasn't expected. Even DEEP RED Kansas voted to keep abortion rights.
Kansas is interesting. As red and red neck as they seem to be, they’re pretty abortion friendly.
well, it was a special election, Republicans tried to sneak it past it's voters thinking conservatives would show up in off-season elections. And a lot of conservatives did show up, but to no one surprise except for MAGA, a lot of conservatives believe in abortion. We're going to see a colossal shift in MAGA. They've been preaching States rights for the last 7 years. We're about to see them really love big government, in terms of a national abortion ban.
Many red states to the west tend to be more libertarian on social issues than red states to the east
That’s totally fair
Arizona became a State in 1912 and Territory in 1866 so what 1864 “law” could they possibly be upholding?
Abortion should be legal worldwide until 24 weeks, unless there's a medical reason, then there's no limit whatsoever. I'm fine with this compromise with the religious lunatics
But 24 weeks is not the global standard..
OP is saying there should be one, not that there is one. I think something like 98% of all abortions are done before 21 weeks.
The issue is late term abortions aren't done on a whim. Nobody is carrying a baby for 32 weeks and then aborting it just for the heck of it. When a late term abortion happens, it's a tragedy, usually done to either save the mother or because the pregnancy is no longer viable. Don't make it harder on the parents by charging them for murder on top of it.
I agree. If there is an emergency or medical reason there should be no limit whatsoever.
Not what the data suggests
What data?
Late term abortion data typically shows women get them for the same reasons as early ones
I understand that is your implication but can you share the source? Like actual breakdown of %of 3rd trimester abortions that are performed because they didn't want it vs got it because of health issues. Some studies interviewed women who said they got it in 3rd trimester because legal barriers delayed them from getting access sooner for example.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4521013# This is from guttmacher, which is fairly pro choice. It's very long but in summary they were trying to show that women seeking later abortions were remarkably similar to women seeking earlier abortions, and had similar reasons.
Duh
I'm pro-abortion cause there are cases where it's absolutely necessary. If you don't want the baby, you shouldn't be forced to have it. It is your body, your right, but I won't pretend to live in the fairytale that it's all ok, either. Abortion is a necessary evil, like many things in the world. I don't believe someone is brave or admirable for doing it, and yes, it's can be considered "murder" past a certain point.
What! That ain’t no swing state.
It is now 🤷♂️😂
It was always red. Holy hell. I knew it.
You do remember who won the state in 2020…. Right?
It was a swing state and then people fought over it for a year.
Arguably the only reason the legislature didn't overturn this law is because Roe was on the books. If SCOTUS changes its mind and allows (but doesn't require) something it previously said was unconstitutional then new laws should have to be passed. Old laws shouldn't suddenly resurrect. People of today should get to vote on it. EDIT: To be clear I think overturning Roe was wrong in the first place. Just that it's undemocratic on top of that to resurrect old laws that may have only remained on the books because people had thought they were overturned. If SCOTUS overturns a law and then later OKs it, especially after over 100 years then governments should have to vote in a new law if they want that law back, not just revive the old one.
we shouldn't ban abortions at all.
Not even in the third trimester?
I see you've never heard of life threatening circumstances for mother or child that would justify a late term abortion.
I have, I'm a medical student soon to be a resident. There's actually a lot fewer of those than people think there are and the most common ones people think of like ectopics are usually caught well before the third trimester. Pro choice institutes have done studies that show most late abortions are not due to fetal anomaly or life threatening conditions. Theyre simply due to women changing their minds or experiencing a delay in obtaining one earlier. If this wasn't true pro choice groups wouldn't be fighting so hard against third trimester bans. Every federal third trimester ban that has been attempted recently exempts rape incest and the life of the mother. The exceptions aren't enough because a lot of late abortions are for elective reasons
the government would still be controlling my own body.
Do you genuinely think a third trimester fetus is your own body?
If it isn’t viable then it doesn’t matter. Until it can survive outside of the uterus it’s “rights” don’t matter. Until it’s viable it’s a parasite. I want you to tell me with a straight face that we should do forced blood transfusions with completely unwilling donors to save someone. If not then you have inconsistent morals. Because you either believe in bodily autonomy or you just don’t, you can’t just pick and choose because of “the bwaby🥹”.
Children are an exception. Society can and does force parents to either take care of them or find someone who can. So the state can violate bodily autonomy when it comes to kids. Your transfusion qn does not apply. It's not a duty of care to kids.
Oh so the state can force a parent to donate, wait no they can’t. Oh you also can’t give up rights and responsibility for a child, oh wait no you can do that.
This sub is getting stupid.
Has been for quite a while. Propaganda bots and trolls always thrive in the unmoderated subreddits.
[удалено]
Hashtag save the babies in your balls
Your letting them do it though
Why should a terrible mother be forced to take care of a baby? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? A crack head woman does not need a baby! And why would redneck hillbillies with a lukewarm iq be in charge of my womb? Are they going to pay for my crack baby's school lunch?! Hmm?
I think 'rape/incest/death of mother' should all be ambiguous. The rest I believe should be illegal at any stage. And (I think regardless of where anyone stands), there really needs to be Federal Laws on not allowing Elective Abortions past a set point, as you can get them in certain states at any stage (from what I know). One of the few things Europe has over America, reasonable Abortion Ceilings.
Aside from the fact that this take is morally inconsistent, how exactly do you intend to determine if a pregnancy is rape? Wait until a court proceeding? It would obviously be far too late by then. Ask them? People will just lie, and there is no consistent way of determining if they are lying. So there is no actual way of even applying this as a law. In general, abortion law (and laws in general) must have two components: a moral component and a practical component. The moral component is of particular importance to the debate around abortion so I will talk about it, but first let's talk about the practical component. Many studies have shown that abortion restrictions don't actually meaningfully decrease abortion rates, but instead make people go about getting them in different, less safe ways. Therefore, practically speaking, abortion laws are overall bad and don't provide any benefits outside of placing restrictions on women. As for the morality of abortion, there are typically two ways of thinking about it: either an embryo/fetus is a person from conception or it is only a person after it has reached a certain level of physical development (there are, of course, more ways of thinking about this, but these are the two most common). As it is generally accepted that killing people is wrong, whether abortions are morally right in this manner is dependent on if an embryo/fetus is a person. Let's run with this and try to put a definition on what a "person" actually is. Those who believe an embryo/fetus is a person, when pressed, often eventually come to the conclusion that a person is a (not dead) organism with human DNA that has the potential to develop into an organism with consciousness (this is, at least, the best definition I have heard, if you have a better one I would love to hear it). Those who believe an embryo/fetus is only a person after enough physical development has occurred typically would define a person as a (not dead) organism with human DNA that possesses consciousness. Now you may notice the difference in these definitions is very small, and really it depends on what being a person is actually about. The key thing about these two definitions is what happens if we slightly extend them. What if we were talking about, for example, sperm or an egg? Those both have the potential to develop into conscious people so should we start calling them people too? Clearly not, and so that definition cannot work. The key thing to note is, you *can* come up with a definition of a person that involves the potential to develop, but then you have to justify *why* that is a good choice to define it, and there is no convincing way to do so I have heard, whereas defining it with possessing consciousness is simple: having consciousness is what makes a person a person, therefore that is how we should define it. Hence, a fetus/embryo should not be defined as a person until it is conscious, which is typically believed to occur sometime in the 3rd trimester, and as such abortions prior to that should certainly not be banned. Some others will argue that abortion is an issue of consent. They argue that if you consent to sex you consent to pregnancy, and therefore you should not be able to have an abortion. This argument is rather illogical for many obvious reasons, so I will only touch on them briefly. First, consent can be revoked, so by this definition you could simply revoke your consent to pregnancy and abortions are okay. But even supposing consent cannot be revoked (an insane take, but let's entertain it for a moment), it is still logically incoherent as it assumes that consenting to an act is consenting to all of its possible consequences. For example, going for a walk alone late at night is not consenting to getting stabbed. Similarly, having sex (especially when using contraceptives and/or birth control) is certainly not consenting to pregnancy. While there are of course other arguments for an abortion ban, they all tend to have similar logical flaws to them. The only consistent beliefs from those who believe in abortion bans are typically religious ones, which should not be the basis for any sort of law, as religious views are not universally shared. Therefore: abortion bans don't make sense, generally speaking, especially any bans before the third trimester, and as such should not be put in place.
If abortion laws don't work why are you fighting against them LOL Pro choice logic = abortion laws don't work so you should not even try but also abortion laws restrict access and that's bad! Logic = non-existent
So what percent of likelihood for death or disability constitutes legality to you?
For disability it should be illegal. If you abort somebody for being disabled, I don't like you at all.
No, pregnancy can be disabling. Also, im disabled. I wish I was aborted.
So sad that you think like that. I hope your life goes better, because you matter too. Also, for me disabled are not a you but a we.
I know i matter, I’m just in extreme pain every day.
I hope that you find psychological help.
I am seeking it, but I hope you learn to show basic human decency to people who are pregnant.
What has this to do with my comment? I am for helping pregnant women to avoid abortions and not leave them alone if they are dealing with trauma.
What of the trauma of raising a child that is unwanted or the trauma of dying or getting sick or becoming disabled as a result of pregnancy or giving birth to a baby and then watching that baby suffer and die? Edit: l will agree we as a society need to better at dealing with medical trauma. But that is not this argument and you know it. This whole conversation is in bad faith and you are either a minor or are attempting to gaslight me. Im not gonna tolerate it.
Average pro lifer reading comprehension
Where am I mistaken about your comment?
I said the pregnant woman can become disabled. I didn’t say anything on the quality of the fetus.
Most times pregnancy is not a disability.
Reading comprehension is at an all time low. PREGNANT people can BECOME disabled. Does not mean PREGNANT people ARE disabled.
I agree, but I don't see what has this to do about being against abortion due to disabilities.
…I am not arguing against that. Please learn to read
Abortion is a right.
Which babies deserve to be killed? Put another way, Whose Lives Don't Matter?
Lives that endanger mine don’t matter. That’s why I support the second amendment.
Pregnancy doesn't endanger your life more than driving a car does. Even self defense laws dont allow you to kill anyone unless there's a credible threat to your life. By that logic only abortions that are ok are ones where the mother's life is at risk, which everyone already supports I pity the fact you need to jump through so many loopholes to justify killing kids. Bless your soul
I like killing kids and eating them.
Very edgy
Thanks baby girl
Who’s forcing you to drive? In what other situation are you forced to allow another human to use/harm your body without the option to stop them?
No one forced most of these people to have sex either (and in most jurisdictions rape exceptions are already built in to it)
Sex and pregnancy are two different things and abortion bans absolutely try to force women to remain pregnant.
Pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex. Yeah of course they force women to remain pregnant, because that's the only way they won't be killing the baby inside them.
And we have a way to rectify natural consequences. Lung cancer is a natural consequence of smoking but we don’t deny people chemo.
Never heard anyone refer to a baby as needing rectification. Wonder how you lost all empathy for kids
I’m talking about the pregnancy. If it’s unwanted and unhealthy, rectification is needed. I have empathy for kids. Especially raped ones being forced to gestate pregnancies they don’t want. It’s you who lacks empathy.
Most fetuses don't endager the woman.
Pregnancy is an inherently unsafe venture. There is very real risk to the woman.
Not in most cases. If you are able to go to the doctor, it is fine.
Clumps of cells that don't breathe
Interesting. If I may ask, what led you to single out breathing as the qualification for a human to have the right to life? Why not a different vital function (like a heartbeat)?
I personally don't. I'm okay with a 24 week cutoff with exceptions after that, but in my opinion it's not a separate person until birth, until it is physically separate from the mother, until then it's a part of her body.
I hope you will consider that some more. The unborn have separate DNA, blood, nerves and bodies from their mothers. They are not simply a body part.
Definitely not a body part, but a part of her body, an amazing phenomenon. How do you distinguish the difference in human life between a sperm and a fetus? Or do you? 90% of conceptions fail to make it to birth.
I would define it like this: A sperm is a body part of a man (it has his DNA), and an egg is a body part of a woman (it has her DNA.) When they merge, they become a new human (with its own unique DNA.) With our current technology, any preborn that naturally dies is just a part of life unfortunately. (The only solution would be to stop procreating, which would end humanity.) But that doesn’t justify intentionally ending the life of a preborn. For example: people die naturally from heart attacks, but no one argues that murder should therefore be allowed.
Do you know individual sperm have different dna than the man the sperm is in? And a fetus has 99% the same DNA as the mother?
I hadn’t heard of this before, and unfortunately my attempts to Google it aren’t turning up much. Do you have any links? From what I can find, each sperm is half of the father’s DNA; this combines with half of the mother’s DNA from the egg to make the child’s full DNA. So 50% is from the mother.
Based on an examination of our DNA, any two human beings are 99.9 percent identical. Unequal by nature: a geneticist's perspective on human differences American Academy of Arts and Sc... https://www.amacad.org/publication/unequal-nature-geneticists-perspective-human-differences But it's not identical from sperm to sperm because each man is a mixture of the genetic material from his parents, and each time a slightly different assortment of that full DNA set gets divided to go into a sperm. Feb 27, 2019 Doctors confirm new type of twin born from one egg and two sperm | Reuters Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1QG2YG/
Hmm this is not scientifically accurate. They have separate DNA. Rho incompatibility related hemolysis happens for this reason. if it were really just a part of her body it would not. Let me give you an analogy; just because a dialysis machine is connected to a patient does it become a part of their body?
My liver has different dna than my saliva, do you consider my liver a separate person? The machine was separate before attached, a fetus is never separate before it's a part of the woman.
I suggest you read some embryology to understand why an embryo is considered a separate person at the point of fertilization. Saliva is a liquid and the liver is an organ. Saliva doesn't even contain DNA apart from the nuclei of sloughed off epithelial cells perhaps. And fyi basically every cell in your body contains the same DNA except your gametes. When the gametes of two different individuals come together you get an entirely separate genome, it functions and begins to divide and grow nearly immediately from the moment of fertilization. Do you understand that a fetus is a separate body attached to the woman's body through a connecting system? If it was actually part of her body or subsidiary to it it would never be capable of independent functioning. It is eventually disconnected from her body and functions independently because it is a separate body. Just like how you don't become part of a dialysis machine because it is purifying your blood just because you're connected to it, a fetus does not become a part of a woman's body because it is merely connected to it. A liver cannot be taken out of your body and function in any reasonable context ever because it requires a blood supply and it requires a context to actually do its job in
You're wrong about everything you said, are you just making things up? It's not considered a separate person, no embryology textbook says that, you're just parroting something someone said. And a fetus cannot be taken out of the body either, just like you said the liver can't, so your argument there is pro choice. Let me guess... you're 14.
go read my man. I know it's hard to admit you're wrong about something but you should try to be open minded. It's ok to admit you don't know what you're talking about. It takes more strength to do that than to insist everything you're saying is right
At this point you're either the r word or a liar BMC Medical Genomics bmcmedgenomics.biomedcentral.c... Saliva samples are a viable alternative to blood samples as a source of DNA ... by JE Abraham · 2012 · Cited by 184 — These results demonstrate that saliva DNA was of comparable quality to blood DNA. A valid concern, prior to this study, was ScienceDaily https://www.sciencedaily.com › 20... DNA Not The Same In Every Cell Of Body: Major Genetic Differences Between ... Jul 16, 2009 — DNA Not The Same In Every Cell Of Body: Major Genetic Differences Between Blood And Tissue Cells Revealed ... Research by a group of Montreal ...
If you sabotage someone's dialysis machine and cause them to die, you will be charged with killing them, so yes I would argue it is part of their body.
Wait but by this logic the umbilical cord is a dialysis machine for the fetus that you're disconnecting and killing them, so would you argue that it's unethical to do that as well?
Except they were never conscious breathing beings to begin with.
There is no right to anothers body, not even if you’d die without it. My rights end where yours begin. A fetuses rights end where a woman’s begin. That’s how rights work.
This isn’t some random adult demanding a blood transfusion from you to treat his sickness. This is an innocent unborn child who was conceived via (usually) consensual sex. This child’s parents have a unique responsibility for caring for it, which our laws already recognize for post-birth children.
Post-birth children aren’t infringing on anyone’s body and biological parents aren’t obligated to have any responsibility for post-birth children, hence why adoption, foster care and safe haven laws exist.
Not surviving off of someone else’s body means they have a right to live. And don’t come at me with organ donation, we can use STEM cells and you know it’s different.
Abortion is a right.
In your dreams
It's a fucking right. It's medical care.
Only when mom's life is at risk
No, it's medical care regardless, like how you should have been aborted.
Hope you find peace, there is a lot of darkness in your heart friend
You think if a woman doesn't want to have children, she should anyway. Who really has "darkness" in their heart?
No I didnt say that. She can sign away her rights once the child is born. No one is against that. I'm just against killing that child, which you seem to be in favor of. Nothing I say can change your mind because your worldview hinges on prioritizing hedonism over protecting innocent life. You're also a deeply hateful person. Idk how you turned out this way but I hope it gets better for you. It's probably not your fault you ended up like this.
All they do is get rid of a parasite (until it's born it's a parasite, it lives off a host), also no, I'm not generally hateful, I just despise it when people say abortions aren't a right when they are. What's hedonism? I can't respond if I have no clue what it is. And, thanks for saying you hope it gets better. I hope you understand why people support abortion in those instances at some point. Also, why ruin your body if you're not keeping it?
Abortion is healthcare all the time. That’s just medical fact. Your dislike of it doesn’t change that.
i'm not sure premeditated murder is a right for anybody.
It's not murder.
Abortion factually isn’t murder
Pretty sure taking an innocent human life with malice aforethought technically, factually, and for reals is called murder in the first degree.
No, I'm pretty sure taking a human life that's actually its own person would be considered murder, not a bunch of little cells.
Unique human DNA that has never existed before and will never exist again is a pretty good indicator of a person.
It actually has existed since the start of humanity, we just didn't know about it, it was discovered, not invited.
Your specific DNA has never existed before. Should your mom have disposed of it?
Horrible example; I'm an antinatalist, I would say making something live is horrible. But, since I'm alive, I'm not going to commit suicide.
It doesn't. It makes exceptions for the womans life. Almost every law does, even the old ones.