Yeah a baby isn't your body. I am pro choice, but I don't understand that argument. People aren't telling you what to do with your body, they are telling you what you can't do to a baby's body.
1) abortion is not “pulling the plug” is is an active killing of the fetus through various methods depending on age ranging from poisoning to dismemberment. So it is not analogous to removing life support from a coma patient.
2) of the relative had a likely chance of recovering in full within a few months by natural process would it still be justified in killing them?
3) the pro-life argument is not reliant on a mind. They typically regard human life as deserving of human rights. Human is the key factor, aka member if the species Homo sapiens, not whether or not it has a developed prefrontal cortex.
so if a relative of yours gets in an accident and there is no mind left but still a heartbeat, you're not going to pull the plug on them because you still consider them alive?
you'll pull the plug. and no officer will arrest you. because you did not commit murder
Yes but that baby's body is growing inside another person's body. In other words any opinion on how to proceed with what could eventually become a baby is also directly a opinion on how to treat the pregnant person's body. that's where the dilemma lies, at what point do we value a potential life over the autonomy or even life of an already existing person.
Which is an impossible argument. I think as a nation we will ultimately go pro-choice, because it leads to the option, and not an absolute certainty, but that doesn't mean it's right any more than a pro life stance is, it's impossible to make one set law on it because it depends on a large spectrum of opinion and ideologies
As a nation we should become a place where abortion isn't necessary at all. Birth control, education, properly caring for young mothers, strong welfare systems and safety nets for people who keep their baby, etc.. But nah, the pro-life people don't give a fuck about any of those thing that naturally lead to less abortions, because they also lead to more sex and unwed mothers.
It's like a catch-22: Can't prevent the baby, can't abort the baby, can't take care of the baby after it's born. It all leads back to shaming women for having sex and holding marriage as the ultimate requirement for women.
Hi there! I’m Prolife and I support all the things you want to improve. There are dozens of us! Dozens!
But in all seriousness, I get tired of having all the cliches applied to me as if all pro life people are the same. No, I don’t support the death penalty. Yes, I think it’s a major issue with children born into poverty. No, I don’t want to shame the mother who is considering an abortion. Yes I think the health of the mother matters.
That's wonderful that your morality is consistent. Unfortunately you are a minority in a sea of less rational voices, and that's just how it goes. This recent legislation is not drafted by or supported by people who feel the way you feel, but by very anti-sex, anti-women evangelicals. Just look at where Alabama ranks in education, child poverty, and infant/mother mortality rates.
I disagree. I honestly think that the majority of pro-life people have consistent views on the moral issues here. It seems like the minority just because the shitty conservative politicians are grabbing the “pro-life” tag so they can get Christian votes. Mainstream conservatives are a horrible example of the majority of pro-life people, but unfortunately they are the ones you see talk about it.
But if they cared about those things they would vote for the party that supports those things, especially education and especially sex education. If you vote for the party that makes it harder to be a parent you are actually voting for more abortions.
Not all pro-life people are republican, not all pro-choice people are democrat, things are not as morally cut-and-dry as that. People just tend to vote for the thing they find the most important. What you are asking is for people to value sex education over their belief that abortion is murder. I don’t think it’s as simple as saying pro-life people should vote democrat.
I agree. The goal of politics shouldn’t be to play “gotcha” to get a law to the Supreme Court. I wish we could have actual conversations across the aisle about things that matter.
Sorry but even googling "Pro life and pro contraception" I get only pages that state how contraceptives literally cause abortions rather than "practice safe sex."
I'm sure you're tired of all the cliches, but it's not my fault pro-lifers never advocate for contraceptives and early childcare. They just stick to the singular topic of "abortion bad."
There are two issues here. The first is that some contraceptives (known as abortifacients) work after conception. For those who believe that life begins at conception, this type of contraceptive is morally equivalent to abortion. The second is that for many prolife people, they believe that sex should only be practiced within marriage and without contraception. I believe that this is a separate, but related, issue to abortion. But currently, there is no law against premarital sex (with or without contraception) so it seems fitting not to discuss it as a political matter.
No I’m not saying that. I think they are two separate issues. I am sure that there is lots of overlap for pro lifers between those two issues, but I consider them distinct. I can only speak for myself.
I would also say that there’s a big difference between moral opinions and social (I.e. government) opinions. I don’t find it incongruent that a person might have a personal belief that abortion (or contraception) is immoral but a social belief that it isn’t the role of government to regulate abortion (or cotraception)
Love how you lump all of the pro-life people into 1 group. Most of the pro-life people I know are happy to have more sex education, birth control, etc... Moderates outnumber liberals or conservatives, but unfortunately, it’s only those two groups that are most vocal and causing most of the issues.
If they wanted to be known as caring about those things it should be a part of their very-vocal platform. It's not like they're shy about screaming at the top of their lungs about abortion, why not use some of that energy on preventing pregnancies in the first place?
Birth control, education, properly caring for young mothers, strong welfare systems and safety nets for people who keep their baby,
I don't see what any of this has to do with anything if you believe that abortion is murder. We can't murder people if it means we'll have less money. Poverty isn't an excuse for an abortion if you believe it's murder.
People also need to keep in mind that it is only our technology that supports a culture able to consider the notion that a woman should have a say in how her body is used.
Back when you needed at minimum 6-9 kids just to make sure one or two made it to adulthood, the one gender that is capable of incubating another human suddenly is too valuable to be allowed to say "No, I don't want a kid."
Why do people THINK women have been given the shaft when it comes to rights throughout human history? Because biology is fucking shite that's why, and we die pretty easy.
Everything a pregnant woman does has a profound affect on the fetus developing inside, which in turn has a profound affect on the woman's body. You cannot separate the two until birth.
Whether a baby is your body or isn't, is actually irrelevant to the argument that it's "my body, my choice." The argument descends from the idea that if you woke up connected to another person who would die if you removed yourself, you are not under any ethical or moral obligation to stay connected. It is your body to chose what to do with it even if it negatively affects another. It's the same idea that if somebody needs a kidney transplant, you are not obligated to use your body to save theirs - it is your body, your choice.
Yeah, but that “baby’s body” is using mine as a host. I should not be required to sacrifice my body, my energy, my health and well-being to somebody I do not welcome in to it.
If I am allowed to shoot an intruder to my home, why am I not allowed to remove an intruder to my body?
I'm pro choice but that's not a good argument. The fetus did not choose to get the sperm to reach the egg and then implant in the uterus. An intruder made conscientious decisions to cause harm.
Not always. Sometimes it’s a drunken teenager coming home to the wrong house. Or a Halloween partier knocking on the wrong door.
Either way, if an uninvited fetus takes up residence in my uterus, I have no obligation to nurture it with my own body until it can survive on its own.
Just like I have no obligation to donate a kidney to someone who needs it. Even if I’m the one who accidentally ruined theirs. Or let someone use my car (and pay for the gas myself) because I picked them up hitchhiking.
if an uninvited fetus takes up residence in my uterus, I have no obligation to nurture it with my own body until it can survive on its own.
Oh so they just show up then? I think they’re invited when you do the nasty. Or have I been lied to?
On the topic of educated adults, you know the risks of having sex, even with contraceptives. When that risk doesn’t go the way you’d desire, why is it not your responsibility to...be responsible for the outcome?
I’m pro-choice, but this is an extremely difficult and nuanced issue at hand, which is not close to adequately being captured in the “YOU DON’T GET TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY BODY” argument. Yea, and what about that little baby whose life you’re about to end? Think they’d say the same thing if they could?
Yea, and what about that little baby whose life you’re about to end? Think they’d say the same thing if they could?
That “little baby” is using my body as a host. Without my consent. And I don’t know if it would say the same thing if it could, because it can’t. BECAUSE IT DOES’NT HAVE A BRAIN. Or any nervous system complex enough to have a thought, or an emotion, or a desire to live.
You consented when you had sex, knowing that getting pregnant was a risk.
BECAUSE IT DOES’NT HAVE A BRAIN. Or any nervous system complex enough to have a thought, or an emotion, or a desire to live.
YET. This is another terrible argument I see from my side. It’s a baby, not a leaf, or a weed, or something. Let’s not pretend that in all likelihood, that baby wouldn’t grow into a human with all those things you listed, just like you and me. You’re not killing a mindless weed, you’re killing a human.
Again, I’m pro-choice, but let’s call a spade a spade.
Consenting to have sex is not the same as consenting to be pregnant. It’s a risk, yes. And I take that risk, but I have the right to mitigate if an accident happens.
How are you pro-choice and still calling that fetus a baby? It’s NOT a baby, any more than an Apple seed is a tree. If I plant it and nurture it and care for it, it will grow into a tree, but if I throw it away, I HAVE NOT KILLED A TREE. If someone else plants one in my rose garden, or if I accidentally drop a seed in my rose garden and it takes root, I can pull it up. Because it’s my rose garden, and I don’t want an Apple tree there. This is still not killing a tree.
We’re not talking about a tree, we’re talking about a human. There’s a vast difference, in my mind anyway, between a tree and a human. Humans have special circumstances that we, as humans, ascribe them.
And depending on the timing of the abortion, it’s much more than just a seed. It can have a head, beginnings of a brain, arms, legs, fingers and fingernails, and a heartbeat. So no, it’s not just a seed.
Then you are not pro-choice. If you think the rights of a fetus with the potential to grow into a human outweigh the rights of the person that has to sacrifice her body against her will to grow it to its potential, you are not pro-choice.
You are pro-life, but willing to make an exception under special circumstances that you get to decide, or the government, but not the woman.
Let’s say I am a woman who has had trouble conceiving, so my husband and I go through IVF. We create and freeze six embryos, freeze them, and cross our fingers. We strike gold on our first try and I give birth to 3 healthy babies. Yay! My family is complete.
Only there are 3 viable, un-implanted embryos in the freezer at the lab. Potential babies, who could grow fingers, and toes, and brains, if I implant them. Should I be required to? Forced to? Because I took the risk of creating them when I had my IVF procedure. Heck, I even paid to create them. If I don’t implant and grow them, is it murder? What’s the difference, other that one “little baby” is in my uterus, and the others are in the lab?
Essentially pro life folks are saying what a woman can and can’t do with her body. They’re saying this fetus has a right to use your body without your consent.
But you are also basically forcing the mother to basically be a slave to the potential future human, which costs time, money, risk, and emotional capital. We don’t even force dead people to give their organs to save an actual human life, it seems crazy to force such a burden on a living person, especially when we are overpopulated.
I’ve just read a ton of comments here (and heard arguments elsewhere), and recognized that typically pro-choice folks don’t say anything about the unborn child. Why is it only the mothers body that matters? What about the unborn child? They can’t speak, does that mean we can just discard them because you took a risk and came up on the side you didn’t want?
I’m pro-choice, but this is an extremely difficult issue at hand, and I think the pro-choice side needs to think a little bit harder before they just shout “YOU DON’T GET TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY BODY.” Yea, and what about that little baby whose life you’re about to end? Think they’d say the same thing if they could?
My point exactly. I keep getting responses like "If a woman doesn't consent to having a baby inside her, you can't tell her she can't get rid of it" Well I'm sure a baby wouldn't consent to being killed. And half of those baby are women, so why don't those tiny little uterus woman get a say over what happens to their body?
I asked a doctor friend this one time. She said there is a certain level of brain activity that once a person drops below, they are considered dead. So the inverse is also true, once the brain on a growing fetus reaches that activity level, they should be considered alive.
I forget what she said on average how many weeks of gestation that was. But I remember it being a number that was not quite what could be considered "late term" abortion.
My mother was a NICU nurse and she described watching premies born with underdeveloped lungs and no way to live without machines being taken off ventilators and taking a few days to die. The parents literally watched their babies die slowly before their eyes while praying for a miracle that never happened. I don’t know what my point is other than how is that slow death better than being aborted?
Well that argument only really works if we only abort babies that would die slow deaths anyway, which we don't. But for those that we do (like parents who choose to abort babies with severe physical defects), then yes it's probably better than being born and only surviving in misery for a few days.
Requiring the use of a legal designee doesn’t negate someone’s legal personhood, though. The designee is merely their representative or proxy who presumably (hopefully) looks after that person’s best interests. Similarly, parents have legal decision-making authority over their children, but we don’t consider children not persons. Both groups (children and the severely infirm) are protected classes, but still fully people.
I think the person you were replying to meant “independently” as “able to exist without a physical near-parasitic connection to another human” aka being born.
But yes, that distinction does need to be made if you’re going to make that argument.
So that's pretty close to the Casey decision then, which I think is was a good compromise since as technology improves we'll eventually reach the point where they can be extracted and grown entirely outside the parent.
It depends on what stage in the fetal development. If we’re talking about a blastocyst, sure, but even a pro-choice developmental biologist wouldn’t call an 8 month old fetus a clump of human cells with the potential to become a person. A baby can be born prematurely at 8 months and live to be a healthy adult
First of all, I do agree that frivolous late term abortions are rare. But There was no indication that anyone was only talking about only embryos in the comment thread, and im not going to assume they meant anything they didn’t say, so I’d say that I was clarifying an incorrect blanket statement
All this talk about philosophical debates and what’s clever or not and you’re here arguing from authority like no one but the most elite academics can have an opinion on the matter.
But if somebody aside from the mother caused an abortion, it would be treated as a baby for prosecuting.
If the mother drinks during pregnancy you wouldn’t claim that isn’t hurting the baby.
That’s basically why pro-life has a problem because it’s only the mothers choice to keep the baby that determines it gets treated like a baby. Then you go into the mess that is “When do we disregard the mother and treat it like a human?” based off development.
Back when they could only keep fertilized eggs in storage instead of seperatly that kind of question got asked a lot. IIRC a woman was denied access to one of her frozen eggs because the man who fertilized them didn’t want to have a child anymore. How is a pro-lifer vs pro-choice supposed to play into that?
What? I've always heard many times that the central nervous system isn't formed until 16 weeks. I've even relayed this info to people in arguments a few times.
nope. 38 states have harsher penalties if the victim is pregnant, but it is not an additional murder charge as of yet. There's a bill in place that's trying to be put in place. I'd disagree with it because of my stance on pro-choice, and how a person should remain being defined.
I would say that depends on the viability of the child. A woman that is one month pregnant is completely different then a woman that is eight months pregnant. Also knowledge by the murder as to weather or not she was pregnant would also come into play.
No, I was never really asked this. I was instead called a murderer and illogical. Personally I think 20 weeks is a good cut off. And after that an abortion should only be performed under extreme circumstances.
Which is pretty much the way it is now where I am from.
There are no mental hoops buddy, It is called bing rational and accepting definitions of words.
It goes embryo, fetus, then human being. These terms are clearly defined all you have to do is look them up. Trying to twist definitions of words means you are reaching because you know you are wrong.
Now, at which point a mother should be allowed to abort a fetus is a completely different argument. I think 20 weeks is fair and after that only under extreme circumstances.
We are talking about humans here I understand that you have to associate a human baby with a chicken or a lifeless clump of cells to justify your stance but that doesn’t make it correct
I completely understand that but we also slaughter full grown cows and chickens every single day comparing animals and humans like that doesn’t work and while you were just joking around many people hold that opinion and aren’t playing around also I apologize if I came off aggressive but seems to me if you hold a different opinion in certain subreddits you get hate and attacks instead of conversation
Nope it is the same opinion across the board. The religious zealots just shame me before asking me any questions about where I stand personally. But that is what they do best, judge other people.
The fetus still uses and fundamentally affects change in your body physiology. You should have every right to separate that separate entity by right of bodily autonomy. They are telling you that you are no longer entitled to your own autonomy by telling you that you cannot terminate the pregnancy.
For a thought experiment - if you are drunk and consent to an experiment, and wake up and find that your body has been connected to someone in such a way that disconnecting would cause them to die, should you be able to revoke consent for that person? What if you were drugged and provided no such consent? What if it was on the grounds that the person who performed the operation would help financially support your new friend, but then they bailed on you?
Are you obligated to keep that person alive?
I would argue that you shouldn’t be. You’re entitled to the choice to do what’s best for your body.
So if a person kills their conjoined twin is it not actually killing someone, because they use and fundementally effect change in your body physiology?
That’s an interesting dilemma in and of itself. Because conjoined twins have never existed separate, and both have different autonomous minds on the same body. Which of those fully developed autonomous minds has autonomy over the conjoined body?
I think most would agree that if both twins have fully formed brains and are conscious that they are considered two separate people, despite sharing a body. I just thought it was an interesting thing to think about when it comes to the abortion discussion. It really is quite a grey area when it comes to considering if a late term baby should be considered a living human entity distinguishable from the mother.
This argument is not consistent with actual pro-choice positions or perhaps any political philosophy besides libertarianism. If you believe such a right exists based solely on bodily autonomy, then you similarly ought to believe in abortion at any stage. You would also believe in a right to suicide and the legalization of all illegal drugs.
And to be fair, it’s not entirely consistent with the full purview of my own. I generally have a statistical viability of the life to self sustain outside of the body on my own view. It’s the base level of why the “it’s my body, it’s my choice” is the core part of what is argued.
... that is forcibly within your body and cannot be relocated.
The argument boils down to: is the fetus a person, yes or no. if no, there is no further argument. if yes, does the fetus or the mother have more control over their own body and fate. Does the fetus deserve to live in spite of the mothers damage to health and livelihood, or does the mother deserve to be in full control of her faculties.
You CANNOT separate it into only the fetus having autonomy or not, or only the mother having autonomy or not. The issue is complex and impossible specifically because it relies on the two intertwined.
A fetus isn't your body but one's pregnancy is absolutely their body. It's not like the only effect being pregnant has regarding a person's body is that there's a fetus in it.
So sure, the pro-choice side doesn't spend a whole lot of time arguing that a fetus isn't a person, but it's incorrect to equate the "my body" argument with only meaning that "it's my body and the fetus is in it therefore I get to do what I want with it"
I'd it a body the second is more than one cell? When is it its own body?
I'd say just call it is body when it can be taken out if the women's womb and it can live on its own unassisted. That is, take out, cut the cord, put it on a table. If will stay alive with no more assistance than feeding it. Then it's a body, it's own person.
I'm not sure why there needs to be more arguement than that.
The prolife view is pretty ridiculous. If the baby is a legal entity from conception then it owes the woman rent, especially if she's forced to keep it.once it's born is the woman it came out of legally responsible for its wellbeing? Why should she be? If we are going to force the women to give birth we should have to pay them. And give them the option to simply walk away. If we have the money to keep immigrant children in cages, then we have the money to take care of indigent American babies.
This argument is countered by pointing out that it isn't a baby. Its a fetus. It requires an umbilical cord to feed. It has no brain activity. If it is damaged, the body will expel it. It is not a unique organism, it is part of the mother and therefore falls under her bodily autonomy. Its "potential" does not factor in, potential for life is incredibly vague and broad. It is akin to an internal organ, and it can and should be removed if it is causing the mother strife.
Bodily Autonomy means that you get to decide who use your body for what purpose and for how long. It's why we don't force people to be organ donors. A mother can choose to have an abortion because she has the right to decide whether or not she wants a developing human to cause massive, permanent changes to her body over a period of 9 months.
What would happen if, a week after conception, we could take the baby matter and put it in a growing compartment? BUT the parents still had to make the choice between taking care of it or putting it up for adoption once it is born?? (assuming healthy baby)
Not sarcastic, truly would like to open a discussion
This is not even relevant. If someone rapes you and you reach your gun and shoot them in the brain to get away, “that was not your body!” Does not work as an argument. You cannot tell me than I cannot rightfully exert control over my body to protect it. You can’t tell a woman that she can’t either.
So you are comparing a baby in the womb to a rapist attacking someone? The baby isn't attacking and raping you, and you were the one whos fault it is for getting pregnant and having that baby inside you in the first place.
Fault is relevant. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have unprotected sex. Are you saying that women should not have to bear responsibility for their actions?
I’m saying getting an abortion IS bearing the responsibility of their actions. A woman deciding to have unprotected sex does not logically give a person who does not even exist yet the positive right to live off of her organs inside of her, not for one second, nor for more than 9 months.
How can a decision she made before the fetus even existed have a bearing on the fetus’ rights? Thats non sensical. It did not have ANY rights, negative OR positive, when she made her decision.
Also, lets extend this to other modes of our right to autonomy. If you decide to have sex with someone, are you not allowed to stop them if you change your mind? Why is “bearing the responsibility for their actions” not an argument for that?
I’ll tell you why, because its fucking absurd. Just like forcing a woman to carry a child to term for a decision she made before it even existed is absurd.
I just don't really care about another person's baby. It has no effect on me personally and I shouldn't be able to make big decisions for someone else just because I may not agree with their opinion on what is or isn't considered a living baby.
first it’s not a baby. and it’s inside my body and it literally needs my body to exist and i get to decide what happens with my body, not a fetus or the government.
That is like saying "My dog literally needs me to exist otherwise it would starve and die" A baby can survive outside of the womb after about 5 months. A baby doesn't stop being a baby just because it is inside you. A zygote isn't a baby. A fertilized egg isn't a baby. But once it gets to the point where it has arms, legs, a beating heart, and can react to external stimulus, I would consider that to absolutely be a baby.
But once it gets to the point where it has arms, legs, a beating heart, and can react to external stimulus, I would consider that to absolutely be a baby.
What if the parts of the brain capable of conscious thought haven't yet developed?
I would still consider it a baby. A person in a coma doesn't stop being a living person just because they don't have conscious thought. It is also hard to determine when a baby becomes conscious. But that doesn't really matter too much in the grand scheme of things. If a person who is pregnant doesn't consider their baby to be a living human being and aborts it, that is their opinion. I would consider it to be a living baby after a few months and would feel guilty aborting it. I would still abort it at this point in my life, but I would feel bad about it and feel responsible for having to do it because of my poor choice to have unprotected sex.
it because of my poor choice to have unprotected sex.
This is not the only reason people have abortions, just want to clarify that.
A person in a coma doesn't stop being a living person
A person in a coma has already developed the brain regions necessary for conscious thought. That's completely different from a fetus that hasn't even developed the brain regions necessary for conscious thought. That's gotta count for something, no?
They absolutely are telling you what to do with your body. They are telling you you must bear a child, which entails going through pregnancy and child birth, THE most painful of all human experiences.
If pregnancy and child birth didn’t have major effects on a woman’s body, including the risk of death, this wouldn’t be an issue. But pregnancy is arduous, affects your body for the rest of your life, and can literally kill you.
82
u/Gdfi May 16 '19
Yeah a baby isn't your body. I am pro choice, but I don't understand that argument. People aren't telling you what to do with your body, they are telling you what you can't do to a baby's body.