4 ms·

>A fetus is not a person, It is a person. This is why we are talking past each other on most of these posts. >for the vast majority of the time they lack any

>A fetus is not a person, It is a person. This is why we are talking past each other on most of these posts. >for the vast majority of the time they lack any organs at all. This is just not true. Please tell me when the brain and heart form. It is well before the halfway point. Also, some people are born without organs or without properly functioning organs. Some people lose their organs later in life. They are still persons, at least I think they are. >However even if we do take a position of a fetus being a person, no one has the right to force anyone to undertake any medical procedure for anyone else's benefit. I wouldn't call it a medical procedure but a natural process that is medicalized (is that a word?). In 99% of abortions the woman chose to take the action whose sole biological purpose is pregnancy so this isn't really a forced medical procedure in those case. If you are not willing to risk getting a speeding ticket don't speed. You can't kill the police officer giving you a speeding ticket to get out of the consequences of your actions. The speeding ticket requires you to lose property rights to pay the ticket. Nobody denies this, but when it comes to pregnancy people take the opposite position. If you are not willing to risk getting pregnant don't have sex. You can't kill the baby just like you can't kill the police officer. You lose your property rights (paying fine) just like you temporarily lose the ability to do a certain action (abortion). It is no different. >We can perhaps make this easier to grasp if we go to post-birth. >Let's say a baby is born with kidney failure. Can the government force the mother or father to donate their kidney? If not, why not? Current law says no, the parent cannot be forced into surgery, but your above definition seems to make the parents murderers? It is not the same situation since letting somebody die is not the same as deliberately hiring somebody to killing them. I can make an analogy that isn't really related as well. After a baby has been born parents should be allowed to starve the baby since the parents have property rights. They should not be forced to pay for food for the baby. Current law says you can't do that. >We know of cases where people have additional children solely to get organs for earlier children, and currently we recognize that those children have rights so they can say no. But maybe you disagree with that? after all, them saying no kills the earlier child. I am not a fan of this. Having a kids to deliberately harvest organs is wrong, but like I said above, I don't think the situation is the same. I would say that the prochoice side should be in favor of having this legal. If a mother can do a medical procedure that will kill their child in the womb why can't they do a medical procedure on the child outside the womb? Especially since neither of the medical procedures are medically necessary for the baby. >The question is "can the government force someone to undertake medical procedures", currently (at least prior to the GOP corruption of the Supreme Court) the answer is no. This is just not true. The state government can force you to get vaccinated. Maybe you oppose that, but it has been precedent for over 100 years (Jacobson v. Massachusetts). The federal government can also draft you (a violation of bodily autonomy) then force you to get vaccines since you are in the military. Also, this happens only to men, so it is similar to pregnancy only happening to women. All levels of the government can arrest you which removes your bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is not 100% just like any other right. There are situations where you do not get to have that right. I am not going to address the rest of your post since it is all the same. I have just showed you that the government can currently and has forced medical procedures on individuals and removed bodily autonomy and nobody cares.

webmaven 4y ago
> abortions the woman chose to take the action whose sole biological purpose is pregnancy. If you think that, you really haven't been doing it right. Pleasure, companionship, comfort, reinforcement of social status, and many other purposes are commonly fulfilled by the act of sex, including between same sex partners. But let us say that you're correct. That still leaves 1% of pregnancies that are involuntary. What should women be allowed to do then? We aren't going to agree on when a fertilized egg becomes a person (I think you would say immediately, I would say only when viable outside the womb), but let's set that aside. I don't think women should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. You don't think destroying the fetus at any point is moral. What if we could both get what we want?: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15112 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15112 Please note that unless women are provided with comprehensive sex education that includes contraception, there are going to be a lot more unwanted babies being born, regardless of how they are brought to term. This imposes a lot of costs on society that I hope you have some sort of plan to cover.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >If you think that, you really haven't been doing it right. Pleasure, companionship, comfort, reinforcement of social status, and many other purposes are commonly fulfilled by the act of sex, including between same sex partners. I am not talking about beneficial side affects like pleasure. It is my understanding that the we evolved from asexual to sexual beings not for pleasure but for procreation of individuals that are more resilient than the result of asexual procreation. I am not denying these alternative benefits. Same sex sex does not lead to pregnancy so it isn't really relevant. >But let us say that you're correct. That still leaves 1% of pregnancies that are involuntary. What should women be allowed to do then? Are you willing to ban all abortions excluding rape and medical necessity? If not you are using an outlier to prove a rule (or whatever that phrase is). I don't think rape justifies killing an innocent bystander but would be more than happy with a ban of abortions excluding rape. > We aren't going to agree on when a fertilized egg becomes a person (I think you would say immediately, I would say only when viable outside the womb), but let's set that aside. I think this is crux of our disagreement. If you believed abortion killed a baby you would probably be closer to my side. I just think when a fetus has human DNA and possibly even a different blood type as the mother that shows it is a distinct individual. I don't think you can have a distinct human without it being a person. It is quite dehumanizing in my view. >I don't think women should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. You don't think destroying the fetus at any point is moral. What if we could both get what we want? I am in favor of things like this, the problem is removing the fetus. It would quite probably require in a c-section which some woman would not be a fan of. I do think it will quite hard to argue for abortion when artificial wombs become available for humans though. By the way, a few posts back I did mention artificial wombs. >Please note that unless women are provided with comprehensive sex education that includes contraception, there are going to be a lot more unwanted babies being born, regardless of how they are brought to term. This imposes a lot of costs on society that I hope you have some sort of plan to cover. I am not strictly speaking opposed to sex education, but I don't think it is relevant to whether or not abortion is legal. Just because you didn't have comprehensive sex end doesn't mean you should be allowed to have an abortion.

webmaven 4y ago

> abortions the woman chose to take the action whose sole biological purpose is pregnancy. If you think that, you really haven't been doing it right. Pleasure, companionship, comfort, reinforcement of social status, and many other purposes are commonly fulfilled by the act of sex, including between same sex partners. But let us say that you're correct. That still leaves 1% of pregnancies that are involuntary. What should women be allowed to do then? We aren't going to agree on when a fertilized egg becomes a person (I think you would say immediately, I would say only when viable outside the womb), but let's set that aside. I don't think women should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. You don't think destroying the fetus at any point is moral. What if we could both get what we want?: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15112 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15112 Please note that unless women are provided with comprehensive sex education that includes contraception, there are going to be a lot more unwanted babies being born, regardless of how they are brought to term. This imposes a lot of costs on society that I hope you have some sort of plan to cover.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>If you think that, you really haven't been doing it right. Pleasure, companionship, comfort, reinforcement of social status, and many other purposes are commonly fulfilled by the act of sex, including between same sex partners. I am not talking about beneficial side affects like pleasure. It is my understanding that the we evolved from asexual to sexual beings not for pleasure but for procreation of individuals that are more resilient than the result of asexual procreation. I am not denying these alternative benefits. Same sex sex does not lead to pregnancy so it isn't really relevant. >But let us say that you're correct. That still leaves 1% of pregnancies that are involuntary. What should women be allowed to do then? Are you willing to ban all abortions excluding rape and medical necessity? If not you are using an outlier to prove a rule (or whatever that phrase is). I don't think rape justifies killing an innocent bystander but would be more than happy with a ban of abortions excluding rape. > We aren't going to agree on when a fertilized egg becomes a person (I think you would say immediately, I would say only when viable outside the womb), but let's set that aside. I think this is crux of our disagreement. If you believed abortion killed a baby you would probably be closer to my side. I just think when a fetus has human DNA and possibly even a different blood type as the mother that shows it is a distinct individual. I don't think you can have a distinct human without it being a person. It is quite dehumanizing in my view. >I don't think women should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. You don't think destroying the fetus at any point is moral. What if we could both get what we want? I am in favor of things like this, the problem is removing the fetus. It would quite probably require in a c-section which some woman would not be a fan of. I do think it will quite hard to argue for abortion when artificial wombs become available for humans though. By the way, a few posts back I did mention artificial wombs. >Please note that unless women are provided with comprehensive sex education that includes contraception, there are going to be a lot more unwanted babies being born, regardless of how they are brought to term. This imposes a lot of costs on society that I hope you have some sort of plan to cover. I am not strictly speaking opposed to sex education, but I don't think it is relevant to whether or not abortion is legal. Just because you didn't have comprehensive sex end doesn't mean you should be allowed to have an abortion.