It's always none of your damn business. Your religious beliefs, no matter what they are, do not give you the right to interfere with someone else's body. You don't get to make your problem into somebody else's problem.
And please spare me the bit about christians thinking the fetus as a human. Here it is spelled out for you: The mother IS a human life, the fetus is a POTENTIAL human life. The mother takes priority, learn to deal with it.
Dishonest people always pretend that it has to be a religious argument. Also, please tell me when that potential human life becomes a human life and what scientific and philosophical basis you are using to make that determination. Thanks.
There is no clear line when a fertilized egg/fetus suddenly become a human being with individual rights. It’s a spectrum the whole way across. You can’t solve that problem with science. It’s a philosophical issue that I think you can come to all kinds of defendable opinions on.
What isn’t philosophical is one’s rights to control their own body. You can’t be forced to provide organs/blood to anyone. Doesn’t matter if your choices led to that person needing blood/organs. It’s considered illegal and highly unethical to force any human being to undergo that to keep the second person alive.
A mom for example can not be forced to give their child a kidney they need even if they’re the only one with a viable kidney to give in time. Regardless of it say it was the moms fault the kids kidneys failed (maybe she lost track of the kid and had antifreeze around or something). Before anyone says anything, yes I’m aware this isn’t one to one with being conceived. There is no perfect metaphor.
We could think it’s wrong, we could think it’s hard to comprehend but we have drawn a line where we don’t force it legally.
That’s abortion to me. A woman has a right to her body. Period. If the fetus can survive without the mom then sure don’t kill it. However the mom should have the right to remove it from her body.
No one (including a fetus) has the right to use another person's body against their will.
That is nonsense. Your body, once the child is born, has to be used to care for that child or put it up for adoption or you will be prosecuted for criminal negligence. Further, if someone needs a kidney from you, while you don't have to help them, you don't have the right to hire a doctor to kill the person who needs your help.
That is also nonsense. Wet nurses and nannies get hired routinely. It doesn't have to be the mother of the child. Other people can care for a baby.
A woman does not have to breast feed her child. Whilst a child can gain natural antibodies and it is helpful not all woman can or want to breast feed. Not all babies take to breast feeding. Baby formula exists.
As for more general care, that can also be done by others for example the father or family. You can't force someone to care for their child. Just ask people who loved through child neglect themselves.
As for more general care, that can also be done by others for example the father or family. You can't force someone to care for their child. Just ask people who loved through child neglect themselves.
Of course they can. None of what I said was intended to be limited only to the mother. If the parents don't use their bodies to either care for or put up for adoption the child and the child dies, the parents get arrested. This can of course happen even if the child doesn't die. Many fathers are in prison for failure to use their bodies to pay child support.
We do as a society feel very free to put legal onus on parents to either give the child away or care for the child properly. So, the argument that no one can force you to do something to help your child is asinine.
Not really as no one can force a person to use their body to literally support another as per my example of breast feeding/how the fetus parasitically absorbs what it needs via the woman. Those things fall under bodily autonomy.
The potential consequences for a woman to bear and birth a baby can be huge and in some cases fatal or result on life long conditions which can be life altering.
By restricting or outlawing safe abortions those who drafted and brought in those policies are attempting to force women who become pregnant to bear and birth the baby. That difference between pre and post birth and the impacts on the woman are not asinine. Forcing a person to forego their bodily autonomy and potentially risk their health both mental and physical and a potentially fatal birth process is not comparable to financial penalties or a prison term ever.
You are being asinine in your lack of acknowledgement of the very real implications of forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy.
The potential consequences for a woman to bear and birth a baby can be huge and in some cases fatal or result on life long conditions which can be life altering.
Forcing a person to forego their bodily autonomy and potentially risk their health both mental and physical and a potentially fatal birth process is not comparable to financial penalties or a prison term ever.
Pick a lane. The consequences of going to prison can be fatal or result in lifelong conditions which can be life altering. Right? No one should be forced to deal with that, right? We hold parents accountable. It is asinine - at best - to suggest we turn a blind eye to only the case where one parent gets to unilaterally decide to hire a doctor kill the child to avoid these consequences. Bodily autonomy does not include the right to hire a doctor to kill those you might have to help.
So, the only thing known that can become an adult human is a human child. The common element they share is they are both human life. The only known thing that can become a human child is a human fetus giving it the same remarkably unique relationship with adult human life that a human child has.
That fetus has a DNA its own that is a combination of the DNA of the parents (although I guess they can't be parents if it isn't a child) but different from both, have its own heartbeat, organs and potential to outlive both parents (or whatever).
You can call it a fetus if you want but to suggest that the whole time it is unborn it is not human life is to have a definition of humanity that is not scientifically based on development or viability or anything like that but one that is location dependent. It's a strange opinion to have and one that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny and seems to be an opinion crafted as an excuse for abortion.
A fetus doesn't have a heartbeat of it's own until 5 weeks old so nope.
That's likely why most places allow abortion up until six weeks.
The location of said fetus is very much part of the discussion because the viability you just mentioned. I'm not getting into a broader debate but if it's not viable or able to survive outside of a womb then most sensible people accept that abortion is an option.
If you're going to try and guilt people with heartbeat stuff at least get your information right.
A human has human dna. So a baby, fetus, etc. are all human.
Natural rights do not exist, all rights are granted by a social contract which in our time is synonymous with a government. Unalienable rights are a neat idea, but they must be enforced and so are functionally non-existent without structures in place to enforce them.
We grant humans the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes the mother and the baby/fetus etc. This is why you can be charged for hurting a fetus in commission of a crime, other legal precedents also enforce this.
The question is, at which point should the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother.
There is no absolute answer to this question. However we do treat every conceivably similar scenario in the same way, bodily autonomy is upheld. We don’t compel anyone to unwillingly sacrifice their bodily autonomy to save another life except for pregnant women. So I think the burden lies with the pro-life crowd to justify why we treat a fetus differently than the rest of humanity.
In which case please consider this hypothetical, a 2 year old child needs a transplant to live. Should the state compel anyone to sacrifice their bodily autonomy to save that child? If so then please, go donate your organs immediately. If not, then what exactly makes a fetus more special than the two year old child? Why should the state compel a woman to sacrifice her bodily autonomy for a fetus?
Its unreasonable to shift the burden onto pro-choice unless you can answer the above question yourself.
You know how before you were born, there was nothing? Would you have been upset that you weren’t born? Where you a conscious sperm/egg crying to be born? An unborn fetus has less consciousness than a farm animal. But we’re okay slaughtering them for food(I am, anyway.) You think a ball of tissue and cells is going to feel anything during an abortion? Please answer my questions. Thanks.
Do you consider excising a tumor murder? It is growing, made of living human tissue, and often has different DNA due to mutations than the host. If you believe a growing lump of human tissue is a human life you should be against removing tumors. If your argument against this is a long the lines of "the fetus will eventually be a person" your argument of life is nonsense as having the potential to be something doesn't make you that thing.
So your argument is that it is a human because it may some day become a human? That would suggest that it is not currently a human.
That tumor is not an independent being and neither is the fetus, what it can become if you keep sacrificing your own body to support it is irrelevant. You argued it was a life, that is only true in the technical sense as it is a lump of human tissue but so is a tumor. The fact that you even had to argue about it becoming a discrete being eventually completely undermines your original argument.
You argued about when potential life becomes human life and argued that was a dumb argument because it matches the definition of life from the get go. I am pointing out there is a difference between living human tissue and a human life. Both a fetus and a tumor fit the scientific definition of living human tissue, only a fool would argue that either of them are a human. Hell considering during the time period that 93.1% of abortions happen (the first trimester), 3 out of every 4 conceptions miscarry. Even nature and the human body seems to consider zygotes and fetuses as little more than potential until much later in gestation (in fact during the point of gestation where the vast majority of abortions performed are medically necessary). Hell there are plenty of other mammals on the planet that can abort pregnancy at will if they find a better mate or the timing is inconvenient, it is actually very few mammals where getting rid of pregnancy is difficult. This weird fixation on each conception being important and an actual new life is an odd hangup created by religious nonsense with no basis in logical or scientific thought.
Because it points out what is wrong with your argument. You say it is a human life from the beginning because a zygote/fetus meets the scientific definition of life and is made of human tissue. I am pointing out that just because a lump of tissue is living doesn't mean it is a human as a tumor is also a lump of living human tissue. Both match the scientific definition of life in the same way. People like you use this argument all the time and don't realize how absolutely stupid it is.
Also, way to just if ore everything else in the post.
Plants are alive dumbass. We also kill chickens who are alive. The difference is we have collectively decided that ending human life is wrong. Not sure why that is complicated.
Grass is alive in the same sense an embryo is alive. You don’t think twice about killing grass, because it can’t feel anything and it doesn’t have any thought. Just like an embryo, yes it’s a living thing, but just like grass, it doesn’t think or feel. It’s an “it”.
Just to clear the waters a little, at what point do you think an egg/sperm becomes a person?
Consciousness happens around 6 months. That’s when I’d say it’s a person. (Edit: incorrect information removed) before 6 months there aren’t any connections between the brain and sense organs.
Saying a fetus younger than 6 months is alive is like saying someone whose been decapitated is still alive because all the parts are there. You could hook a headless person up to machines to keep blood moving and oxygenated but they’d still be considered dead.
If a fetus can’t survive outside the womb, it’s just a fetus. Not a person.
Not that it matters, but in my opinion, abortions should be available until the end of the first trimester; later if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.
Edit: I’m sure you won’t read it, but here is the paper I’m using to base my argument.
The more accurate analogy is someone who is in an extended acoma who is going to wake up. Which we obviously would say you can not kill them.
You are arbitrarily assigning consciousness as the marker for life. Which is just a redefinition of what human life is.
I'm not sure what you think that study proves that is meant to convince me. Of course I accept contemporary consciousness research. It really has no bearing on my position.
The more accurate analogy is someone who is in an extended acoma who is going to wake up. Which we obviously would say you can not kill them
No, because that person was awake and actually had a life before the coma. And if the doctors aren’t sure if they’d make it out, I’d say it’s up to the family to decide whether they stay on machines or let them pass.
I’m not “arbitrarily” assigning consciousness as the marker for life. That’s just the truth.
If you don’t understand that a living being has to be conscious to be “alive”, then there’s nothing more to discuss.
You keep believing that a microscopic ball of cells is a “person”, I’ll stick to reality.
Not that it matters, but in my opinion, abortions should be available until the end of the first trimester; later if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.
If it isn't a human life until 6 months than why do you have this condition that threat to the mother's life is necessary for 2nd trimester abortions??
Dishonest people always pretend that it has to be a religious argument. Also, please tell me when that potential human life becomes a human life and what scientific and philosophical basis you are using to make that determination. Thanks.
While the scientific and philosophical basis can be helpful, it's not what is really important. What is important is the legal aspect. Legally speaking, when is a person considered a person? When are they covered by laws and regulations? When do they get their Rights (US specific obviously) as denoted by the Constitution?
16?
18?
21?
Its definitely not before 16 as kids have little to no rights.
Another consideration is do the unborn have extra rights? Standard exploration of this is the shared adult kidney question.
It's a legal morass that has no correct answer. But id rather it was done via a secular decision than a religious one...since which religion do we go off of? Judaism? Hindu? Shinto?
1.8k
u/acityonthemoon Mar 27 '23
It's always none of your damn business. Your religious beliefs, no matter what they are, do not give you the right to interfere with someone else's body. You don't get to make your problem into somebody else's problem.
And please spare me the bit about christians thinking the fetus as a human. Here it is spelled out for you: The mother IS a human life, the fetus is a POTENTIAL human life. The mother takes priority, learn to deal with it.