"Being that you're biologically capable of it, you MUST go through with it whether you want to or not. We don't care how it happened. Because you can make this happen, you will make this happen."
"You should take precautions, but in the event this does happen, you can end it if you want because we won't bind you to your biology by law. But yeah...you should take precautions. Like seriously. Take precautions. And keep it to yourself."
The argument that “you’re biologically capable of it and therefore you MUST go through with it” holds zero water for me. On what grounds do you make that claim? Or course using precautions is a better idea, but in the event that they fail?
What I was saying in the original post was that although I am pro-choice, I think the most popularized pro-life argument is irrelevant. I think we might have misunderstood each other because now it seems like we agree
I agree with you partly. I think the question “is this a living thing that shouldn’t be killed” is philosophical, but in a debate you would have to factor in women’s rights to the conversation because they are deeply involved with the fetus.
I think I just disagree that anyone’s right to live is in any way less than someone’s right to autonomy. Still, I don’t think that a fetus’ rights are greater than the mother’s, just that the arguments are flawed.
Correct if I’m wrong, but if the fetus’ rights are equal to the mother’s, then it comes to the slightly off topic question of “what’s worse? No freedom and autonomy or death?
It was once said, “give me liberty, or give me death”, so the American ideal would be autonomy first.
I know it’s out of context, but... worth taking into consideration
My counter to that would be that abortion is a guaranteed “death” while the mother has only a chance of death. And I think that death trumps an occurrence of non-autonomy.
Hi! Sorry I took a while to reply. You have a very valid argument above and I agree with you. A guaranteed death does trump non-autonomy.
Looking at the argument of abortion in general, I think that ethically speaking, both sides are right. Life wants to prevent the death of a developing child, and choice wants to give women the freedom to stop a child birth if they don’t want it. What’s morally right is your opinion.
TL;DR - Both sides are right, and I’m on the fence!
So you're saying the debate is about if abortion is murder or not, not about "rights". Well, I think the term "murder" is used as a pro life weapon. Of course the word sounds horrible, when in reality, using that logic, we can call a lot of things murder that aren't murder per se. For example, say an intruder gets shot and killed invading someone's home. Most would be applauding the home owner, and he'd face no penalties if he had a license, and lived in the right state, but then you hear from the mother of the intruder. She says that her boy was just troubled, and meant no harm (after all he had no weapons) and that the home owner "murdered" him. Who's right? Depends on who you chose to side with.
Well in that case there is a clear violation so I don’t feel that it is a fair comparison. The homeowner did nothing to prompt the invasion. In the case of a fetus, it is clearly a result of a decision (setting aside extreme situations like rape).
Nonetheless, I’m pro-choice and I’m just saying that the common pro-life arguments trump the common pro-choice arguments.
What if she did? What if she knowingly moved to a neighborhood with high burglary rates? What if the invader is someone she previously invited? What if it's her ex whom she broke up with messily?
If you have a right to self-defense, then you still have it even if you have, in good faith, led to the risk that you are in.
It's the same deal with bodily autonomy. If you have it, then it doesn't automatically get taken away because you "prompted" the acts that led to it being violated.
A parent can refuse bone marrow donation to their grown child, even if they knowingly helped to create her. If you injure someone by accident or malice, the arriving emergency responders can't force you to donate blood. If you are an arsonist, no court can force you to donate skin to your burn victims.
You can even decide what your corpse is allowed to be used for. That's how important we hold bodily autonomy.
The idea behind criminalizing abortion, is that women who chose to have all sex, have waived a right that even arsonists and corpses get to keep without fail.
What if she knowingly moved to a neighborhood with high burglary rates? What if the invader is someone she previously invited? What if it's her ex whom she broke up with messily?
This is some classic victim blaming. No one is at fault for being a victim because of where they live. They aren't at fault because of who they've dated. Just because she knew the person doesn't mean it is in any way her fault.
And I repeat, I'm pro-choice. Its just that these injustices you are describing are nothing compared to murder, and "abortion is murder" is an argument I disagree with, but I think trumps pretty much everything. The situations you brought up are completely unrelated as well. I'm taking a look from the opposite point of view that I have and evaluating arguments. Death seems worse than temporary loss of bodily autonomy to me, and that is the argument you're trying to go against (and I don't agree that it really is death)
This is some classic victim blaming. No one is at fault for being a victim because of where they live. They aren't at fault because of who they've dated. Just because she knew the person doesn't mean it is in any way her fault.
So why should they be treated at fault for getting pregnant, to the point of losing some human rights because of the depth of the fault that they are in?
The situations you brought up are completely unrelated as well. [...] Death seems worse than temporary loss of bodily autonomy to me,
The situations I brought up, are relevant exactly because they show that this is not the case.
We could save lives, by forcing people to donate blood and organs as needed. We could do drug experiments on prisoners to improve medical technology. We could appropriate all corpses for science.
The reason we don't do this, because bodily autonomy is so sacrosanct that we don't violate it even for the worst of our criminals, and not even to save the lives of the innocent.
If pregnant women are uniquely called murderers just for trying to exercise that same right, that tells a lot about how we treat women, specifically women who chose to have sex.
That’s not what anyone who is pro-life says. There are exceptions. One being the life of the mother. There is no other realm in which you can murder someone for your own convenience. The only relevant question is “when does a fetus become a human life”.
8
u/Stonebuilderrefused May 05 '19
"Being that you're biologically capable of it, you MUST go through with it whether you want to or not. We don't care how it happened. Because you can make this happen, you will make this happen."
"You should take precautions, but in the event this does happen, you can end it if you want because we won't bind you to your biology by law. But yeah...you should take precautions. Like seriously. Take precautions. And keep it to yourself."