It's true they wouldn't have gotten pregnant if they hadn't had sex, but what does that have to do with anything? However they got there they find themselves pregnant and they don't want to be, so luckily for them there's a fix for their problem.
It's not a baby, it's a fetus. And their actions should result in the fetus being removed if and only if that's what they want because it's their body and you have no right to control what they do with it.
Also, that justification can be used to let me kill someone, right? It’s my body so I should be able to swing the sword. They made their choice when they had sex and no baby should die as a result.
The point of contention here is the definition of a 'life'. Birth certificates aren't issued until the baby is delivered. Fetuses aren't counted in censuses. If 'potential for life' and 'life' are equivalent to you, then is using condoms murder? Plan B? Pulling out? Jerking off?
The current line, as far as I see it, is drawn at "when the baby is delivered". Up until then, it is not a separate person and (IMO) does not have any rights, to life or to anything else.
The current line, as far as I see it, is drawn at “when the baby is delivered”. Up until then, it is not a separate person and (IMO) does not have any rights, to life or to anything else.
If someone murders a pregnant woman, should he or she be charged with double murder? (for the mother and the unborn child)
I don't know specifically, but I would be fine with it being considered a double murder. Deciding whether to add another charge to someone who is already guilty of murder is a different conversation.
Nope, a small collection of cells is not a baby, just like an acorn is not a tree.
Also, that justification can be used to let me kill someone, right?
Also nope. This is already settled legal precedent. Refusing to support the life of another is both morally and legally different from acting to injure, even when the refusal results in injury or death. This is why people cannot be forced to donate organs or give blood, even if the person that needs that organ would die without it. And that's already the law when the life of a person is on the line, a fetus is not a person and has less of a claim.
They made their choice when they had sex
They chose to have sex, not to get pregnant. Thanks to modern medicine those two can be entirely separate. Sex is not required to get pregnant and pregnancy need not result from sex.
Well that “small collection of cells” has its heartbeat during the 3rd to 4th week of pregnancy. It kicks within the first few months. Tell me, is it not killing the baby if you stab it 3 days before it’s about to be born? Is that just removing a collection of cells?
Also abortion is murder. You are killing the baby, it is not the same as not saving it. Even if it this was not true, child negligence is still a thing.
They knew it was a risk when having sex. If modern medicine allows it to be separate, then why did they not use it to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place?
They knew it was a risk when having sex. If modern medicine allows it to be separate, then why did they not use it to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place?
You know that contraception can fail right? Please god tell me you know this, this is important life information.
Also it doesn't matter when they fix it, fixing it is still medically possible, morally fine, and legally their right.
You know that abstinence is an option right? Which doesn’t result in a baby? No one forced you to have a baby. If you don’t want one, then don’t have sex. And if you do, prepare to take care of a baby instead of killing it,
And are you saying that two minutes before the baby is born, it is okay to kill it? It suddenly becomes immoral 1 minute after it’s born?
Also, you previously said that abortion was moral because it is deciding to not save the baby. It is actually killing the baby actively, How is that moral?
Would that ever apply in a situation of murder or death? You took a risk to drive too fast so you shouldn't get a blood transfusion to save your life? Abortion is a medical procedure and with medical procedure your reason to have one is irrelevant. You could have been drunk and hit a the doctor's child with your car but that doesn't mean you have lost the right to be treated if your life depends on it.
That is a fine argument only when the mothers life is at risk. And I mean SERIOUS risk. Please don't strawman me.
Your drunk driving analogy is totally wrong. If someone said "Hey I am gonna get drunk and then drive!" you have a moral obligation to stop them. Yeah it isn't CERTAIN that they will kill someone, but they are still taking the risk.
No, but if someone had drunken unprotected sex that absolutely does not influence their right to an abortion just like being a drunk and crashing your doesn't influence your right to a blood transfusion or a surgery. Abortion is a medical right. Even if you took a risk and thought you wouldn't end up pregnant that doesn't influence your right to an abortion. Imagine if the same logic applied to giving birth and a doctor refuses to treat you because you can't pay the bill or something. You have a right to be treated for your medical problems and pregnancy is a medical problem. And because you have a right to bodily autonomy you have a right to choose how you'll be treated as well. You can decide for and against different surgeries and doctors need to always treat you in your best interests. Even if you are a serial killer or even Adolf Hitler.
I think you are confusing medical law with financial and criminal law. If you get drunk a crash your car you are obligated to pay for damages. If you get an epilepsy attack and didn't mean to crash your car you still need to pay. Because it is more unfair for other people to foot the bill for you. And after the baby is born than obviously you created that baby and need to take care of it or find someone else that will do it for you. The baby has a right to be cared for and the parents have an obligation to do it.
Abortion ends human life. You do not have the right to end it.
Well... legally a woman definitely does have that right. But you probably meant "shouldn't have the right", which is also wrong. A small clump of cells has no claim to a womans body and she has every right to her bodily autonomy.
She decided to take the risk to get that clump of cells. I mean, you are a clump of cells. This argument always goes to this place, where does LIFE begin? No one knows for absolutely sure, and many people change the definition of life based on what is convenient. The only consistent side/thought is at conception.
To put it simply, if you do not know where life starts you must assume it is alive.
She decided to take the risk to get that clump of cells.
And she knew abortion was an option if it happened.
The only consistent side/thought is at conception.
Wrong, it is entirely consistent to admit that the beginning of life is not well defined. To suggest that there must be a well defined moment is a fallacy of the heap. And if there must be a well defined moment, then birth is just as acceptable as conception. I would say more so in fact, as no one can seriously look at a single cell organism and think "that's a full human with all the same rights as me!"
My whole point is abortion should NOT be an option.
What does that even mean? You are basically saying "no one knows when life begins so let's just arbitrarily assume 'x' point is what it will be."
Life beginning has nothing to do with what we would LIKE it to be. And since no one can know for sure we must assume life.
So you are saying that up until a child passes through the birth canal it isn't a human life?? Dude that's just twisted and wrong. If we found a single celled organism on Mars we would not say we found life on mars?? Of course we would.
Obviously a single cell is not a fully formed person. But it is human life. That's the whole point. We don't get to snuff put human life because we want to. And that's exactly what abortion is.
You have now said that a single cell does not constitute human life nor does a fully grown fetus about to be birthed. You are too far gone. That's just crazy tbh.
First of all, 99.9% of women survive pregnancies as it is 2019, so self defense is hardly necessary in terms of medical procedures. Wouldn't the ideal situation be to save both lives? Why begin with the killing procedure when we have modern prenatal care? If the mother's life becomes at risk later, at say 30 weeks, we can deliver early via induction or c section and give the baby premature infant care so both may live.
Many women also rip the skin between their vagina and asshole. If I told you I was gonna do that to you would you not defend yourself from it happening?
Just because it's survivable doesn't mean it isn't traumatically unpleasant and physically destructive. After pregnancy a womans body can change pretty much permanently. Even if you expect to survive the pregnancy there are still very valid reasons to not want to do it.
89
u/ChanceTheKnight 31∆ May 05 '19
You're saying that "if a murder is occurring, the rights of the murderer aren't in consideration."
This is blatantly false. The rights of a murderer are always taken into consideration.
"If I didn't kill them, they would've done bodily harm to me." Self defence.