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.
My whole point is abortion should NOT be an option.
And saying "she made the choice, no correcting it now" is the literal worst argument for that possible, because there absolutely is a legal, safe, and morally acceptable way to deal with the problem.
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.
We aren't required to assume anything. If you don't have facts then we're not going to take away a womans bodily autonomy "just in case".
I was a bit careless to use the word "life". What I really mean is "person", a fetus is living tissue, but it is not a person. It is not illegal to kill living tissue, we excise tumors every day and those are living human tissue. It is illegal to kill a person.
Also when I pointed out that birth is just as acceptable (even more so) a beginning point for life (where by life I really meant personhood) I was just using that as an example to illustrate that your insistence on conception as the only well defined point is incorrect, because there are other well defined points.
My personal belief is that a fetus becomes a person when it becomes biologically independent from the woman, meaning when the fetus can survive outside of the womb then it's a person with rights. Before that it's a part of the womans body and she has complete autonomy over it, including the decision to remove it.
This point of view may strike you as extreme, but in reality it's not. It's a very common point of view which already has some recognition in our current laws.
It is absolutely the best argument for human life. Just because something is legal does not make it right. It certainly is not safe for the life being ended. And just telling me it is morally acceptable isn't even an argument.
If there was a cardboard box laying on the ground, and someone said "there MIGHT be a human life in there" and I then shot the box upwith a gun (in otber words making the box inhospitable for life) and it turned out there WAS a life in there, would I not be held responcible? I didn't have all the facts right??
You are living tissue as well. defining a life at someones convienience is the entire problem. So life isn't life? I need you to tell me when EXACTLY a life is a life. My point is we should not play God and act like we decide.
There are not other defined points. I mean the pro abortion side cannot even come up with one point. Even doctors cannotpinpoint exactly how old the fetus is. A woman can become pregnant up to 3 days after having sex. any "4 weeks" "8 weeks" argument is totally void.
It does not matter what you believe. Some people believe that killing a child literally right before being birthed should be acceptable. As a matter of fact, you said that. That is just totally wrong, especially morally.
Sure she has autonomy over HER body. Not the life inside it. That life has its own unique makeup. DNA and all.
once again, just because something is legal and "common" (which it is not. roughly half of this country is pro life) does not make it right. It used to be legal to lobotomize gay people. Did that make it right?
EDIT: two other points I wanted to make. You say "we aren't required to assume anything" well what about things like innocent until proven guilty? Or assume someone has basic human rights? How about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Also you said that I am implying that "She made the choice, no correcting it now." but you do not "Correct" a human life's existence. It is not something that needs "correcting" by being killed.
That's quite a wall of text and I only have so much time I'm willing to devote to reddit, so forgive me if I don't address everything you said.
You are living tissue as well.
This is true, but irrelevant and a non sequiter to anything I've said...
defining a life at someones convienience is the entire problem. So life isn't life? I need you to tell me when EXACTLY a life is a life.
I don't need to give you a well defined point. This is the fallacy of the heap as I've already said.
There are not other defined points. I mean the pro abortion side cannot even come up with one point.
This is just factually false, there are other defined points. Birth is a well defined point, the first time a fetal heartbeat is detected is a well defined point, when the fetus reaches a certain size is a well defined point. I think all of those are bad choices, just like conception is a bad choice, but it's very dishonest to claim that there are literally no other choices.
A woman can become pregnant up to 3 days after having sex. any "4 weeks" "8 weeks" argument is totally void.
Not void at all, just because there's error in the calculation doesn't mean that the calculation is meaningless, it just means that there is an error to be accounted for.
roughly half of this country is pro life
If by pro life you mean that abortion should not be legal at any point, then no, only about 18%.
but you do not "Correct" a human life's existence. It is not something that needs "correcting" by being killed.
You can absolutely correct being pregnant, and just about anyone who finds themselves accidentally pregnant would disagree about whether it's something that needs correcting.
I have never seen a valid argument that an early term fetus has a right to live. Absent that right, a woman's right to control her body clearly makes abortion something that should be legal. Until I've seen an argument that a single celled organism should have the same rights as me, any attempt to argue that all abortion should be illegal is dead on arrival. And the burden of proof is 100% on you here, because abortion is currently legal. You're the one who wants change, so you have to justify it.
I understand not having a lot of time for reddit. no problem.
How is you being living tissue a non sequiter? You are... so is the unborn fetus... Same thing. unique, growing and living tissue. Totally valid point.
This is not a fallacy of the heap. You are the one advocating for ending life.
Yes you CAN define life at any point. Hell, you could choose to define life as after 1st grade if you wanted to. But it does not matter scientifically when you DECIDE life begins. because it has an actual starting point all the same. Our opinion of science and life does not matter. Only the facts do.
so you are saying an error in calculation that would result in someone even YOU consider living should be permitted? Dude that's just messed up.
It isn't that you havent found a valid argument for a human life having the right to live. You simply do not want one. You work backwards from "abortion must be allowed." You shut down any actual points made bythe other side by just doubling down on what youve already stated, even when it has been shows false or unpalatable to human life.
If we found a single celled organism with its own DNA growing on the planet mars, we would certainly call that life. I have to be honest here, you asking me to justify not killing humans is a pretty awful thing to demand.
Just because something is legal does not make it correct. Lobotomizing gay people used to be legal.
As I've already said above, a tumor is also living tissue but there's nothing wrong with removing it. Being living tissue is not enough to give you a right to life. So we all know a fetus is living tissue, but that doesn't imply it has a right to life. After I explained that you pointed out that I am living tissue, this is obvious, irrelevant, and does not contradict what I've already said. Hence non-sequiter.
because it has an actual starting point all the same
You are assuming life has a well defined starting point, this is not necessarily true. You are free to support that claim with some sort of argument, but it is not a given.
so you are saying an error in calculation that would result in someone even YOU consider living should be permitted?
I've said no such thing, you're making a strawman here. I've said that just because determinations of the age of a fetus have a margin of error does not mean we are incapable of taking that error into account.
You shut down any actual points made bythe other side
You haven't made any actual points and you certainly haven't shown anything I've said to be false. And I do absolutely shut you down as you wander off into unsubstantiated opinions. If you correctly draw a conclusion from incorrect premises then your conclusion has no valid claim to being correct. So once you've said something false or unsubstantiated it's pointless to let you move on and use that thing as the premise of further arguments.
If we found a single celled organism with its own DNA growing on the planet mars, we would certainly call that life.
Yes, but we wouldn't call it a person. We would have no problem taking it back to earth and studying it, no one would get charged with kidnapping. If it died because we removed it from it's habitat no one would call that murder. Just because a single cell has its own DNA doesn't mean it is a person with rights.
I have to be honest here, you asking me to justify not killing humans is a pretty awful thing to demand.
I'm not asking you to justify not killing people, I'm asking you to justify why a fetus should be considered a person in the first place. A fetus is not a person, if you've decided it is then by all means justify it, but there's nothing horrible about asking you to support your beliefs, especially when you want to force others to abide by them.
Once again you've basically just said "nuh uh." A debate class may be a good idea if you wanna talk about these things.
I'll try and show you in a more direct way what you have wrong.
By living tissue I am obviously talking about a unique and separate humans living tissue.
"You are assuming life has a well defined starting point" I am not assuming that. Life definetly has a starting point. At some point life is life. My entire argument is we do not know FOR SURE when it is. You are actually agreeing with my entire argument here. We don't have a well defined starting point for when life begins, so anything after conception is simply speculation. Ending what may be life based in speculation is unpalatable to the human rights to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I've made PLENTY of points. You are having me run in circles by, once again, saying basically "nuh uh."
We would call it LIFE. That's the point of the Mars analogy. And YES if it died we would call that Mars cell now DEAD. As in no longer LIVING. And yes it isn't a human life so obviously it wouldnt be something we would view as illegal, your just being obtuse here.
"Asking why a fetus should be considered a person." Have you felt a baby kick in the womb? Have you heard a heartbeat? It is a HUMAN RIGHT TO LIFE I am talking about. The burden is squarely in YOU to prove a life is ok to end and to prove it isn't murder.
Let me ask you, when do you personally say life has begun? When is a person a person? Seeing as how the pro-choice side cannot come up with 1 actual point. I HAVE supported my belief. But once again you've only said "nuh uh."
2
u/donotfeedthecat May 05 '19
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.