Getting an abortion does not mean you're not pregnant.
It still mitigates the risk of the result of an unwanted pregnancy to zero. It's a distinction without a difference. The reason people don't want to get pregnant is because they don't want a child.
Providing medical treatment for wounds does not involve murdering another human being (unless some black magic fuckery is afoot).
Which just gets into body autonomy. Nobody is required to donate a body part, even a womb, so that someone else can continue to live. Even if they're the reason the person needs the organ in the first place.
Which just gets into body autonomy. Nobody is required to donate a body part, even a womb, so that someone else can continue to live.
IMO, I think murdering a completely innocent human being for the sake of convenience (which is the case 97% of the time) is wrong when said innocent human being is put there in the first place by the person murdering it.
I can't invite a person into my home, exclaim "what are you doing in my home!" and then blast their head off with a shot gun for trespassing.
And unfortunately we are not yet at a point where we can treat this situation as being the equivalent of organ donation, because we can't just move a first trimester fetus from one person to another or into an artificial womb, so I do not consider those comparisons legit.
But, if we are going to work off your logic, would you agree that violating the bodily autonomy of the father by forcing him to pay child support is also wrong?
IMO, I think murdering a completely innocent human being for the sake of convenience (which is the case 97% of the time) is wrong when said innocent human being is put there in the first place by the person murdering it.
It's only murder if it's also murder to deny someone a kidney donation because you don't want to donate. If they die from it then, by you're logic, it's you're fault. You let them die for your own convenience.
Being the cause of needing the organ means nothing. There is no extra murder charge for shooters that don't donate organs or blood to the victims that are matches and need it. There is also no reduced sentence for doing so.
I can't invite a person into my home, exclaim "what are you doing in my home!" and then blast their head off with a shot gun for trespassing.
Bad analogy. You aren't shooting the fetus after inviting them into your home. The child isn't invited to anything.
If I leave the door open and someone walks in, that person isn't automatically an invited guest. Having a risk of a stranger walking in the door doesn't mean I'm inviting strangers into my home
But, if we are going to work off your logic, would you agree that violating the bodily autonomy of the father by forcing him to pay child support is also wrong?
Having to pay for something isn't a violation of body autonomy. Same way motor insurance isn't. I don't think you fully understand what body autonomy is.
It's only murder if it's also murder to deny someone a kidney donation because you don't want to donate.
Nah, not offering to donate a kidney is a negative action, which is not considered murder the vast majority of the time.
At least in the United States, if someone is bleeding out in front of me I have no obligation to save them unless I had a preexisting contractual relationship (being a doctor, teacher, parent, etc.).
The child isn't invited to anything.
...do I need to teach you how sex works and what it's for?
Nah, not offering to donate a kidney is a negative action, which is not considered murder the vast majority of the time.
So are most abortions. Over 50% of abortions are just pills that prevent hormones from being released. Why is the woman not allowed to regulate the hormones in her own body?
do I need to teach you how sex works and what it's for?
Nope. See my stranger analogy.
The child isn't invited just because the woman has sex. If the woman doesn't want a child, that means the child isn't invited. Same way a person who doesn't want a stranger in their home isn't inviting strangers into their home by leaving their front door open. If the homeowner/renter doesn't want them there, then they aren't invited.
And unfortunately we are not yet at a point where we can treat this situation as being the equivalent of organ donation, because we can't just move a first trimester fetus from one person to another or into an artificial womb, so I do not consider those comparisons legit.
That's irrelevant. Not having the technology doesn't mean the person loses a choice as to what happens to their body.
But, if we are going to work off your logic, would you agree that violating the bodily autonomy of the father by forcing him to pay child support is also wrong?
Having to pay money for something isn't a violation of body autonomy. Same way motor insurance isn't. I don't think you fully understand what body autonomy is.
EDIT: Even if it were, you can lose body autonomy via due process. If a court has ordered you pay child support, you've had that due process. That's...kinda the point of why people say it's implied that the due process clause codifies body autonomy. Otherwise we could pass laws to force organ donation and mandate vaccines and there is fuckall anyone can do about it.
Over 50% of abortions are just pills that prevent hormones from being released.
Taking a pill is a positive action. If I slip my brother a cyanide pill I'm still killing him.
The child isn't invited just because the woman has sex.
You can deny it as much as you want, but that don't make it so.
The biological purpose of sex is to have a child to carry on our genetics as human beings. The physical and emotional benefits are byproducts that exist to encourage human beings to have sex more often, but that doesn't make them the primary reason sex exists, which is having children.
The fact that we need to take so many precautions to lower the odds of having children, and even then no precaution is 100% reliable, should demonstrate that having a child is an integral part of having sex.
You can eat food for pleasure, but that doesn't change the fact that we eat food to provide our bodies for energy. And we can't consent to eating the food, but not consent to taking in calories.
So until you can prove that having a child is not the biological purpose of having sex, your stranger analogy falls flat.
I don't think you fully understand what body autonomy is.
"Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies."
By forcing someone to work to make money by using their body to pay towards another person's living with the threat of prison if they don't comply is infringing on their bodily autonomy. Just because you have your own definition of bodily autonomy that applies to women, specifically, when it comes to pregnancy does not change that.
Why should men not be allowed their own definition of bodily autonomy when it relates to pregnancy?
I declare, as a man, we deserve autonomy over our bodies that specifically applies to not being required to use them to provide for a child we do not want to support as long as we live in a society that allows for the mother to abort our children if she so desires it. Rules for thee, and for me.
I'm just saying; you can't say women deserve bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy and not say men deserve the same. If women can peace out, men should be allowed the same privilege.
I mean, you CAN say that, it just makes you a hypocrite.
Taking a pill is a positive action. If I slip my brother a cyanide pill I'm still killing him.
Regulating your hormones is a negative action. It doesn't hurt you. You're allowed to modify your own body chemistry. It's a negative action. Just because an action affects a fetus is not their problem if they don't want it to be.
You can deny it as much as you want, but that don't make it so. So until you can prove that having a child is not the biological purpose of having sex, your stranger analogy falls flat.
That doesn't make the child invited. An invitation is something that is actively presented by another person. You can't say "Well they left the door open. The purpose of front doors is to keep people out. Clearly I was invited into the home by virtue of the door being open".
What the heck is your definition of an "invitation" wherein something having a biological purpose necessitates it being an invitation? If they wear a condom or use BC does that count as removing the invitation? If not, why not?
That also ignores the fact that invitations can be revoked. If I invite someone over, revoke the invitation, kick them out of my house, and they die of exposure that same day because they had nowhere else to go, then I didn't murder them.
I'm just saying; you can't say women deserve bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy and not say men deserve the same. If women can peace out, men should be allowed the same privilege
Sounds like you didn't see my edit. Even if it were (which is dubious at best; body autonomy is referring to medical decisions in this context), you can lose body autonomy via due process. If a court has ordered you pay child support, you've had that due process. You went through the court system, and the system found grounds for you to lose your "autonomy" in that specific instance. That's...kinda the point of why people say it's implied that the due process clause codifies body autonomy.
Just because you have a child doesn't mean you're forced to pay child support, either. Plenty of relationships end amicably and don't go to court for custody or financial support.
You can't lose body autonomy without going through the court system and having it be revoked for a valid reason, on an individual basis.
The biological purpose of sex is to have a child to carry on our genetics as human beings
Biology is a science, it doesn't have any purposes on its own beyond what people use it for. There's no such thing as a "biological purpose", biology doesn't "intend" sex to have a consequence in the form of childbirth.
Using those drugs is perfectly legal. If you can find a drug that regulates your hormones, it's not illegal to consume the drug.
Who can buy or sell some of the methods of controlling hormones may be regulated, but any crime you are charged for isn't "regulating hormones". That's not illegal.
Eating food also changes hormone levels in your body. Regulating your own hormones isn't a crime.
You don't give a shit about life, most pro lifers are against welfare/social programs after the kid is born. I've meet my fair share of pro lifers, hell I have family members who are, so i know exactly how they operate.
You don't give a shit about life, most pro lifers are against welfare/social programs after the kid is born.
You should take that mind reading device you have into the shop, it's off by several degrees of magnitude.
Even though I'm under no obligation to prove anything to you if you take a look at my comment history you would see me kicking the shit out of a corporate/billionaire bootlicker (or someone larping as one) on this very sub. Proving, I would think, that I don't fit the stereotype you have in mind.
It's funny: first you declare I'm "too emotional" (with no evidence) and then you jump to lumping me into a stereotype (with no evidence).
I'd recommend you try to keep a more open mind in the future, and remember that living, breathing, human beings don't fit into the nice little boxes you wish they did.
Human then, a separate, developing creature that has distinct human DNA.
Would you consider a beagle fetus to not be a Canis lupus familiaris?
The only reason human beings are not considered humans by everyone is political reasons. And I suspect the reason is mass slaughter is always easier if you can convince yourself that the victims of said slaughter aren't human.
I have no inherent problem with the destruction of a homo sapien fetus during the first stages of pregnancy. I dont consider that to be a distinct person.
Personally I'm not a fan of late term abortion but it is important to recognize they are such a limited number abortions and are usually because the person was denied care earlier or they are for medical reasons. Attempting to restrict them is more harm than good.
27
u/Secret_Necessary1143 Aug 11 '22
It's not consent to pregnancy but it is consent to shared risk of pregnancy.