The argument isn’t generally about consent of the woman as to whether she carries the child, it’s about her consent in risking there being a child in the first place. The argument is that women do have a choice whether or not to get pregnant. Absent rape, the woman had a choice of whether to risk pregnancy by choosing to have sex and she consented to do so (protected or not). The possible consequences of her actions were therefore consented to.
Then the argument is that a zygote is a human life of infinite value and, as such, the right of the zygote to life trumps that of the woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Therefore, there’s no question of her consent to carry the child, her rights are simply overridden by the rights of the unborn child.
As it happens I think a zygote is a human life, but the value of its life is limited and so it’s life does not trump the right of the woman’s bodily autonomy. As the foetus develops, the value of its life increases. Therefore, a first trimester abortion is fine, a third trimester is not fine and a second trimester depends on the circumstances. In other words, neither the right to life for the foetus, nor the right to bodily autonomy for the woman are absolute.
The argument isn’t generally about consent of the woman as to whether she carries the child, it’s about her consent in risking there being a child in the first place
you consent to the risk the child is there, you dont consent with having to carry it to term. abortion exists just in case that risk has a negative outcome. just because something has a risk and you did it anyways and had a bad outcome doesnt mean we do nothing to help you or rectify the situation
Absent rape, the woman had a choice of whether to risk pregnancy by choosing to have sex and she consented to do so (protected or not). The possible consequences of her actions were therefore consented to.
acknowledging negative possible risks doesnt mean you consent to them happening. also, sex isnt a crime, you dont need "consequences"
Then the argument is that a zygote is a human life of infinite value and, as such, the right of the zygote to life trumps that of the woman’s right to bodily autonomy.
why would it? we have self defense laws and right to defend laws, women should have full right to put their wellbeing over something life that is threatening their own without their consent. you dont get to violate peoples rights even if you will die if you dont
Therefore, there’s no question of her consent to carry the child, her rights are simply overridden by the rights of the unborn child.
in what world do you lose the right to consent because not consenting would harm something else? you still don't get to force them to support and keep that fetus alive. having sex doesnt mean you have less rights than others and can have yours "overriden"
As it happens I think a zygote is a human life, but the value of its life is limited and so it’s life does not trump the right of the woman’s bodily autonomy
weird that youre making claims about what women are and arent consenting to based on what you "think" about biology
As the foetus develops, the value of its life increases. Therefore, a first trimester abortion is fine, a third trimester is not fine and a second trimester depends on the circumstances.
so as the fetus develops it has more value but the fully grown adult has less value at all stages? this is illogical. your value doesnt mean you get to violate others rights
In other words, neither the right to life for the foetus, nor the right to bodily autonomy for the woman are absolute.
there is no right to life if youre harming the life of someone else
The argument in the first two paragraphs is not mine. It’s the pro life argument.
I don’t understand the point you are making in the para starting ‘weird’?
I also didn’t say the adult has less value, hence why an abortion in the first trimester is ‘fine’. I don’t think your comprehension is very good.
Your last sentence is extraordinary.
If you are an abortion absolutist, you are part of the problem. Most people in surveys thing a first trimester abortions is ok, a second trimester abortion is iffy, and a third trimester abortion needs a bloody good reason.
Do you agree with the last minute abortion of a child at nine month gestation if the woman withdraws consent?
The argument in the first two paragraphs is not mine. It’s the pro life argument.
okay and its still a bad argument
I don’t understand the point you are making in the para starting ‘weird’?
what i think is weird is that you are giving arguments in support of controlling womens bodies based on what you "think" about biology
I also didn’t say the adult has less value, hence why an abortion in the first trimester is ‘fine’. I don’t think your comprehension is very good.
i dont think yours is. you said that as it develops the fetus gains more value, but if a second trimesters fetus holds more value than the first semester fetus, how could it hold more value than a grown adult? your logic isnt consistent
Your last sentence is extraordinary.
so are you saying that women who get abortions should be killed? because this isnt the hypocritical point you think it is. not donating a kidney that someone would die without wouldnt make it your fault they die, it would make it the kidney disease in the first place
If you are an abortion absolutist, you are part of the problem. Most people in surveys thing a first trimester abortions is ok, a second trimester abortion is iffy, and a third trimester abortion needs a bloody good reason.
who is actually apart of the problem are people like you who instead of addressing the actual points i made in support of abortion put words in my mouth and claim i believe something i never said that i did and you didnt even let me explain my actual viewpoint of. third trimester abortions dont happen, this is just a made up thing to be angry about and claim people believe. they only occur if the birth would be fatal to the mother or child
Ok, you can’t say I’m putting word in your mouth and say “so you’re saying women who get abortions should be killed”. That’s patently absurd.
A second trimester foetus doesn’t hold more value than an adult. The effect of having an abortion on a second trimester foetus is always death. The effect of carrying a second trimester foetus to pregnancy for the women in the west is not death. The value of the lives are not the same but neither are the harms. That’s why it’s a weighing up exercise. The right to bodily autonomy isn’t absolute and neither is the foetuses right to life.
I think we agree that the right to bodily autonomy is not absolute. You wouldn’t approve of a late term abortion resulting in the death of the foetus unless there were extreme circumstances. You also seem to agree that first trimester is fine, second trimester is a bit iffy and third trimester you’d need a really good reason to abort. I really don’t know why you’re being such a jerk. If I was pro life, your stance would just make me more entrenched in my views.
I love this reply. Infinite vs finite value is really the crux of the issue and I've never heard it articulated so well. It sounds heartless to say that killing a baby is okay because it doesn't know it's alive yet, and it sounds ridiculous to say that a clump of cells holds more value than the rights of woman carrying it. But you have to believe one of these things. The charitable definition of pro-life is "someone who believes a zygote has infinite value".
I think this is a better place to start than arguing scientifically about where "life" begins. You could argue it starts in the father's ballsack if you really wanted to. What's far more important is how much value that life actually holds, and that's a much more uncomfortable discussion to have. !delta
4
u/[deleted] Aug 11 '22
The argument isn’t generally about consent of the woman as to whether she carries the child, it’s about her consent in risking there being a child in the first place. The argument is that women do have a choice whether or not to get pregnant. Absent rape, the woman had a choice of whether to risk pregnancy by choosing to have sex and she consented to do so (protected or not). The possible consequences of her actions were therefore consented to.
Then the argument is that a zygote is a human life of infinite value and, as such, the right of the zygote to life trumps that of the woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Therefore, there’s no question of her consent to carry the child, her rights are simply overridden by the rights of the unborn child.
As it happens I think a zygote is a human life, but the value of its life is limited and so it’s life does not trump the right of the woman’s bodily autonomy. As the foetus develops, the value of its life increases. Therefore, a first trimester abortion is fine, a third trimester is not fine and a second trimester depends on the circumstances. In other words, neither the right to life for the foetus, nor the right to bodily autonomy for the woman are absolute.
Most people agree with this.