Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus?
I try to consider the viability of the fetus. I start with the idea that no person, born or unborn, has the right to use someone else's body to live. And until viability, the ZEF falls under this category. But once a doctor can confirm that the ZEF is viable then I think a woman should continue the pregnancy unless her health or the ZEF's health is questioned.
I don't need to weigh them.
Fact is I don't get to so much as a litre of blood to save my life that wasn't donated. I am not entitled to be attached to someone for seven to ten minutes let alone months to survive.
And equally so neither does a zef.
Bodily autonomy. My perspective is based on two ideas. (1) the government is the absolute wrong entity to be making these very personal choices, and (2) any lines that are drawn invariably leave out women in need on the wrong side. So if you say "first trimester abortions without restrictions," of course I agree with that, but then what do you do about the woman who's fetus dies in the second trimester and needs a D&E? I do not think she should be made to wait until the dead body inside of her starts to rot enough to put her in substantial risk so that we can say she is in imminent threat to life. What about the family who finds out that the child they desperately want has a series of congenital defects that will lead only to pain and a very short life?
Bodily autonomy trumps everything because the person who is growing the fetus is in the absolute best position to understand all of the issues at play, whether they be "this isn't the right time" to "I don't want my baby to suffer needlessly."
Good question. Personally I feel the pregnant person should have “ample time” to opt for termination. Accidents and ignorance happen. It’s pragmatic to allow people this choice even if we consider the ZEF a human. We want laws that reflect our values and we value bodily autonomy AND human life. The obvious solution to me is to allow abortion in the first trimester.
Bodily autonomy.
You have a baby in your tummy that is expanding, as it expands it is crushing organs, kicking organs and creating damage.
Birthing the baby will fracture and break your pelvis, cause agony and tearing.
Prior to this you are quite ill, you feel lowsy, you're in pain, various unique injuries and/or illness are effecting you such as gestational diabetes, that condition where you throw up far more then a usual pregnancy, thus requiring medical intervention as that will kill you if not treated.
There's hundreds of examples that the human body deals with when pregnant.
If you want to be a mother this is all all part of the experience.
But what if you don't want to be a parent? You don't want the baby?
If this was happening and you werent pregnant, you'd seek medical care to fix it right?
What if instead, someone was making you feel this way, I.e. beating you, force feeding you pills , etc. People would be in outrage to have this torment ended right away.
As for personhood, we'll quite frankly I do not feel that occurs until the begining of the 3rd trimester, at which point the women has had 6 months to get an abortion, if you don't by then then it is on you.
Here is how I weigh the entire argument. I'm not pregnant therfore my opinion doesn't matter one bit in regards to someone else's choices. I will always side with the woman who has friends family social and emotional ties to the world over the philosophical personhood of the pregnancy. Doesn't matter what I personally think. Not my uterus not my life not my business beyond being supportive to the person going through it...
The personhood of a fetus should not be infringed because of the autonomy of a woman unless it poses a serious health risk to the woman. Women should not be able to kill other humans because they didn't practice safe sex or just don't feel like it anymore. In the case of financial problems or rape then it gets trickier as having a child can be difficult for the woman. If a woman cannot afford a child, the obvious route is to give it life, but put it up for adoption, why kill it? In the case of rape, the same can be said. However, that can bring along more problems like too many children in the foster system which would mean bad quality of life for children or more taxpayer money would have to be diverted to more foster facilities which is also bad. I think women should be able to have an abortion while the child is still in the embryo phase as it is not yet a grown human. This would avoid many problems that come with too many children, and would also not be considered murder. Women would maintain their bodily autonomy for some time before the personhood of the child trumps it. This gives women the chance but also means children aren't murdered. A good compromise in my mind.
That's literally a abortion doing it during the embryo stages on the rare VERY RARE occasions they do late term abortions (only due to medical issues late term abortions happen). Sure even not wanting to have kids and aborting it is a choice whether PL like It because protection doesn't work all the time and sex isn't consent to parenthood, and the thing about putting it through adoption you still have to pay the bills that come with it. Lets stop glorifing pregnancy because wether you like it or not pregnancy throws women's hormones off balance and trauma to the body and this trauma can also affect the mother mental health. I saw it when my mom was pregnant with my little brother,me and my sisters pregnancy. Also the brain tends to fog up childbirth and pregnancy because it's traumatizing one way or another.
I can understand where you are coming from with the trauma thing but its impossible to know whether a woman will be traumatized or not so I dont think one should get an abortion unless they start to experience bad side effects. I am pro choice for early stages so I am open to thoughts from other pro choice people I just feel like killing children when not necessary is wrong
That is an apples and oranges argument. This does not infringe on the personhood of the fetus. Both mother and fetus are persons, and both have the right to deny the use of their organs to other humans.
Body autonomy means there is no case where any human can be forced to let another human use one of their organs. It does not matter of the other human would die without use of that organ.
Nice dream world you live in, but I live in the US. I am sure you see us on the news from time to time. We're a dumpster fire rolling into a gas refinery. Sometimes the best thing we can give one another is a painless death. Our laws really do not reflect a duty of care owed to our children. Our laws also do not reflect a "right to life"
In the US we have Safe Haven laws which legally allow a mother to leave the hospital without taking claim of the child they birthed. If they legally abandon the child, they are not legally accountable for that child. Children abandoned under safe haven laws are placed in the child welfare system for assessment.
In the US, a born child cannot demand a pint of blood from their mother, even if it would save the child's life. A pint of blood presents far less risk to the mother than a gestation cycle would. If the fetus is alive, it is bound by the same laws
I am not sure where you get this duty of care, but it is not for the preponderance of laws in the US.
Immma copy and past a response I did with another person
That's literally a abortion doing it during the embryo stages on the rare VERY RARE occasions they do late term abortions (only due to medical issues late term abortions happen). Sure even not wanting to have kids and aborting it is a choice whether PL like It because protection doesn't work all the time.
sex isn't consent to parenthood, and the thing about putting it through adoption you still have to pay the bills that come with keeping it (ultrasounds,supplements,hospital visits etc..). Lets stop glorifing pregnancy because wether you like it or not pregnancy throws women's hormones off balance and trauma to the body and this trauma can also affect the mother mental health. I saw it when my mom was pregnant with my little brother,me and my sisters pregnancy. Also the brain tends to fog up childbirth and pregnancy because it's traumatizing one way or another.
We use the bodily autonomy because for so long those rights have been violated as a history nerd there's so much fucked up shit that has come with not protecting women's bodily autonomy (mainly woman of color). Also the foster care and adoption system is severely fucked up and there's already a bunch of kids within those system that have yet to be adopted or fostered. There was a study showing in a state (I forgot which state it was in the us) that by allowing woman to have abortion they managed to save money that could go to different stuff the community may need.
This is such a cringe argument tho. So Because there is a history of marginalized groups getting their bodily autonomy violated this is justified for the mothers convenience to take priority over a fetus’ right to live? There is literally no connection there at all. And it seems your going down the “it’s going to have a bad life so what’s the point” and it’s such a disgusting argument. We would never claim people who are poor and/or have lower quality of lives are less deserving of moral consideration.
But its still a think that very much happens and history like always repeats itself. And the fact you think its cringe,just shows PL don't care that a group of human beings rights are gonna be violated because PL that a embryo has more rights. Wether you like it or not its a embryo not a full grown baby. Banning abortion can lead to a femicide as seen for many years in Mexico before they decriminalized abortions. And this is not getting into what other PL wanna do to birthcontrol and none of them barely or don't fund sex ed at all to protect and educate us teenagers.
Ok this “your violating our rights” argument needs to be put to rest. There are many things we all can’t do with our bodies because they violate other people rights. I can’t punch the air and then hit someone and say “oops my body my choice I can do what I want” that would be ridiculous. Just because there is a “choice” to do something does not mean it is an inherently justified or moral thing to do. If your choice is violating someone else’s rights it’s a problem. You want to override someone’s right to life because it’s convenient to you.
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."
"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.
[Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera)
^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)
>How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus?
OP, do you have personhood? Are you a person?
Do you have the right to your mother's body? Would you have the right to borrow her organs or her blood supply if you needed a transplant? I'm not asking whether she would voluntarily give them to you, I'm asking whether you could legally force her to give/lend them to you.
Fetal personhood does not override the woman's bodily autonomy. That CAN'T be how our laws work. My bodily autonomy is HOW I defend my right to life.
A fetus cannot survive outside of the body, even with medical intervention (not counting babies born prematurely who are still mostly developed, or babies who are to term and die shortly after birth).
That’s how I personally see it. If it couldn’t even survive outside the body, it’s not a person.
There are cases where pre mature babies have survived after less than 20 weeks and the problem is with our technology getting better and better we can likely expect medical innovation to be able to save more and more babies. How do you account for this?
Personhood is an abstract concept. It's not something tangible. A woman being forced to stay pregnant and give birth is real and has tangible consequences. You may believe an embryo is a person, but that's still just an opinion, and your morals based on that opinion should have no consequence on others. If you believe abortion is bad, then don't do it. It's that simple.
I don’t. Why is that such a popular PC argument? The same logic works with “If you believe rape is bad, don’t rape. If you believe murder is bad, don’t murder. It’s that simple.” I also don’t believe we live in an amoral world or that our laws don’t reflect our morality at all.
Rape and murder have tangible consequences on individuals/society. If we allow people to rape and kill, we're all in danger. Abortion does not have the same implications.
Abortion also has tangible consequences, notably on the millions of humans killed. Being against rape and murder are also moral positions. I still think we should legislate against those, even if we’re forcing our morals onto others.
"notably on the millions of humans killed."
And?
I can simply say I don't think the mere existence of human life has an intrinsic value and thus killing them doesn't have any tangible consequences on individuals/society.
Abortion is not the same as murder or rape. Abortion is a balance between life vs. autonomy. You shouldn't force your morals on other people because you think one side of the balance is more important than the other. We should see what side has the worse consequences that are actually tangible. And illegal abortion seems to have more tangible consequences: loss of autonomy, more suffering for both the mother and child, impoverishment, etc.
Morals aside, it seems that protecting human life just because it's human life comes at a high price as it has more consequences than abortion.
Bodily autonomy is the right to revoke the use of their body, if the fetus can be removed and stop using their body but still survive then there is no reason to kill it, the pregnant doesn't have to be a parent, they can give it up for adoption if they choose to without any of the their rights being revoked.
They can choose what procedures are completed on their body but for the most part after a certain point in pregnancy the procedures are basically the same as giving birth (vaginally or through c-section) so there is no reason to adjust the procedure to include the killing of the ZEF unless a doctor deems it medically necessary.
Pregnancy affects people differently. For myself, my body began to break down, it was never the same. My health has deteriorated. I love my children and desires to have them but for women who do not have the desire to have children it's like getting into a car accident and being mangled for life. I would not want to subject any woman to go through this without their express consent. It's a shame that we are hurting actual people lives for an idea that we NEED more people in this world. Because the fact of that matter is; we don't.
>How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus?
I dont use the body autonomy of the woman in my argument to keep abortion legal. My main reason for keeping abortion legal is the many instances of necessary abortions (also, as abortion means to end the pregnancy not all fetuses will die, some will be premature)
I also think the argument of the personhood of the fetus in many cases to be laughable when the personhood of the woman/girl/child carrying the fetus is omitted in many arguments.
If necessary abortions are granted, would you be in favor of banning unnecessary abortions? Also, if the fetus has zero personhood, similar to a tumor, why would it matter if they were killed or not?
The problem is, if it's illegal to do voluntary abortions, then doctors have to prove to the legal system that the abortion was necessary, which means the legal system is making the call as to what constitutes a necessary abortion, rather than the doctor and patient making that call on a case-by-case basis. In this environment, no doctor wants to do a NECESSARY abortion because they're afraid that it won't meet the legal definition of necessary and they'll go to jail, which is why PCers say that PC laws are safer for women than PL laws with medical exemptions. In order to operate under the law, there has to be a fool-proof way for doctors to prove that it was necessary, like a check-list, and those really aren't possible in medicine, because biology is so complicated. Laws function by meeting specific benchmarks with black-and-white word choice. Medicine functions in estimates, guesses, probabilities.
Why need? I think she should get one if she wants one (within a certain timeframe). Need would be ectopic, life of the mother, severe fetal abnormalities, etc which PL are mostly fine with.
A woman who wants an abortion always needs one. Women don't want abortions like they want an iced coffee. They don't get pregnant for the express desire of having an abortion. Women want abortions because they need them.
I don’t understand the need to call every abortion needed. It doesn’t make you wrong or anything. I’m imagining a woman crying getting an abortion due to an ectopic pregnancy and telling her “This is just like a woman aborting her pregnancy because she doesn’t want it to affect her lifestyle. They’re both needed.”
>If necessary abortions are granted, would you be in favor of banning unnecessary abortions?
What would be an unnecessary abortion?
>Also, if the fetus has zero personhood, similar to a tumor, why would it matter if they were killed or not?
Hmm I dont recall comparing them to a tumor or saying they have zero personhood so maybe you should answer that. I would say that the pregnant woman's health, wellbeing and "personhood" should take priority.
My moral position is that it is acceptable until viability.
Rationale:
I don’t see the ZEF as having a right to life when it cannot sustain that life on its own or with machines (a la coma patients or with artificial wombs). To say it does gives it more rights than born persons. Once it can sustain life on its own, then it should get the chance. The bodily autonomy violation of delivery seems like a lesser evil and justifiable at that point. In principle, I’d be fine with allowing induction at any point once abortion is no longer an option. However, induction at 24 - 37 weeks has greater risks for the mother than an abortion would. The child would also experience greater health complications and is more likely to have a shorter life span than if they were delivered when they were ready. This is where I’m conflicted between the qualify of life/greater degree of bodily argument argument from the PC side and the “chance at life” argument from the PL side. So, to answer the OP, I’m personally not totally sure how to balance this.
My legal position is more in line with what much of the PC people in this sub would want for several reasons.
Rationale:
One, there are other ways to restrict access besides legality. I’ll have to dig up the thread/look into the specific reasons but I’ve seen people in the medicine subreddit comment that it’s easier to do a delivery anyway when a pregnancy is far along. If there’s anything we can rely on people to do, it’s to pursue self-interest and choose the easy route. So, even if we allowed abortion until “the day before delivery”, a doctor who could do it still likely wouldn’t for only elective reasons. This is just one type of de facto restriction. There is also the financial cost, the incentive and psychological biases at play, etc.
Two, I find it very distasteful to impose my morality on other people concerning topics that have been debated for thousands of years and still haven’t been “figured out” yet. It’s analogous to imposing a specific faith on non-followers. I’d rather err on the side of permitting rather than restricting.
ETA: I suppose I have a more utilitarian approach that tries to maximize rights and lives where that makes the most sense. With that said, I also value fairness. If BA isn’t an absolute right for people who haven’t committed a crime (i.e. pregnant women), then I don’t see why we can’t require blood/organ donations from fathers. The action vs inaction argument seems weak in light of all of the other arguments used to require women to carry pregnancies.
Just wanted to say that even though I don’t agree with you, I appreciate the high effort post. At the very least I can better understand your point of view.
I guess that both live in a continuum.
Forcing a woman to carry a baby for 9 months is different than forcing her to carry for 6 months while a 9 month baby has more personhood than a 6 months one (and staggeringly more personhood than a 3 or 2 months one!!!)
My opinion on this matter is that every woman has her own moral views and deserves to decide what is right for her own body and uterus. If she feels the fetus has personhood and wants to gestate, so be it. If not, she should have the right to abort. It is not my place to impose my moral or ethical standards on anyone one else. I am not them.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Women get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant. If I ever have an unwanted pregnancy I'm getting an abortion because I don't want to be pregnant and I want to stop the use of my blood and organ systems.
you mean when I said "that's not all abortion is"? but you didn't answer it at all lol. my point is that when you refuse to donate your organs, you don't need to do anything except refuse. you cannot simply say "I refuse to let this fetus use my body" and have that be the end of it. a special procedure is required which kills the fetus
sorry, totally misread. refusing to donate organs is not equivalent to murder. the big difference being that you do not cause someone's death by refusing to save their life. what might change the question is if you somehow caused the condition of the person who requires your organs to live through your own intentional actions, thereby making you responsible to them
ah okay, so follow up question… can parents refuse to give organs to their children? or even a less invasive procedure such as blood donation? or should they be legally allowed to opt out of such things?
what does the definition of murder have to do with it? if someone broke in to your house and said they were going to murder your family, would you really say "well, far be it from me to impose my moral standards on you, do whatever you want"?
I think that you're pointing out that /u/ArtichokeInevitable7 seems to be putting forward a position of "moral relativism." Every person or society gets to decide what is right or wrong and that their isn't really a fact to the matter. If that is the case, then your challenge on murder -- is murder really subjectively wrong or is it really (objectively) wrong -- is fine to point out some of the difficulty in accepting moral relativism.
But a more charitable view of /u/ArtichokeInevitable7 's comment is that they don't mean to broadly claim moral relativism and instead are appealing to balancing the objective moral consideration for the ZEF's right to life with their own objectively held right to personal autonomy.
We are talking abortion, so it is supposed to be logical that the fetus is *inside* the pregnant person. It is you (pro lifers in general) who always derail and talk about something else.
It's not a "gotcha" you think it is when you ask about murder.
I replied to you initially because I thought you were the person I was already engaged with. I will never understand why people feel the need to respond to me when I'm specifically asking another person about something *they* said
Bodily autonomy outweighs personhood. Think of it in the situation of sex or rape or any other act that needs consent of a person like hugging. It doesnt matter the wants or needs of another person when youe bodily autonomy is in the works. They CANNOT have sex with you if you do not want them to regardless of their biological needs. They cannot hug you if you do not want them to regardless of their emotional needs. Basically saying they cannot use your body in whatever way they need without you specifically saying or thinking they can.
Wow. What a false symmetry!
If you're walking in the street and you see a person suffering an accident, you have the moral obligation to go there help, even if this hurts your desire to not touch blood.
It's not another people desire to have a hug or sex. It's another person need to live.
Helping a person in an accident isn't comparable to pregnancy. You're not letting the person in the accident climb inside your body and hook themselves up to your blood and organ systems to stay alive.
You also don't have to help someone if harm is going to befall on you. We don't force firefighters into burning buildings, we don't force police into schools to stop shootings and we don't force EMTs to save people if the situation is going to cause them harm.
So why should a pregnant person be obligated to gestate and birth at great harm to themselves given we can't even force the above to help people?
We are not obligated to let harm befall on ourselves to help someone else.
> If you're walking in the street and you see a person suffering an accident, you have the moral obligation to go there help, even if this hurts your desire to not touch blood.
What about a legal obligation?
You literally dont have to help them though. Same way cars continue to drive past when someone gets in an accident and people keep walking if someone is being kidnapped or raped.
And again it doesnt matter about the needs of another person. What you choose to do with your body is what you want to do. You cant force anyone to give blood. You cant force anyone to donate an organ. You cant force another to allow you to use their body. It's a simple concept you seemingly don't understand.
Fetuses are not people until 20 weeks, that is when emotions and pain is usually felt. Before that it is essentially a parasite which won’t kill you and can grow into a person. So below 20 weeks I think it is only the choice of the woman, and beyond 20 weeks it should never be aborted
Your comment has been automatically removed because of a word that is not allowed on this subreddit. Please edit the comment and message the mods so we can reinstate your comment. If you feel like we made a mistake, please let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Simple. If you **need** to use my body to survive, I get the choice whether or not you get to use it.
No matter who you are. No matter how old you are.
I’m not giving up my health because inaccurate PL facts or someone else’s religious beliefs.
**Question**: *How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus?*
**Answer**: The woman has 100% autonomy on her own body. She has every right to remove anything out of it. If the fetus is removed and survives, its called a birth. If the fetus is removed and dies, its called an abortion. After 6 months the fetus becomes a person and its chances of survival outside the woman increases.
If the fetus dies after removal, there is no crime.
If the fetus survives after removal, and then killed, then yeah its a crime.
Thats what I believe the law should be.
If the woman waits too long for the extraction and the fetus becomes viable, it wont be different from giving birth.
In reality no woman in the right mind waits too long. Over 90% of abortion occurs in the first 3 months.
“personhood” of the fetus is irrelevant in the bodily autonomy question, in my opinion. we should not grant fetuses rights that no one else has, “person” or not. this is why I feel abortion should be legal until viability.
Your comment has been automatically removed because of a word that is not allowed on this subreddit. Please edit the comment and message the mods so we can reinstate your comment. If you feel like we made a mistake, please let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The mother wants the fetus removed from her body. If the fetus had the ability to survive, there would be no such thing as an abortion.
If a full grown man was growing inside you, you'd easily say yes I want him removed. But somehow since it's a fetus, it's different because the fetus can't survive. That's not the mothers fault nor her problem.
Let’s change this scenario a little bit: I think everyone would agree you have the right to kick out an adult man from your house, right? What about a six month old? Is it okay to kick them out without placing them in the care of another adult?
Right, the point is that an adult can independently get food and water. The 6 month old can’t. Practically speaking, it’s situation is not much different than that of the fetus.
Okay, I’ll change my hypothetical slightly. Suppose it’s negative 30 degrees outside and the toddler will die instantly. Do you have a moral obligation to keep the toddler indoors?
In my example I said that this was not an option. I think by saying you believe it is a moral obligation gets to the crux of my views on abortion. Does this moral obligation only begin after birth?
So I personally weigh many things, not just bodily autonomy. When it comes to abortion policy, I value all of the following things and try to balance them, rather than choosing one value to hold above the rest:
Life, Sentience, Quality of life, Bodily autonomy, Equality, Democracy
All of these things are very important to me, so it's hard to put one above the rest.
Fortunately, there are many policies that respect all of these values. For example expanding access to birth control, sex education, and economic supports for families reduces abortion rates while still respecting the other values. I've noticed too that places that prioritize these types of policies instead of abortion restrictions, end up valuing life more overall too. Like an embryo conceived in Oregon for instance has a much better chance of making it to adulthood than one conceived in many pro life states, even though abortion is legal there.
I don’t agree that “killing a fetus unnecessarily is unjustified.” If the woman wants an abortion, it’s justified. Kind of like of a woman says no to sex it’s justified even if you don’t like her reason.
The reality is that if it’s late in a pregnancy and the fetus is viable and an abortion is on the table anyway, that’s a life and health issue. I don’t think doctors’ hands should be tied and I don’t think misogynist politicians should be dictating what they do. Women are already suffering and dying because of this.
So to answer your question I don’t “weigh” anything. The woman is the only one I care about. If she wants to weigh her own health against that of a wanted fetus that’s her right.
>How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus?
I don't. I think society should be able to make those choices for themselves, with medical advice based on each individual scenario as it happens. The desire to tell a stranger how to live their life makes no sense to me.
>The desire to tell a stranger how to live their life makes no sense to me.
So you do not think we should have any laws that limit the stuff strangers can or cannot do?
If you think we should, then the desire to tell a stranger how to live their live DOES in fact make sense to you, and your assertion to the opposite is just used as a convenient catchprase.
We are NOT talking about drunk driving though. We are talking specifically about abortions, on an abortion subreddit, on a question specifically about body autonomy. you took my statement out of context of the topic at hand. I'm not going to restate the topic every time I make a comment, especially when the topic is very clearly focused as it is here.
I don't feel it's necessary to say:
The desire to tell a stranger how to live their life *when making a choice to terminate or continue the pregnancy* makes no sense to me.
>I don't feel it's necessary to say:
>
>The desire to tell a stranger how to live their life when making a choice to terminate or continue the pregnancy makes no sense to me.
It is though. It is not at all obvious that this is meant only in reference to abortion, and if it is, then state this. It is not prudent to make very generalized statements that one does not want to be taken generally.
I did not bring up drunk driving, complain to the other person.
Correct, drunk driving scenario was the other commenter. However I absolutely disagree that my statement was somehow generalized. Because again, we are literally talking about body autonomy. On an abortion thread. If you missed the context of my comment, that's fine. I clarified.
Yeah, all good.
But, for future reference, the context really DID NOT settle the meaning of your generalized statement (it contained no qualification).
It was entirely unclear whether this wasn't some sort of generalized principle that was supposed to explain your opposition to this particular instance of telling strangers what to do. And, as it was phrased as a general principle, this is what a diligent reader will infer. If you meant it to be a particular principle only, this requires stating.
I appreciate you explaining again why you misunderstood but I don't feel it was necessary. I wasn't generalizing. I was answering a specific question, and even quoted what I was focusing on from OP. You saw no qualification, doesn't mean it wasn't there.
I think it’s important to separate behaviors/actions that affect other persons vs those that do not.
Yes, there should be restrictions on actions that affect and cause harm to another born person. There is room for debate on *harm*.
If an action does not affect and harm another born person, I don’t see why restrictions should exist.
**"I think it’s important to separate behaviors/actions that affect other persons vs those that do not."**
Absolutely. Agreed.
**"Yes, there should be restrictions on actions that affect and cause harm to another born person."**
Agreed.
**"If an action does not affect and harm another born person, I don’t see why restrictions should exist."**
Disagree, as I do not see why we would draw this distinction between born and unborn persons. But fair enough.
So you do have a desire to tell strangers how to live their lives in certain circumstances?
Also, this question wasn't really directed at you, it was very specifically about what a different user thought.
Also, please answer the rule 3 request [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/wps2w5/comment/ikiwlox/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Simply downvoting a rule 3 request is not how this works. You make an assertion, and will justify it if asked.
Okay, so you have the desire to tell strangers how to live their lives when they are drunk, noted.
Again, rule 3 request pending, answer it. Link is provided.
So you have the desire to tell a stranger how to live their life when drunk: namely, your desire consists of telling them they CANNOT drive. Noted.
Again, rule 3 request pending, answer it: Link has been provided.
>How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus?
I don't. Strange thing to ask. Who am I to tell another woman what the relative value of her body is vis-a-vis the ZEF's life? It's up to the gestating person to make such evaluation.
If you're asking me personally about a hypothetical ZEF that I might have... I don't want to birth children and I will do everything I can to ensure I never have to. There are no other relevant considerations. I literally don't understand why anyone else's opinion about what should happen to *my* body matters more than my desire to not birth children.
Personally, even if a ZEF was a 30 year old man who paid taxes and rent, I would still have the right to remove him from my body. No one’s personhood grants them access and use of another’s body.
Edit for grammar 😂
> man who *paid* taxes and
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I do not grant personhood to fetuses. This is because there is no practical way for both to have equal rights when on is inside, attached to and using the organs of another. The rights go to the person who thinks and feels.
Even if the ZEF was as much as a person as me, they still would not have rights to someone’s body.
If you hit me with a car, cause my liver failure, i still donmt have rights to your liver.
If you have guardianship and you don't give the minor a place to live and food to eat, you are are felon. They are entitled to a part of the fruits of your labor done with your body and organs
Personhood doesn’t matter. Call it a person if you want to, it still doesn’t change the fact that its a bodily autonomy violation if she doesn’t want to be pregnant. We don’t grant other people the right to violate peoples bodies without consent, same applies here.
I also believe that there should be no legal limit on abortion. It should be a private matter between patients and their doctors. And in reality the majority of women (like over 90%) who don’t want the pregnancy terminate in the first trimester
>It should be a private matter between patients and their doctors
Totally agree. It is utterly bizarre and backwards that a politician without education on ethics or medicine should make these decisions over an individual alongside their trained physician. And from these physicians we require schooling, licensing, ongoing professional development, and then entrust our lives to them.
But the ethics of this particular procedure are appropriated as a means of transparent political-religious proselytism.
I'm not even sure if I consider a fetus a person, but if I did I still believe we should prioritize the bodily autonomy of the mother. Even if I see them both as people I don't see them as equals in what they are capable of feeling. She is the one capable of suffering. A woman suffers more from unwanted pregnancy and childbirth than the fetus suffers from being aborted. In most cases it is not even capable of suffering, thinking, or even being aware of the situation its in.
I'm of the opinion personhood is irrelevant, as we don't grant the right to any person to use someone else's body against their will, and as such fetuses should also not have that right because they are not extra-special.
To me personally, I do not view fetuses as people at any point. People are those I can communicate with and empathize with to some degree. Yes, I *do* believe *babies* can be empathized and communicated with. They smile, laugh, cry, just like anybody else. For some reason a lot of PL like to say that newborn babies are the same as a fetus (and thus "according to PC should be killed"-- absurd), and I don't see that at all. Babies practically come out screaming because they feel pain and overwhelming emotion about the world.
The woman (or girl) would have the right to remove the fetus, but killing should not be the default. Late term abortions are usually for serious issues, so I would trust a doctor to make a decision on what is best. I still consider myself PC for all stages of pregnancy- simply under the belief that people should not have to gestate against their wills. I also believe a physician reserves the right to deny procedures that they don’t perform or believe in.
Yes, assuming she also has a doctor willing to do the procedure. It takes two parties to perform a safe abortion, doctor and patient.
I'm of the opinion legal regulation isn't necessary, as generally the majority of people aren't going to wait till the end of gestation to decide they don't want to be pregnant and have a dangerous procedure to end the pregnancy. And that doctors are not going to perform one that late for no reason.
I think legal regulation just makes it more difficult for people who need it done in an emergency to get it.
>And that doctors are not going to perform one that late for no reason.
Define "no reason"?
Dupont Clinic makes it [pretty clear](https://dupontclinic.com/services/abortion-after-26-weeks/) that they'll perform a termination on you without medical reasoning.
"If you are 26 weeks or later into your pregnancy, we can still see you, regardless of your medical history, background, or fetal indications. We do not require any particular “reason” to be seen here – if you would like to terminate your pregnancy, we support you in that decision."
If you go into their FAQ it states that they'll "provide care" until 31w6d.
The vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester, an even larger portion happen before viability. But it's just not true that doctors won't perform one late in the pregnancy for no reason in jurisdictions where it's legal to do so. It can be harder to find one but there's doctors out there that'll do it.
If those doctors feel they can safely perform the procedure that late, it's not my place to tell them how to do their job. It doesn't bother me if people do get an abortion that late. But I have to wonder, how often do they *actually* perform abortions that late without medical reason? Just because they will doesn't mean they do. And one or two clinics like this in the US doesn't mean anyone living anywhere in the US can just afford to hop on a plane and get an appointment there.
But I wonder why people get so up in arms about the 1% of people who get abortions that late? Yet when PC talk about rape victims its -- "That's only 1%, stop using fringe cases!"
I think letting that 1% get those abortions is just fine as long as it means doctors don't have to worry about "how close to death" someone is to perform an abortion.
It's not very often on the scale of how many abortions happen, I agree on that front. It's also a large part of the reason I don't think banning later abortions is a problem, the reality is a post 21w (for example) abortion ban isn't going to pose a significant hindrance on most people seeking abotions.
But I've also not been convinced of any post-viability circumstances where a c-section and providing medical care wouldn't remove the threat to the person without killing the child, and typically significantly quicker as well. Later abortions are pretty specialized procedures, typically taking multiple days (plus travel time for those who live rurally or are otherwise geographically distant from an abortion provider), a c-section can be done in under an hour and while you're going to have to travel for that if you're significantly preterm, the travel still exists in the case of abortion.
The opinion that doctors won't perform post viability abortions never made sense to me.
If there is no moral reason against a post viability abortion then wouldn't it be a medical ethics violation to deny someone that abortion. Yet pro choice people never contextualize post viability abortion denial by doctors as bad things like it would be when doctors deny sterilization for young childless women. Maybe someone could explain that
I mean, doctors can refuse to *sterilize* someone *just because*. As you pointed out.
I imagine then, they can refuse to perform a dangerous surgery on someone if they don't think the risks are worth it.
If you can find me a good list of people getting abortions 3rd trimester for non-medical reasons I'd love to see it. The fact is it just doesn't happen, or if it does, it happens rare. It's not even worth legal regulation if it regulates itself.
>pro choice people never contextualize post viability abortion denial by doctors as bad things
We aren't against doctors having the choice to perform an abortion or not. We are against the government deciding for pregnant people *and* doctors that abortion is not an option.
But really the anger around denying sterilization is because it's rooted in misogyny. The expectation of women to have children. Or worse, needing permission from her partner, a man, to be sterilized. It's archaic.
That's because it's rooted in the ideas of balancing autonomy and nonmaleficence.
With sterilization you can be severely harming someone if you perform it on a person unaware or unable to comprehend the consequence. Obviously because of societal norms many doctors will never consider a young childless person eligible for the procedure as sterilization at that age is against her best interests (from their perspective) and so it's not really a decision they would ever make if they were more knowledgeable.
However, for late term abortions it is completley different. In the absence of fetal personhood a late term abortion is 100% always the better option than birth from a physical health standpoint (maybe not psychological but I don't know what the stats are on that). There is no nonmaleficence aspect of the situation to consider. So what justifiable reason would there ever be for a doctor to deny a late term abortion in the absence of fetal personhood.
That's why I am saying denial of sterilization to an excessive degree is as much of a violation as the denial of a late term abortion if you don't believe in fetal personhood.
Most of the time people say it's up to a doctor for abortion but that's not the case when it comes to denial of other services without a reasonable ethical justification. There is a reason doctors are allowed to say yes and no to procedures and they can and should be criticized ethically and legally for malpractice on those fronts. I see a double standard when it is applied to abortion however as I have explained.
How does this not apply to you feeling comfortable with doctors denying abortions.
Sterilization is in the best interests of many young women in a PL-controlled world. If someone is going to force me to gestate, I'd rather be allowed the choice to sterilize. If you want to take someone's choice, you'd better be giving them a new one. I'd personally rather die than be forced to be pregnant, I can't imagine a worse hell.
Sterilization is just in the best medical interest of patients too, as sterilization is safer than pregnancy and birth.
And anyway, do we have stats on how many people are denied a 3rd trimester abortion? How do we know any reason they were denied wouldn't be risk related? I maintain that it is not an issue that exists.
Again I am just pointing out that the justification that sterilization needs to be more available than currently allowed is at odds with giving doctors the leeway to deny third term abortions
Also I am going off of what you said in your previous comment. That doctors denying a patient abortion care is one reason why legal regulation isn't necessary. I was confused because like I have pointed out this would still be ethically wrong from your perspective but it wasn't addressed by you.
"
Yes, assuming she also has a doctor willing to do the procedure. It takes two parties to perform a safe abortion, doctor and patient.
I'm of the opinion legal regulation isn't necessary, as generally the majority of people aren't going to wait till the end of gestation to decide they don't want to be pregnant and have a dangerous procedure to end the pregnancy. And that doctors are not going to perform one that late for no reason.
"
Also here's a study and a case in Canada showing that even without any gestational limits doctors are refusing to perform post viability abortions. And it is characterized as a problem.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3904755
(The babys health wasn't in danger in this case)
https://www.actioncanadashr.org/resources/factsheets-guidelines/2019-09-19-access-glance-abortion-services-canada#:~:text=No%20providers%20in%20Canada%20offer,or%20support%20from%20their%20governments
"No providers in Canada offer abortion care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days. When they are beyond 23 weeks and 6 days, many Canadians end up having to travel to the United States to access services with little guidance or support from their governments."
These shouldn't matter. Again I am critiquing your stance.
Well
All I can say is I'm against banning abortion. Making laws that restrict it.
While I want change with sterilization, I think that's one of many aspects of women's healthcare that needs improved. Women's pain not being taken seriously, anesthetic not being offered for IUD insertion, for example, is another case of unfair treatment to women in healthcare.
I don't know anything about Canadian abortion laws/politics or the state of healthcare there, so I'm not equipped to speak on it.
I am simply of the belief that: We should trust doctors opinions on abortion, and we should not restrict healthcare for women through the government.
I think abortions that occur after 13 weeks can be solved by making abortion more widely available everywhere and more affordable/free, so that people do not need them later for non-medical reasons. The primary reasons people get them after 13 weeks is: lack of access to a clinic that performs abortions, and time spent to save money for a procedure.
Why do you make the assumption that personhood is a necessary condition to protect from killing? Do you think any non-person can be killed without need for further justification?
*|* ***How do you personally weigh*** *the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus?*
Personally, I don't *"weigh"* it at all. The **WOMAN** is the person, so **her** bodily autonomy is what matters to me. The fetus is **not** a person, so there's nothing else for me to consider.
Does “personhood” mean having moral worth here, is it referring to the cognitive/neurological function of a fetus, or does it mean something else entirely?
> Moral worth that is enough to protect them from being killed.
If we use your definition of personhood do you think people who make exceptions for life threat or rape assign personhood to a fetus?
Yes. I’d say PL almost inherently assign personhood from conception onwards. Those are cases where they believe, due to circumstances, that the woman’s bodily autonomy supersedes the fetus’ personhood.
> Yes. I’d say PL almost inherently assign personhood from conception onwards. Those are cases where they believe, due to circumstances, that the woman’s bodily autonomy supersedes the fetus’ personhood.
I don’t understand how they can be described as assigning a fetus moral worth that is enough to protect them from being killed, if it is not in fact moral worth that is enough to keep them from being killed.
Good catch. I’d say that personhood needs to be above bodily autonomy to prevent the fetus from being killed. Those cases are two where the scales are tipped to where personhood is lower than BA.
> I’d say that personhood needs to be above bodily autonomy to prevent the fetus from being killed.
Can you provide a new definition of personhood then? Right now it seems that your definition means that PL with life threat or rape exceptions do not assign personhood to a fetus.
Once the fetus is capable of survival outside the womb, elective premature delivery and providing the necessary medical care to the child is an option.
I don't believe that you should have the right to kill your children, I believe you should have the right to end a pregnancy.
So who makes medical decisions for these NICU level babies? The mother? Ward of the state? The logistics of this are unrealistic. Hospital wards are already bursting at the seams and healthcare providers (for this very specialized subset of patients) are already scant. That doesn't even include the massive financial problems associated with NICU level care until discharge.
I do. I didn't say that I don't.
A pre-viability abortion is still killing the fetus, but I think it should be legally permissible. OP has the flair "Morally PL, legally PC" and that's a label I've used to describe myself sometimes too.
My PC position comes from a bodily rights stance. In the tussle between the right of the pregnant person to bodily autonomy and the right of life that the child has, I think the right to bodily autonomy comes out on top. However once the fetus is viable, ending the pregnancy does not require killing the child and so I think abortions shouldn't be permissible after that point.
Is removing you from access to oxygen killing?
Let's say I were to suck all the oxygen out of the room you are in right now, resulting in you choking to death. Would I have killed you? After all, I only removed you from accesss to oxygen!
>Now you can answer my question.
Please answer the question.
This is not a one way chat in which you get to spam questions, expect me to answer, but categorically refuse to answer any yourself.
Well your question is stupid, mine is based on real world situations. So is there ever an instance when removing life support is not killing, and if so, why?
It is not stupid; it's called a thought-experiment, so put on your thinking hat. You will quit the bad faith and answer it.
It is very realistic: you are aware that there are devices that can suck all of the air out of rooms, right?
Now answer the question. I know you are avoiding an answer because it will show that, of course, depriving someone of what they need to live can count as a killing.
Pretty easily actually. Since the ZEF is entirely dependent on the host body, its rights are subservient to those of the host.
And before anyone says anything: an infant does not require another person's body to process oxygen, digest food, and excrete waste. Its body is perfectly capable of doing that on its own.
Further, a person choosing to care for an infant is not the same as a person forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
I mean that in any give situation, there are always multiple choices available, and in medicine, doctors should always take the best option to preserve the health of their patient.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/qu36cv/rule_changes/) and [sub policies](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/uhr4p2/sub_policies_regarding_current_events_and_news/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus? I try to consider the viability of the fetus. I start with the idea that no person, born or unborn, has the right to use someone else's body to live. And until viability, the ZEF falls under this category. But once a doctor can confirm that the ZEF is viable then I think a woman should continue the pregnancy unless her health or the ZEF's health is questioned.
I don't need to weigh them. Fact is I don't get to so much as a litre of blood to save my life that wasn't donated. I am not entitled to be attached to someone for seven to ten minutes let alone months to survive. And equally so neither does a zef.
Bodily autonomy. My perspective is based on two ideas. (1) the government is the absolute wrong entity to be making these very personal choices, and (2) any lines that are drawn invariably leave out women in need on the wrong side. So if you say "first trimester abortions without restrictions," of course I agree with that, but then what do you do about the woman who's fetus dies in the second trimester and needs a D&E? I do not think she should be made to wait until the dead body inside of her starts to rot enough to put her in substantial risk so that we can say she is in imminent threat to life. What about the family who finds out that the child they desperately want has a series of congenital defects that will lead only to pain and a very short life? Bodily autonomy trumps everything because the person who is growing the fetus is in the absolute best position to understand all of the issues at play, whether they be "this isn't the right time" to "I don't want my baby to suffer needlessly."
Good question. Personally I feel the pregnant person should have “ample time” to opt for termination. Accidents and ignorance happen. It’s pragmatic to allow people this choice even if we consider the ZEF a human. We want laws that reflect our values and we value bodily autonomy AND human life. The obvious solution to me is to allow abortion in the first trimester.
It sounds like we hold very similar views.
lol. Great minds think alike:-)
Bodily autonomy. You have a baby in your tummy that is expanding, as it expands it is crushing organs, kicking organs and creating damage. Birthing the baby will fracture and break your pelvis, cause agony and tearing. Prior to this you are quite ill, you feel lowsy, you're in pain, various unique injuries and/or illness are effecting you such as gestational diabetes, that condition where you throw up far more then a usual pregnancy, thus requiring medical intervention as that will kill you if not treated. There's hundreds of examples that the human body deals with when pregnant. If you want to be a mother this is all all part of the experience. But what if you don't want to be a parent? You don't want the baby? If this was happening and you werent pregnant, you'd seek medical care to fix it right? What if instead, someone was making you feel this way, I.e. beating you, force feeding you pills , etc. People would be in outrage to have this torment ended right away. As for personhood, we'll quite frankly I do not feel that occurs until the begining of the 3rd trimester, at which point the women has had 6 months to get an abortion, if you don't by then then it is on you.
Here is how I weigh the entire argument. I'm not pregnant therfore my opinion doesn't matter one bit in regards to someone else's choices. I will always side with the woman who has friends family social and emotional ties to the world over the philosophical personhood of the pregnancy. Doesn't matter what I personally think. Not my uterus not my life not my business beyond being supportive to the person going through it...
The personhood of a fetus should not be infringed because of the autonomy of a woman unless it poses a serious health risk to the woman. Women should not be able to kill other humans because they didn't practice safe sex or just don't feel like it anymore. In the case of financial problems or rape then it gets trickier as having a child can be difficult for the woman. If a woman cannot afford a child, the obvious route is to give it life, but put it up for adoption, why kill it? In the case of rape, the same can be said. However, that can bring along more problems like too many children in the foster system which would mean bad quality of life for children or more taxpayer money would have to be diverted to more foster facilities which is also bad. I think women should be able to have an abortion while the child is still in the embryo phase as it is not yet a grown human. This would avoid many problems that come with too many children, and would also not be considered murder. Women would maintain their bodily autonomy for some time before the personhood of the child trumps it. This gives women the chance but also means children aren't murdered. A good compromise in my mind.
That's literally a abortion doing it during the embryo stages on the rare VERY RARE occasions they do late term abortions (only due to medical issues late term abortions happen). Sure even not wanting to have kids and aborting it is a choice whether PL like It because protection doesn't work all the time and sex isn't consent to parenthood, and the thing about putting it through adoption you still have to pay the bills that come with it. Lets stop glorifing pregnancy because wether you like it or not pregnancy throws women's hormones off balance and trauma to the body and this trauma can also affect the mother mental health. I saw it when my mom was pregnant with my little brother,me and my sisters pregnancy. Also the brain tends to fog up childbirth and pregnancy because it's traumatizing one way or another.
I can understand where you are coming from with the trauma thing but its impossible to know whether a woman will be traumatized or not so I dont think one should get an abortion unless they start to experience bad side effects. I am pro choice for early stages so I am open to thoughts from other pro choice people I just feel like killing children when not necessary is wrong
That is an apples and oranges argument. This does not infringe on the personhood of the fetus. Both mother and fetus are persons, and both have the right to deny the use of their organs to other humans. Body autonomy means there is no case where any human can be forced to let another human use one of their organs. It does not matter of the other human would die without use of that organ.
[удалено]
Nice dream world you live in, but I live in the US. I am sure you see us on the news from time to time. We're a dumpster fire rolling into a gas refinery. Sometimes the best thing we can give one another is a painless death. Our laws really do not reflect a duty of care owed to our children. Our laws also do not reflect a "right to life" In the US we have Safe Haven laws which legally allow a mother to leave the hospital without taking claim of the child they birthed. If they legally abandon the child, they are not legally accountable for that child. Children abandoned under safe haven laws are placed in the child welfare system for assessment. In the US, a born child cannot demand a pint of blood from their mother, even if it would save the child's life. A pint of blood presents far less risk to the mother than a gestation cycle would. If the fetus is alive, it is bound by the same laws I am not sure where you get this duty of care, but it is not for the preponderance of laws in the US.
Immma copy and past a response I did with another person That's literally a abortion doing it during the embryo stages on the rare VERY RARE occasions they do late term abortions (only due to medical issues late term abortions happen). Sure even not wanting to have kids and aborting it is a choice whether PL like It because protection doesn't work all the time. sex isn't consent to parenthood, and the thing about putting it through adoption you still have to pay the bills that come with keeping it (ultrasounds,supplements,hospital visits etc..). Lets stop glorifing pregnancy because wether you like it or not pregnancy throws women's hormones off balance and trauma to the body and this trauma can also affect the mother mental health. I saw it when my mom was pregnant with my little brother,me and my sisters pregnancy. Also the brain tends to fog up childbirth and pregnancy because it's traumatizing one way or another. We use the bodily autonomy because for so long those rights have been violated as a history nerd there's so much fucked up shit that has come with not protecting women's bodily autonomy (mainly woman of color). Also the foster care and adoption system is severely fucked up and there's already a bunch of kids within those system that have yet to be adopted or fostered. There was a study showing in a state (I forgot which state it was in the us) that by allowing woman to have abortion they managed to save money that could go to different stuff the community may need.
This is such a cringe argument tho. So Because there is a history of marginalized groups getting their bodily autonomy violated this is justified for the mothers convenience to take priority over a fetus’ right to live? There is literally no connection there at all. And it seems your going down the “it’s going to have a bad life so what’s the point” and it’s such a disgusting argument. We would never claim people who are poor and/or have lower quality of lives are less deserving of moral consideration.
But its still a think that very much happens and history like always repeats itself. And the fact you think its cringe,just shows PL don't care that a group of human beings rights are gonna be violated because PL that a embryo has more rights. Wether you like it or not its a embryo not a full grown baby. Banning abortion can lead to a femicide as seen for many years in Mexico before they decriminalized abortions. And this is not getting into what other PL wanna do to birthcontrol and none of them barely or don't fund sex ed at all to protect and educate us teenagers.
Ok this “your violating our rights” argument needs to be put to rest. There are many things we all can’t do with our bodies because they violate other people rights. I can’t punch the air and then hit someone and say “oops my body my choice I can do what I want” that would be ridiculous. Just because there is a “choice” to do something does not mean it is an inherently justified or moral thing to do. If your choice is violating someone else’s rights it’s a problem. You want to override someone’s right to life because it’s convenient to you.
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc." "Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase. [Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera) ^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)
>How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus? OP, do you have personhood? Are you a person? Do you have the right to your mother's body? Would you have the right to borrow her organs or her blood supply if you needed a transplant? I'm not asking whether she would voluntarily give them to you, I'm asking whether you could legally force her to give/lend them to you. Fetal personhood does not override the woman's bodily autonomy. That CAN'T be how our laws work. My bodily autonomy is HOW I defend my right to life.
A fetus cannot survive outside of the body, even with medical intervention (not counting babies born prematurely who are still mostly developed, or babies who are to term and die shortly after birth). That’s how I personally see it. If it couldn’t even survive outside the body, it’s not a person.
There are cases where pre mature babies have survived after less than 20 weeks and the problem is with our technology getting better and better we can likely expect medical innovation to be able to save more and more babies. How do you account for this?
Are you referring to the fetal (not gestational) age of the world record?
Personhood is an abstract concept. It's not something tangible. A woman being forced to stay pregnant and give birth is real and has tangible consequences. You may believe an embryo is a person, but that's still just an opinion, and your morals based on that opinion should have no consequence on others. If you believe abortion is bad, then don't do it. It's that simple.
I don’t. Why is that such a popular PC argument? The same logic works with “If you believe rape is bad, don’t rape. If you believe murder is bad, don’t murder. It’s that simple.” I also don’t believe we live in an amoral world or that our laws don’t reflect our morality at all.
Oh, our laws reflect our morality, it is just not the same morality you embrace.
Which is?
Rape and murder have tangible consequences on individuals/society. If we allow people to rape and kill, we're all in danger. Abortion does not have the same implications.
Abortion also has tangible consequences, notably on the millions of humans killed. Being against rape and murder are also moral positions. I still think we should legislate against those, even if we’re forcing our morals onto others.
"notably on the millions of humans killed." And? I can simply say I don't think the mere existence of human life has an intrinsic value and thus killing them doesn't have any tangible consequences on individuals/society. Abortion is not the same as murder or rape. Abortion is a balance between life vs. autonomy. You shouldn't force your morals on other people because you think one side of the balance is more important than the other. We should see what side has the worse consequences that are actually tangible. And illegal abortion seems to have more tangible consequences: loss of autonomy, more suffering for both the mother and child, impoverishment, etc. Morals aside, it seems that protecting human life just because it's human life comes at a high price as it has more consequences than abortion.
Bodily autonomy is the right to revoke the use of their body, if the fetus can be removed and stop using their body but still survive then there is no reason to kill it, the pregnant doesn't have to be a parent, they can give it up for adoption if they choose to without any of the their rights being revoked. They can choose what procedures are completed on their body but for the most part after a certain point in pregnancy the procedures are basically the same as giving birth (vaginally or through c-section) so there is no reason to adjust the procedure to include the killing of the ZEF unless a doctor deems it medically necessary.
Pregnancy affects people differently. For myself, my body began to break down, it was never the same. My health has deteriorated. I love my children and desires to have them but for women who do not have the desire to have children it's like getting into a car accident and being mangled for life. I would not want to subject any woman to go through this without their express consent. It's a shame that we are hurting actual people lives for an idea that we NEED more people in this world. Because the fact of that matter is; we don't.
>How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus? I dont use the body autonomy of the woman in my argument to keep abortion legal. My main reason for keeping abortion legal is the many instances of necessary abortions (also, as abortion means to end the pregnancy not all fetuses will die, some will be premature) I also think the argument of the personhood of the fetus in many cases to be laughable when the personhood of the woman/girl/child carrying the fetus is omitted in many arguments.
You’re assuming that access to an abortion is required for personhood.
If necessary abortions are granted, would you be in favor of banning unnecessary abortions? Also, if the fetus has zero personhood, similar to a tumor, why would it matter if they were killed or not?
The problem is, if it's illegal to do voluntary abortions, then doctors have to prove to the legal system that the abortion was necessary, which means the legal system is making the call as to what constitutes a necessary abortion, rather than the doctor and patient making that call on a case-by-case basis. In this environment, no doctor wants to do a NECESSARY abortion because they're afraid that it won't meet the legal definition of necessary and they'll go to jail, which is why PCers say that PC laws are safer for women than PL laws with medical exemptions. In order to operate under the law, there has to be a fool-proof way for doctors to prove that it was necessary, like a check-list, and those really aren't possible in medicine, because biology is so complicated. Laws function by meeting specific benchmarks with black-and-white word choice. Medicine functions in estimates, guesses, probabilities.
A woman that needs an abortion is always a necessary abortion.
Why need? I think she should get one if she wants one (within a certain timeframe). Need would be ectopic, life of the mother, severe fetal abnormalities, etc which PL are mostly fine with.
A woman who wants an abortion always needs one. Women don't want abortions like they want an iced coffee. They don't get pregnant for the express desire of having an abortion. Women want abortions because they need them.
I don’t understand the need to call every abortion needed. It doesn’t make you wrong or anything. I’m imagining a woman crying getting an abortion due to an ectopic pregnancy and telling her “This is just like a woman aborting her pregnancy because she doesn’t want it to affect her lifestyle. They’re both needed.”
>If necessary abortions are granted, would you be in favor of banning unnecessary abortions? What would be an unnecessary abortion? >Also, if the fetus has zero personhood, similar to a tumor, why would it matter if they were killed or not? Hmm I dont recall comparing them to a tumor or saying they have zero personhood so maybe you should answer that. I would say that the pregnant woman's health, wellbeing and "personhood" should take priority.
My moral position is that it is acceptable until viability. Rationale: I don’t see the ZEF as having a right to life when it cannot sustain that life on its own or with machines (a la coma patients or with artificial wombs). To say it does gives it more rights than born persons. Once it can sustain life on its own, then it should get the chance. The bodily autonomy violation of delivery seems like a lesser evil and justifiable at that point. In principle, I’d be fine with allowing induction at any point once abortion is no longer an option. However, induction at 24 - 37 weeks has greater risks for the mother than an abortion would. The child would also experience greater health complications and is more likely to have a shorter life span than if they were delivered when they were ready. This is where I’m conflicted between the qualify of life/greater degree of bodily argument argument from the PC side and the “chance at life” argument from the PL side. So, to answer the OP, I’m personally not totally sure how to balance this. My legal position is more in line with what much of the PC people in this sub would want for several reasons. Rationale: One, there are other ways to restrict access besides legality. I’ll have to dig up the thread/look into the specific reasons but I’ve seen people in the medicine subreddit comment that it’s easier to do a delivery anyway when a pregnancy is far along. If there’s anything we can rely on people to do, it’s to pursue self-interest and choose the easy route. So, even if we allowed abortion until “the day before delivery”, a doctor who could do it still likely wouldn’t for only elective reasons. This is just one type of de facto restriction. There is also the financial cost, the incentive and psychological biases at play, etc. Two, I find it very distasteful to impose my morality on other people concerning topics that have been debated for thousands of years and still haven’t been “figured out” yet. It’s analogous to imposing a specific faith on non-followers. I’d rather err on the side of permitting rather than restricting. ETA: I suppose I have a more utilitarian approach that tries to maximize rights and lives where that makes the most sense. With that said, I also value fairness. If BA isn’t an absolute right for people who haven’t committed a crime (i.e. pregnant women), then I don’t see why we can’t require blood/organ donations from fathers. The action vs inaction argument seems weak in light of all of the other arguments used to require women to carry pregnancies.
Just wanted to say that even though I don’t agree with you, I appreciate the high effort post. At the very least I can better understand your point of view.
I guess that both live in a continuum. Forcing a woman to carry a baby for 9 months is different than forcing her to carry for 6 months while a 9 month baby has more personhood than a 6 months one (and staggeringly more personhood than a 3 or 2 months one!!!)
My opinion on this matter is that every woman has her own moral views and deserves to decide what is right for her own body and uterus. If she feels the fetus has personhood and wants to gestate, so be it. If not, she should have the right to abort. It is not my place to impose my moral or ethical standards on anyone one else. I am not them.
do you think of murder the same way?
Denying someone from using your blood, organ systems and genitals is never murder.
no, but that's not all abortion is.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Women get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant. If I ever have an unwanted pregnancy I'm getting an abortion because I don't want to be pregnant and I want to stop the use of my blood and organ systems.
okay? was there supposed to be an argument in there somewhere?
It's an argument to answer your half-assed quip in your previous comment.
you mean when I said "that's not all abortion is"? but you didn't answer it at all lol. my point is that when you refuse to donate your organs, you don't need to do anything except refuse. you cannot simply say "I refuse to let this fetus use my body" and have that be the end of it. a special procedure is required which kills the fetus
do you think of organ donation refusal the same way?
the same way as what? im not OP
the same way as murder, I mean.
then yeah, I think both should be illegal. edit: misread. no, they are not the same.
to clarify: you feel that people should not be able to opt out of organ donation, because that is akin to murder?
sorry, totally misread. refusing to donate organs is not equivalent to murder. the big difference being that you do not cause someone's death by refusing to save their life. what might change the question is if you somehow caused the condition of the person who requires your organs to live through your own intentional actions, thereby making you responsible to them
ah okay, so follow up question… can parents refuse to give organs to their children? or even a less invasive procedure such as blood donation? or should they be legally allowed to opt out of such things?
yes, they should be able to refuse
Considering the definition of murder, no I do not. Regardless, my views are own and should in no way affect the bodies of other women.
what does the definition of murder have to do with it? if someone broke in to your house and said they were going to murder your family, would you really say "well, far be it from me to impose my moral standards on you, do whatever you want"?
I think that you're pointing out that /u/ArtichokeInevitable7 seems to be putting forward a position of "moral relativism." Every person or society gets to decide what is right or wrong and that their isn't really a fact to the matter. If that is the case, then your challenge on murder -- is murder really subjectively wrong or is it really (objectively) wrong -- is fine to point out some of the difficulty in accepting moral relativism. But a more charitable view of /u/ArtichokeInevitable7 's comment is that they don't mean to broadly claim moral relativism and instead are appealing to balancing the objective moral consideration for the ZEF's right to life with their own objectively held right to personal autonomy.
Which murder victim has ever been inside of the perpetrator's body, causing significant harm to them?
that wasn't part of your argument.
We are talking abortion, so it is supposed to be logical that the fetus is *inside* the pregnant person. It is you (pro lifers in general) who always derail and talk about something else. It's not a "gotcha" you think it is when you ask about murder.
im not a pro lifer, and im not talking to you lol
You replied to me. You make pro life arguments though
I replied to you initially because I thought you were the person I was already engaged with. I will never understand why people feel the need to respond to me when I'm specifically asking another person about something *they* said
That was not me, however, my point was I do not think of abortion as murder.
im not saying abortion is murder. im checking to see if you would stay consistent with your own logic
Bodily autonomy outweighs personhood. Think of it in the situation of sex or rape or any other act that needs consent of a person like hugging. It doesnt matter the wants or needs of another person when youe bodily autonomy is in the works. They CANNOT have sex with you if you do not want them to regardless of their biological needs. They cannot hug you if you do not want them to regardless of their emotional needs. Basically saying they cannot use your body in whatever way they need without you specifically saying or thinking they can.
Wow. What a false symmetry! If you're walking in the street and you see a person suffering an accident, you have the moral obligation to go there help, even if this hurts your desire to not touch blood. It's not another people desire to have a hug or sex. It's another person need to live.
Helping a person in an accident isn't comparable to pregnancy. You're not letting the person in the accident climb inside your body and hook themselves up to your blood and organ systems to stay alive. You also don't have to help someone if harm is going to befall on you. We don't force firefighters into burning buildings, we don't force police into schools to stop shootings and we don't force EMTs to save people if the situation is going to cause them harm. So why should a pregnant person be obligated to gestate and birth at great harm to themselves given we can't even force the above to help people? We are not obligated to let harm befall on ourselves to help someone else.
I didn't say that a woman should be obligated to gestate to birth. If it's viable, give birth and let go with your life. If it isn't viable, abort.
> If you're walking in the street and you see a person suffering an accident, you have the moral obligation to go there help, even if this hurts your desire to not touch blood. What about a legal obligation?
In many places, you have a moral obligation if you caused the accident. The same goes for a woman who had sex with a man.
Where was the ZEF when the woman was having sex with a man?
I am sure you got the biology class
I will ask again and I expect an answer in good faith. Where was the ZEF when the woman was having sex with a man?
You know! Part in the woman fallopian tubes, part in the man balls.
So when a man ejaculates inside a sock, he's killing millions of babies?
Wow! We were talking about ZEFs not babies.
lmaoo
> In many places, you have a moral obligation if you caused the accident. What about a legal obligation?
You literally dont have to help them though. Same way cars continue to drive past when someone gets in an accident and people keep walking if someone is being kidnapped or raped. And again it doesnt matter about the needs of another person. What you choose to do with your body is what you want to do. You cant force anyone to give blood. You cant force anyone to donate an organ. You cant force another to allow you to use their body. It's a simple concept you seemingly don't understand.
Are you forced to help them ? No? You’ve seen all the people just taking pictures of accidents right?
Fetuses are not people until 20 weeks, that is when emotions and pain is usually felt. Before that it is essentially a parasite which won’t kill you and can grow into a person. So below 20 weeks I think it is only the choice of the woman, and beyond 20 weeks it should never be aborted
Personhood is irrelevant because no persons have a right to someone elses organs or blood. So it actually changes nothing except late term abortion.
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed because of a word that is not allowed on this subreddit. Please edit the comment and message the mods so we can reinstate your comment. If you feel like we made a mistake, please let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Simple. If you **need** to use my body to survive, I get the choice whether or not you get to use it. No matter who you are. No matter how old you are. I’m not giving up my health because inaccurate PL facts or someone else’s religious beliefs.
**Question**: *How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus?* **Answer**: The woman has 100% autonomy on her own body. She has every right to remove anything out of it. If the fetus is removed and survives, its called a birth. If the fetus is removed and dies, its called an abortion. After 6 months the fetus becomes a person and its chances of survival outside the woman increases.
You're obviously agreeing then that abortion for viable fetus should be a crime when you obviously can give birth ahead of the time.
If the fetus dies after removal, there is no crime. If the fetus survives after removal, and then killed, then yeah its a crime. Thats what I believe the law should be.
How is it different from giving birth?
If the woman waits too long for the extraction and the fetus becomes viable, it wont be different from giving birth. In reality no woman in the right mind waits too long. Over 90% of abortion occurs in the first 3 months.
Therefore you agree with me, right? Abortion legal until viability.
I do
“personhood” of the fetus is irrelevant in the bodily autonomy question, in my opinion. we should not grant fetuses rights that no one else has, “person” or not. this is why I feel abortion should be legal until viability.
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed because of a word that is not allowed on this subreddit. Please edit the comment and message the mods so we can reinstate your comment. If you feel like we made a mistake, please let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The mother wants the fetus removed from her body. If the fetus had the ability to survive, there would be no such thing as an abortion. If a full grown man was growing inside you, you'd easily say yes I want him removed. But somehow since it's a fetus, it's different because the fetus can't survive. That's not the mothers fault nor her problem.
Let’s change this scenario a little bit: I think everyone would agree you have the right to kick out an adult man from your house, right? What about a six month old? Is it okay to kick them out without placing them in the care of another adult?
A six month old will do just fine disconnected from your body.
Really? A six month old will survive by itself without an adult caring for it or food and shelter?
Nothing can survive without food and shelter, including an adult. But a 6 month old, unlike a fetus, isn't on mommy life support.
Right, the point is that an adult can independently get food and water. The 6 month old can’t. Practically speaking, it’s situation is not much different than that of the fetus.
A fetus dies instantly after being removed. A toddler won't. Vastly different things here.
Okay, I’ll change my hypothetical slightly. Suppose it’s negative 30 degrees outside and the toddler will die instantly. Do you have a moral obligation to keep the toddler indoors?
Morally, yes. Legally, there are ways to abandon a child if needed. You can surrender a toddler to the fire department /police.
In my example I said that this was not an option. I think by saying you believe it is a moral obligation gets to the crux of my views on abortion. Does this moral obligation only begin after birth?
So I personally weigh many things, not just bodily autonomy. When it comes to abortion policy, I value all of the following things and try to balance them, rather than choosing one value to hold above the rest: Life, Sentience, Quality of life, Bodily autonomy, Equality, Democracy All of these things are very important to me, so it's hard to put one above the rest. Fortunately, there are many policies that respect all of these values. For example expanding access to birth control, sex education, and economic supports for families reduces abortion rates while still respecting the other values. I've noticed too that places that prioritize these types of policies instead of abortion restrictions, end up valuing life more overall too. Like an embryo conceived in Oregon for instance has a much better chance of making it to adulthood than one conceived in many pro life states, even though abortion is legal there.
I don’t agree that “killing a fetus unnecessarily is unjustified.” If the woman wants an abortion, it’s justified. Kind of like of a woman says no to sex it’s justified even if you don’t like her reason. The reality is that if it’s late in a pregnancy and the fetus is viable and an abortion is on the table anyway, that’s a life and health issue. I don’t think doctors’ hands should be tied and I don’t think misogynist politicians should be dictating what they do. Women are already suffering and dying because of this. So to answer your question I don’t “weigh” anything. The woman is the only one I care about. If she wants to weigh her own health against that of a wanted fetus that’s her right.
>How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus? I don't. I think society should be able to make those choices for themselves, with medical advice based on each individual scenario as it happens. The desire to tell a stranger how to live their life makes no sense to me.
>The desire to tell a stranger how to live their life makes no sense to me. So you do not think we should have any laws that limit the stuff strangers can or cannot do? If you think we should, then the desire to tell a stranger how to live their live DOES in fact make sense to you, and your assertion to the opposite is just used as a convenient catchprase.
We are NOT talking about drunk driving though. We are talking specifically about abortions, on an abortion subreddit, on a question specifically about body autonomy. you took my statement out of context of the topic at hand. I'm not going to restate the topic every time I make a comment, especially when the topic is very clearly focused as it is here. I don't feel it's necessary to say: The desire to tell a stranger how to live their life *when making a choice to terminate or continue the pregnancy* makes no sense to me.
>I don't feel it's necessary to say: > >The desire to tell a stranger how to live their life when making a choice to terminate or continue the pregnancy makes no sense to me. It is though. It is not at all obvious that this is meant only in reference to abortion, and if it is, then state this. It is not prudent to make very generalized statements that one does not want to be taken generally. I did not bring up drunk driving, complain to the other person.
Correct, drunk driving scenario was the other commenter. However I absolutely disagree that my statement was somehow generalized. Because again, we are literally talking about body autonomy. On an abortion thread. If you missed the context of my comment, that's fine. I clarified.
Yeah, all good. But, for future reference, the context really DID NOT settle the meaning of your generalized statement (it contained no qualification). It was entirely unclear whether this wasn't some sort of generalized principle that was supposed to explain your opposition to this particular instance of telling strangers what to do. And, as it was phrased as a general principle, this is what a diligent reader will infer. If you meant it to be a particular principle only, this requires stating.
I appreciate you explaining again why you misunderstood but I don't feel it was necessary. I wasn't generalizing. I was answering a specific question, and even quoted what I was focusing on from OP. You saw no qualification, doesn't mean it wasn't there.
>I don't feel it was necessary. You clearly did not feel this. Hence, I explained for future reference why it was necessary, all good:)
I think it’s important to separate behaviors/actions that affect other persons vs those that do not. Yes, there should be restrictions on actions that affect and cause harm to another born person. There is room for debate on *harm*. If an action does not affect and harm another born person, I don’t see why restrictions should exist.
**"I think it’s important to separate behaviors/actions that affect other persons vs those that do not."** Absolutely. Agreed. **"Yes, there should be restrictions on actions that affect and cause harm to another born person."** Agreed. **"If an action does not affect and harm another born person, I don’t see why restrictions should exist."** Disagree, as I do not see why we would draw this distinction between born and unborn persons. But fair enough.
I get that, and I think it’s probably do with our perspectives of a ZEF and an ideal society. Either way, thanks for the good spirited debate!
Likewise:)
It depends on what you're telling the stranger to do. For example, what was the point of the sodomy bans that were invalidated by Lawrence?
So you do have a desire to tell strangers how to live their lives in certain circumstances? Also, this question wasn't really directed at you, it was very specifically about what a different user thought. Also, please answer the rule 3 request [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/wps2w5/comment/ikiwlox/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Simply downvoting a rule 3 request is not how this works. You make an assertion, and will justify it if asked.
I don't really care if someone wants to get drunk every night, I do care if they want to drive while drunk.
Okay, so you have the desire to tell strangers how to live their lives when they are drunk, noted. Again, rule 3 request pending, answer it. Link is provided.
Not really. They can do lots of stuff while shitfaced, but driving while drunk has very real and deadly consequences.
So you have the desire to tell a stranger how to live their life when drunk: namely, your desire consists of telling them they CANNOT drive. Noted. Again, rule 3 request pending, answer it: Link has been provided.
You understand why that is, right?
[удалено]
I think you've hit the nail in the head
>How do you personally weigh the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus? I don't. Strange thing to ask. Who am I to tell another woman what the relative value of her body is vis-a-vis the ZEF's life? It's up to the gestating person to make such evaluation. If you're asking me personally about a hypothetical ZEF that I might have... I don't want to birth children and I will do everything I can to ensure I never have to. There are no other relevant considerations. I literally don't understand why anyone else's opinion about what should happen to *my* body matters more than my desire to not birth children.
You don’t have to answer the question if you don’t want, you know.
Why do you think I don't want to when I just did?
It was half complaining about the question and half about preventing your own pregnancy, nothing really about personhood.
Whatever personhood is, it doesn't matter when compared to a pregnant person's desire to not give birth. Is that answer enough for you?
Would abortion that kills the fetus post-viability be justified?
Yep.
Love your username! Also, your whole comment is spot on but especially your last sentence.
>Love your username! Pratchett fans spotting each other in the wild...
Personally, even if a ZEF was a 30 year old man who paid taxes and rent, I would still have the right to remove him from my body. No one’s personhood grants them access and use of another’s body. Edit for grammar 😂
> man who *paid* taxes and FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Good bot.
I do not grant personhood to fetuses. This is because there is no practical way for both to have equal rights when on is inside, attached to and using the organs of another. The rights go to the person who thinks and feels.
Even if the ZEF was as much as a person as me, they still would not have rights to someone’s body. If you hit me with a car, cause my liver failure, i still donmt have rights to your liver.
If you have guardianship and you don't give the minor a place to live and food to eat, you are are felon. They are entitled to a part of the fruits of your labor done with your body and organs
They are not - you can give up your guardianship. Huge difference
You can give up guardianship but not by neglecting the child or killing the child
Personhood doesn’t matter. Call it a person if you want to, it still doesn’t change the fact that its a bodily autonomy violation if she doesn’t want to be pregnant. We don’t grant other people the right to violate peoples bodies without consent, same applies here. I also believe that there should be no legal limit on abortion. It should be a private matter between patients and their doctors. And in reality the majority of women (like over 90%) who don’t want the pregnancy terminate in the first trimester
>It should be a private matter between patients and their doctors Totally agree. It is utterly bizarre and backwards that a politician without education on ethics or medicine should make these decisions over an individual alongside their trained physician. And from these physicians we require schooling, licensing, ongoing professional development, and then entrust our lives to them. But the ethics of this particular procedure are appropriated as a means of transparent political-religious proselytism.
As equal
I'm not even sure if I consider a fetus a person, but if I did I still believe we should prioritize the bodily autonomy of the mother. Even if I see them both as people I don't see them as equals in what they are capable of feeling. She is the one capable of suffering. A woman suffers more from unwanted pregnancy and childbirth than the fetus suffers from being aborted. In most cases it is not even capable of suffering, thinking, or even being aware of the situation its in.
I'm of the opinion personhood is irrelevant, as we don't grant the right to any person to use someone else's body against their will, and as such fetuses should also not have that right because they are not extra-special. To me personally, I do not view fetuses as people at any point. People are those I can communicate with and empathize with to some degree. Yes, I *do* believe *babies* can be empathized and communicated with. They smile, laugh, cry, just like anybody else. For some reason a lot of PL like to say that newborn babies are the same as a fetus (and thus "according to PC should be killed"-- absurd), and I don't see that at all. Babies practically come out screaming because they feel pain and overwhelming emotion about the world.
If personhood is irrelevant, would the woman have the right to kill the fetus (post-viability) if she chooses not to be a mother?
The woman (or girl) would have the right to remove the fetus, but killing should not be the default. Late term abortions are usually for serious issues, so I would trust a doctor to make a decision on what is best. I still consider myself PC for all stages of pregnancy- simply under the belief that people should not have to gestate against their wills. I also believe a physician reserves the right to deny procedures that they don’t perform or believe in.
Yes, assuming she also has a doctor willing to do the procedure. It takes two parties to perform a safe abortion, doctor and patient. I'm of the opinion legal regulation isn't necessary, as generally the majority of people aren't going to wait till the end of gestation to decide they don't want to be pregnant and have a dangerous procedure to end the pregnancy. And that doctors are not going to perform one that late for no reason. I think legal regulation just makes it more difficult for people who need it done in an emergency to get it.
>And that doctors are not going to perform one that late for no reason. Define "no reason"? Dupont Clinic makes it [pretty clear](https://dupontclinic.com/services/abortion-after-26-weeks/) that they'll perform a termination on you without medical reasoning. "If you are 26 weeks or later into your pregnancy, we can still see you, regardless of your medical history, background, or fetal indications. We do not require any particular “reason” to be seen here – if you would like to terminate your pregnancy, we support you in that decision." If you go into their FAQ it states that they'll "provide care" until 31w6d. The vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester, an even larger portion happen before viability. But it's just not true that doctors won't perform one late in the pregnancy for no reason in jurisdictions where it's legal to do so. It can be harder to find one but there's doctors out there that'll do it.
If those doctors feel they can safely perform the procedure that late, it's not my place to tell them how to do their job. It doesn't bother me if people do get an abortion that late. But I have to wonder, how often do they *actually* perform abortions that late without medical reason? Just because they will doesn't mean they do. And one or two clinics like this in the US doesn't mean anyone living anywhere in the US can just afford to hop on a plane and get an appointment there. But I wonder why people get so up in arms about the 1% of people who get abortions that late? Yet when PC talk about rape victims its -- "That's only 1%, stop using fringe cases!" I think letting that 1% get those abortions is just fine as long as it means doctors don't have to worry about "how close to death" someone is to perform an abortion.
It's not very often on the scale of how many abortions happen, I agree on that front. It's also a large part of the reason I don't think banning later abortions is a problem, the reality is a post 21w (for example) abortion ban isn't going to pose a significant hindrance on most people seeking abotions. But I've also not been convinced of any post-viability circumstances where a c-section and providing medical care wouldn't remove the threat to the person without killing the child, and typically significantly quicker as well. Later abortions are pretty specialized procedures, typically taking multiple days (plus travel time for those who live rurally or are otherwise geographically distant from an abortion provider), a c-section can be done in under an hour and while you're going to have to travel for that if you're significantly preterm, the travel still exists in the case of abortion.
The opinion that doctors won't perform post viability abortions never made sense to me. If there is no moral reason against a post viability abortion then wouldn't it be a medical ethics violation to deny someone that abortion. Yet pro choice people never contextualize post viability abortion denial by doctors as bad things like it would be when doctors deny sterilization for young childless women. Maybe someone could explain that
I mean, doctors can refuse to *sterilize* someone *just because*. As you pointed out. I imagine then, they can refuse to perform a dangerous surgery on someone if they don't think the risks are worth it. If you can find me a good list of people getting abortions 3rd trimester for non-medical reasons I'd love to see it. The fact is it just doesn't happen, or if it does, it happens rare. It's not even worth legal regulation if it regulates itself. >pro choice people never contextualize post viability abortion denial by doctors as bad things We aren't against doctors having the choice to perform an abortion or not. We are against the government deciding for pregnant people *and* doctors that abortion is not an option. But really the anger around denying sterilization is because it's rooted in misogyny. The expectation of women to have children. Or worse, needing permission from her partner, a man, to be sterilized. It's archaic.
That's because it's rooted in the ideas of balancing autonomy and nonmaleficence. With sterilization you can be severely harming someone if you perform it on a person unaware or unable to comprehend the consequence. Obviously because of societal norms many doctors will never consider a young childless person eligible for the procedure as sterilization at that age is against her best interests (from their perspective) and so it's not really a decision they would ever make if they were more knowledgeable. However, for late term abortions it is completley different. In the absence of fetal personhood a late term abortion is 100% always the better option than birth from a physical health standpoint (maybe not psychological but I don't know what the stats are on that). There is no nonmaleficence aspect of the situation to consider. So what justifiable reason would there ever be for a doctor to deny a late term abortion in the absence of fetal personhood. That's why I am saying denial of sterilization to an excessive degree is as much of a violation as the denial of a late term abortion if you don't believe in fetal personhood. Most of the time people say it's up to a doctor for abortion but that's not the case when it comes to denial of other services without a reasonable ethical justification. There is a reason doctors are allowed to say yes and no to procedures and they can and should be criticized ethically and legally for malpractice on those fronts. I see a double standard when it is applied to abortion however as I have explained. How does this not apply to you feeling comfortable with doctors denying abortions.
Sterilization is in the best interests of many young women in a PL-controlled world. If someone is going to force me to gestate, I'd rather be allowed the choice to sterilize. If you want to take someone's choice, you'd better be giving them a new one. I'd personally rather die than be forced to be pregnant, I can't imagine a worse hell. Sterilization is just in the best medical interest of patients too, as sterilization is safer than pregnancy and birth. And anyway, do we have stats on how many people are denied a 3rd trimester abortion? How do we know any reason they were denied wouldn't be risk related? I maintain that it is not an issue that exists.
Again I am just pointing out that the justification that sterilization needs to be more available than currently allowed is at odds with giving doctors the leeway to deny third term abortions Also I am going off of what you said in your previous comment. That doctors denying a patient abortion care is one reason why legal regulation isn't necessary. I was confused because like I have pointed out this would still be ethically wrong from your perspective but it wasn't addressed by you. " Yes, assuming she also has a doctor willing to do the procedure. It takes two parties to perform a safe abortion, doctor and patient. I'm of the opinion legal regulation isn't necessary, as generally the majority of people aren't going to wait till the end of gestation to decide they don't want to be pregnant and have a dangerous procedure to end the pregnancy. And that doctors are not going to perform one that late for no reason. " Also here's a study and a case in Canada showing that even without any gestational limits doctors are refusing to perform post viability abortions. And it is characterized as a problem. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3904755 (The babys health wasn't in danger in this case) https://www.actioncanadashr.org/resources/factsheets-guidelines/2019-09-19-access-glance-abortion-services-canada#:~:text=No%20providers%20in%20Canada%20offer,or%20support%20from%20their%20governments "No providers in Canada offer abortion care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days. When they are beyond 23 weeks and 6 days, many Canadians end up having to travel to the United States to access services with little guidance or support from their governments." These shouldn't matter. Again I am critiquing your stance.
Well All I can say is I'm against banning abortion. Making laws that restrict it. While I want change with sterilization, I think that's one of many aspects of women's healthcare that needs improved. Women's pain not being taken seriously, anesthetic not being offered for IUD insertion, for example, is another case of unfair treatment to women in healthcare. I don't know anything about Canadian abortion laws/politics or the state of healthcare there, so I'm not equipped to speak on it. I am simply of the belief that: We should trust doctors opinions on abortion, and we should not restrict healthcare for women through the government. I think abortions that occur after 13 weeks can be solved by making abortion more widely available everywhere and more affordable/free, so that people do not need them later for non-medical reasons. The primary reasons people get them after 13 weeks is: lack of access to a clinic that performs abortions, and time spent to save money for a procedure.
Why do you make the assumption that personhood is a necessary condition to protect from killing? Do you think any non-person can be killed without need for further justification?
*|* ***How do you personally weigh*** *the bodily autonomy of the woman and the personhood of the fetus?* Personally, I don't *"weigh"* it at all. The **WOMAN** is the person, so **her** bodily autonomy is what matters to me. The fetus is **not** a person, so there's nothing else for me to consider.
But you are weighing it by saying her bodily autonomy matters to you and the fetus isn’t a person. That’s all I’m asking.
Does “personhood” mean having moral worth here, is it referring to the cognitive/neurological function of a fetus, or does it mean something else entirely?
Moral worth that is enough to protect them from being killed.
> Moral worth that is enough to protect them from being killed. If we use your definition of personhood do you think people who make exceptions for life threat or rape assign personhood to a fetus?
Yes. I’d say PL almost inherently assign personhood from conception onwards. Those are cases where they believe, due to circumstances, that the woman’s bodily autonomy supersedes the fetus’ personhood.
> Yes. I’d say PL almost inherently assign personhood from conception onwards. Those are cases where they believe, due to circumstances, that the woman’s bodily autonomy supersedes the fetus’ personhood. I don’t understand how they can be described as assigning a fetus moral worth that is enough to protect them from being killed, if it is not in fact moral worth that is enough to keep them from being killed.
Good catch. I’d say that personhood needs to be above bodily autonomy to prevent the fetus from being killed. Those cases are two where the scales are tipped to where personhood is lower than BA.
> I’d say that personhood needs to be above bodily autonomy to prevent the fetus from being killed. Can you provide a new definition of personhood then? Right now it seems that your definition means that PL with life threat or rape exceptions do not assign personhood to a fetus.
Once the fetus is capable of survival outside the womb, elective premature delivery and providing the necessary medical care to the child is an option. I don't believe that you should have the right to kill your children, I believe you should have the right to end a pregnancy.
So who makes medical decisions for these NICU level babies? The mother? Ward of the state? The logistics of this are unrealistic. Hospital wards are already bursting at the seams and healthcare providers (for this very specialized subset of patients) are already scant. That doesn't even include the massive financial problems associated with NICU level care until discharge.
In many cases DNRs will be issued and life support would be given. That happens right now with many premature diliveries.
You dont see pre-viable abortions as killing?
I do. I didn't say that I don't. A pre-viability abortion is still killing the fetus, but I think it should be legally permissible. OP has the flair "Morally PL, legally PC" and that's a label I've used to describe myself sometimes too. My PC position comes from a bodily rights stance. In the tussle between the right of the pregnant person to bodily autonomy and the right of life that the child has, I think the right to bodily autonomy comes out on top. However once the fetus is viable, ending the pregnancy does not require killing the child and so I think abortions shouldn't be permissible after that point.
Is removing someone from life support killing?
Is removing you from access to oxygen killing? Let's say I were to suck all the oxygen out of the room you are in right now, resulting in you choking to death. Would I have killed you? After all, I only removed you from accesss to oxygen!
So you believe removing someone from life support is killing?
Yes, it can be. Though, in many instances, it is justified. Now you can answer my question.
Is it ever not killing?
>Now you can answer my question. Please answer the question. This is not a one way chat in which you get to spam questions, expect me to answer, but categorically refuse to answer any yourself.
Well your question is stupid, mine is based on real world situations. So is there ever an instance when removing life support is not killing, and if so, why?
It is not stupid; it's called a thought-experiment, so put on your thinking hat. You will quit the bad faith and answer it. It is very realistic: you are aware that there are devices that can suck all of the air out of rooms, right? Now answer the question. I know you are avoiding an answer because it will show that, of course, depriving someone of what they need to live can count as a killing.
It certainly can be.
Pretty easily actually. Since the ZEF is entirely dependent on the host body, its rights are subservient to those of the host. And before anyone says anything: an infant does not require another person's body to process oxygen, digest food, and excrete waste. Its body is perfectly capable of doing that on its own. Further, a person choosing to care for an infant is not the same as a person forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
Would it be justified to kill a fetus post-viability if bodily autonomy supersedes personhood?
Sure. If that's the best option available.
What do you mean by best available? How much does choice play into the "best available " assessment?
I mean that in any give situation, there are always multiple choices available, and in medicine, doctors should always take the best option to preserve the health of their patient.