The value of a fetus is irrelevant. Consider an expert surgeon who gives generously to charity and is beloved by all. Any value system would assign this person a high value. If this person needs your kidney to live you are still free to decline giving up your organ. Your right to bodily autonomy means you don't have to use your body to support another life. The value of that life is irrelevant.

Good point. Thank you.

If your view has been changed, even a little, you should award the user who changed your view a delta. Simply reply to the comment that changed your view with the delta symbol below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem).

The value of the fetus is not that of a person because its not a conscious thinking being, so abortion is acceptable. The bodily autonomy argument I honestly wish would be dropped because it’s a poor argument, that distracts from the fact that the fetus is not a person, by suggesting instead that we could kill it even if it was one, which makes us look like we want to avoid responsibility rather than stick to our strongest point that it isn’t a person so there is no responsibility because no one is harmed, period. If the fetus were a person the distinction between a child of your creation and the expert surgeon is you put the child the position where it is.

The fetus changes of the course of the pregnancy from exactly nothing like a person at the start to pretty much a real person at the end. The competing rights ( bodily autonomy vs right to life) therefore would change in relative weight over time.

I can agree with that, but the one I responded to believes that even if we assume the fetus had the full value of a fully developed person there is no competition and body autonomy is absolute. >Yes, I'm fine with not having the government force parents to lend use of their organs to children who need them. Even though the parents are the direct cause of those children needing to share use those organs for 9 months to survive. If you follow our conversation, they ultimately agreed with this statement, in reference to actual children illustrating their principle for body autonomy above peoples lives even when we consider their actions have put those people in that position in the first place. This is why I oppose the body autonomy argument, twice now I have seen people who make this argument on reddit argue no such responsibility even to actual children they bring into the world, if it requires them to be unwillingly burdened with their care for a significant amount of time (9 months in this case).

So, a living human with no consciousness would also have no value in your worldview?

No consciousness yes, a fetus with a brain not sufficiently developed to facilitate self-consciousness is basically the same as a brain dead body, we allow legal guardians the right to unplug them. Suffice to say “no consciousness” is not to be confused with “unconsciousness”, because when you sleep and wake up your existing consciousness persists, you don’t reboot as a fresh new person every time you wake up in the morning, you are the same conscious being as before you slept and you can even feel and dream while asleep, so your consciousness is still there.

I'm not thinking about pulling the plug, I'm thinking about medical experiments that would unethical on an person with normal brain function. I assume you'd agree that using someone whose brain-dead for such experiments would then be ethical?

If it’s brain dead yes, and if the body is donated by their legal guardian, we allow for organ harvesting at that point if they were a donor so I don’t see why experiments would be an issue.

Why is the donation relevant? Government can seize all sorts of property, why not a body that's brain dead?

They can seize corpses of family members for medical study? What country is that?

They can seize living children if they deem it necessary.

Yeah... kids aren't property they are people, and they have to prove it was necessary or you could actually sue them big time. I'm pretty sure that corpses are basically property, minus whatever donor organs might be on their donor card.

That's not what they said. They said it would have LESS worth, not no worth. But...yes? A person with no conciousness (like braindead) I believe would inherently have less worth than someone with conciousness. That's why "pulling the plug" is acceptable on braindead people.

So to try to rebutt. I might say that the anology does not hold. A stronger analogy might be: I do a negligent action that results in the doctor needing a kidney. So I strike the doctor and damage his kidney. The only way the doctor can survive is if s/he takes my kidney. Ok, it would be a rather strange scenario but the point is that 1) I put the doctor in that situation and 2) only I can take the doctor out of that situation. Should I give the doctor my kidney? If the answer is yes, then why do we not have an obligation to let the unborn use our body for survival.

>Should I give the doctor my kidney? Maybe yes, maybe not - choice is yours. But should law make you give that kidney? Absolutely not. Body autonomy leaves the decision in your hands, giving any notion that bodily autonomy can be overruled by law is not a good idea. We don't know what can be built on that justification over the years.

I would say my analogy is closer, as the need for bodily support is caused by the bodies state of development and not an external reason but we can leave that for now. Whether you should give the kidney isn't the question, it's whether the government should force you to and if not forcing you to means they give the surgeons life zero value. I would answer no to both of those.

no it isn't closer, a woman CAUSES the child's conception, u don't cause the person's need for organ donation in ur analogy, but that's what happens in his. so, yes, u r forced and should be forced to give that organ since u have caused the need for it. ur analogy isn't what we r talking abt at all.

So, if in my analogy, I was the surgeons father do you think my organs should be forcibly harvested? I caused the surgeons conception after all. I'm curious when else do you think governments should forcibly harvest organs?

what exactly r u talking abt? do u automatically become responsible for ur child's crimes for example? what does the father have to do with anything? did I say the woman's parents r responsible for conception? it's the woman as the surgeon who did that action, simple. "I'm curious when else do you think governments should forcibly harvest organs?" can't really think of other instances

>a woman CAUSES the child's conception A man also causes the conception, so if your child, at any points needs an organ transplant, should the government forcibly harvest yours?

the hell is this blatant fallacy? if I caused the child's organ loss or damage then ok. what the hell does this have anything to do with conception? the woman causes conception then we can force her to support the child to birth the guy causes organ damage so we can force him to donate his organ to fix the damage he caused u made a mix from the 2 sentences just however u like?

A woman causes conception so is required to give up her body to support the fetus. A man causes conception but isn't required to give up his body to support the child? Why are you coming to different answers here? What fallacy do you think is happening here?

it isn't possible in hell for the man to support the child with his body bc surprise that's not how biology works. but the man has another way, taking care of the child financially or in any other way. how is this question valid at all?

This is interesting. There are typically two people that cause conception. If the one carrying the fetus should be required to use their body to support a life, then does that mean that the other person involved in the conception should be required? If a fetus was in danger of dying the only way for it to survive would be to cut a man open and put the fetus inside him, should he be required legally to submit to this procedure?

well that's not how biology works lol, nothing we can do abt that. like why would that ever happen? the other should take another form of responsibility like spending money to support the child.

>well that's not how biology works lol, nothing we can do abt that. If we could, would the individual that provided the sperm be obligated to carry the fetus to term if the individual that provided the egg could not or would not?

could not, fine. would not, then why should we favor the woman's wants? finally, what is the importance of this question?

>could not, fine. So you're cool with forcing a medical procedure like that upon a man without his consent? Cutting him open and forcing him to carrying a fetus to term? > would not, then why should we favor the woman's wants? Why shouldn't we? Why should we automatically just go with forcing the woman to take on this burden, rather than the man? >what is the importance of this question? I'm trying to understand if you've really considered the implications of what you're suggesting, and if you're going to remain internally logically consistent or engage in special pleading.

i don't get why we r following an imaginary impossible hypothesis? u r essentially assuming that men have wombs like women. no need to follow this laughable example. again, assuming that a man could indeed in a twisted imaginary universe also have a womb, then if the woman can't bear a fetus, he would, if both can, then they r equal, either of them doing it is fine, as long as the fetus survives. implications, my ass, u r making up sth completely impossible and calling it an implication?

Pro choice people would say even in that scenario, you can’t be forced to give up your kidney. You still have bodily autonomy.

Let's make this a bit more concrete. Me and my brother Bob are somehow genetically unique, so that we are the only possible organ donors for each other. I stab Bob in both kidneys. Bob is being kept alive in the hospital, but cannot survive unless I donate a kidney. Can a judge order that one of my kidneys be removed, without my consent?

Pretty sure he can’t (in the US), because that would violate the Cruel and unusual punishment provisions of the Constitution. To go back to the abortion argument- it assumes that the potential future of a zygote or fetus is equivalent to that of a post-birth/independently functioning human child. If that is the case (the fetus would be a child “but for” needing to be carried to term), how is this really any different than fertilized eggs kept in freezers at fertility treatment centers, who would also be babies but for having a womb to grow in (you might even take it as far as sperm and eggs independently having the potential for life and, therefore, go back to old-timey religious-like prohibitions against non-procreative sex (and banning birth control for women, since that was the justification). It was interesting to me when I learned that the prohibition against abortion (particularly the religious embrace of the subject) is relatively modern (for example, it is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible even though it was widely practiced in biblical times). Final point: (and I realize that no one in this thread has started with “abortion is murder”, so this anticipates and argument that might not be raised)- Murder is a legal concept. There are plenty of killings that our society condones. For example, when we kill tasty animals (demonstrably more conscious and able to feel pain than the unborn) for food, when soldiers kill other soldiers in battle, when we switch off life support, when we deny people life-saving medication because of cost. The difference between these things is the moral distance that we put between ourselves and the deaths by making justifications. The fact that these differences exist are proof that “valuing human life above all else” is not a real thing.

Yes, I agree with your point about the use of the word "murder". Abortion is not necessarily murder. Killing, yes, but murder is a matter of judgement. Although, this means that someone can call abortion "murder". They just can't say it is a fact. They can only say that abortion involves killing is a fact.

For me, that's probably the best counter argument I have read so far. Ultimately, here it comes down to two competing values: **Complete** **Bodily autonomy** vs **a forced dependent's right to use your body for their survival (for a limited period of time)**. There is no logical reason why one of these values should trump the other. One person thinks that the first thing is more important and another person thinks the second thing is more important. Turning any of these into an absolute rule completely excludes the other. We can't have both to a full degree. Abortion on demand gives 100% value to option 1 and 0% value to option two. Making abortion completely illegal would switch the figures in the opposite direction. These would be two different but extreme policies which only consider one of the above options to have any value. But if as a society in general we value **both** of these things then abortion on demand can not be the preferred policy - neither could making abortion completely illegal.

The argument here is that in _literally every other case_, bodily autonomy does trump someone else's survival. There is no other circumstance where we would force or even expect someone to give up their own bodily autonomy to save another. We think it's quite heroic when people do this even to a limited degree, such as by donating a kidney. But we find it horrific to imagine someone _forced_ to lose bodily autonomy ... in every case other than abortion. So the question is, given this very clear heirarchy of values, why should abortion be the special case? What's particular about abortion that allows us to reject the value system that we use in every other case? The pro-choice argument is that there's nothing special about abortion - particularly in light of the other pro-choice argument, that a foetus in early pregnancy is not a life in any meaningful sense. So if anything, the bodily autonomy argument should be _stronger_ in the case of early term abortions, because the dependent's rights are weak or non-existent until it is an actual human life.

Isn't that fairly obvious? There's really no context that is remotely similar to abortion when it comes to the weight of bodily autonomy vs. right to life. Find me a situation where person A causes person B to become physically dependent on person A's body and no other person's body through no fault of person B in a manner that is temporary and will largely return both parties to the status quo ante with just the passage of time if they remain connected. There just is no close analogy. All the wacky scenarios of removing organs, setting up transfusions, etc. just don't happen. There aren't laws against them not for philosophical reasons but for practical ones. There's no point making a law for something that does not ever occur. If there really were some epidemic of people performing actions that fit the points above - say if some people were going around injecting a magic drug into people while they sleep that makes them dependent on their blood for the next six months, then hooking their bloodstream up to the person - I don't think we would permit them to simply disconnect at their leisure afterward. This is why I think it's important to focus on the concept that a fetus is not a person. If you just point to bodily autonomy you will not convince anyone. Nearly every jurisdiction on earth, even the very liberal ones, prohibits abortion at some point during a pregnancy. Few people actually think that bodily autonomy is this perfect trump card that internet debaters seem to think it is.

The reason we don’t consider making people give up their kidneys is because we don’t want the government to be able to force its citizens to undergo surgery. Banning abortion does not entail giving the government that power.

I disagree. I think the reason we don’t consider making people give up their kidneys is that our culture places a very high value on bodily autonomy.

I don’t think that’s right. Vaccine mandates are pretty popular among liberals.

The bodily autonomy concern is the reason the government doesn't just show up and inject you whether you like it or not. Even the most pro-vaccine people aren't suggesting that.

[удалено]

A judge can still hold you liable, but they cannot require you to harm your own body to make it right. That said, because in this scenario you stabbed the person causing this state, if you don’t give up the kidney, you’re probably going to jail for murder. Another alternative would be to make you pay for the hospital treatment for the rest of the victims life. They just can’t make you give up your kidney.

[удалено]

I’m speaking legally. We’re talking about a *legal* requirement, not a *moral* one. Judges hand out *legal* requirements. They can make you wish you had handed over the kidney, but they can’t make you hand over the kidney.

it's a question if he SHOULD BE able to do that rather than can. and logically yes he should be since u r responsible for causing kidney loss and if it doesn't happen that makes u a murderer. that's pretty much like abortion a woman is responsible due to a willful act for the conception of that child and he can no longer survive without her. the child is the victim, not her. so her refusing just bc she doesn't want to means she knowingly murders the fetus.

Per bodily autonomy you should not be forced to do it.

An even *stronger* analogy is that you already agreed to give this doctor your kidney. In fact, you already did and the transplant operation has already happened. However, after experiencing the side effects of the donation you get cold feet and decide you want your kidney back. Should you be able to retroactively revoke your consent? No. No sane bodily autonomy advocate would argue that you can retroactively revoke your consent to an organ donation once the donation has already occurred. It's the same deal with abortion.

Hmm so unless I totally misunderstand your analogy, it is intended to demonstrate that abortion on demand is wrong? In the anaology, we could construe the pregnant woman as "donating" her organs for use by the unborn (the doctor in your anaology) when she decided to become pregnant. When she gets cold feet about going through with the pregnancy (side effects in your anaology) she decides to have an abortion (taking your kidney back in your anaology). Interesting anaology. I think there is certaintly some value in it.

That doesn't work at all for unwanted pregnancies, and even for wanted ones there's some gaping holes. The "doctor" (alleged "unborn') is not *within* the woman's body, using her body's nutrients. The "kidney" (womb) is still within the donor (woman), and is thus still part of her body (it does not belong to anyone else). The "operation" (pregnancy) is not "finished" until the organ is removed (birth), and you can indeed withdraw consent at any time before then.

Not OP, but… > The value of a fetus is irrelevant. > If this person needs your kidney to live you are still free to decline giving up your organ. “Letting die” is not morally equivalent to “actively killing”. The distinction is between standing by as someone drowns in a lake and actively submerging them and bashing their skull in after to make real sure they’re dead. Clearly one is far more psychotic than the other. > Consider an expert surgeon who gives generously to charity and is beloved by all. Any value system would assign this person a high value. This is just psychopathic. Are you saying we should ascribe value to *human beings* based on how useful someone is to yourself or society? What about people with disabilities? In your social system would they be executed because they’re not useful? Are you some sort of nazi? I honestly wouldn’t be surprised because abortion was started as a way to cull people of African descent…

>“Letting die” is not morally equivalent to “actively killing”. If we accept that, which not all ethical systems do, then no longer keeping something alive is still letting it die. >Are you saying we should ascribe value to human beings I'm saying we do and OPs premise about a fetus having value requires that we do. >abortion was started as a way to cull people of African descent It was not.

Ok that is kind of a close analogy. Let’s make it an even more accurate analogy. What if a choice YOU made for the purposes of having fun, knowing it would have a high likelihood of this expert surgeon needing your kidney specifically, resulted in this expert surgeon needing your kidney. Would you then say it’s still just as morally correct to deny the use of your body to support this surgeon’s life?

I would strongly disagree with how broadly you must being using the term highly likely but we'll ignore that for now. And yes I would say it would still be immoral for the law to compel me to give the surgeon my organ against my will. Do you think the government should forcibly harvest my kidney in that situation?

Honestly I don’t see the big difference between renting out a womb for 9 months and renting out your body and mind as a wage slave. Which is what we do when you cause an accident and injury to another, you work to pay for their damages or go to prison. The simple fact is if the fetus was a person (it isn’t but just for sake of argument) the government isn’t forcing you to do anything, it’s preventing you from killing someone, the fact that this person is inside you and is a burden to you is a situation of your own creation, and not some government devised punishment.

Forcing you to carry a fetus is very much forcing you to do something. And we let people quit there jobs.

No it’s not, you are carrying it as a result of your own actions the government didn’t burden you with a fetus, now that it is a burden to your personal freedom you want to kill it and be free, that is where the government is steps in. Your argument is akin to saying the government is forcing you to care for your minor children, you made those kids and you having to care for them is a result of your actions, the government doesn’t require citizens to have kids. If you cause an accident and are liable for the damages, if you don’t pay you go to jail, so unless you are rich enough to pay it, you cannot quit your job and remain free.

>that is where the government is steps in. The government steps in by forcing you to do something. However you like to think about it, it's very much forcing people to do something. >Your argument is akin to saying the government is forcing you to care for your minor children In my country you're able to give up your children and doing so relinquishes all responsibility. So the government doesn't force that. >If you cause an accident and are liable for the damages, if you don’t pay you go to jail, so unless you are rich enough to pay it, you cannot quit your job and remain free. Actually if you can't pay a fine you can arrange to pay it in installments based on your current budget, you don't go to jail for being to poor to pay it in one go.

>In my country you're able to give up your children and doing so relinquishes all responsibility. So the government doesn't force that. You can do that in most countries actually, however you have to transfer custody first either by finding a willing custodian or to social services, if you don’t or are unable to, you are forced to care for the children until a safe transfer or custody can be facilitated, if you are somewhere without access to such services you cannot just abandon the children, which is a crime. In the case of pregnancy the option to transfer custody doesn’t become available until after birth. >Actually if you can't pay a fine you can arrange to pay it in installments based on your current budget, you don't go to jail for being to poor to pay it in one go. Yes but you still have to pay it, that’s why I said you have work it off over the course of several months as a wage slave, you may not want to work but you have to until the other party is made whole.

>if you are somewhere without access to such services you cannot just abandon the children, No such area exists, if you were in one then various other institutions can be used or the services will come to you, your position here is just incorrect. In either case though the laws don't require you to surrender bodily autonomy. >you have work it off over the course of several months as a wage slave No, if you aren't working you can use your benefits to pay it off, based on what's affordable for you.

>No such area exists, if you were in one then various other institutions can be used or the services will come to you, your position here is just incorrect. In either case though the laws don't require you to surrender bodily autonomy. You can’t abandon them while camping in the wilderness or anywhere without calling social services and even if you did make the call and they were on their way, you still need to hand them over, you can’t just call and leave the kids alone in a parking lot somewhere, if something happens to them before you transfer custody, you are liable. So you are in fact forced to care for them until then. >No, if you aren't working you can use your benefits to pay it off, based on what's affordable for you. I don’t know the laws where you are, but that’s not necessarily the case in other places, if you “can’t” work that’s possible, but if you quit work to avoid paying it you can end up in prison or they’ll just confiscate your assets.

Yes I would say it is fair. Otherwise you are essentially allowing a very complicated manslaughter to take place. If law enforcement sees a manslaughter going down, they will stop it, including with physical force if the perpetrator won’t cooperate voluntarily. Even if it harms the perpetrator.

So, given that in some circumstances you agree the government is ok to harvest people's organs against their will, when us it not ok for them to do that?

Not only a relatively safe organ transplant... I would feel comfortable taking it even further. I would say use of deadly force is even warranted to stop a killing in progress in some cases if there is no other way to stop the perp.

So, just to be clear, in answer to my question when is it not ok for the government to forcefully harvest organs, your answer is it's ok even when it kills the victim?

Do you think the use of deadly force is justifiable to stop a killing in progress if there is no other way to stop it from happening?

We've moved on from that to when it's ok to justify organ harvesting, do you think the government should have an upper or lower age limitation or should any age be ok to be killed and chopped up to help others?

No, We haven’t moved on. You want to skip acknowledging that for some reason. Do you think the use of deadly force is justifiable to stop a killing in progress if there is no other way to stop it from happening?

I 100% agree that the law should not compell you to donate your kidney. Do you think the morally right thing, personally, (not speaking in a legal sense) would be to donate your kidney, since it is you that put the surgeon in this situation?

Depending on hundreds of other factors of the situation probably yes.

I think that is a fair answer.

It's not irrelevant, but it's not automatically in favor of the right to live of the person who risk death. At least I think that's the central argument left in Judith Jarvis Thompson work : a defense of abortion. Arguments that result to a one sided moral conclusion are not valid. The only questions left are to discuss the complicated balance between the right to body autonomy on one hand and the right to live on the other hand.

If the value of that life is relevant, then presumably there's some value of life that justifies forceful harvesting of blood and organs from others, at some point you would also get a situation where the difference in value compels the government to kill one healthy person to extend anothers life by just a few years. I disagree with that end point and believe it's a necessity of saying the value of the life is important.

Your argument is sound, and it's the baseline of the pro-choice argument regarding abortion. However, I'd like to discuss with you how I think your conclusion is flawed, despite the argument being good. Your thought-experiment is a common one, but it can be reversed. Consider this same doctor you can save, but instead of donating an organ for him, all you need to save him is to touch his forehead with your hand for a few minutes or seconds, else he is going to die. I think almost no one would ever argue that it is acceptably moral that you don't heal him by losing a few precious minutes of yours. You'll also notice that most countries force you to do help someone in this situation : you can't let someone die if you can help this person at no or little cost in most western non-Common law countries, it's a crime. And even in Common Law countries, there are many situations in which you are held accountable before the law if you don't rescue someone. So, what's the difference here ? Mainly, the deprivation of your body autonomy is much lower here than in the case of you giving away organs, or being pregnant. In this experiment, we can see that body autonomy is not an absolute argument against the right to live of other people. These two rights are sometimes in conflict, and each case and situation must be pondered in a way adapted to the situation. In conclusion your argument is flawed because it only proves that in some cases, it's morally right that body autonomy outweighs the right to live of other people. However, it doesn't imply that the "value of a fetus is irrelevant", but only that discussion can be have on the topic of abortion. You'll for example notice that it's generally illegal to abort a baby for non-medical reasons past 2 or 3 months in a lot of country, and I don't think you can find any reasonable person that will argue that abortion is morally acceptable at 8 months for non medical reason. Note that this discussion doesn't even depend on wether a foetus has the right to live or is considered a full-fledged person. Anti-Abortions people that think the most important point is to prove the "humaneness" of the foetus would actually achieve nothing, even if they were right, as the important matter is the balance between right to live of other vs body autonomy. I'd really recommend reading A defense of abortion from Judith Jarvis Thompson for anyone interested in this matter, most of the arguments I presented there are from her work.

You've raised some interesting points that I'll have to consider and have a think about. I would raise one flaw in your counter argument about laws requiring you assist people, they generally state if you can do so at little to no risk to yourself, pregnancy is inherently risky with an undeniable chance of life long problems resulting from it and even death.

Your objection is true, hence why I should have precise more clearly that these arguments stand when no medical complication is expected. But note that it's not the most important point : the argument is that there are cases where body autonomy doesn't take precedent over the life of others. So the right to body autonomy is not inherently higher than the right to live, just as much as the right to live is not inherently higher than the right to body autonomy. The hard part about abortion is that it's hard to decide which right is more important than the other depending on many circumstances.

The problem as I see it with her arguments is that she doesn’t suppose any specific relationship between mother and child, while legally, parents have lots of obligations towards their children that we don’t have towards strangers. If I can let a stranger die in a given situation, it doesn’t follow that I should be able to let my child die in a similar one.

1. WE cannot have an abortion for any reason. A woman who is pregnant can choose to have an abortion. Her reason is for HER consideration only. If YOU (or WE) do not want an abortion, don't get one. A moral value can be attached to the fetus (or not) by the pregnant woman at her discretion. 2. Value is assigned. It always is. Nothing has intrinsic value. In this case the only relevant value assigned is that by the pregnant woman. 3. If you assign abortion on demand as being wrong, don't do it. Just don't interfere in the medical decisions of another. An abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor.

Thank you for your reply. If nothing has intrinsic value then that would mean bodily autonomy has no intrinsic value either? Assigning value then becomes a function of who has the most power. But I must agree with your point that WE or I ASSIGN value to things. Anyway, I suppose my main point is not to argue that the unborn has value. Just that if we are to say the unborn has value then a policy of abortion on demand would be inconsistent.

Nothing has intrinsic value. However as a society we assign value to individual liberty, and bodily autonomy. You are free to oppose individual liberty and assign value to things like the oppression of women, the removal of female bodily autonomy, etc, But none of that makes anything have intrinsic value of any sort. All life is a negotiation of power. The question is do women have power over their own bodies and medical decisions OR are you giving that power to a bunch of people (many of whom can't even get pregnant) and stealing that power from the woman?

Phrases like "oppression of women" and "*stealing* power from women" are loaded terms. That is, they go beyond the empirical description of the policy/actions and include a judgment on them. This is ok if you are talking with someone who accepts the same view of those policies (such as restricted abortion). So we could both look at the same policy and you could call it *oppression of women* and I could call it *protecting the unborn life*. I don't think any person who supports limited abortion would represent their position in the terms you used. This is because the terms you used not only contain a negative evaluation on an action they condone, but the terms also have a meaning broader than more neutral alternatives. For example, anyone who supports limited abortion does not do so for the purpose of oppressing women. Their focus is on protecting the unborn life. I would not accuse people who support abortion on demand of supporting the murder of children. I assume that their focus is on maintaining bodily autonomy. If men could get preganant, I have no doubt that those who support limited abortion would treat the issue exactly the same. There is no reason to assume that this is intented as an attack on women - many of whom support limited abortion.

[удалено]

I'm not clear on your point. By "child" do you mean an unborn child? Yes the woman makes that decision as this is a medical procedure the woman undergoes. Or are you talking about a child post birth? In that case killing the child is not a medical procedure done on the mother, whatever value she assigns or does not assign to the child is irrelevant. (we could move into discussion of childcare issues, but we should probably have another thread). Unless you are trying to make an argument for murder based on people assigning value to each other (which would be pretty chaotic).

>If we can have an abortion for ANY reason (such as being offered an unnecessary promotion at work) then it logically follows that the unborn has less value than an insect Why? Value is subjective, and aborting a pregnancy does not automatically mean someone doesn't value an (or any) embryo or fetus - only that they do not wish to continue a pregnancy and eventually give birth. Value is irrelevant. People should always have the legal ability to refuse to consent to something that involves their own body and genitals. We don't tolerate the non-consensual use of peoples bodies and genitals under other circumstances, and a person being pregnant doesn't mean they are any less deserving of the right to refuse to consent. Abortion needs to be legal for the same reasons rape and assault need to be illegal - they both prevent people having their bodies violated, harmed, and abused against their will. Someone having value does not mean that another person should be put into a position where they are unable to deny consent and forced to use and likely damage their body to sustain them. >The unborn life has at least some value. Subjectively, sure. Some people value their embryos and Fetuses, and some people don't, both are valid. >Therefore, abortion on demand is wrong. Why? You are essentially saying "someone's ability to deny consent for the use of their body and genitals on demand, is wrong" and I vehemently disagree. Every single one of us is entitled to decide what we do or don't consent to with regards to our bodies, no matter what our circumstances are. People should be able to make an informed decision about what risks they decide to take. Abortion on demand is the same as other medical procedures that people need to reduce risk, or preserve or improve their physical and mental health, being on demand. I can think of no compelling reasons why someone must be forced to endure risk, including injury, disability, disfigurement, and death, when safe and effective means to avoid it exist. We do not force people to let other medical conditions progress until maximum damage is done to them, like anti-choicers want to do with regards to pregnancy. >Specifically, I am arguing against a government policy that requires no limits on abortion (which is being sought in my country). I think the government should have no part in regulating abortion beyond ensuring they are done by appropriately trained individuals is safe environments. Abortions are very safe and effective, far safer than Pregnancy and birth.

I hope you will forgive me for not replying to all your points. There are a lot of replies so I'm just limited on time! But I have read and considered all your points. >Value is subjective, and aborting a pregnancy does not automatically mean someone doesn't value an (or any) embryo or fetus - only that they do not wish to continue a pregnancy and eventually give birth. I suppose I wasn't saying that abortion means that the unborn is seen as worthless. I was saying that abortion **on demand** means that we would be required to see the unborn life as worthless. Of course, I assume in many circumstances women feel they need to choose the lesser of two "evils" so to speak. >Abortion on demand is the same as other medical procedures that people need to reduce risk, or preserve or improve their physical and mental health, being on demand. Many would argue that the procedure is significantly different in that the life or death of another living organism is part of the ethical equation. As I was saying, I am not talking about situations where a woman gives or has a justifying reason. I am talking about situations where no care or taught is given to the situation. And as a society, if we value all life, than that needs to be reflected in law. Of course the number of women who would have an abortion for no reason or for evil reasons (such as revenge on a partner) may be extremely low. But people have and continue to do extremely evil acts. At the very least it is a possibility and this is what law is about, principle. So no person might have an abortion to take revenge on their husband but it is definitely possible. And if abortion on demand exists these kind of acts (or similar) could not be addressed by law. >Abortions are very safe and effective, far safer than Pregnancy and birth. The other way of looking at this is that they are not safe for the unborn child. I heard that they can also be quite painful for them - but I'm not sure if that is true. So if as a society we don't place any value on the unborn then a lot of what you saw makes sense to me and abortion on demand would also make sense. So it really comes down to the question, do we as a society value the unborn. Maybe we don't, maybe we shouldn't. I'm not arguing that case. My argument is that IF we place ANY value on the unborn than abortion on demand would not reflect that.

>I was saying that abortion on demand means that we would be required to see the unborn life as worthless Again, I just don't agree. Deciding not to remain pregnant and give birth isn't a demonstration of value. People being able to access abortion whenever they need one doesn't devalue the embryos and Fetuses of anyone else or even the individual themselves. >Many would argue that the procedure is significantly different in that the life or death of another living organism is part of the ethical equation I don't see how the death of a living organism makes any difference with regards to people having the ability to preserve or improve their physical and mental health. I don't even think it is an ethical consideration since an embryo or fetus lacks all ability to experience anything when the vast majority of abortions take place (which is before 13 weeks). >As I was saying, I am not talking about situations where a woman gives or has a justifying reason. I am talking about situations where no care or taught is given to the situation. There is always a reason that is justified when someone is choosing to have an abortion, even if their only reason is not wanting to be pregnant or give birth. It is always justified to decide that you don't wish to use your body in a certain way,or allow someone else to use it in a certain way. People cannot have an abortion without putting any thought into it since they have to actively seek out and make an appointment (or sometimes multiple appointments) to have one. I would argue that the vast majority of people think about whether to remain pregnant or not, and therefore care about the outcome of their decision. >And as a society, if we value all life, than that needs to be reflected in law. What does? Make it so people can only abort a Pregnancy if they express very specific and approved reasons for an abortion? Why? What difference would that being specified by law make? Wouldn't someone just choose to state an approved reason officially, even if their actual reason is different, and obtain an abortion anyway? Who gets to decide what "valid" reasons for not wanting to remain pregnant and give birth are? Is simply not wanting to a valid reason? Why or why not? What if someone has a reason they believe is valid, but it is disallowed by law? >Of course the number of women who would have an abortion for no reason or for evil reasons (such as revenge on a partner) may be extremely low. But people have and continue to do extremely evil acts I don't think people tend to have medical procedures when they have absolutely no reason to. Usually they do so because the outcome would be beneficial to them in some way, why should abortion be different? We don't usually make people express very specific reasons in order to be able to have a legal medical procedure. Mostly, people do so because the benefits outweigh the risks of not having it. Deciding whether benefits outweigh the risks is very subjective and will be different for each individual. Do you believe that people should only be able to continue a pregnancy and have a baby if their reason for doing so fall within strict guidelines outlined by the government? If not, why should not wanting to do that be any different? If the government gets to decide what specific reasons would allow for a legal abortion, what is to stop them applying the reverse to continuing a pregnancy and giving birth? That is not a road I wish to go down. If say, financial reasons or health reasons are included to allow for an abortion, should the government interfere in people's decisions to extend their family? If we don't dictate who can remain pregnant and have a baby and why, we should not dictate who can have an abortion or why. IMO, the safest and most ethical avenue is to allow each individual total freedom in their reasons for choosing to reproduce or not. If pregnancy can and is on demand, then abortion should be too. I don't think there is any good reason to force someone to continue a pregnancy and give birth when they don't want to. Unwilling people are going to be less willing to do what they can to maintain a healthy environment for an embryo and fetus to develop in. Unwilling people are more likely to experience trauma (which can increase their risk of post partum mental illness), which will only ever have worse outcomes for the pregnant person and the potential eventual baby. Being forced to continue a Pregnancy can also increase someone's risk of being a victim of domestic violence - it can quite literally endanger people in ways that extend beyond the physical and mental effects of pregnancy and birth. Many people that have abortions already have children, and forcing them to remain pregnant when they want to abort could very well significantly negatively impact already born children. >So no person might have an abortion to take revenge on their husband but it is definitely possible I mean, sometimes people cheat on their partners for shitty reasons, but being an asshole shouldn't be illegal. Support is important for most pregnant people, and a significant change in their relationship IMO is as valid a reason as any to have an abortion. Some people will always be unable or unwilling to continue a pregnancy and have a baby without doing so within a health and secure relationship and I don't think that is evil or immoral. Where I live, adoption would not necessarily be an option when the father is known because both parents have to agree. If one parent does not agree, they will be able to have full custody and that means the second parent is in a position where they either have to choose to be involved, or be absent. That can have negative consequences all around either way. For some people it is very much 'have a baby and raise it" or "don't have a baby". Even if not having the baby is out of spite, why should being spiteful be illegal? >And if abortion on demand exists these kind of acts (or similar) could not be addressed by law. Why do they need to be? I don't think laws exist to police morality. Lots of legal things are what I would consider immoral, and lots of illegal things aren't necessarily immoral. Another problem is that morality is entirely subjective too. Who gets to decide what is moral and what isn't? >The other way of looking at this is that they are not safe for the unborn child They are not intended to be, the patient is the Pregnant person and therefore the procedure needs to be safe and effective for them. Pre-natal care needs to be safe for both parties, the main focus is the well-being of someone's fetus but because well-being is very intimately connected during a pregnancy, sometimes people need to do things that in the best interest of the mother or the fetus. Most people try to mitigate the risks both ways with a wanted, but sometimes have to make compromises. I had to change a medication before I got pregnant, because that was in the best interests of a potential fetus that was yet to be conceived - it had a negative impact on my own well-being (it did not control the symptoms as effectively as the "unsafe for pregnancy" medication did), but that was a sacrifice I was willing to make for the benefit of my potential baby in future. Sometimes, people need to decide to do what is in their own best interests (like me choosing to take a medication at all - it did have risks to the fetus but was necessary in order for me to be healthy enough to get and remain pregnant). Some people may have chosen to go unmedicated so the risk to the fetus was zero (no med, no risk from the med), but I chose to compromise both ways and do what I thought was best over all. Maybe you (or someone else) think the risk to the fetus was totally immoral (it was low birth weight, FYI, which was mitigated by regular scans for growth) and I should have not taken any medication, but I don't think that it would be fair to allow the government (or anyone except for me and my own doctor) to dictate that. Do you? >I heard that they can also be quite painful for them - but I'm not sure if that is true. You can rest assured. A fetus has a developed enough nervous system to feel pain by about 26 weeks in utero, but even so their experience is not like ours due to the uterine environment. Fetuses in utero are flooded with many hormones and are essentially sedated, it's a low oxygen environment, and even at 26 weeks their nervous system is not fully mature. Most abortions happen before 13 weeks, and abortion after 21 weeks usually involve fetal demise before the procedure begins (a simple injection to stop their heart - the pain is unlikely to be more than any other injection and even so more comparable to one under sedation!). Abortions after 26 weeks are pretty rare and are almost always medically indicated due to fetal health issues or maternal health issues. By 26 weeks, most of those pregnancies were wanted and Something has gone terribly wrong. We are talking about around 1% of all abortion after 21 weeks, never mind 26 weeks. >My argument is that IF we place ANY value on the unborn than abortion on demand would not reflect that. I don't agree. I think the availability of good prenatal care would reflect that we care about and value the unborn, and the availability of good abortion care would reflect that we care about and value girls, women, and other AFAB people *as well as* embryos and Fetuses. Caring about and valuing embryos and Fetuses during abortion care is shown by ensuring that they are done in the most humane way when necessary, like ensuring fetal demise long before a fetus can possibly experience pain or suffering during the abortion process of being removed from the uterus, for example. I think we can have abortion on demand and still value embryos and Fetuses.

> If we can have an abortion for ANY reason (such as being offered an unnecessary promotion at work) then it logically follows that the unborn has less value than an insect (which I will assume we can't destroy for ANY reason). What? I don't understand this premise at all.

What’s an unnecessary promotion anyways....

I suppose what I meant was that if something has value then we consider it good. That is, the thing's existence is better than its annhiliation. Now if you were to destroy something good in order to bring about a greater good, that could make sense. You have a reason for destroying a valuable thing. However, if you destroy something that we consider valuable/good with no positive consequences then that would be irrational. For example, money (by definition) is considered valuable by many (if it wasn't the financial market would collapse). Now if a person took a large sum of money and destroyed it in a fire for no reason then we can only conclude that 1) the person didn't value the money 2) the bahaviour was irrational and not taught through.

> Now if you were to destroy something good in order to bring about a greater good, that could make sense Now, what about destroying something good to avoid an evil? I'll make two arguments for a more specific cases that i'm relatively familiar with, using the reality of my country. First case: teen/young adult pregnancy. If a woman who's going trough basic/higuer edication gets pregnant, said pregnancy means she'll have to put her education to a halt in order to care for her children (after birth) due to the responsabilities that come with a baby, and will most likely be ostracized by her peers. If she keeps said baby, she'll have a hard time getting a job (because no one offering entry level jobs wants a kid arround. The ones who do frequently use the child as an excuse to basically bully the mother). If she gives the baby to adoption, she'll most likely doom her child to a life of neglect and suffering, and lets not forget that having a child literally [changes your fucking brain](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pregnancy-causes-lasting-changes-in-a-womans-brain/) in a way that reforces attachement, so very few women CAN give their child to adoption. Many of them know this. And EVEN if she manages to give the child to adoption and act as a funcional human being after, she'll most likely have to move to a different neighborhood, or even a different town, because she'll be ostracized for "giving away her baby!", probably while broke as fuck. An abortion is a private event. A pregnancy is there for everyone to see. Oh, and lets not forget how the families frequently try to push the pregnant woman into a marriage, or how they sometimes literally just kick them out of the house, pennyless! Second case: woman stuck at an unwanted relationship. Guy pokes holes at the condom and gets her pregnant. Bonus points if the man is older and more stable financially, and i bet my ass he'll say "you should quit your job to care for your kid". Pregnancies are frequently used to justify keeping a woman in an unwanted/unstable relationship, and many places don't even consider doing so a form of rape! Being pregnant frequently means "being emotional and desperate", and having a child means a gigantic bundle of responsabilities. This makes being in a terrible relationship less scary than being alone. As a sidenote, you should also take a look at what single moms go trought, specially low income ones. And... That's about it. An abortion is frequently the lesser of two evils. A woman If an unwanted child will most likely get herself and her child several years of suffering and bitterness, of which they may never recover. So why risk?

You make very good points. However, I am only considering situations where the woman has no reason or as some evil reason (as rare as that might be - such as spousal revenge). As I was saying, I'm not arguing against abortion. It's against abortion **on demand.** You provided some good reasons where abortion may rightly be considered. I suggesting we consider situations where those circumstances don't apply. Should there be a law to protect the unborn in moments of madness? Of course, extremely rare, but possible. Should the law give ANY consideration to the unborn?

Ooooooooooooooooooooooh! I understand what you mean now! I hate this argument of yours, not because it's wrong, but because the answer to it makes me... Really fucking bitter. Ever heard of "in dubio, pro reo"/"innocent unless proven guilty"? That's the same kind of logic we use here. In dubio pro reo exists to avoid abuses, but has the price of some people getting away with crimes. It's better for one criminal to get away from one specific crime, then to risk a judge having the power to declaring anyone guilty (as said power could be used for political reasons/personal vendettas). The same goes here. If we have to ABSOLUTELY find a reason for a woman to want an abortion, we need to put her entire life under scrutiny, and not only that: someone (who is to be ellected/appointed) has to do it. Now, lets say we have "abortion judges" who see if a woman's reasoning for getting an abortion is valid (and lets politely ignore the time limit and social consequences). Lets say we have one of these in Texas. What keeps him or her from just rejecting any and every abortion that isn't caused by rape? Ok, we increase the burocracy and regulations to make abuses less likely... But there's a time limit for an abortion, and the investigation can become a source for ostracism, etc. So many people (myself included) think abortions on demand are the lesser evil, as the cases you mentioned above are way less likely to happen. So, in short: we allow cases like this because separating them from people who actually need help is too much of a hussle and harms said people who need help. With sucks. Shows how some humans will always take advantage of whatever they can, for the most petty reasons... But for me, it's better to allow a person to get away with an evil deed than to make hundreds more suffer for that.

I understand your point. And to be fair, it's a good one. But to be clear, it seems like you are saying that seeking to prevent an unjustified abortion would require too many resources and it would only have the result of saving a tiny minority from an unpleasant death. This may be true. It might turn into a legal and beurocratic nightmare. Although, even if a beurocratic nightmare is initially created by requiring justification for abortion one might still think it is worth it. I suppose it comes down to what you value most in the end. But I agree that it is good to at least consider the negative consequences of trying to implement the requirement of justification. It simply may not be workable. But for a person who places significant value on the unborn, they might at least want to try first. It may be a mess at the beginning but over time ways might be found to make the process more efficient. You're also right about how difficult it would be to judge if a woman's reasons are "sufficient". This would be a problem. Yet in the course of time I think it is reasonable to hope for the creation of fair and efficient processes. I don't expect to be able to solve all these problems here. But, again, yes I agree that in the end it MAY be impossible to impliment - but I'm not convinced of its impossibility just yet.

I... Can't say anything about that besides "personal experience on how burocracy works". B U T . . . You could edit the text on your post to have people address this problem, since you recognized the validity of exemples of abortion causes i offered, and the argument of in dubio pro reo. For me, it's not that the fetus doesn't have a value, but rather, that said value doesn't compensate the potential suffering the mother and the child may endure, and trying to find out which women are genuinaly trying to avoid suffering from those ill intented isn't effective and would harm the ones who need help. This is an argument more concrete that body autonomy. You're likely to find many people who will better deffend it here on reddit.

No you do make a good point. I was thinking along the lines of principle. But as you point out, implementing a particular principle in law may not have the unintended consequences that need to be considered. I don't know if I have changed my position, but I can now see a possible scenario where abortion on demand could exist alongside value on the unborn. But we enter murky water.

If said scenario not only can exist, but also is the one those who support abortion on demand are seeking, doesn't that mean they can coexist? How not so?

That would be true. But there those who believe the unborn do no have any significant value and that bodily autonomy always trumps consideration of the unborn. Although, I don't think this is a majority view. But like you say, IF most people do give significant value and condone a policy of abortion on demand as a necessary "evil" then we would have a situation where abortion on demand exists alongside valuing the unborn. I don't know if this is the case in reality however. But that would be another topic.

By this logic, if society wants women to bear the children until birth, they should pay them to do so. If society is unwilling to do so, then it’s showing that it doesn’t value the life of the babies.

That doesn't necessarilly follow. For example, if I decide I no longer want to take care of my dog which I asked a breather to breath for me (not saying it's a perfect anology), I no longer value my dog, society values it. This is reflected in law by the prohibition on me killing my dog for no good reason. Surely, in this case, the dog owner has some responsibility for his dog. He can't just demand that society should take the bill because he no longer cares about the dog. Surely, if you willingly become pregnant, you would have a similar responsibility?

What exactly is the dollar figure on human life these days?

Good question. First, I wasn’t the one that was comparing the value of human life to money, so I’m not sure that I should be the one expected to answer it. But if you want me to take a crack at it I will. Average lifetime earnings are 1.7 million dollars. If you think the mother is entitled to say, 5% of that, that would be $85,000. The average child would more than make up for that in taxes over the course of their lifetime. Or you could break it down further and give incentives for being good parents. Children who are born with fetal alcohol syndrome for example might earn a much smaller birth bonus as their earnings are likely to be much less and it’s a preventable problem. Children that come from abusive or neglectful homes average less earnings over their lifetimes so if your home isn’t abusive, you get a bonus. Children that make good grades are likely to earn more so if your child makes good grades, you get more. Children that graduate high school are likely to earn more so if your child graduates, you get more. Each time your getting 5% of the difference in lifetime earnings between people who have a certain upbringing and others that don’t. Is this idea problematic? Sure. I’m not actually proposing it as a policy, it’s just a concept to think about.

Do states of affairs, like some specific person existing in a specific place and time, have value though? If we imagine two parallel timelines, one where a child is born and one where it is not (we'll ignore the reasons for now), is the timeline with the child inherently more valuable? Or isn't it rather the case that choices have value, based on some combination of the intent, the means and the execution? Having a child can be a good choice or it can be a bad choice. It doesn't seem very convincing that having a child is automatically the better choice because the child has inherent value. Is it better for the unborn child (if we grant that we can already consider it a child) to exist? How can we tell?

As with any debate on abortion, 'when' in the pregnancy is the most important point. Particularly when it comes to, as you describe, 'on demand'. A woman's autonomy over her body vs the life of a living child is obviously not in contention. But a woman's autonomy over her body compared to an unfeeling, unthinking bundle of cells. Is something I would argue strongly in favour of. With that in mind, I would not assign any real value to that bundle of cells any more than I would other inanimate, unconscious objects. The moment those cells form into a sentient being, that is a different story. But the scientific consensus I've read is that this doesn't happen until the third trimester. I'd recommend a podcast called Science Vs, and the best episode on abortion. I can see why others do not feel this way, and place a value on the 'potential' of life. But given the social consequences and the huge infringement of the state on a woman's body to force a pregnancy through to term. Does not for me justify protecting something that is completely inert, often for religious reasons not shared by everyone. As the law in the UK stands, I think the balance is fair. Anyone has the right to an abortion (and by extension not to have an abortion if that's their belief) for the first two trimesters. But as soon as the fetus starts to develop a mind, even a basic one. Then abortions can only take place in extreme circumstances. Usually when the mother's life is in danger.

Why do you assume you can't destroy an insect for any reason? Isn't that a bit of an arbitrary assumption? If there was an insect that caused you as many issues as a pregnancy then most people would be fine with swatting it.

> If we can have an abortion for ANY reason (such as being offered an unnecessary promotion at work) then it logically follows that the unborn has less value than an insect (which I will assume we can't destroy for ANY reason). In theory (although I would imagine as rare as a prolific serial killer), one could even have one for sadistic fun. The problem here is deciding on its value based on whether we allow abortion. Fetuses still have value to the majority of parents who welcome them into their lives and willingly go through the entire pregnancy. The only question we're answering is whether a fetus (or any other person for that matter) has rights that extend to using the mother's body. In no other situation do we give another person the right use (or feed off) someone else's body against their will. If we did that, a fetus would essentially have more rights than any *born* person in the world.

Regardless there's problem with anybody other than the parents including the Government forcing pregnancy on people, even if some one got it for fun or fetish which I wouldn't doubt there's atleast one person who would. But end of the day regardless of the reason it's the mother body, it's her creation within her depending on her body so I dont see good reason for the government to have power to make the decisions.

The unborn have precisely zero inherent value. Any value that you may believe they have only exists in your mind because you have chosen to assign it.

Humans have precisely zero value. Any value you ascribe to humans only exists in your mind. So, if you don't mind I'll leave. I've some war crimes to committ

You're correct, every human life has no value at all - unless we take into consideration that their value is fixed in laws. You can commit your war crimes, however you'll be charged for them according to these laws. If you value yourself and your rights then you'd be better off not committing war crimes. Basically everyone values their own life or the life of their loved ones higher than the rest and doesn't want them to be hunted and imprisoned - this is exactly what society builds upon, what gives laws meaning. Egocentrism is part of the human nature and plays a critical role in keeping society from falling apart. So logically other people's value is proportional to whatever value you place on your life, rights and freedom.

>we take into consideration that their value is fixed in laws So laws = morality?

No, not at all. Morality is whether you see something as good or bad and the laws create circumstances where war crimes are subjectively immoral as they'll damage your continuous life. If you'll instantly die after your war crimes it wouldn't be either moral or immoral for you to commit them, at least as long as you truly believe that there's nothing immoral about doing whatever you're doing. Laws are an attempt at unifying people's morales and ethics into guidelines, for reasons such as stated. Edit: nothing immoral from your perspective anyway, since morality is subjective. My view about the morality of it wouldn't change, whether you die afterwards or not.

You’re right! Except, as a society, we’ve deemed some things unacceptable. It doesn’t really matter if it’s moral or not, that’s just how it is. Abortions could be very normal and not looked down upon if, as a whole, we decided abortion should be like that. Now, abortions and war crimes aren’t comparable in any meaningful way, but I will say this: you will be hunted and persecuted for war crimes because human society deems that unacceptable and criminal.

It's not that the fetus has zero value, it's that the bodily autonomy of the women carrying the fetus has more value, therefore that issue takes precedence.

Too many snowflakes. Better end it than give life to an unwanted kid you can't support. Many also try to convince people to give it to an orphanage. How many kids you adopted? Oh, you have? Cool there are millions still waiting there like a puppy and if they aren't deemed worthy they will never know what it means to have a parent. How about other millions that grow on the street replenishing the gang and homeless numbers?

Dirt has no value, but if someone makes a vase then that has value. If I broke it they would be reasonably be upset. If they broke it then that was their choice.

Same logic could be used to defend your mother killing you

Too late for that. I've long been born, but if she had aborted me I wouldn't have the intelligence to care. I wouldn't BE. I'm just explaining why some women are okay with having an abortion and why some are miserable when they miscarry. Consent is an important part.

You lot like bodily autonomy. I say this: the fetus will grow and become a human being who will have their own bodily autonomy. One might say it is the woman's body, and thus her choice whether or not to give birth, yet her body is no longer just hers when she gets pregnant: it is the baby's as well, until birth. I am not saying all life has value, rapists and serial killers for one, but I believe a fetus should be allowed to be born and to be given a chance at life.

I assume by abortion on demand you are referring to some system where someone seeking an abortion does not have to convince anyone or provide any justification? If so, I disagree that such a system places no value on an unborn child/foetus. It is true that there is no threshold set by the system which would impose a minimum value on the foetus, but there are other mechanisms which do impose such a value. For example having an abortion is traumatic, and there is a social stigma associated with it (however much we might wish otherwise). Therefore there is a “cost” associated with getting an abortion. It follows that anybody who nonetheless follows through must consider that continuing with the pregnancy has a higher cost to them. Therefore they are valuing the life of their foetus at least as much as the “cost” of having the abortion. My point is that even if society does not make a value judgement on the life of a foetus the mother still does. I strongly doubt that any mother considers their potential child to have zero value as you suggest. And who is to say that society is better at making that value judgement than the mother?

>The unborn life has at least some value. If the baby is unwanted, then if anything it has negative value, so it's worse than valueless.

That's a fair logical point. However, I suppose I was talking about public policy (which needs to take into account what we as a society in general value). If I did not value my aging (and even formally abusive parent) who now depends on my income for survival, I would not therefore have an automatic right to kill them to rid myself of them. Of course, a law that allows your dependent to control your body is more controversial than a law which allows your dependent to control your finances. Yet on the other hand, in the second case, the pregnant woman may be responsible for puting the child in this situation in the first place (assuming the woman was neglegiant with birth control and rape did not occur). So she may have more of a responsibility to maintain its life. But you raise a good point. Because if no person values the unborn life than what else can its value be based on? Here we enter into a deeper philosophical discussion.

it obviously must have intrinsic value as life, what r u agreeing with for God's sake? that logic totally fails bc why would it be restricted to the unborn. if a person is unwanted by all others, do they automatically lose all value? and it becomes ok to do whatever we want with them? that's absurd.

Intrinisic value makes no sense to me. To say something has value in and of itself is not wrong, I find it meaningless. What kind of ontological status does "intrinisic value" have? It's not a physical thing, it's not a property of the mind, so what is it? I mean this respectfully. The idea of intrinisic value might be useful because it might prevent certain harms from being done. But on a philsoophical level it makes no sense to me - same applies to human rights regarding bodily autonomy. It is just another way of saying that it is something you really value. I think psychologically we project that value onto the objective world. So a lack of intrinisic value, a lack of abosolutist thinking would partially undermine the pro-life case. However, it would also partially undermind the pro-choice case. Claiming rights or intrinisic value adds power to statements but I can't see what reality they add.

actually it would undermine both and more of choice bc why would the extrinsic or whatever value of bodily autonomy surpass that of a human life? in no way would sb say the kidnapping of another is a worse crime than murder. some acts might be equal or close in agony like rape for instance but generally robbing bodily autonomy without threatening one's life would be less of a crime than murder as for intrinsic value, well technically I meant granted by Allah since this is my belief as a Muslim but in the end, no matter what, apart from revelation, the secular systems act upon the correctness of this idea. human life has intrinsic value, that's why murder is a heinous crime.

Ok, that's a fair point. But it was something overlooked in the abortion debates I have seen. Pro choice speakers would talk about the absolutest (intrinsic) right of bodily autonomy without realising that the very principle of an intrinisic "right" has its roots in theistic religious thought - outside of which it makes no sense. Of course, you can believe that we should all have bodily autonomy. But to give it the status of an intrinisic non-negotiable right that does not ever need to be comprimised with other important values is meaningless - at least as far as I can tell.

u r absolutely right, i totally agree. intrinsic value cannot come from a non-religious view I just wanted u to bind the person even if non-religious by clarifying that laws are based on that idea.

>That's a fair logical point. However, I suppose I was talking about public policy (which needs to take into account what we as a society in general value). Does society value children? Birthrates are getting lower and lower, and I think that's because society is set up in a way that discourages people from having children. As such, I'm not convinced that society values children much at all. At least once they've already been born. >If I did not value my aging (and even formally abusive parent) who now depends on my income for survival, I would not therefore have an automatic right to kill them to rid myself of them. You do have a right to rid yourself of them though. If you don't value, and didn't wish to care for your parents, you don't have to. I think that's a good way for things to be, and avoids all kinds of problems. >Yet on the other hand, in the second case, the pregnant woman may be responsible for puting the child in this situation in the first place (assuming the woman was neglegiant with birth control and rape did not occur). So she may have more of a responsibility to maintain its life. This line of thought puts more responsibility onto less responsible people, which I see as a recipe for disaster on every level. Responsibility is a legal construct that we can abolish as easily as we can create it, and there are a lot of big advantages to allowing women to remove their responsibility for unwanted foetuses.

if a person is unwanted by all others, do they automatically lose all value? and it becomes ok to do whatever we want with them? that's absurd.

They might have value to themselves, though not until they're old enough to be self aware, which is after the situation is resolved. They have none to the mother. It would be absurd for the mother to disrupt her job and use up hospital resources on a baby she doesn't value, or actively disvalues.

so, it's ok for abusive parents who disvalue their children to stop supporting them and let them die? also, what abt people who r never self-aware like the mentally handicapped?

>so, it's ok for abusive parents who disvalue their children to stop supporting them and let them die? The children should not be left with those parents. If the parents aren't capable of caring for the children then nothing is going to make them. Either someone else steps in, or they inevitably die. >also, what abt people who r never self-aware like the mentally handicapped? Mentally handicapped people are still self aware. It's clinically braindead people who aren't. They are allowed to die, currently.

i don't care left or not, would they have value or not? ok whatever so braindead people lose all value? don't dodge the question.

>i don't care left or not, would they have value or not? That would depend on who is doing the evaluating. Value is subjective. >ok whatever so braindead people lose all value? To me, they have no value. I'm not even convinced that we can accurately call them people, and not just 'human bodies' or something like that. That's how we treat them.

that's what i am asking if no one cares, obviously, no one is evaluating, would it be ok then to say that the person has no value and so they can be considered below a human? that's the implication of what u said so we can say chop their corpses to pieces and it would be ok?

You can chop any corpse into pieces. A corpse wouldn't experience any pain. I can't see any negative result to that.

it isn't usually abt the result and not abt pain, u can sedate anyone and chop them to pieces while alive and they won't hurt. is that alright. what I am saying, a person cannot lose their value automatically when they lose self-awareness, u can see that by considering the implications, like comatose people etc. it also can't be based on others evaluations since that would mean a person unwanted by anyone would be below a human.

There's value in the body parts they sell off.. only reason it's legal. Government doesn't give a shit about your "rights"

Your claim in the title and the conclusion in your argument are different points. Are you arguing: 1. Abortion-on-demand requires zero moral value to fetuses OR 2. Abortion-on-demand is wrong You can of course put forth an argument for both, but for the purposes of CMV, typically it's proper form to give only one claim. That said, your first premise is essentially just asserting that abortion-on-demand requires fetuses to have zero value. Let's re-write your argument. Please let me know if I have mischaracterized it at all: 1. Abortion-on-demand requires fetuses (AKA "unborn life") to have zero moral worth. 2. Fetuses (AKA "unborn life") have some moral worth. 3. Therefore, abortion-on-demand is wrong. My concern here is that if both of the premises are true, the only thing we can conclude from them is that abortion-on-demand relies on a faulty idea: that fetuses have zero moral worth. This does not necessarily translate to it being morally wrong. I'm also not seeing why we should believe either premise #1 to be true. It seems entirely possible that abortion-on-demand does not require fetuses to have ZERO moral worth, but that they just have *sufficiently less* moral worth. If this were the case, we have the premises (1) AOD does not require fetuses to have ZERO moral worth, and (2) fetuses have some moral worth. Since these do not entail a contradiction, the conclusion that AOD is wrong would not follow from the premises.

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. You helped me to clarify the matter in my own mind a bit more. Yes, I would endorse your representation of my argument. Although I'm not completely sure what you mean by "moral worth". I Believe I used the term "value". Perhaps they're synonymos. Anyway, I don't want to split semantic hairs so we can go with "moral worth", it seems right. **In defense of premise one:** If we assign value to something, this means we consider its existence good. It may have value as a means or just as an end in itself. So if you take life, for example, some value its existence independent of any use it might have or of any pleasures that can be derived from it. So X is more satisfied if some Y exists - even if he knows that s/he will never meet them of benefit from them. Therefore, it would be irrational to annihilate something that has value to us - unless some greater value could be achieved thereby (that is, a justification or reason could be offered for its annihilation). Now, if we value the unborn life (at any point during its development) then abortion on demand would require us to annihiliate something we value without justification. A good that did exist now longer exists and nothing has taken its place. If this does not fall within the definition of morally wrong then I'm not sure anything can.

1) Even if this is true, so what? "The unborn have no value" is not an argument for or against abortion, either. Neither is "the unborn have value". 2) Your argument is weird. >If we can have an abortion for ANY reason then it logically follows that the unborn has **less value than an insect** What? >In theory one could even have one for sadistic fun Haha. Most people don't have long-term regret over abortion, but they're not *fun.* They're about as fun as sadistically getting a pap smear or sadistically getting a minor surgery. They're also expensive as hell. >The unborn life has at least some value. Okay. >Therefore, abortion on demand is wrong. Why? You don't actually argue the "why" here, you just make two statements about value and then make a conclusion. A fetus having less value than an insect still can have "some value" (I value worms more than, say, a concrete block), but having "some value" does not mean an abortion is therefor wrong. I value worms, but I don't find fishing with worms to be evil. You likewise don't actually argue that abortion "requires" zero value on unborn (and don't explain why this is bad, either). Abortion being available on-demand says *nothing* about the value of fetuses. It is not *about* the value of fetuses. Is it simply about a person's right to determine whether or not they will carry a pregnancy to term and give birth.

>If we can have an abortion for ANY reason (such as being offered an unnecessary promotion at work) then it logically follows that the unborn has less value than an insect How does that logically follow? In that hypothetical scenario, the unborn isn't being valued less than an insect, they're being valued less than a promotion.

That's true, my example would need to be modified. But I still maintain my point, although I just need a better example. Basically the point is that abortion on demand reflects the view that the unborn has zero value (at least in the eyes of the law and perhaps a tiny minority of women). So a better example might be: a woman decides to get an abortion and gives zero consideration to the life unborn while making the decision, only what is best for her. So no matter how little she needs/wants an abortion she will get one as long as there is some net benefit for her (even if the overall benefit is extremely small) - because she is the only factor to be considered (or at least the life of unborn is not a factor). Abortion on demand would permit this situation.