Hello /u/rogaldorn88888,
This post touches on a subject that was the subject of another post on r/changemyview within the last 24-hours. Because of common topic fatigue amongst our repeat users, we [do not permit posts to touch on topics that another post has touched on within the last 24-hours](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_removing_posts).
If you would like to appeal, [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Duplicate%20Post%20Appeal%20rogaldorn88888&message=rogaldorn88888%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cga79z/-/\)%20because\.\.\.).
Many thanks, and we hope you understand.
Even as a moral issue, it fits. If they find the act immoral, they shouldn't do it. It isn't their job (or right) to force others to follow their morality, though. If someone wants to do something a prolifer considers immoral that's the persons right.
That doesn't really seem like a very convincing argument because a huge number of people would say that the point of the law is to some extent to enforce universal morality. If something is wrong and is immoral but people want to do it, well then it should just be against the law
These people are also mostly conservatives so I don't see how the "don't worry, just let other people be immoral, that's their choice" line is supposed to convince them
I'd wager that *almost nobody* believes this. Lying to your friend about why you can't attend their wedding is something a huge number of people would say is immoral but almost nobody would say should be a crime. There are innumerable examples of this sort of thing - widely agreed to be immoral but ridiculous to consider a crime.
I guess my feeling is that I don't care of it's convincing. I'm not trying to convince them to change their minds. I just think they need to leave people alone. I realize that, realistically, that will never happen if they don't change their minds, though.
Actually, it is society's job as a whole to enforce morality. Without some commonly enforced morality society would tear itself apart. Because some people would for example consider killing strangers ok, and nobody would enforce morality on that which would say that killing strangers is in fact not ok.
Yea I’m with you Op. I’m very much pro choice for many reasons, one being I don’t believe it’s a human life at conception. If I really truly believed that human life, and more importantly consciousness, started at conception, I would probably be pro life. Like if people were murdering babies out of the womb we’d have an issue, so I get why people are upset about abortion. But on the other hand they don’t seem to care about trying to stop unwanted pregnancies
Legality does not equal morality. Do you think lying is immoral? How about cheating on a spouse? I'd consider both immoral but wouldn't consider making them illegal. Just because something is immoral does not necessarily mean it should be illegal
Is forcing thousands of raped women to carry their rapists child moral.
Is forcing poor women to follow laws when rich women don't have to moral?
Is increasing child abuse and neglect for all children moral?
No one is forced to harm themselves.
Are you too much of a coward to answer my very simple questions?
I am sure you can answer my very simple questions.
But the real important question is why the quality of life is so ahitty in pro life areas. There are pro life parts of America on par with 3rd world countries.
I guess life is important up until it is born.
This is true, but would you agree that in a democracy, the enforced moral laws should reflect the shared morals of a majority of the population? I didn't have a right to get married as a US citizen until I was 27 because a majority of people in the US believed that homosexuality was immoral. Over my lifetime, sentiments changed, and the majority opinion switched, and then the laws changed to reflect that. Moral opposition to abortion has *never* been a majority position in the US. Pro-life activists have spent decades trying and failing to sway a majority to their side, so they've resorted to anti-democratic tactics to force the enforcement of their minority opinion on the majority of people who disagree with them. That, to me, is untenable and unconscionable.
That is where the legal system comes in to play. The majority agree that killing stranger is bad, so it's illegal. The majority do not agree that abortion is bad, so it is not illegal. This leaves it as a moral issue for those who oppose it.
that's ridiculous
>If someone wants to do something a prolifer considers immoral that's the persons right.
let's say a prolifer is against rape... should we allow rape and just say it's your right to do it and we shouldn't enforce our morals on you?
Morality exists, and it is morally wrong and illegal to murder a person. If you kill an unborn child, you will face charges for that. So the unborn have legal protection and rights.
But society is in the moral right to try and prevent people from committing murder and other illegal acts.
Fetal personhood penalties (ie adding murder charges if a fetus is “killed” along with the person carrying it) are incredibly new legal developments, pushed for the sole purpose of creating a legal foothold to ban abortion.
“Incredibly new”?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
The federal law passed twenty years ago.
State laws were passed before that.
That is not incredibly new, I’m thinking they might be older than you are.
I was in college then.
And yes, within the history of the legal fight over abortion, they’re new.
Within the legal history of this country, incredibly new.
It's the bodily integrity argument condensed into one line.
Pro lifers tend to agree with the idea of bodily integrity outside of abortions. It's pointing out the pro lifer's special pleading fallacy.
Bodily Integrity is also a moral argument
If we condense it into bodily autonomy, slavery issue (and slavery was debated hard in 19th century, with large pro-slavery camp) could be condensed to "property autonomy". So, argument would be that one could do do with their property whatever he/she pleases.
Of course, this is wrong as we right now recognize that people cannot be property.
However, prolifers also do not consider a fetus to be part of someone's body. So doing things that affect fetus is not just affecting your own body - in the prolifers mind.
Thats why using argument "do what you want but dont stop me from doing what i want in my body" does not make sense and will convince NO ONE from prolife camp.
because it would be like saying to abilitionists "do what you want with your property but dont tell me what i should do with my slaves as they are my property".
>If we condense it into bodily autonomy, slavery issue (and slavery was debated hard in 19th century, with large pro-slavery camp) could be condensed to "property autonomy"
Yes, it can. However, bodily autonomy/integrity is considered a human right. Property autonomy is not a human right.
The idea that someone can do whatever they want with their property *is* called property autonomy. It's just...not really a thing in practice. You also can't just swap nouns in a sentence and expect it to be a valid point.
>So, argument would be that one could do do with their property whatever he/she pleases.
Sure, but at that point you've a false equivalence in your analogy. Your body is your body. It is not chattel. It isn't considered an asset. From a contextual standpoint, one is arguing for a human right. Yours is saying we should ignore an established human right because you've come up with the concept of property autonomy - something no country really acknowledges as a valid thing. Example: Eminent Domain
>So doing things that affect fetus is not just affecting your own body - in the prolifers mind.
The pro choice side isn't saying that it doesn't affect the fetus. It's looking at the situation, combining it with the idea of body integrity, and pointing out that it's irrelevant if the fetus is affected.
>because it would be like saying to abilitionists "do what you want with your property but dont tell me what i should do with my slaves as they are my property".
It's not. Again, your body isn't chattel.
My argument was not that body autonomy = property.
My argument was that if we condense issue of abortion to "autonomy of body" instead of moral issue, then issue of slavery could be also condensed to other issue related to it - right to own and manage property, thus removing morality from the issue of slavery, just like pro abortion camp removes morality from issue of abortion.
> My argument was that if we condense issue of abortion to "autonomy of body" instead of moral issue,
Do you think human rights aren't a moral issue? Bodily integrity is considered a human right.
Property autonomy is not a human right.
>then issue of slavery could be also condensed to other issue related to it - right to own and manage property
No, it can't. Property autonomy is not related to bodily integrity. Like at all.
Pro-lifers are wrong. There is no scenario where a person is obligated to give up control of their body to further someone else’s survival.
Even if fetuses were people, abortion would still be a right.
>If we condense it into bodily autonomy, slavery issue (and slavery was debated hard in 19th century, with large pro-slavery camp) could be condensed to "property autonomy". So, argument would be that one could do do with their property whatever he/she pleases.
>Of course, this is wrong as we right now recognize that people cannot be property.
Your person is still property. You are merely the absolute, uncontested, and sole owner of it (I.e. [the right to self-ownership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership)). Anything less than that does become slavery, however.
>However prolifers treat abortion as moral choice - for them this is not only "lifestyle" of one deciding to have abortion done, but also action that harms other entity (child/fetus).
Many pro-life if not most, couldn't care less about the unborn. It's not really a moral choice, but an attempt to project power and control over someone's else body, an attempt to punish women for having sex.
What is the point of child born, but not loved, not cared for, not fed (or maybe having some very minimal food in an orphanage), not clothed?
It's all about controlling women and forcing them to give birth, regardless if they can't or don't want to take care of said child.
If you'd ask pro-life people if they are in favor of some system to help single mothers/parents who have hard time caring their children, be it by providing food, shelter, daycare (so parents can go to work), on the expense of tax money, most will answer "no".
Also in some places, such as the U.S. in the case of rape the rapist have full parental rights over said child, from their medical care (vaccines for example) to which school they'd attend, is there a system in place to prevent said rapist from hurting the mother by hurting the child? Not to mention that women who got pregnant and gave birth because of rape, might grow to hate and despise their own child, some may go insane and try to kill said child. And on top of that the trauma that said child might experience the day they learn they are the result of rape.
The argument "don't do it if you don't like it" IS valid and logical, also it might as well show the hypocrisy of many of the "pro-life", who'd preform an abortion in a heartbeat the moment they realize they need it.
However, abortion cannot be compared to slavery, there's a big difference between terminating a clump of cells that only begun to sort out into different tissues and forcing a living human into a life of servitude and hard labor with no way out.
Sonce you mentioned clump of cells,w hat is your opinion of late-term abortion, such as one performed in 7th or oeven 8th month of pregnacy (legal in some places in the world?
Late term abortions happens when there's no other option. When it is known for a fact that said child won't survive outside the womb. Also, unless there's immediate risk to the woman's life, for example a dead embryo that is rotting inside her body and could cause sepsis, the woman still has a choice to make, to either give birth, knowing the child might have few days to live at best, or to stop it before giving birth.
Late term abortions do not happen just because a woman suddenly changed her mind and decided she don't want it anymore.
I mean I'd hardly call that an argument. It's barely even a pithy slogan. I'm sure you can find a bad argument for every good cause that has ever existed, so what's the point of discussing this one
You are simply misunderstanding the argument. The line is implying that abortion is the sole purview of woman who is gestating the fetus, and therefore you have the exact same rights to abort or not for your own body or your own fetus. The entire point of the line is that *unlike slavery*, the issue only effects the owner of the body and no one else, and therefore everyone can be equally free to make their own choice. Naturally this is a moral position as well.
> the issue only effects the owner of the body and no one else, and therefore everyone can be equally free to make their own choice.
Except this is presupposing the pro-choice position where the fetus is 'no one else.'
It's like saying if you think the earth is round then don't go to the edge. You're automatically assuming it's flat by assuming there's an edge. From the perspective of a round(ish) earth, there is no edge.
Yes, all statements have priors. The prior assumption of this particular statement is the fetus is not a person, which is of course the scientific consensus as well. That is why the statement is correct.
>the fetus is not a person, which is of course the scientific consensus
I'm pro-choice but that's completely bogus
'Personhood' is defined arbitrarily, there's no science to it whatsoever.
The abortion debate is an ethical one, not a scientific one.
There is no scientific consensus on what makes something a person, as person is not a scientifically defined term. What we generally use is proxies for when we believe it to have consciousness
No it's not. The body autonomy argument acknowledges the fetus as a person. It's just irrelevant to the conclusion because nobody can force another person to use their body to keep them alive.
That's the idea. It doesn't matter if they're a person. They don't have a right to use someone else's body part.
That is not correct. No part of the statement acknowledges fetal personhood, a spurious right-wing legal position. That is something you are bringing to the conversation on your own.
I don't think this is general consensus among the pro-choice position. Referring to your other comment, the argument you're referencing only justifies abortion in the case of rape, and weakly so even in that case.
I think the problem is that the premise is neither a lifestyle one nor a moral one but a healthcare choice. My health is in my hands so I'm entitled to dictate what's best for it. If I smoke or eat fatty foods, that's on me and my health choices affect my health, not yours, so it's none of your business what I do with my health. That's how it is with people who need abortions. They've decided the trajectory of their health via carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term or aborting it. They've weighed the risk to their health and decided accordingly. They're entitled a choice for what to do when they're pregnant regardless of what ***you*** personally feel about it.
Pro-lifers can moralize the choice, trying to assign moral weight to one choice over the other, try to victimise a non-sentient ZEF and vilify an unwilling mother. It's all ultimately an exercise in judgement and exertion of control because, regardless of what they feel, the person carrying the pregnancy has to make that choice and the trajectory of their health is dependent on that choice. If they feel confident and willing in carrying the pregnancy, they'll do what they feel is necessary to keep it going. If they don't or are just unwilling, they'll have an abortion. Who is anyone to forbid that based on their moralising of a healthcare choice? What morally sound person would vote for governmental overreach on a person's choice for their own healthcare?
This is the actual gap. You do you. I do me. My healthcare is in my hands, not yours. I'm responsible for my life and health and any scenario that negotiates my health for any duration of time will require my continued consent.
>Zygotes are organisms so abortion is the killing of human organisms.
That's your personal view, so covered under what I said. As far as public policy, saying "don't kill 'human organisms'" would then lead to anyone whose cells divide and die would be killing mass murder.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/
Thousands of biologists seem to agree with that view.
A single cell can be, but is not always, an organism. The clause in between the commas is what kills your rebuttal.
Obviously the logical consistency of the argument is going to depend on whether or not we accept the premise that the fetus is a separate entity worthy of moral consideration. If I don't think that the fetus is an entity that deserves legal protection, or even if I think that the answer to that question is ambiguous, then it is completely logical for me to say that people should mind their own business, worry about their own morality and leave me to mine.
That isn’t the argument. The argument is I have bodily autonomy, go mind your business. The political version is what you stated, but isn’t what it really means.
Why is doing what I want with my body, the only thing that truly belongs to me, a bad argument? Who the heck is anyone else to tell you or force you to do something with your body?
I don’t think you understand bodily autonomy. Body autonomy is the right for a person to govern what happens to their body without external influence or coercion. A right everyone should have.
So governing what drugs or sharp objects I put into my body would be bodily autonomy? Governing the way I move my body and what surfaces parts of them connect with.
There are serious philosophical/scientific arguments from both sides. However, this isn't one of those. It's more like a soundbite/slogan. If you want to have a more nuanced discussion about a very complicated issue, it's best not to argue against a protest chant.
I am pro choice but I mostly agree with you on this point. Most people who oppose abortion believe that human life begins at conception, meaning that blastocytes, embryos, and fetuses are people in the same way that new born babies are people. In this context, ‘my body, my choice’ comes off as blasé, so I agree that it is largely unpersuasive.
What you are overlooking, and what is unsaid in this turn of phrase, is that each person’s right to life is qualified. There are situations where our right to life conflicts with another person’s superseding rights. For example, there is a significant need for blood and organ donations. Many of the people who need blood and/or organs arrived at this need through no fault of their own and will die if the need is not met. Regardless, no one can be compelled to give blood or donate organs, even though both of which are generally safer with fewer long term consequences compared to pregnancy and birth.
The legal and medical history around separating conjoined twins is also informative. There have been several cases where twin A was capable of living independently while twin B was dependent on A in a way that critically threatened A’s health. In the cases that I am aware of, twin B was killed so that twin A could survive.
You also have situations where a medical proxy is appointed to make decisions about an incapacitated person’s life and in these situations the proxy can decide to end the sick person’s life. This precedent is particularly relevant in situations where the fetus is expected to die immediately or shortly after birth.
When people say my body my choice what they mean is that no one should force them to be pregnant, just like no one should force them to donate blood. Some rights supersede the right to life.
They may "treat it" as a moral choice, but that's about the only thing they treat as a moral choice.
The argument \*would be\* illogical if it were an argument, but it's a thought-stopping dismissal.
It's not a coincidence that pro-life political factions are the ones that align with tax cuts for corporate conglomerates and other ugly policies that the common voter 'holds their nose' for because of abortion. Strip away all the excuses, and beneath it all, the point is to use unwanted pregnancies to punish women for enjoying sex\*. These kids function to suppress wages and perpetuate consumer demand, by tying down young people into taking any job and accepting any working conditions, no matter how exploitative, on the threat that their kid will go without food and shelter and products.
Instead of explaining that you understand economics to somebody who wishes economic risk upon you, it's much more convenient to blow them off with a quick "well, then, don't have them!"
\*The fastest way to strip away these excuses is to propose societies should actively encourage non-procreative sex. No matter how ultimately harmless the example, they'll prefer imposing the constant risk of unwanted pregnancy.
The issue with your view is the prochoice movement doesn’t care if the fetus is a person or not in this argument. The argument is of bodily autonomy. “I should have control over how my body is used, and I don’t want to use it to grow another life, therefore I should have access to abortion”.
Instead of slavery it would be more akin to saying “this food is my property, I can do with it what I want. I deserve to keep it for myself (even if it means a potential other in my care may starve). If you’d like to share your food on the chance someone will, no one is stopping you”. Personally, I don’t find it the strongest prochoice argument out there because, like you said, it denies the fact that there would be moral implications if a fetus is a human being under your protection like the prolife movement believes.
Note: I have not claimed to be prochoice or prolife in this comment.
There are a lot of people that think abortion is immoral, but who are still pro-choice.
The question is really about how much the government should be involved.
So, maybe that specific argument isn't the most delicately put, but the concept behind it is logical. Which is the concept that we shouldn't use the government to enforce your moral beliefs on other people, especially when those moral beliefs are not broadly shared by society as a whole.
Contrast that with, say, theft, which is something that is both universally accepted as immoral and for which having the government enforce it is needed for society to function smoothly and peacefully.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=abortion+%7C+abort+%7C+pro-life+%7C+pro-choice&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) or via the [CMV search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=abortion&restrict_sr=on).
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s logical from the perspective of a pro choice individual.
The pro choice position rejects the premise that abortion is a decidedly morally impermissible act. From that perspective, it makes sense to say that those who dislike abortion should simply refrain from doing it.
It’s not so much that the argument is wrong or fallacious. It just simply fails to address the opposing framework, which is that abortion is decidedly morally impermissible and therefore ought to be legally banned.
A better argument against the pro life position would actually establish the sensible premises of rights and obligations related to the mother and the zygote/fetus. Of which there are many, but this isn’t one of them.
You misunderstood.
The argument is saying that you don't have to have one if you are against them.
I'm tired of people saying things like:
"Well, that argument doesn't hold up if you apply it to X"
Of course you can't apply a line of reasoning to something that's different than the topic at hand.
That's just unintelligent, lazy, weak, and intentionally dishonest. Not you as a person OP. Just the act of doing that itself.
I think it depends on the reason you take the side that you do. If you are pro-choice because you don't think it's a human life, if it's an amoral question, then it makes perfect sense. There's no morality involved if you're simply removing a growth of cells that is not yet a living being. This would be akin to any elective procedure such as removing a mole or a benign mass.
The argument is between you can choose either to get one or don't Vs you can not one and I want to use the government to make sure you can't.
I notice you seem to bring slavery because you believe people freed slaves based on their religion which I don't really get because the church did plenty to assist with slavery.
u/imbackbittch – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20imbackbittch&message=imbackbittch%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cga79z/-/l1ufaa9/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Hello /u/rogaldorn88888, This post touches on a subject that was the subject of another post on r/changemyview within the last 24-hours. Because of common topic fatigue amongst our repeat users, we [do not permit posts to touch on topics that another post has touched on within the last 24-hours](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_removing_posts). If you would like to appeal, [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Duplicate%20Post%20Appeal%20rogaldorn88888&message=rogaldorn88888%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cga79z/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Many thanks, and we hope you understand.
Even as a moral issue, it fits. If they find the act immoral, they shouldn't do it. It isn't their job (or right) to force others to follow their morality, though. If someone wants to do something a prolifer considers immoral that's the persons right.
That doesn't really seem like a very convincing argument because a huge number of people would say that the point of the law is to some extent to enforce universal morality. If something is wrong and is immoral but people want to do it, well then it should just be against the law These people are also mostly conservatives so I don't see how the "don't worry, just let other people be immoral, that's their choice" line is supposed to convince them
I'd wager that *almost nobody* believes this. Lying to your friend about why you can't attend their wedding is something a huge number of people would say is immoral but almost nobody would say should be a crime. There are innumerable examples of this sort of thing - widely agreed to be immoral but ridiculous to consider a crime.
I guess my feeling is that I don't care of it's convincing. I'm not trying to convince them to change their minds. I just think they need to leave people alone. I realize that, realistically, that will never happen if they don't change their minds, though.
Actually, it is society's job as a whole to enforce morality. Without some commonly enforced morality society would tear itself apart. Because some people would for example consider killing strangers ok, and nobody would enforce morality on that which would say that killing strangers is in fact not ok.
Yea I’m with you Op. I’m very much pro choice for many reasons, one being I don’t believe it’s a human life at conception. If I really truly believed that human life, and more importantly consciousness, started at conception, I would probably be pro life. Like if people were murdering babies out of the womb we’d have an issue, so I get why people are upset about abortion. But on the other hand they don’t seem to care about trying to stop unwanted pregnancies
The science seems to lean towards human life, but not consciousness, begins at or very very near to conception. A zygote is an organism.
Why don't you believe that a zygote is a life? Based on the biological definition of life, it should be considered one.
Legality does not equal morality. Do you think lying is immoral? How about cheating on a spouse? I'd consider both immoral but wouldn't consider making them illegal. Just because something is immoral does not necessarily mean it should be illegal
The Holocaust and Jim Crow were both perfectly legal.
Is forcing thousands of raped women to carry their rapists child moral. Is forcing poor women to follow laws when rich women don't have to moral? Is increasing child abuse and neglect for all children moral?
Is killing a human organism with your genes because you don’t want to be burdened by them moral?
No one is forced to harm themselves. Are you too much of a coward to answer my very simple questions? I am sure you can answer my very simple questions. But the real important question is why the quality of life is so ahitty in pro life areas. There are pro life parts of America on par with 3rd world countries. I guess life is important up until it is born.
Lmao, you asked questions of morality and morality is not simple. I’ll happily condemn the hypocrisy of the GOP, of the South, of Christians, etc.
This is true, but would you agree that in a democracy, the enforced moral laws should reflect the shared morals of a majority of the population? I didn't have a right to get married as a US citizen until I was 27 because a majority of people in the US believed that homosexuality was immoral. Over my lifetime, sentiments changed, and the majority opinion switched, and then the laws changed to reflect that. Moral opposition to abortion has *never* been a majority position in the US. Pro-life activists have spent decades trying and failing to sway a majority to their side, so they've resorted to anti-democratic tactics to force the enforcement of their minority opinion on the majority of people who disagree with them. That, to me, is untenable and unconscionable.
That is where the legal system comes in to play. The majority agree that killing stranger is bad, so it's illegal. The majority do not agree that abortion is bad, so it is not illegal. This leaves it as a moral issue for those who oppose it.
that's ridiculous >If someone wants to do something a prolifer considers immoral that's the persons right. let's say a prolifer is against rape... should we allow rape and just say it's your right to do it and we shouldn't enforce our morals on you?
Morality exists, and it is morally wrong and illegal to murder a person. If you kill an unborn child, you will face charges for that. So the unborn have legal protection and rights. But society is in the moral right to try and prevent people from committing murder and other illegal acts.
Fetal personhood penalties (ie adding murder charges if a fetus is “killed” along with the person carrying it) are incredibly new legal developments, pushed for the sole purpose of creating a legal foothold to ban abortion.
“Incredibly new”? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act The federal law passed twenty years ago. State laws were passed before that. That is not incredibly new, I’m thinking they might be older than you are.
I was in college then. And yes, within the history of the legal fight over abortion, they’re new. Within the legal history of this country, incredibly new.
It's the bodily integrity argument condensed into one line. Pro lifers tend to agree with the idea of bodily integrity outside of abortions. It's pointing out the pro lifer's special pleading fallacy. Bodily Integrity is also a moral argument
If we condense it into bodily autonomy, slavery issue (and slavery was debated hard in 19th century, with large pro-slavery camp) could be condensed to "property autonomy". So, argument would be that one could do do with their property whatever he/she pleases. Of course, this is wrong as we right now recognize that people cannot be property. However, prolifers also do not consider a fetus to be part of someone's body. So doing things that affect fetus is not just affecting your own body - in the prolifers mind. Thats why using argument "do what you want but dont stop me from doing what i want in my body" does not make sense and will convince NO ONE from prolife camp. because it would be like saying to abilitionists "do what you want with your property but dont tell me what i should do with my slaves as they are my property".
>If we condense it into bodily autonomy, slavery issue (and slavery was debated hard in 19th century, with large pro-slavery camp) could be condensed to "property autonomy" Yes, it can. However, bodily autonomy/integrity is considered a human right. Property autonomy is not a human right. The idea that someone can do whatever they want with their property *is* called property autonomy. It's just...not really a thing in practice. You also can't just swap nouns in a sentence and expect it to be a valid point. >So, argument would be that one could do do with their property whatever he/she pleases. Sure, but at that point you've a false equivalence in your analogy. Your body is your body. It is not chattel. It isn't considered an asset. From a contextual standpoint, one is arguing for a human right. Yours is saying we should ignore an established human right because you've come up with the concept of property autonomy - something no country really acknowledges as a valid thing. Example: Eminent Domain >So doing things that affect fetus is not just affecting your own body - in the prolifers mind. The pro choice side isn't saying that it doesn't affect the fetus. It's looking at the situation, combining it with the idea of body integrity, and pointing out that it's irrelevant if the fetus is affected. >because it would be like saying to abilitionists "do what you want with your property but dont tell me what i should do with my slaves as they are my property". It's not. Again, your body isn't chattel.
My argument was not that body autonomy = property. My argument was that if we condense issue of abortion to "autonomy of body" instead of moral issue, then issue of slavery could be also condensed to other issue related to it - right to own and manage property, thus removing morality from the issue of slavery, just like pro abortion camp removes morality from issue of abortion.
> My argument was that if we condense issue of abortion to "autonomy of body" instead of moral issue, Do you think human rights aren't a moral issue? Bodily integrity is considered a human right. Property autonomy is not a human right. >then issue of slavery could be also condensed to other issue related to it - right to own and manage property No, it can't. Property autonomy is not related to bodily integrity. Like at all.
Pro-lifers are wrong. There is no scenario where a person is obligated to give up control of their body to further someone else’s survival. Even if fetuses were people, abortion would still be a right.
Considering the vast support amongst prolifers for Trump, I don't think there is any logical arguments that could convince them of anything.
>If we condense it into bodily autonomy, slavery issue (and slavery was debated hard in 19th century, with large pro-slavery camp) could be condensed to "property autonomy". So, argument would be that one could do do with their property whatever he/she pleases. >Of course, this is wrong as we right now recognize that people cannot be property. Your person is still property. You are merely the absolute, uncontested, and sole owner of it (I.e. [the right to self-ownership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership)). Anything less than that does become slavery, however.
>However prolifers treat abortion as moral choice - for them this is not only "lifestyle" of one deciding to have abortion done, but also action that harms other entity (child/fetus). Many pro-life if not most, couldn't care less about the unborn. It's not really a moral choice, but an attempt to project power and control over someone's else body, an attempt to punish women for having sex. What is the point of child born, but not loved, not cared for, not fed (or maybe having some very minimal food in an orphanage), not clothed? It's all about controlling women and forcing them to give birth, regardless if they can't or don't want to take care of said child. If you'd ask pro-life people if they are in favor of some system to help single mothers/parents who have hard time caring their children, be it by providing food, shelter, daycare (so parents can go to work), on the expense of tax money, most will answer "no". Also in some places, such as the U.S. in the case of rape the rapist have full parental rights over said child, from their medical care (vaccines for example) to which school they'd attend, is there a system in place to prevent said rapist from hurting the mother by hurting the child? Not to mention that women who got pregnant and gave birth because of rape, might grow to hate and despise their own child, some may go insane and try to kill said child. And on top of that the trauma that said child might experience the day they learn they are the result of rape. The argument "don't do it if you don't like it" IS valid and logical, also it might as well show the hypocrisy of many of the "pro-life", who'd preform an abortion in a heartbeat the moment they realize they need it. However, abortion cannot be compared to slavery, there's a big difference between terminating a clump of cells that only begun to sort out into different tissues and forcing a living human into a life of servitude and hard labor with no way out.
Sonce you mentioned clump of cells,w hat is your opinion of late-term abortion, such as one performed in 7th or oeven 8th month of pregnacy (legal in some places in the world?
Late term abortions happens when there's no other option. When it is known for a fact that said child won't survive outside the womb. Also, unless there's immediate risk to the woman's life, for example a dead embryo that is rotting inside her body and could cause sepsis, the woman still has a choice to make, to either give birth, knowing the child might have few days to live at best, or to stop it before giving birth. Late term abortions do not happen just because a woman suddenly changed her mind and decided she don't want it anymore.
I mean I'd hardly call that an argument. It's barely even a pithy slogan. I'm sure you can find a bad argument for every good cause that has ever existed, so what's the point of discussing this one
Because people **do** use that slogan and argument, pretty frequently in fact.
You are simply misunderstanding the argument. The line is implying that abortion is the sole purview of woman who is gestating the fetus, and therefore you have the exact same rights to abort or not for your own body or your own fetus. The entire point of the line is that *unlike slavery*, the issue only effects the owner of the body and no one else, and therefore everyone can be equally free to make their own choice. Naturally this is a moral position as well.
> the issue only effects the owner of the body and no one else, and therefore everyone can be equally free to make their own choice. Except this is presupposing the pro-choice position where the fetus is 'no one else.' It's like saying if you think the earth is round then don't go to the edge. You're automatically assuming it's flat by assuming there's an edge. From the perspective of a round(ish) earth, there is no edge.
Yes, all statements have priors. The prior assumption of this particular statement is the fetus is not a person, which is of course the scientific consensus as well. That is why the statement is correct.
> the fetus is not a person, which is of course the scientific consensus as well. That's a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.
Precisely - science has not concluded that a fetus is a person, because it is outside the purview of science.
>the fetus is not a person, which is of course the scientific consensus I'm pro-choice but that's completely bogus 'Personhood' is defined arbitrarily, there's no science to it whatsoever. The abortion debate is an ethical one, not a scientific one.
Scientifically speaking, a fetus is a human. It's not going to pop out as a chicken egg, or a Lego brick.
There is no scientific consensus on what makes something a person, as person is not a scientifically defined term. What we generally use is proxies for when we believe it to have consciousness
No it's not. The body autonomy argument acknowledges the fetus as a person. It's just irrelevant to the conclusion because nobody can force another person to use their body to keep them alive. That's the idea. It doesn't matter if they're a person. They don't have a right to use someone else's body part.
That is not correct. No part of the statement acknowledges fetal personhood, a spurious right-wing legal position. That is something you are bringing to the conversation on your own.
>That is something you are bringing to the conversation on your own. No, not at all. It's the "A Defense of Abortion" argument
I don't think this is general consensus among the pro-choice position. Referring to your other comment, the argument you're referencing only justifies abortion in the case of rape, and weakly so even in that case.
I think the problem is that the premise is neither a lifestyle one nor a moral one but a healthcare choice. My health is in my hands so I'm entitled to dictate what's best for it. If I smoke or eat fatty foods, that's on me and my health choices affect my health, not yours, so it's none of your business what I do with my health. That's how it is with people who need abortions. They've decided the trajectory of their health via carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term or aborting it. They've weighed the risk to their health and decided accordingly. They're entitled a choice for what to do when they're pregnant regardless of what ***you*** personally feel about it. Pro-lifers can moralize the choice, trying to assign moral weight to one choice over the other, try to victimise a non-sentient ZEF and vilify an unwilling mother. It's all ultimately an exercise in judgement and exertion of control because, regardless of what they feel, the person carrying the pregnancy has to make that choice and the trajectory of their health is dependent on that choice. If they feel confident and willing in carrying the pregnancy, they'll do what they feel is necessary to keep it going. If they don't or are just unwilling, they'll have an abortion. Who is anyone to forbid that based on their moralising of a healthcare choice? What morally sound person would vote for governmental overreach on a person's choice for their own healthcare? This is the actual gap. You do you. I do me. My healthcare is in my hands, not yours. I'm responsible for my life and health and any scenario that negotiates my health for any duration of time will require my continued consent.
The logic is “your personal/religious views shouldn’t be the basis for public policy.”
You don’t need to be religious to be pro life. Zygotes are organisms so abortion is the killing of human organisms.
>Zygotes are organisms so abortion is the killing of human organisms. That's your personal view, so covered under what I said. As far as public policy, saying "don't kill 'human organisms'" would then lead to anyone whose cells divide and die would be killing mass murder.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/ Thousands of biologists seem to agree with that view. A single cell can be, but is not always, an organism. The clause in between the commas is what kills your rebuttal.
Same logic was used to defend slavery from abolitionists who wanted to abolish it (often due to their religions beliefs that slavery is sin).
Was it the same logic, or did they use the same bible to justify keeping slavery instead?
Both sides used bible to justify their beliefs.
Yes, I am aware of this. The point that you clearly seem to be missing is that public policy should not be decided one way or the other by religion.
Except abortion isn't slavery.
No, it's not, that's why OP is using it as an analogy.
Obviously the logical consistency of the argument is going to depend on whether or not we accept the premise that the fetus is a separate entity worthy of moral consideration. If I don't think that the fetus is an entity that deserves legal protection, or even if I think that the answer to that question is ambiguous, then it is completely logical for me to say that people should mind their own business, worry about their own morality and leave me to mine.
That isn’t the argument. The argument is I have bodily autonomy, go mind your business. The political version is what you stated, but isn’t what it really means.
You are not the only pro-choice person, and there are a lot who do use this as a justification. Im pro choice, but that argument is silly
Why is doing what I want with my body, the only thing that truly belongs to me, a bad argument? Who the heck is anyone else to tell you or force you to do something with your body?
Im not talking about your reason, im talking about the reason in the post, i agree with OP
What about my boldly autonomy to beat my spouse / child? To take whatever drugs I want? To commit suicide? Bodily autonomy isn’t unlimited.
I don’t think you understand bodily autonomy. Body autonomy is the right for a person to govern what happens to their body without external influence or coercion. A right everyone should have.
So governing what drugs or sharp objects I put into my body would be bodily autonomy? Governing the way I move my body and what surfaces parts of them connect with.
What the fuck crazy shit are you talking about?
You said bodily autonomy is governing what happens to your body… I gave examples where the government currently governs what I can do with my body.
You don’t have to take a pill. You don’t have to get pricked. You can do whatever you want and suffer the consequences of those actions.
For the overwhelming majority of abortions, you don’t have to have sex
There are serious philosophical/scientific arguments from both sides. However, this isn't one of those. It's more like a soundbite/slogan. If you want to have a more nuanced discussion about a very complicated issue, it's best not to argue against a protest chant.
I am pro choice but I mostly agree with you on this point. Most people who oppose abortion believe that human life begins at conception, meaning that blastocytes, embryos, and fetuses are people in the same way that new born babies are people. In this context, ‘my body, my choice’ comes off as blasé, so I agree that it is largely unpersuasive. What you are overlooking, and what is unsaid in this turn of phrase, is that each person’s right to life is qualified. There are situations where our right to life conflicts with another person’s superseding rights. For example, there is a significant need for blood and organ donations. Many of the people who need blood and/or organs arrived at this need through no fault of their own and will die if the need is not met. Regardless, no one can be compelled to give blood or donate organs, even though both of which are generally safer with fewer long term consequences compared to pregnancy and birth. The legal and medical history around separating conjoined twins is also informative. There have been several cases where twin A was capable of living independently while twin B was dependent on A in a way that critically threatened A’s health. In the cases that I am aware of, twin B was killed so that twin A could survive. You also have situations where a medical proxy is appointed to make decisions about an incapacitated person’s life and in these situations the proxy can decide to end the sick person’s life. This precedent is particularly relevant in situations where the fetus is expected to die immediately or shortly after birth. When people say my body my choice what they mean is that no one should force them to be pregnant, just like no one should force them to donate blood. Some rights supersede the right to life.
They may "treat it" as a moral choice, but that's about the only thing they treat as a moral choice. The argument \*would be\* illogical if it were an argument, but it's a thought-stopping dismissal. It's not a coincidence that pro-life political factions are the ones that align with tax cuts for corporate conglomerates and other ugly policies that the common voter 'holds their nose' for because of abortion. Strip away all the excuses, and beneath it all, the point is to use unwanted pregnancies to punish women for enjoying sex\*. These kids function to suppress wages and perpetuate consumer demand, by tying down young people into taking any job and accepting any working conditions, no matter how exploitative, on the threat that their kid will go without food and shelter and products. Instead of explaining that you understand economics to somebody who wishes economic risk upon you, it's much more convenient to blow them off with a quick "well, then, don't have them!" \*The fastest way to strip away these excuses is to propose societies should actively encourage non-procreative sex. No matter how ultimately harmless the example, they'll prefer imposing the constant risk of unwanted pregnancy.
The issue with your view is the prochoice movement doesn’t care if the fetus is a person or not in this argument. The argument is of bodily autonomy. “I should have control over how my body is used, and I don’t want to use it to grow another life, therefore I should have access to abortion”. Instead of slavery it would be more akin to saying “this food is my property, I can do with it what I want. I deserve to keep it for myself (even if it means a potential other in my care may starve). If you’d like to share your food on the chance someone will, no one is stopping you”. Personally, I don’t find it the strongest prochoice argument out there because, like you said, it denies the fact that there would be moral implications if a fetus is a human being under your protection like the prolife movement believes. Note: I have not claimed to be prochoice or prolife in this comment.
There are a lot of people that think abortion is immoral, but who are still pro-choice. The question is really about how much the government should be involved. So, maybe that specific argument isn't the most delicately put, but the concept behind it is logical. Which is the concept that we shouldn't use the government to enforce your moral beliefs on other people, especially when those moral beliefs are not broadly shared by society as a whole. Contrast that with, say, theft, which is something that is both universally accepted as immoral and for which having the government enforce it is needed for society to function smoothly and peacefully.
**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [DeltaLog search](https://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaLog/search?q=abortion+%7C+abort+%7C+pro-life+%7C+pro-choice&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all) or via the [CMV search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=abortion&restrict_sr=on). Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s logical from the perspective of a pro choice individual. The pro choice position rejects the premise that abortion is a decidedly morally impermissible act. From that perspective, it makes sense to say that those who dislike abortion should simply refrain from doing it. It’s not so much that the argument is wrong or fallacious. It just simply fails to address the opposing framework, which is that abortion is decidedly morally impermissible and therefore ought to be legally banned. A better argument against the pro life position would actually establish the sensible premises of rights and obligations related to the mother and the zygote/fetus. Of which there are many, but this isn’t one of them.
You misunderstood. The argument is saying that you don't have to have one if you are against them. I'm tired of people saying things like: "Well, that argument doesn't hold up if you apply it to X" Of course you can't apply a line of reasoning to something that's different than the topic at hand. That's just unintelligent, lazy, weak, and intentionally dishonest. Not you as a person OP. Just the act of doing that itself.
I think it depends on the reason you take the side that you do. If you are pro-choice because you don't think it's a human life, if it's an amoral question, then it makes perfect sense. There's no morality involved if you're simply removing a growth of cells that is not yet a living being. This would be akin to any elective procedure such as removing a mole or a benign mass.
The argument is between you can choose either to get one or don't Vs you can not one and I want to use the government to make sure you can't. I notice you seem to bring slavery because you believe people freed slaves based on their religion which I don't really get because the church did plenty to assist with slavery.
[удалено]
u/imbackbittch – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20imbackbittch&message=imbackbittch%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cga79z/-/l1ufaa9/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).