Texas Abortion Laws Mega-Thread
By - AutoModerator
What I don’t understand is men in general don’t like condoms and don’t like when women don’t have sex with them. Yet some of those same men are anti-abortion. Can someone explain that to me?
Not to mention they have such an issue with single mothers and government support of them yet don’t mind producing more single mothers. Make it make sense
[Men Aren't Only to Blame: Young Women Resist Condom Use as Well](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/women-resist-condom-use-well-stis-696752%3famp=1)
[Most pro lifers are women](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion?utm_source=pocket-app&utm_medium=share)
Maybe the resolution to the conundrum is that the country isn't made up solely of [worthless barren class striving neurotic box checkers](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA) who think they deserve a medal for dressing like hookers and making powerpoints 🤷♂️
1. Doesn’t matter what women’s “views” are. Many pro-lifers get abortions [too](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/).
2. You still didn’t answer my question. How are women supposed to satisfy men’s requirements of remaining abstinent, having unprotected (or any) sex with them, yet avoiding abortion?
>How are women supposed to satisfy men’s requirements of remaining abstinent, having unprotected (or any) sex with them, yet avoiding abortion?
Are these the same men? or are they different men saying different things?
>Doesn’t matter what women’s “views” are. Many pro-lifers get abortions [too](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/).
And many don't
> 2. You still didn’t answer my question. How are women supposed to satisfy men’s requirements of remaining abstinent, having unprotected (or any) sex with them, yet avoiding abortion?
I think there's an assumption implicit here that you forgot "and the men don't want the women to have children" or am I missing something
You could fairly read that implication in. I just don’t understand what men want. If the woman/women you’re seeing is/are having casual, unprotected sex with you, how could you be pro-life unless you want innumerable kids out there? I won’t argue that this viewpoint is held by the majority of men, but there are many men I’ve seen online discussing abortion who fit into that category.
(Obviously religious men aren’t having casual sex so they aren’t the object of my inquiry.)
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users.
I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
[Here is link number 1 - Previous text "too"](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
^Please ^PM ^[\/u\/eganwall](http://reddit.com/user/eganwall) ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^[Code](https://github.com/eganwall/FatFingerHelperBot) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=FatFingerHelperBot&subject=delete&message=delete%20hcf4rck)
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users.
I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
[Here is link number 1 - Previous text "too"](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
^Please ^PM ^[\/u\/eganwall](http://reddit.com/user/eganwall) ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^[Code](https://github.com/eganwall/FatFingerHelperBot) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=FatFingerHelperBot&subject=delete&message=delete%20hcf4btm)
im for abortion but not because of some bullshit about women's rights. It's a safety issue. If we dont allow women medically safe places to abort, theyll drink rat poison instead. Id rather the baby dies than the woman too.
Bring all of those not aborted babies to his house and let him raise them or at least pay child support...
... that's what's already happening.
What is happening, are women dropping the newborns at the baby daddy's place on day one and letting him do all the physical care while she is maybe paying child support when/if she feels like? Please. We gotta finally normalize it though
The majority of people who support abortion overlap with the people who have and support casual sex, and that is the problem. CMV.
is your view based on literally any facts, sources, etc. or just guesswork?
Only the statistics of women who get abortions. That good enough?
what are you referring to
...... the stats......... of women who get abortions.......... their reasons........ their demographics............. that stuff.........
Most women who get abortions are not the poor ethnic minority rape victims, like the libs love to screech about in defense of abortion, but those same screeching liberal middle and lower class college-aged (mostly white) women.
and are you ever going to provide a source of the demographics of who gets it? i don’t know why you just keep repeating yourself instead of providing sources. weird.
Yes, sorry, I'm going off of an assumption that people know these things already.
[Per these stats](https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion/demographics) from 2016, most women that receive abortions are
* in their 20's
* living somewhere above the poverty level
[This data](https://prochoice.org/wp-content/uploads/women_who_have_abortions.pdf) from the year 2000 says that most women who receive abortions are unmarried, and over 60% have never been married.
[This data](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678377/) from 2008 to 2014 shows similar trends although abortion seems to be dropping throughout the years.
[This data](https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/) also shows similar trends up to 2017 with women living in metropolitan areas being more likely to have an abortion, with the only difference being that the non-white women are now having more abortions.
[This data](https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D) from 2018 has white women back on top at 39% with all others falling below them.
So, yes, most of the data over the years points to:
* in their 20's
* non-married/never been married
* above poverty level
* living in metropolitan areas
Sounds like your average Starbucks-loving basic white girl college student.
Edit: While I'm at it, this comment deserves its own post.
The majority of people who support abortion are drug-addicted, over-socialized urbanites who mistakenly think they are more intelligent and sophisticated than a bag of rocks. That doesn't mean abortion is bad. Abortion is pre-emptive self-defense against criminals. I just wish we could abort more of them and their singlemothers too.
Where do you think criminals come from? They come from singlemothers almost exclusively. Legalized abortion was a big part of reversing the upward violent crime trend in the USA.
>Where do you think criminals come from? They come from singlemothers almost exclusively.
Wrong. They come from low-income areas where there is a greater need for survival based on their individual effort/capabilities. It's also a bit of social conditioning/learned behavior as well (they see others committing crimes which encourages them to do it as well).
Its not as simple as "single mother? That kid's gonna be a criminal. Guaranteed."
> Legalized abortion was a big part of reversing the upward violent crime trend in the USA.
In a wide-sweeping way, yes.
> Wrong. They come from low-income areas where there is a greater need for survival based on their individual effort/capabilities.
Tomato, tomato, bro.
You are making distinctions when there isn't any needed.
Single mothers are more likely to be poor or lower middle class than single fathers.
It takes two to raise a law abiding future tax payer to the state. Exceptions exist, and expections are not indicative of rules change.
There may not be definitive proof, but there's a suspicious drop in crime rates *in a single generation* after the abortion was legalized in US (from 70'sto 90's when crime rates dropped like a rock)
>It's also a bit of social conditioning/learned behavior as well
Yeah, no shit. This is why father figures is extremely important. You need stable father figures to raise a kid well.
Forcing women to have children against their will because it hurt your feelings is also one way to bring the decline faster in US.
Who pissed in your corn flakes
I got too many upvotes recently and it upset me.
Hey-oh, this is the nightly "If you think Greg Abbott is a worthless hypocritical piece of subhuman trash, raise your hand" check-in!
Why don’t you go live in California? Oh shit that’s right libs ruined that state and now they their flocking to Texas.
Liberal media is talking about Texas losing money due to abortion when a bunch of California companies are relocating to Texas. Wonder why?
Sunshine and beaches comes with a 50% tax that ass.
The average Texan pays more tax and gets less funding received.
The majority of people both in CA and TEX don't make enough money for California's higher income tax brackets to matter. What does matter is that Texas disproportionately taxes it's lower middle income brackets over CA leading to higher taxes for the average folk.
LOL I live in California, muh dude. California uber alles. Y'all hate us cause you ain't us!
Think I might have stumbled on the perfect analogy.
Dogs (fetus) have zero right to be taken care of. The only way you should be held responsible for taking care of a dog (fetus) is if you agree to buy that dog (have sex)
I think this is the perfect analogy because it deftly sidesteps any question of personhood etc and just breaks it down.
You have the legal obligation to take care of any animal that you agree to take into your home. If you allow your dog to die or shoot it simply because you do not like it you will face legal consequences.
It should logically be the same with a fetus. Just as you wouldn't be legally liable to nourish a dog that broke into your home, you aren't or shouldn't be legally liable for the well being of the creature (fetus) that came under your care as a result of something you didn't agree to (rape).
But having sex is consenting to the risks therein. You owe the fetus (dog) care because you agreed to have sex (adopt a dog)
Please tell me any holes in this analogy
the holes are that none of that are true. you have no legal duty towards pets at all but following any "cruelty to animals" statutes that might exist. you can have a healthy pet put down because you dont want it anymore and im pretty sure you can shoot your own dog in most if not all states (not 100% sure on that, could be wrong). you can send your pet to the pound or a shelter and you can drive it to a field and drop it off with zero legal recourse. like, did you think about what you wrote at all?
Adoption is a reasonable amalgam for all the things you said. You can put your child up for adoption
And you can treat your kid however you want unless it constitutes abuse in the same way as well
you can literally open the door and shoo a dog out and pretend it never existed. adoption si a legal process, you cant just hand your kid to someone
And you can drop your kid on the fire station steps.
And go to jail for it. There is not many people who adopt. Foster system proves it. Majority of foster parents are not good looking loving people. They do it for money and a lot of kids in foster care get abused physically and sexually
No you can legally drop your kids off at the fire station no questions asked
consenting to sex is not inherently consenting to becoming pregnant. an example is using birth control during sex. thats the biggest flaw here. no one, regardless of the disputed origin of life, has the right to use someone else’s bodily resources for their own gain. an example would be you cannot force anyone to donate a body part to you regardless of how badly you need it and they do not.
> You have the legal obligation to take care of any animal that you agree to take into your home. If you allow your dog to die or shoot it simply because you do not like it you will face legal consequences.
No you don't. I can take my dog to the vet today and have him put down and give 0 reason for it. I'm simply not allowed to be cruel to him.
>It should logically be the same with a fetus. Just as you wouldn't be legally liable to nourish a dog that broke into your home, you aren't or shouldn't be legally liable for the well being of the creature (fetus) that came under your care as a result of something you didn't agree to (rape).
You're not allowed to stab a 5 year old girl to death because though no fault of her own she found herself in your home.
>But having sex is consenting to the risks therein. You owe the fetus (dog) care because you agreed to have sex (adopt a dog)
You don't have to take care of the dog you just have to be responsible in how you deal with it. You can take it to the vet or give it up for adoption. Dogs are not the same as humans in that you can't take a healthy human to the Drs to have it pumped full of morphine until it dies.
>No you don't. I can take my dog to the vet today and have him put down and give 0 reason for it.
Uhhh what? You have to have a reason to put an animal down. Even if you lie and say that they have a health problem of some sort.
No you don't. It's horrible but you don't.
Pretty sure no veterinarian is going to just put a healthy, tame animal down without some kind of valid reason, unless the only reason is that they're being paid to, which also isn't much different from having an abortion, but that frames the situation in the way that abortion is merely a service, not something that anyone "has a right"/is entitled to.
this is literally just not true and i’m really surprised that you haven’t heard of this happening. you can google it instead of arguing because you’re “pretty sure”
i worked at a vet and this came up uncomfortably often considering i live in one of the most affluent areas of the country.
>this is literally just not true and i’m really surprised that you haven’t heard of this happening. you can google it instead of arguing because you’re “pretty sure”
I guess some people will literally do anything as long as they're being paid for it and its not illegal.
the problem is that at times if the vet refuses, people will take matters into their own hands. it’s really horrifying. i won’t get into the details. they don’t necessarily use a gun…
where i live, usually people could be easily persuaded to take a different route. not the case everywhere.
>the problem is that at times if the vet refuses, people will take matters into their own hands.
Right so you acknowledge that vets do turn people down without a valid reason. If you're talking about an exception of people who will euthanize for no reason, then I don't think thats much of a contradiction.
what do you mean? it was never that they do or don’t, it’s that it’s absolutely legal. you said you “have” to have a reason, and that “no vet would” except both of those things are provably wrong.
eta: not really any different than a doctor that won’t do an abortion vs one that will. and it’s not really an exception, it’s fairly commonplace. you can’t stop them from doing what they want with their dog. i don’t know why you think you know more than me considering i worked at a practice with dozens of vets.
Animal shelters kill thousands of healthy animals. Peta shelters are worse. Animals are property.
As I said at the start children aren't animals. I am free to humanly kill my dog I am not free to kill my toddler just as my toddler isn't free to kill me.
>Animal shelters kill thousands of healthy animals.
There's still a reason for that, which is that they don't have the resources needed to house them. They're overflowing.
> Peta shelters are worse. Animals are property.
Technically, yes, but other humans are not.
>As I said at the start children aren't animals. I am free to humanly kill my dog I am not free to kill my toddler just as my toddler isn't free to kill me.
Right, but you were using the analogy of euthanizing pets as an argument for abortion.
Where do you think animals go if you give them up? Oh that's right a kill shelter.
I'm arguing that killing animals is not the same as killing humans and the law reflects this fact.
>Where do you think animals go if you give them up? Oh that's right a kill shelter.
There are no-kill adoption centers. If people take them to animal control, that's their choice, really.
>I'm arguing that killing animals is not the same as killing humans and the law reflects this fact.
Didn't seem that way. It sounded like you were arguing for abortion by mentioning that you could just take an animal that you didn't want anymore to be put down and not have anymore responsibility for it.
No kill shelters are rare and for good reason.
No I don't believe that you have the right to kill a baby I do however think you have the right to give the child up.
No, the dog is not tethered to your body, and keeping a dog alive does not entail things like an episiotomy or c-section. Try again
It's not a 1 to 1 comparison its an analogy. It only needs to work in the areas that are being compared.
Here the areas being compared are your responsibility to other beings you consent to enter your life
Also you can give the dog to a shelter or and this is great: You can go to a vet and euthanize it. Just like that.
Should you? I don't think killing a dog you can hive away makes sense but yeah, you have more legal rights over an animals life then your own body.
This is a great analogy for adoption
Yeah and if some people want to do that they can. And I think a lot more could be accomplished if we incentivized adoption for mothers to consider it worthwhile. But if people do not want to use their body for the birth, that should be permitted. You can still judge them for it.
They are permitted to not use they body for birth even without abortion there's a plethora of options at their disposal
I agree. Birth control is great. Everyone who does not want a kid should use it, and men should have an option as well to spare women from the longer term effects of hormonal birth control.
But it does not guarantee that people will no longer need abortions.
I think we probably define the word need differently as I think very very very few women actually require abortion but I do believe those few should have access to it
Honestly this entire thing is just a stupid political culture war tribal thing. Most Republicans and Conservatives or Christians don't actually believe Abortion is murder or the fetus is a child, they just pretend they do because they want a sticking point against Liberals.
If Conservatives actually believed the baby genocide, they would be engaged in literal civil war and bombing abortion clinics daily, they are not. Christians on this are also going against literally thousands of years of their own religion which considered the soul to enter the body during quickening, which happens between 18-22 weeks. Again, if they also believed \*murder\* they would be doing much more than just voting Republican. Also lets be real, the Republicans never, ever intend to repel RvW, they could have done it for a long time now and haven't ever even attempted it because they know if they did, 30% of their voter base would go to sleep.
Also exploited by Democrats, Democrats could settle this through federal legislation, but know Abortion is a massive way to get donations from Liberal women and orgs and keep voting numbers up.
Stupid wedge issue that everyone is Larping over that exists purely to make $$$ for political parties and keep politicians in power.
> If Conservatives actually believed the baby genocide, they would be engaged in literal civil war and bombing abortion clinics daily, they are not.
*"If Liberals actually believed climate change is killing the planet, they would literally bomb every piece of real estate belonging to petroleum companies daily, they are not"*
I mean I hear what you're saying, but this is the bar too high.
It's not exactly larping if the majority of the population is actually concerned with these things. Point being is that they're barely aware of their own existence let alone someone else/a group of people possibly controlling them like animals being trained.
Why would people who are opposed to what they view as murder, deliberately risk murdering people?
It's the pre-twitter version of keyboard warrioring. A lot of meaningless hot air and virtue signalling to feel morally victorious.
Conservatives are anything but pacifists, if they're fine drone bombing pregnant women in some country they have no idea where the hell it is with 90% approval ratings, surely they would be fine against literal baby slaughter factories being bombed to the ground.
And yet the most drone bombings we've done as a country happened under
You're ignoring the whole rule of law, and democratic republic thing we got going.
People can disagree with abortions or wars or drone strikes, but still abide by the laws of the land. And laws say: No bombings, at least domestically.
I get the feeling you aren’t as smart as you think you are, or you’re just being dishonest
[They do bomb abortion clinics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence). You can't go to most abortion clinics without at least one person handing out pamphlets at the nicest. I don't know where you get your opinions, but I would consider reading more widely.
Yes, some people do, but the 99.9999% don't. if you genuienly thought there was a building where babies are being slaughtered, wouldn't you molotov that fucker?
Yes I would but I'd also be sure I would have zero legal consequences if it were truly just a den of murderers.
But the law being the way it is all you'd be doing is dooming yourself to life in prison
If its deemed unconstitutional that means those affected in the mean time could also sue the state? Potentionally any pregnant woman in the state?
[Bloomberg - Justice Department sues Texas over abortion law, calling it unconstitutional](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-09/u-s-sues-texas-to-block-state-s-abortion-law)
Law is dumb since unwanted kids are not likely to be assets to society, mothers will turn to risky ways to abort, 6 weeks is not enough.
We need gestational limits and Canada saying personhood is given to [the baby after it leaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights#:~:text=a%20child%20becomes%20a%20human%20being%20within%20the%20meaning%20of%20this%20act%20when%20it%20has%20completely%20proceeded%2C%20in%20a%20living%20state%2C%20from%20the%20body%20of%20its%20mother%20%2C%20whether%20or%20not%3A) the womb is dumb, even fetal viability is stupid because we all depend on people for survival, it does not make the fetus undeserving of life.
I think it is retarded to imagine we can't kill this organism after conception since it has the potential to become a human. Just like death is brain death, we all need to agree personhood begins when the fetus's brain develops enough to feel pain. I think sometime between [12 to 15 weeks](https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/stages/can-my-baby-taste-before-shes-born/#:~:text=you're%2013%20to%2015%20weeks%20pregnant%2C%20your%20baby's%20taste%20buds%20have%20developed%2C%20and%20she%20can%20start%20sampling%20different%20flavors%20from%20your%20diet) [is a good point](https://www.npr.org/2011/08/08/139033757/babys-palate-and-food-memories-shaped-before-birth#:~:text=%20the%20babies%20who%20had%20experienced%20carrot%20in%20amniotic%20fluid%20or%20mother's%20milk%20ate%20more%20of%20the%20carrot-flavored%20cereal%2C) to start banning abortions.
Ideally, make it super easy and cheap to get abortions before that. But we need to keep some amount of shame and ensure abortion never turns into some sort of alternative to safe sex, family planning, etc.
So this law is dumb, using civil suits and having bounties is not the right way to approach this, the republicans are playing dirty... but democrats are not really being fair here regarding the [legitimate concerns](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/#:~:text=could%20be%20in%20place) surrounding late-term abortions and [the real reasons](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/AGIAbortionReasonsBarChart.png) most abortions happen. I hope this causes the left to compromise and think about stuff like [paper abortions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_abortion).
what are you implying people say the real reason most abortions happened? that list is basically exactly what i’d have expected it to be
eta: also, late term abortions are not legal unless it’s to save the mother bc of planned parenthood v casey
I hear people keep talking about rape, deformities, etc. These edge cases I think people will agree abortions are ethical... It's when you weigh abortion vs career, quality of dad, finances that I think the ethics isn't that straightforward.
I'm not sure people realize the exact breakup but if I'm wrong then that's cool. I think it's possible for people to hold a nuanced view to abortion where they feel the law should consider the reasons too. Me personally like I've said elsewhere don't mind but I can understand why society might choose to make sex a risky business - to be done with a thoroughly vetted man, at the appropriate time in your life, etc.
The case you mention is a Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Requirements for parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting period were constitutionally valid regulations.
I don't see how the undue burden framework that the law brought forward made late term abortions illegal unless it's to save the mothers life. Any links you can give me?
That judgement was pronounced in 1992, while cdc claims 1.2% of abortions happened after 21 weeks in 2016. https://archive.is/SJZc0
planned parenthood v casey partially overturned roe v wade and set the abortion limit to the age of viability. i’ll send links in the morning. just saw this and had a quick reply but i’m falling asleep lol
Oh no rush man... I just checked the wiki article and it seems to say it upheld roe v wade’s viability standard but overturned the trimester framework and the strict scrutiny standard in favor of an undue burden standard under which abortion restrictions would be unconstitutional when they were enacted for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Applying this new standard of review, more laws passed by states could be upheld.
But finally states have to pass individual laws on how they regulate abortions.
I understand that most people might abort that late cause they realize fetal abnormality or mom’s life is at risk but it's not the only reason.
A study from 2013 found after excluding abortion "on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment", that women seeking late abortions "fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous". They concluded that "bans on abortion after 20 weeks will disproportionately affect young women and women with limited financial resources
> we all need to agree personhood begins when the fetus's brain develops enough to feel pain
Is feeling pain particularly human/specific to people? Dogs and cats feel pain but they're not considered to be people.
So the way I understand it, we relate to pain felt by other mammals. The emotions humans feel including love, anger, pain, are very similar to the emotions pigs and cows feel. To a lesser extent chickens. I think fish can hardly be said to feel pain and insects are too different from us to be able to relate.
Our mirror neurons activate strongly for our in-group.. So we have empathy for other humans. We seem to have decided that the pain of animals don't matter as much as the nutritional value, the transient pleasure of the taste etc. I think veganism is the future as we get better at growing meat. We might eat fungus and insects too as this level of factory farming becomes unsustainable.
Personally I think it's the principle of human life being sacred is drawn from individualism where we derive value from the authentic voice inside our head. The voter, the customer, are right because we stopped deriving meaning more god or nature... We believe individual humans can decide what is beauty. So this human centric world view is a philosophy that is just the trend in our era. Yuval noah harari talks about humanism and why animals are not according the same “human” rights.
I think we can change the term, personally my definition would be that anything that feels pain is alive.
I don't think anyone is saying a fetus is not alive. We kill all sorts of living things. Obviously you want to be as humane about it as possible.
They're giving a favorable definition of what is "alive" here, so basically if a fetus can't feel pain at some point, like before they develop a nervous system, then the person above doesn't consider them to be a separate, living entity. To them, it basically is a skin cell, tumor or parasite.
Canada's law is not dumb, it leaves the matter to the Medical Associations and the individual woman's doctor to discuss with her.
Also, between 12 and 15 weeks is arbitrary given that your own citation says fetal pain doesn't develop until 21.
I think personhood shouldn't be defined as “when the baby leaves the vagina” that specifically is what is dumb the fetus is obviously a person much before that. My citation shows that as early as 13 weeks the baby can taste and remember that taste after birth.
Pain should be around 21 sure but even in 2015 in the United States, about 1.3% of abortions took place after the 21st week, and less than 1% occur after 24 weeks (check wiki on late term abortions)
For Canada with more permissible laws - During the year 2009, 29% of induced abortions were performed before 8 weeks, 41% at 9 to 12 weeks, 7% at 13 to 16 weeks and 2% over 21 weeks.
I think about 1.5 million induced abortions happen so 30,000 babies died in pain I guess? The left shouldn't act like this isn't happening. We need more research into fetal development, mri scans to check which brain regions light up during abortions, memory formation, etc.
Anyway if you abort early enough I'm personally fine. Try to reduce all this paperwork and make it free ideally. I just don't like late term abortions... But things in Canada are likely not bad, there must be good reasons why they opt for it like medical deformities, so mothers life, kid’s quality of life are all valid reasons to abort. As long as everyone knows fetuses can feel pain and we appreciate what we are doing, then I think its fine to abort considering the specific context.
>I hope this causes the left to compromise and agree to [paper abortions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_abortion).
Yep accelerationism to bring to the table for compromise
The right likes the idea of paper abortions even less. The red states are the harshest on deadbeat dads
Paper abortions are politically unpopular because everyone who's not an autist on Reddit can figure out why there's no comparison to make between "forcing rape victims into pregnancy and birth" and "paying money to the state"
Yeah honestly I just want want a conversation around the mother’s right to give up the child for adoption and not take responsibility for the upkeep while men have no such ability to opt out of supporting their kid. This gender imbalance does not seem fair.
I think most societies decide to favor child's rights over parents rights, for example the French making paternity tests illegal. I don't have that strong of an opinion on this but it deserves deeper thought for sure.
> mother’s right to give up the child for adoption and not take responsibility for the upkeep while men have no such ability to opt out
Wouldn't the father also have to consent to his child being adopted?
Yeah, that is what I thought too, but there are laws in place but the mother can notify the father at the last minute and not give him enough time to do anything about the adoption. Others can choose [not to notify](https://theblackwallsttimes.com/2021/02/22/placed-in-adoption-by-ex-girlfriend-father-and-daughter-reunite/) at all. Claim they got [verbal consent](https://fundyouradoption.org/resources/put-a-child-up-for-adoption-without-the-fathers-consent/), lie that they can't locate/contact the father.
It is hard to establish paternity if the mother does not cooperate. So then the father has no legal rights.
Anyway, my original point was that it seems like men do not have as many choices as women do.
I think the mother should talk to the father and if the father does not want the kid, the mother can rethink if she really wants to give birth. The state should pitch in and help the mom out. It doesn't make sense to force the father to support the kid unwillingly.
But if the state can't support single mothers (I don't know much the cost will be) then this will just make it more likely mothers will choose to abort and we will have fewer unwanted kids. Quality of life matters more than just life imo.
> then this will just make it more likely mothers will choose to abort and we will have fewer unwanted kids.
I get this perspective. And I am pro-life as well.
But I also think incentivizing abortion is a terrible thing for the kind of person who believes in life at conception. So to them you are damning them to murdering their child or a live of poverty because the father gets to skip along his merry way.
hmm, I don't believe in hell, but I understand they do. So I guess I don't mind waiting till atheism is more prevalent and enough people agree that there is no soul that enters the embryo during conception.
I don't mind the state funding these kids, or all kids. The best way to tackle inequality is to invest in kids. Spending tax money to make education cheap, ensure every citizen gets nutritious food should make it possible for the mother to raise the kid with her income.
Eventually, I feel paper abortion will make sense even if right now it is not practical.
My question is that if men know they have no legal responsibility for their spawn, how will that change *their* behavior? From a logistical point of view, if a man keeps having kids he doesn't want right *now*, he is going to be so financially strapped that he stops spreading his seed right?
I don't really know if a man excessively spreading his seed is a net negative or not. In this current model it is because it stretches resources too thinly.
Damn, that would be bad. I personally would take care of any kid I make. I guess just like how feminists argue that women should be given the freedom to abort the kid because they mostly want to keep the kid and will only abort in exceptional circumstances, I was thinking men will only use the paper abortion option in exceptional cases. It is not something I personally can imagine needing to use.
hmm, maybe if the mother is unable to be tolerated and will use the kid as a weapon against you, it hurts your mental health to be around her, you were raped or baby trapped, rare stuff like that.
Well honestly if a guy can be that successful in attracting women then he should go for it. If he is doing so using fraud, or some illegal means then we should have laws to punish him. I guess the problem is that this will result in a few men dominating the gene pool - the ones that women find the most attractive.
This stuff is complicated, I have to think more about it but a good point from your end. If I remember I'll come back and add some proposal. For now, I think most guys would not do that, we should ensure good values are praised, and such men are shamed and not respected in society.
They are unpopular for now. Old republicans and young republicans are completely different.
You'd bring in different people who are currently apathetic to abortion rights into the tent through broad platform of reproductive freedom that pairs the two together
Or whatever don't bother trying abortion ban's fine 🤷♂️
No one wants to take money away from kids except from these hysterical Mens Rights weirdos. I'm not sure bringing all 14 of them into the tent will make much of a difference
And any man who's that scared of paying child support should be fighting for abortion. What are they gonna do when women have no choice but to baby-trap them?
Lot of overlap between apathetic eligible non voters and eligible non voters who have interacted with the child support system, of both genders
They want the state to pay for their kids but decry woman use it for kids already. Clown shit.
CMV: If the violinist analogy is the best example to defend your position, your position is shit.
There are so many holes and points that just don't match up to abortion and bodily autonomy.
[Violinist](https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm) is not such a wholly terrible argument, if you take its presuppositions and conclusions seriously (which nobody does).
One main presupposition is that "**you've got to stay in bed**". For abortion to be permissible, pregnancy HAS TO BE so crippling that you literally cannot do anything other than stay in bed for 9 months.
Author then goes on to finish:
> while I do argue that abortion is not impermissible, I do not argue that it is always permissible. There may well be cases in which carrying the child to term requires only Minimally Decent Samaritanism of the mother, and this is a **standard we must not fall below**.
We fall below violinist standard in at least 90% of abortion cases.
The main one that I disagree with is that the violinist mysteriously develops a disease that only you can cure instead of "you fed the violinist food that may or may not have been poisoned. You knew there was a chance that it might be poisoned, but you fed it to him anyways. You are now the only one that can save his life"
I don't know how anyone can ethically say that you aren't responsible for saving him from the illness that you directly caused.
that's fair. It is one of the presuppositions that violinist is attached to you through no fault of your own.
One specific example author gives is 14 year old girl that was raped, where this type of analogy would apply.
But yes it would not apply in vast majority of cases.
Well I just don't see how that's possible. You don't meet an embryo and even have an opportunity to poison them. The embryo comes up to a uterus and implants and that's why it's attached to that particular woman. The embryo could have been implanted into a different woman and survive there (possible with surrogacy). It's only because the embryo implanted in the particular woman that removing it will cause its death. It's entirely correct that the person hooked up and the Violinist never met or interacted previously.
> comes to a uterus
It doesn't come to **a** uterus. It comes to that specific woman's uterus.
An embryo doesn't mysteriously implant itself into a random woman.
This woman performed an action (except for rape) that fertilized that egg, which caused it to implant.
You might not have met the violinist either. It's possible you sent him poisoned food, or in the case of your neighbor, you may have given him leukemia without ever meeting him.
I don't see what meeting the person has to do with anything.
Well with surrogacy the embryo could encounter another other uterus and implant just fine there. Before it implants it is not tied to a specific woman biologically.
What I mean about the meeting thing is that you seem to be constructing a narrative where some act damaged the embryo and that implantation is owed in order to correct that damage. Plenty of otherwise viable embryos never even manage to implant for various reasons. It's not that the embryo is damaged at all. The uterus isn't repairing or correcting a poisoning or other insult that the woman caused the embryo. The uterus and mother are merely *helping* the embryo continue its development.
The violinist analogy is the one that damages the violinist, not me.
I'm just taking the violinist scenario and changing it to something more accurate.
That's where I disagree, you're making it less accurate. Yes, the analogy is a bit rough because it's substituted a disease as source of the need. But in pregnancy it's not that the embryo's need derives from disease. In that respect it seems irrelevant to go and ponder the backstory about where the Violinist's disease came from. All that really matters in the analogy is that the Violinist is at the mercy of the other. I get that you're trying to find culpability from sex resulting in pregnancy. But that's like I tried to explain with the drunk driving analogy, just because something bad has started, it doesn't follow that there's a moral imperative to not avoid negative outcomes.
But why shouldn't culpability be a factor here?
That missing a HUGE piece of the analogy.
It's like the difference of "I'm not responsible for feeding children and letting them starve" vs "I am responsible for feeding **MY** child and making sure it doesn't starve."
Using a violinist that has no connection to the donor is misguided. You must apply a reasonable amount of consequence for the situation the violinist is currently in. Failing to do so doesn't accurately detail the similarities to a fetus.
Neither the fetus nor the violinist did anything wrong and is only in the position of needing support because of the actions of the only one that can give it to them.
Removing this critical piece is disingenuous.
How is anyone "culpable" for failed birth control? You have to understand that fundamentally I see what a pregnant woman does as a *gift* of her body. Literally nobody is entitled to a gift and it's revolting to demand gifts as entitlements. The universe is a cold uncaring place and a mother's gift of life to a child is a beautiful act of kindness. It may or may not be cruel to deny someone a gift, but it's still just a gift and not an entitlement. I'm not saying people should be celebrating. I just think the decision of whether or not to gift her body is extremely personal to a woman and I have no business injecting myself there. Abortion is certainly a tragedy, I'm not denying that. But again the world is full of tragedy and suffering. Forcing a woman to suffer doesn't change that.
Well, even if you caused person's injuries, no one can really force you to donate blood, organs or stem cells to them. So I think it is pretty accurate.
They can force you to pay money in lieu of those things though.
Only money, not blood, organs or stem cells.
So who should women pay money to for damages? The father? The State?
As they don't really do damage to anyone besides fetuses, they shouldn't pay for it.
Ah. Very convenient. Considering that the baby is half the fathers, though, I'd say the fathers should be paid for damages in the event of an abortion.
Fetus isn't "half the fathers". A baby is.
That may be the law, but is it ethical?
It is, because taking one's organs without their consent isn't ethical in any way.
It doesn't matter if it's ethical. It matters if the *government compels* *you* to do it
The government isn't compelling you to have sex and create a fetus.
What she’s saying is even if you shoot a guy and cause him to need an organ transplant, the government can’t compel you to give it. The government isn’t forcing you to shoot people either
Do you think people don't know the law? Why is it women on here when we are discussing morality they feel compelled to blandly spout the law.
Men "should x be y"
Women on here "the law says x is z"
Yeah no shit, we are doing thought experiments. Either participate or stop derailing
It’s not detailing. Corpses have more legal rights to their body than women. I’m asking why that should be the case.
Right, which is where the blurry line between ethics and law come into play.
The law can't force you to give him an organ transplant, but the ethics are different than the law.
The law shouldn't force women to carry to term
The ethics of abortion are a private, individual concern
It's the best example I've seen for isolating the specific question of whether arguments of about personhood of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby matter. For me at least it converts the entire question into an issue of medical ethics. There are a great many situations where people could donate their bodies or time to save others and are not evil or whatever for choosing not to. Abortion just becomes a corner case.
The problem with the violinist vs abortion is that in the violinist, you didn't cause the ailment. With a baby, you directly caused the ailment that required the violinist to be hooked up to you.
In the analogies, it's always "he got a rare disease that only you can save", not "you poisoned him on accident and now you have to be hooked up to him so he doesn't die".
That brings a whole other layer of ethical arguments into play.
I don't know that we have a legal precedence for that scenario, so I don't know that we can say that the law doesn't require you to be hooked up to save him. But ethically, I would argue that you are obligated to save his life since you are the one that poisoned him.
Well, yes. It brings those other issues into play because the personhood question is resolved and off the table. You must move on to other topics.
Suppose your neighbor says they have developed leukemia resulting from your use of a particular fertilizer and demands that you undergo compatibility testing for a bone marrow transplant? And that you must pay for the testing and eventual bone marrow transplant.
Seems like a reasonable thing to ask.
If your negligence causes someone to get a terminal illness that you alone can prevent, why wouldn't you?
Do you think the one that got the illness should be paying for your negligence?
Ethically, you'd be a monster not to. Legally, I'm not sure.
Also, pregnancy is a far fucking cry from a bone marrow transplant.
Are you holding onto some choice in how the matter is resolved? If it were abortion and abortion were verbotten, then refusing to accept responsibility for the fertilizer would be verbotten. You would have no choice. It wouldn't matter what your intentions were when you used the fertilizer. Leukemia risk was disclosed on the box.
For you, sure.
But why should your neighbor, who had no say on whether or not you used the fertilizer have to pay for his surgery?
Why should you get away without any consequences if you are the one that used the fertilizer knowing this is a possible effect?
Monetary compensation is certainly something a court could order. It cannot compel an elective medical procedure.
Like I said, the law probably wouldn't, but it would be unethical to let someone die from something you directly caused if using your body could save them.
The law is not always on the side of ethics.
Well, I certainly don't believe law is any sort of a moral compass. The issue is in which instances you can violate someone's bodily integrity and autonomy which I don't think has a broad or easy answer. We did used to sterilize psychiatric patients for example and that's now considered inhumane. And we would partially lobotomize women who were too troublesome as wives to make them more docile.
But this did get a bit sidetracked with the poisoning thing and it's before it clicked that there's nothing equivalent to "poisoning" in a healthy pregnancy.
I've been going in hard on [this front page post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/pkc26b/viable_meme/)
I am genuinely flip flopping back and forth on the philosophy of human life, and I'm wondering where I'm gonna land on this issue. A couple epiphanies I've had:
* It *does* matter if the fetus is a person, because then that fetus deserves just as much bodily autonomy as you.
* The phrase 'separate entity' definitely suggests viability is the point where a fetus becomes human.
* If viability then means the fetus has the right to live and the woman still has the right to her bodily autonomy to remove the fetus, if she forces the birth, that kid is going to suffer lifelong health problems due to her forcing the premature birth. Is she morally responsible for willfully giving a child birth defects?
* In a scenario where the ONLY source of nutrients to a newborn is breastmilk and only the mother can provide it, is that mother morally obligated to use her body to keep her child from starving?
* If you are against aborting humans out of convivence, you should be against killing animals to eat their flesh out of convenience. To do otherwise suggests the valuation of life is *completely* arbitrary.
Now here's a weird one I just thought of:
* Does a mother have the right to produce and abort embryos for the purpose of harvesting them for profit or benefit?
on your last one only (producing and aborting embryos) i know that’s generally a hypothetical statement but what the *fuck* are people doing with that ???? is it like scientific research or something?
I think currently fetuses can be used for stem cell research.
But also with some weird House of the Scorpion shit, a fetus could be used to grow organs and the mother could extract them for her benefit. Someday.
* What's so special about personhood? We already declare that personhood is violable in the cases of criminals, self-defense and wartime, so it's evidentally not actually sacred (elsewise we'd be ardent pacifists). So I'd say rather than stemming from a sacred principle of personhood, our respect for bodily autonomy is strictly functional (i.e. it is more in our interests to respect the bodily autonomy of an actual human being over a potential human being).
* More of a linguistic necessity. In theory you can describe a different subjective experience as a unique "entity" but there's no way to verify consciousness and so the only time it becomes a definitely distinct entity is when it's no longer interfaced with its mother's biology.
* Does it actually benefit anyone to make her morally responsible for this? Chances are you'll be trying to extract water from a stone as you'll gain nothing for it. Further, are the consequences of forcing a mother (who likely has a damn good reason for wanting to end it) to carry the pregnancy to term worse than the consequences of a premature birth?
* We generally hold such a standard to avoid people letting others die pointlessly; it's not a grand ethical duty so much as loss prevention. So yes, probably, but only because we don't want to let an actual person die pointlessly.
* The valuation of life is arbitrary, as in fact all valuations are arbitrary. We create values to fulfill needs and accomplish ends; they are tools.
* Sure, why the fuck not?
What's the difference between killing a baby outside the womb vs when it's inside?
Abortion isn't killing a baby, its removing its abilty to leech the organ use of woman and it cant self sustain so it dies to that.
Killing a baby requires direct interaction with it to purposefully stop its abilty to sustain life. You effect the mothers body = abortion. You effect the baby directly = murder.
It's amazing how people like you will resort to the most arcane mental gymnastics to encourage what's essentially a mother killing her own child.
*Surely a father should be afforded the same right because a living baby is a "leech" on his wallet as you put it?
If I think you're a parasite on society, can I kill you?
Feelz before reels. All an abortion does is remove the attached embyro and lining. Either by a chemical that breaks it down or DNC. It's goal isn't death, but without borrowing a woman's organs it will die. BTW regardless of if it's a wanted pregnancy all pregnancy are by science parasitic in nature. The fetus does not provide benefit to its host.
I'm sorry reality is hard for you but your emotional nonsense is obviously very incorrect. Try being the logical gender tm
There definitely are later abortions which require a fetus to be dismembered for removal.
I hard to say whether or not being removed from its life support or the dismemberment kills them first.
Those only happen in casa where the fetus isn't viable but won't terminate (brain death) and represent less then 1%?
Uh... I don't know how infrequent those cases are. Depends on the size of the fetus.
It was disingenuous to say that all abortions are just the simple act of scooping an embryo. Some are much more visceral and involve fetuses that look much more like babies.
It is what it is. If you have a cut off date for abortions, then you can clarify that.
Umm, everywhere does is my point. Late term abortion is pretty much only preformed and legal in cases of non viability or mothers health. You can't get one that's elective in most places in na.
Ah. Stop trying to puppeteer off your agenda as "Science".
Why don't you answer my initial question instead: uptil what point are you okay with killing unborn children?
Right up until the point of delivery or some other arbitrary phase of gestation?
When it becomes an unborn child.
I.e viability outside the womb. Until then it's not a child. It's a parasitic fetus with no right to a woman's body. Even if I consider it a child like you at an early point it still has no right to her body.
Forced organ donation is unprecedented
It's not in the mother's body and thus there's no concern of her bodily autonomy to consider. It has also gone from being a potential person to being an actual person.
So what magical quality does passage through the birth canal bestow upon an otherwise non living entity?
If I stab a 9 month pregnant woman in the stomach and the baby dies, that's totally fine by your logic?
Right up until the point of birth, you should be able to debrain a baby and then casually either surgically remove or naturally deliver a corpse through stimulants and call it "bodily anatomy"?
Somehow I wasn't notified of this response or missed it. Anyhow, there is no magical quality; it's just not interfaced with the mother's body and thus there's no question of bodily autonomy meaning there would be nothing to be gained (no increase in bodily autonomy) from killing it, and it would set an undesirable precedent that killing babies is OK, which anybody who would like their baby to survive would have reason to not want to establish.
Absolutely not. We can't be tolerating pregnant women stabbers in society. First on the grounds that we can't tolerate stabbing (very few of us want to be stabbed) second on the grounds that we can't tolerate people terminating our partner's pregnancies (most of us would probably like it if we or our partners could carry pregnancies to term). It would not be in our collective interests (in that it would not be in the individual interests of most) to tolerate that.
No. My stance is that they should be able to remove it from their body whenever they please, not that they should be able to perform whatever pointless alteration or mutilation of it that they see fit (that actually took a little thought to work out).
Sure but you realize how having a mewling kid at him who'll probably die if you leave them, may also be considered a hindrance upon "bodily autonomy"?
Certainly, that's why there are generally options to opt out of parenthood (do note that I think child support needs to be done away with, replaced with the necessary institutional and economic supports to raise children solo).
>So what magical quality does passage through the birth canal bestow upon an otherwise non living entity?
The ability for it to live and breath on its own. Hence why viability has been a marker for when a fetus has rights to live.
So a Caesarian baby should be ripe for slaughter eh
Why just stop at breathe?
Surely we can extend beyond that to independent existence.
I mean, you'd have to be pretty dim to argue that a newborn baby can live and eat on its own.
It needs milk, constant attention and someone to clean up after it.
Surely you see why all non adult humans can be considered parasites?
What about people on respirators? Under your psychotic logic, surely we must butcher them?
By your logic infanticide is acceptable.
But we already knew that.
So here's the thing.
An infant is entitled to milk because *someone* is willing to give it. But since NO ONE except the mother can provide their body to the child to grow it, there are no alternatives.
We don't force women to pump milk against their will. We find an alternative.
So if no one wants to care for an infant it's okay to drown it in the river?
If no one wants to care for an infant it is guaranteed to die.
The baby is on life support while inside.
The reason personhood is so special is because it's such a slippery slope to suggest it conditional. If human rights were conditional then anyone could and definitely would take away your autonomy and force you to do whatever, that is if they don't take your life first. And no it's not violable in some cases, criminals do not lose all human rights, that's against the law and human rights(in most of the world euthanasia is against the law, The UN doesn't recognize it and the fact that some US states do it doesn't mean it's right). Criminals only lose they're autonomy, which is the only part of personhood that you can lose, because you have violated another person's human rights. Sorry my English is a bit rusty but you get the point.
It already is conditional: you fuck around, you find out; it couldn't get any simpler.
Further, while rights are handy legal guidelines for applying power towards protecting or establishing capabilities we deem worth the effort, they don't actually exist; nobody has any fucking rights. We have capabilities we can exercise and protect but its on us to use our available power to remain autonomous.
Finally, we absolutely do violate the personhood of criminals all the fucking time; they get shot dead pretty regularly, and I'd say violating the autonomy of a criminal is definitely a violation of their personhood, unless you think locking your grandma in your basement isn't a violation.
Criminals get shot dead when they present a credible threat to others, babies in the womb do not present a credible threat to the mother with modern tech.
Yes indeed, their existence is conditional. So I don't see why a fetus' existence can't be conditional on whether or not the mother wants it to be there, since what we gain from it is not subjecting women to the body-horror scenario of having carry unwanted pregnancies (for instance rape-babies) to term.
Rape babies are a strawman. Less than 1% of abortions are due to rape
Rape babies are something that occurs and an inevitable outcome of anti-abortion stances; it's cowardly not to acknowledge it.
Less than 1% of the issue isn't really worth mentioning and it's also disingenuous because many if not most see rape as an exception.
Tell me, why is it you want to focus on what amounts to less than 1% of the problem then conflate the other 99% with that?
That's just dishonest
Because I am not going to accept *any* possibility that one of the women I care about could be forced to carry a rape-baby. I defy you to go up to any of the women you care about and tell them you'd prefer the state force them to carry a rape-baby than let women abort a fetus resulting from consensual intercourse; if you can't, see my previous statement.
I've used the breast milk hypothetical as well as an example of a parasite using your body to feed from.
The pro-choicers couldn't get past the absurdity of the hypothetical and kept saying shit like "formula is a thing" or "wet nurses are a thing"
As if the stupid fucking violinist hypothetical is realistic, but they have no problem trotting that tired old hag out.
The one that I thought was interesting was asking if a father could use his blood as sustenance for the infant, should be be forced to cut himself several times a day to feed the child.
>If you are against aborting humans out of convivence, you should be against killing animals to eat their flesh out of convenience. To do otherwise suggests the valuation of life is completely arbitrary.
How is valuing one's own species over other species *completely arbitrary*
We are not morally superior to animals, we've just convinced ourselves of that in order to kill them.
And a living cow is objectively going to experience more pain and pleasure than a fetus. So if pro-life is an argument of compassion, this is cognitive dissonance.
And you could argue that it is *natural* to eat meat. It's how the world works. But nature is harsh. Hamsters eat their babies when there is a shortage of food.
>And you could argue that it is natural to eat meat. It's how the world works. But nature is harsh. Hamsters eat their babies when there is a shortage of food.
Ah so you do understand
My point was that appealing to nature means abortion is just as natural. We just do it before the kid is born.
You honestly don't believe human life is more valuable than a cows life?
A living cow or a fetus?
The cow is worth more. One has the potential, the other one has already reached it.
But the potential is greater in a fetus vs a cow?
not necessarily. some people have no more cognitive function than a cow. some people have less.
Exceptions in this thought experiment we have to assume healthy participants
no, it’s a flaw of the argument. if effectively cognitive function is the basis for which we judge value, then some humans are less valuable than others. it’s nonsensical
An analogy is not a 1 to 1 comparison or else it would be a comparison not an analogy.
Bird in the hand, two in the bush.
Sure, but in that saying we are dealing with rough equivalents. A bird is worth a bird.
Two cows are not the equivalent of a human.
I believe the word "fetus" was invented to distance and dehumanize the unborn baby.
Lol that is not why fetus is a term. Omg.
It does have that effect, but I think it is called that to distinguish its stage in gestation.
And has similar merit to as calling a kid a toddler vs a baby.
>It does matter if the fetus is a person, because then that fetus deserves just as much bodily autonomy as you.
I mean duh? Lol. That grey area is the point of the debate. If the fetus is a person, then women's autonomy doesn't apply to it. That is why pro-choice people try their hardest to dehumanize the fetus into a clump of cells or a parasite. If the fetus is not a human, then it certainly can't be a person.
>The phrase 'separate entity' definitely suggests viability is the point where a fetus becomes human.
Not exactly. "Separate entity" could be construed as "after birth" when the fetus is no longer inside of the mother.
>If viability then means the fetus has the right to live and the woman still has the right to her bodily autonomy to remove the fetus, if she forces the birth, that kid is going to suffer lifelong health problems due to her forcing the premature birth. Is she morally responsible for willfully giving a child birth defects?
I'd say yes, but even more important to consider is that if the fetus is viable and has the right to live along with the same autonomy, it doesn't give the woman the right to remove the fetus at all.
>In a scenario where the ONLY source of nutrients to a newborn is breastmilk and only the mother can provide it, is that mother morally obligated to use her body to keep her child from starving?
I wouldn't consider this as "using her body." These are needless terms created in an attempt to commoditize motherhood/parenthood. If anything, the fetus is the one that owes nothing in the scenario.
>If you are against aborting humans out of convivence, you should be against killing animals to eat their flesh out of convenience. To do otherwise suggests the valuation of life is completely arbitrary.
I don't get the logic here. This isn't an argument of the value of the fetus if you're comparing it to eating animals. We eat things to survive, not out of convenience. Conversely, most women do not need abortions to survive, so the comparison here is off.
>Now here's a weird one I just thought of:
>Does a mother have the right to produce and abort embryos for the purpose of harvesting them for profit or benefit?
Aside from producing them, because that's not something that she specifically does, if a woman wants to sell her eggs, that's up to her.
I dont think the woman owes the fetus anything either
That's where you'd be wrong. The parents created the fetus/child and essentially put them in the position of needing care, so they are obligated to provide that care. The fetus owes nothing because it did not ask to be created or put in that position of needing care. We hold people to the same standard today, except through an exchange of money. If you injure someone and put them in a position of needing care (or damage their property) you're liable for providing it, or the means to obtain it. They can also sue you for that care and often times the judge will rule in their favor, forcing you to provide it.
So, that paints the picture to me that people who support abortion really are just trying to get out of the responsibility/obligation of providing care, like fleeing the scene after a hit and run.
My point about meat eating is that we have a surplus of meat alternatives that we could sustain ourselves off of. *Sometimes* you need meat to survive, but at this point we are eating it because it is a cheap source of protein and easier to come by.
As for the woman not producing embryos, it's the same logic that follows abortion. Once it's in her body, she has complete dominion over it.
>My point about meat eating is that we have a surplus of meat alternatives that we could sustain ourselves off of. Sometimes you need meat to survive, but at this point we are eating it because it is a cheap source of protein and easier to come by.
Idk about that. Not all protein is created equal. I haven't verified it yet but I've heard that one impossible burger patty contains somewhere around 30% - 40% estrogen of one birth control pill. Might be phytoestrogen, but still probably not a good thing. We would still need animal proteins to include organ meats for optimal health even if we had an unlimited supply of vegetables.
Going back to the argument, survival and health is not a comparison to the perceived value of a life.
>As for the woman not producing embryos, it's the same logic that follows abortion. Once it's in her body, she has complete dominion over it.
Not really because eggs aren't other humans and therefore can't have the other things applied to them in the top of your comment. *Those* are just cells with no personhood or autonomy to speak of.
I used to have this problem until I read Judith Thomson's "The Violinist" in *A Defense of Abortion*. That's when it sank in to me that it doesn't matter. My view now is that a woman carrying an embryo/fetus/whatever to term is purely an act of kindness. I have read any challenges to Thomson that I can find and they're all... just not convincing at all.
The violinist is such an embarrassingly bad defence of abortion, it's like the person who wrote it doesn't understand how human reproduction works.
It's not like the storks are flying over people's houses and dropping babies at random like allied bombers in ww2 and you're just hoping you don't get hit.
You have to actively participate in the act of copulation (barring rape) which the results and consequences of you should be fully aware. Defenders of the violinist handwave this away, and it's absolutely baffling and I can't take them seriously, and I'm pro-abortion.
I don't think that causality argument is very convincing. Consider driving drunk. If you start driving drunk, there's no reason to keep driving drunk until you're pulled over or cause an accident in order to accept the consequences of starting to drive drunk.
What? It has everything to do with it, again, you literally cannot get pregnant unless you have sex.
The violinist has so many holes in it.
The biggest is letting someone die vs killing someone.
A better example is if you are walking along a lake and see someone drowning, but you can't swim, you didn't kill this person. However, if you were in a boat and you threw him overboard and watched him drown, you actively did something to cause his death.