discussion Roe V. Wade 50-year landmark overturned by SCOTUS 6-3

[Literature]

1 hour ago, John Slayne said:

You literally ignored my point. Abortion is about ending the pregnancy. It is NOT about killing the foetus. That's just the byproduct of an abortion, but not its active aim. People don't get abortion because they want to kill. They get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant. The same way people refuse to donate organs not because they want people to die, but because they do not wish to lose their organs, which is a valid decision from my bodily autonomy argument. 

 

So I am still waiting for you to explain how it is different to organ donation, because by that logic I could also say that your refusal to donate a kidney is an act which causes a person on the waiting list to suffer or even die. 

 

What exactly is the 'inextricable linkage' and why does it matter? I thought for the purposes of this argument we agreed that a foetus is its own person with its own right to live, just like the gestator. They are not one entity. My argument is simple: you can't force a person to use a part of their body to save someone else's life. That's it. I don't see why it matters whether the person is a foetus in uterus or a person without functioning kidney on a waiting list. You are assigning special values to foetuses growing inside of uteruses for literally no reason. In both cases it's about needing consent before you use someone's body to keep another person alive.

 

The inextricable linkage matters because ending the pregnancy is the action of killing the fetus. They are one and the same. Aborted babies are sucked away, poisoned, or chopped up and do not survive. Not donating a kidney does not actively kill the person - they may make a miraculous recovery or receive a donated organ from someone else. Yes, they may die, but you did not kill them.  

 

 

May I ask you and Communion, do you guys think abortion should be allowed at any stage in the pregnancy, and for any reason? 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Literature

[Literature]

20 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

You are just being ageist in that case. You think the gestator's is more valuable because they are older and have more experience, or are 'establishe' (whatever that means). The question then is how far are you willing to take this logic and how do you apply it for other cases? Let's say there's an orphan who just turned 18 so they live on their own. They have no family or friends and haven't had time to start a family. Would it be then okay to kill them, harvest their organs and save 5 people in their 30s who are 'more established', meaning they have careers, families, friends, children, etc.? Because if we don't kill that lonely teenager then those 5 people will die which cause a lot of pain to their families and will be a loss for the communities/jobs as well. 

 

If you are saying one life is more important than another based on experience or 'establishedness' then essentially that's what you are saying, it is ok to sacrifice one person to save another as long as they are more 'established', I don't see why that logic should be applied only for pregnancy since, like YOU said, a foetus is a full person just like people who were already born. 

I do think there is a slight distinction between pre-birth and post-birth. Post-birth is what I would classify as an established life. I don't mean established in the sense of wealth, family, or any of that, at all.

[Literature]

59 minutes ago, Communion said:

You're being mocked for trying to frame yourself as reasonable despite there being no secular evidence for literally anything of what you're saying. Of course you haven't opted to religion being the base of your worldview - that doesn't mean we can't laugh at and point out the truth to the nonsense you're preaching.

 

You're getting attitude because your arguments being pedantry and fallacies makes it clear you're arguing in bad faith. It's why when it's pointed out what the modern medical consensus is, you pivot to "one definitive definition". When confronted with the reality that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb without medical intervention, you pivot to debating that being kept alive is "surviving" to justify government-sanction of people's uteruses. 

 

You're not operating in the real world at this point. People in PVS have been kept alive on life support for upwards of 5-6 years. The decision to allow families to remove their loved one from life support is not based on how far someone can live on life support. It's based on that, whether now or 6 years from now, that person is no longer sentient. The person they loved is no longer there. What is left is a biological system without a personhood behind it.

Bruh what, literally who mocked or framed me or any of that stuff you're saying....I don't think I'm being unreasonable or "preaching" I'm just saying what I think, not attacking anyone and looking at both sides' argument. Why are you being so bitter and pretentious about it, making up stuff about me like I believe in a "bearded man in the clouds that have birds flying around" (wtf?) 

 

If I haven't made this clear, my goal is not to get the government to control uteruses lol, they can do what they want with their uteruses, but as long as there is not a separate human being inside of there. Now I know you don't think it counts as a separate human being but frankly that doesn't matter to me. I'll ask you the question again in case you didn't see it before: Do you believe abortion should be for any reason and at any stage in the pregnancy?

Edited June 27, 2022 by Literature

[John Slayne]

3 minutes ago, Literature said:

The inextricable linkage matters because ending the pregnancy is the action of killing the fetus. They are one and the same. Aborted babies are sucked away, poisoned, or chopped up and do not survive. Intent does not matter. Not donating a kidney does not actively kill the person - they may make a miraculous recovery or receive a donated organ from someone else. Yes, they may die, but you did not kill them.  

 

 

May I ask you and Communion, do you guys think abortion should be allowed at any stage in the pregnancy, and for any reason? 

Once again, ending pregnancy does not necessarily mean killing the foetus. Aborted foetuses are in fact violently removed during many abortions, but that's a consequence of conservative laws that ban the use of abortion pills so that they can share their trauma p0rn pictures of foetuses dying to discourage people from abortions. But yes, even if the foetus die and can't sustain itself outside of the womb, again, that's the foetus's problem. The foetus can't expect the government to force other people to sustain it. Bodily autonomy right trumps right to live.

 

Have you seen waiting lists for kidneys? Many of those people die, your refusal to donate contributes to the problem. If you claim that a refusal to give up your uterus to a foetus is killing, then so is your refusal to give up your kidney. I understand you killing vs letting die distinction, but in this case I can just as easily say that abortion is letting die and not killing, because like I said, it's the foetus' problem that it can't sustain itself. Too bad for the foetus, but it's not the gestator's responsibility. Just like missing kidneys are too bad for the sick person, but it doesn't make people with two healthy kidney responsible for rectifying the situation. 

 

Yes I think abortion should be allowed for any reason. If the gestator does not wish to be pregnant anymore then that's a good enough reason. Their body their choice. 

[John Slayne]

17 minutes ago, Literature said:

I do think there is a slight distinction between pre-birth and post-birth. Post-birth is what I would classify as an established life. I don't mean established in the sense of wealth, family, or any of that, at all.

Ok so it's fine to let post-birth persons without kidneys die because you can't ask people to give up their kidney against their will. 

 

But you are okay to ask people to give up their bodies to foetuses against their will even though foetuses are *less* valuable than post-birth people? 

 

How does that make any sense? You claim pre-birth people are less valuable and yet you are willing to bend over backwards to save them and even go as far as use post-birth people's bodies without their consent but somehow the same courtesy isn't extended to the more valuable post-birth people. Why?

Edited June 27, 2022 by John Slayne

[Literature]

2 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

Once again, ending pregnancy does not necessarily mean killing the foetus. Aborted foetuses are in fact violently removed during many abortions, but that's a consequence of conservative laws that ban the use of abortion pills so that they can share their trauma p0rn pictures of foetuses dying to discourage people from abortions. But yes, even if the foetus die and can't sustain itself outside of the womb, again, that's the foetus's problem. The foetus can't expect the government to force other people to sustain it. Bodily autonomy right trumps right to live.

 

Have you seen waiting lists for kidneys? Many of those people die, your refusal to donate contributes to the problem. If you claim that a refusal to give up your uterus to a foetus is killing, then so is your refusal to give up your kidney. I understand you killing vs letting die distinction, but in this case I can just as easily say that abortion is letting die and not killing, because like I said, it's the foetus' problem that it can't sustain itself. Too bad for the foetus, but it's not the gestator's responsibility. Just like missing kidneys are too bad for the sick person, but it doesn't make people with two healthy kidney responsible for rectifying the situation. 

 

Yes I think abortion should be allowed for any reason. If the gestator does not wish to be pregnant anymore then that's a good enough reason. Their body their choice. 

Lol but you "letting die" actually means "actively killing it", as that is exactly what abortion is, its not just a by-product of the procedure. You can't accomplish the goal of abortion without killing the fetus. You are trying to get rid of the fetus, which would otherwise grow into a healthy adult, which you do not want. 

 

Omg that's horrifying that you would support late term abortions, I mean.....like would you say its fine to hypothetically abort 1 day before the due date? I mean you can feel that way if you want but you will never catch me thinking that's not murder  

[John Slayne]

1. It is okay for us to force more valuable post-birth people to use their bodies to sustain less valuable pre-birth people.

2. It is not okay for us to force more valuable post-birth people to use their bodies to save equally valuable post-birth people. 

 

@Literature don't you see how inconsistent and nonsensical your argument is?

[Literature]

6 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

Ok so it's fine to let post-birth persons without kidneys die because you can't ask people to give up their kidney against their will. 

 

But you are okay to ask people to give up their bodies to foetuses against their will even though foetuses are *less* valuable than post-birth people? 

 

How does that make any sense? You claim pre-birth people are less valuable and yet you are willing to bend over backwards to save them and even go as far as use post-birth people's bodies without their consent but somehow the same courtesy isn't extended to the more valuable post-birth people. Why?

Because I already believe is not your responsibility to save someone else as I already mentioned, just your responsibility to not kill someone else, it's just a hierarchy of values.

 

If I was to rank the three values brought up here in order from greatest to least important, in my opinion it would be:

 

1. Right to life of established life

2. Right to life of non-established life

3. Right to bodily autonomy

 

If you don't understand this then I don't think this discussion will going anywhere 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Literature

[Communion]

14 minutes ago, Literature said:

not attacking anyone

You literally said supporting bodily autonomy was "morally evil and the perpetuation of feticide". 

[John Slayne]

1 minute ago, Literature said:

Lol but you "letting die" actually means "actively killing it", as that is exactly what abortion is, its not just a by-product of the procedure. You can't accomplish the goal of abortion without killing the fetus. You are trying to get rid of the fetus, which would otherwise grow into a healthy adult, which you do not want. 

 

Omg that's horrifying that you would support late term abortions, I mean.....like would you say its fine to hypothetically abort 1 day before the due date? I mean you can feel that way if you want but you will never catch me thinking that's not murder  

No, that's not what abortion is. 

 

Quote

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus.

It doesn't say the embryo or foetus have to be killed in the process. They just often are in the early term abortions, because, well, the foetuses can't sustain themselves, but I explained how that's not the gestator's responsibility to rectify. 

 

And lol at your 2nd point, as if forced births don't happen. I was literally born that way, but of course in case of late term abortions I already said I'm fine with us keeping those foetuses alive if they are viable and we have the technology? The same way we keep early born babies alive with technology. That's fine. Nobody is saying that we are about to be tearing *almost* born babies apart limb by limb, that is something you invented in your head or heard from conservatives and then ran with it. 

 

To be honest the longer this conversation goes on the more I feel like you are out of your depth on this one and just don't know that much abortion, pregnancy, or human development, so I'm not sure if there's a point in me engaging if you are just going to ignore my points over and over again. 

[Literature]

3 minutes ago, Communion said:

You literally said supporting bodily autonomy was "morally evil and the perpetuation of feticide". 

I don't think I said that in such a harsh way n i didn't say it to anyone specifically, besides you're the one who came swinging for me in particular cuz my first post was 100% neutral but ur response to it was so condescending

[Literature]

8 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

No, that's not what abortion is. 

 

It doesn't say the embryo or foetus have to be killed in the process. They just often are in the early term abortions, because, well, the foetuses can't sustain themselves, but I explained how that's not the gestator's responsibility to rectify. 

 

And lol at your 2nd point, as if forced births don't happen. I was literally born that way, but of course in case of late term abortions I already said I'm fine with us keeping those foetuses alive if they are viable and we have the technology? The same way we keep early born babies alive with technology. That's fine. Nobody is saying that we are about to be tearing *almost* born babies apart limb by limb, that is something you invented in your head or heard from conservatives and then ran with it. 

 

To be honest the longer this conversation goes on the more I feel like you are out of your depth on this one and just don't know that much abortion, pregnancy, or human development, so I'm not sure if there's a point in me engaging if you are just going to ignore my points over and over again. 

All aborted babies die as that is literally the goal of the procedure. Induced deliveries are not abortion and not what I am against.

 

I'm not ignoring your points? I feel like I've been soundly responding to all of them, but yeah I don't think this is going anywhere as you seem to lack the proper grounding needed to make these sorts of ethical decisions.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Literature

[CandleGuy]

1 hour ago, John Slayne said:

You are just being ageist in that case. You think the gestator's is more valuable because they are older and have more experience, or are 'establishe' (whatever that means). The question then is how far are you willing to take this logic and how do you apply it for other cases? Let's say there's an orphan who just turned 18 so they live on their own. They have no family or friends and haven't had time to start a family. Would it be then okay to kill them, harvest their organs and save 5 people in their 30s who are 'more established', meaning they have careers, families, friends, children, etc.? Because if we don't kill that lonely teenager then those 5 people will die which cause a lot of pain to their families and will be a loss for the communities/jobs as well. 

 

If you are saying one life is more important than another based on experience or 'establishedness' then essentially that's what you are saying, it is ok to sacrifice one person to save another as long as they are more 'established', I don't see why that logic should be applied only for pregnancy since, like YOU said, a foetus is a full person just like people who were already born. 

Equating the removal of a non-sentient clump of cells to the killing of an 18 year old 

 

Now I've read everything 

[John Slayne]

7 minutes ago, Literature said:

If I was to rank the three values brought up here in order from greatest to least important, in my opinion it would be:

 

1. Right to life of established life

2. Right to life of non-established life

3. Right to bodily autonomy

 

If you don't understand this then I don't think this discussion will going anywhere 

So... you agree! It *is* okay for the government to force people to give up kidney to save lives! You literally just ranked bodily autonomy lower than right to life. 

 

Your only point now is the distinction between killing and letting die but I have already refuted that and you haven't come up with a sufficient counter-argument other than 'abortion is murder', which it is not by definition so there we have it.

 

Here's the argument:

1. Abortion is the termination of a pergnancy.

2. Termination of a pregnancy for some foetuses means they will die since they can't live outside of the womb. 

3. Therefore, by performing abortions we are letting those foetuses die.

 

1. People have the right to refuse to donate one of their two functioning kidneys.

2. There are long waiting lists of people without kidneys, some of whom actually die due to supply being too low.

3. Therefore, by not forcing people to donate healthy kidney we are letting people without kidneys die. 

 

They are both letting die situations. The concern here bodily autonomy, and how people choose to use their body organs. The consequences of your choices on other people in both cases can be lethal, but nobody can force you to use your body against your wishes. If you think abortion is killing, then I can say that you not donating a kidney is killing. You are depriving a post-birth person of a life be refusing to donate. That is your active and conscious decision to not help and to not save a life. I'm still waiting for you to refute this. 

[Literature]

27 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

So... you agree! It *is* okay for the government to force people to give up kidney to save lives! You literally just ranked bodily autonomy lower than right to life. 

 

Your only point now is the distinction between killing and letting die but I have already refuted that and you haven't come up with a sufficient counter-argument other than 'abortion is murder', which it is not by definition so there we have it.

 

Here's the argument:

1. Abortion is the termination of a pergnancy.

2. Termination of a pregnancy for some foetuses means they will die since they can't live outside of the womb. 

3. Therefore, by performing abortions we are letting those foetuses die.

 

1. People have the right to refuse to donate one of their two functioning kidneys.

2. There are long waiting lists of people without kidneys, some of whom actually die due to supply being too low.

3. Therefore, by not forcing people to donate healthy kidney we are letting people without kidneys die. 

 

They are both letting die situations. The concern here bodily autonomy, and how people choose to use their body organs. The consequences of your choices on other people in both cases can be lethal, but nobody can force you to use your body against your wishes. If you think abortion is killing, then I can say that you not donating a kidney is killing. You are depriving a post-birth person of a life be refusing to donate. That is your active and conscious decision to not help and to not save a life. I'm still waiting for you to refute this. 

I prefaced the hierarchy list by saying it does not refer to the responsibility of saving someone else, but only the responsibility of not killing someone else. Again, I don't think you truly understand the distinction, because on top of the fact abortion and death is simultaneous and concurrent in a manner unlike an ill patient, by blanket-supporting abortion for any reason (as you stated) you included abortions with the goal of killing the fetus. As you are probably aware, most abortions are done with the aim of destroying the fetus itself, as the implications of having a child are cited as the overwhelming reasons people terminate. It usually has nothing to do with the actual pain of carrying the baby for 9 months, which is really where the whole bodily autonomy point begins and ends.

 

You obviously will not accept the factual point that the objective of abortion is killing the fetus - for obvious reasons, believe me I don't blame you - so yeah, there isn't much else to say in that regard. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Literature

[John Slayne]

6 minutes ago, Literature said:

All aborted babies die as that is literally the goal of the procedure. Induced deliveries are not abortion and not what I am against.

 

I'm not ignoring your points? I feel like I've been soundly responding to all of them, but yeah I don't think this is going anywhere as you seem to lack the proper grounding needed to make these sorts of ethical decisions.

You literally haven't soundly responded to single one of my arguments. You just repeated you wrong definition of abortion that you had invent to support your case. The goal of abortion is not to kill the foetus, it is to end the pregnancy, as per any official definition. Your argument is a strawman used to make abortion look worse than what it actually is.

 

It's funny to me you say that I lack proper grounding to make ethical decisions yet you are the one who keeps backtracking, is inconsistent and assigns value to random things without proper justification. If there are two things in Ethics that are absolutely unacceptable, they're exactly that - inconsistency and lack of justification for assigning values to things and people. Your random post-birth and pre-birth value judgements on persons and distinction with no justification. Your random assignment of value to 'inextricable linkage' of a foetus to a gestator with no justification at all. 

 

And then you go on to rank right to life as more important as right to bodily autonomy but in the same breath you are not willing to support forced kidney donations.  So right to life is and is not more important than bodily autonomy at the same time. That's a textbook example of inconsistency. 

 

Honestly idk why I bother with typing these paragraphs when most of your responses are two-sentence 'gotcha' comments that are nonsensical at best. Your definition of abortion is wrong. Your ranking of human rights is not just wrong, but you are also unwilling to apply it consistently. Your ranking of human beings as pre-birth and post-birth is random to fit your already existing view. What do you want from me? 

[John Slayne]

2 minutes ago, Literature said:

I prefaced the hierarchy list by saying it does not refer to the responsibility of saving someone else, but only the responsibility of not killing someone else. Again, I don't think you truly understand the distinction, because on top of the fact abortion and death is simultaneous and concurrent in a manner unlike an ill patient, by blanket-supporting abortion for any reason (as you stated) you included abortions with the goal of killing the fetus. As you are probably aware, most abortions are done with the aim of destroying the fetus itself. 

 

You obviously will not accept the valid point that the objective of abortion is killing the fetus - for obvious reasons, believe me I don't blame you - so yeah, there isn't much else to say in that regard. 

Except that's not a valid point, that's just a wrong definition. You don't know what an abortion is, you just invented a strawman definition to support your position, which I find intellectually dishonest. 

 

To the first point, I also explicitly stated that if the foetus is viable and there is available technology, then it should be kept alive, so once again you have to strawman my comments to support your position. I still maintain abortion for any reason is permissible, what happens to the foetus after the abortion and whether it lives or not is a different question, one to which I said I'm fine with keeping it alive. 

 

People without kidneys often die waiting for one. There is no recovery and because demand is so high and supply so low, not having kidneys and being denied one from a healthy person is simultaneous and concurrent with death, so the example remains accurate. 

 

I do truly understand the distinction, it just doesn't apply to these situations despite your try-hard attempts to shove it in there even though it clearly doesn't fit. No, I am not aware that 'most abortions are done with the aim of destroying the foetus itself', because that is a lie. There is 0 abortions done with that aim. Abortions are done with the aim to end the pregnancy, which is different from destroying a foetus. It seems like YOU are the one who doesn't understand the distinction between killing and letting die.

 

My first quoted definition of an abortion was from wikipedia, but let's see what NHS (the largest healthcare provider in the UK) have to say:

Quote

An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy.

It's also sometimes known as a termination of pregnancy.

Not a word about killing foetuses  Either admit you stand corrected on this one or this discussion is pointless. 

[John Slayne]

29 minutes ago, CandleGuy said:

Equating the removal of a non-sentient clump of cells to the killing of an 18 year old 

 

Now I've read everything 

Girl, you clearly misunderstood my comment. I am not equating the two, what I was doing was following the logic of that user to its conclusion, which is *of course* ridiculous and unacceptable, which is what I was trying to show. 

[Literature]

37 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

Except that's not a valid point, that's just a wrong definition. You don't know what an abortion is, you just invented a strawman definition to support your position, which I find intellectually dishonest. 

 

To the first point, I also explicitly stated that if the foetus is viable and there is available technology, then it should be kept alive, so once again you have to strawman my comments to support your position. I still maintain abortion for any reason is permissible, what happens to the foetus after the abortion and whether it lives or not is a different question, one to which I said I'm fine with keeping it alive. 

 

People without kidneys often die waiting for one. There is no recovery and because demand is so high and supply so low, not having kidneys and being denied one from a healthy person is simultaneous and concurrent with death, so the example remains accurate. 

 

I do truly understand the distinction, it just doesn't apply to these situations despite your try-hard attempts to shove it in there even though it clearly doesn't fit. No, I am not aware that 'most abortions are done with the aim of destroying the foetus itself', because that is a lie. There is 0 abortions done with that aim. Abortions are done with the aim to end the pregnancy, which is different from destroying a foetus. It seems like YOU are the one who doesn't understand the distinction between killing and letting die.

 

My first quoted definition of an abortion was from wikipedia, but let's see what NHS (the largest healthcare provider in the UK) have to say:

Not a word about killing foetuses  Either admit you stand corrected on this one or this discussion is pointless. 

Lol you're just playing semantics to get around the obviously nefarious root behind most abortions: most abortions are done with the intent of eliminating the fetus from existence. You are using the euphemized synonym for abortion "eliminating the pregnancy" as if it means something when all it does it sugarcoat the real intent which is to get rid of the fetus as many surveys have already shown. If the fetus remains alive then the abortion is pointless. 

 

As such, your argument about "bodily autonomy" between a potential organ donor and a pregnant mother becomes entirely moot, as the fundamental goals behind each one are different  

Edited June 27, 2022 by Literature

[Literature]

6 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

Girl, you clearly misunderstood my comment. I am not equating the two, what I was doing was following the logic of that user to its conclusion, which is *of course* ridiculous and unacceptable, which is what I was trying to show. 

You now know that was not my logic at all. Rather, you initially misunderstood what i meant by an "established life". Please don't make it seem as if I am arguing for the conclusions that you drew.

[Literature]

From what I've gathered so far, it seems there are two separate pro-choice arguments in circulation:

 

1.) The fetus is not considered sentient/worthy of life/a baby until a certain threshold of weeks has been met - until that cut-off date, abortions are fair game, as the fetus is still considered part of a woman's bodily autonomy.

2.) The fetus may be sentient/worthy of life/a baby, but it doesn't matter, as the mother gets to decide whether or not she wants it in her womb and thus her right to bodily autonomy overrides the baby's right to life. 

 

Very, very interesting   to me, the first position seems much more reasonable. 

[Communion]

1 hour ago, Literature said:

I don't think I said that in such a harsh way n i didn't say it to anyone specifically, besides you're the one who came swinging for me in particular cuz my first post was 100% neutral but ur response to it was so condescending

....sis, you were presented with the medical consensus regarding when sentience develops after saying I was wrong, to then doubling down and accusing me of "making stuff up". 

 

I do not care about your personal views. I'm becoming condescending because you keep ignoring that laws are not rooted in personal experiences and interpretation but universal truths.

 

If you think abortion is bad, I would respect that.

Hell, if you were a heterosexual man and wouldn't date a woman who was fine with abortion, I'd still say it's your right.

But your view that abortion is murder and thus should be outlawed is not rooted in universal reality.

 

And I say this to you because of the objective medical consensus of 1) what sentience is in relation to why we already legally allow people to be taken off of life support and 2) when fetuses being sentient.

 

Those are the facts. I think facts should be how we establish laws.

Edited June 27, 2022 by Communion

[Literature]

41 minutes ago, Communion said:

....sis, you were presented with the medical consensus regarding when sentience develops after saying I was wrong, to then doubling down and accusing me of "making stuff up". 

 

I do not care about your personal views. I'm becoming condescending because you keep ignoring that laws are not rooted in personal experiences and interpretation but universal truths.

 

If you think abortion is bad, I would respect that.

Hell, if you were a heterosexual man and wouldn't date a woman who was fine with abortion, I'd still say it's your right.

But your view that abortion is murder and thus should be outlawed is not rooted in universality reality.

 

And I say this to you because of the objective medical consensus of 1) what sentience is in relation to why we already legally allow people to be taken off of life support and 2) the consensus of when fetuses being sentient.

 

Those are the facts. I think facts should be how we establish laws.

I understand all of your points. But I don't think sentience should be the determiner of whether a fetus deserves the right to life, and neither do many other people. The existing laws on life support frankly do not matter, because on top of the fact a person who will not be sentient is generally viewed to be different than a person that will be sentient, laws can change as public opinion changes. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Literature

[Hephaestus]

4 hours ago, Literature said:

Lol you're just playing semantics to get around the obviously nefarious root behind most abortions: most abortions are done with the intent of eliminating the fetus from existence. You are using the euphemized synonym for abortion "eliminating the pregnancy" as if it means something when all it does it sugarcoat the real intent which is to get rid of the fetus as many surveys have already shown. If the fetus remains alive then the abortion is pointless. 

 

As such, your argument about "bodily autonomy" between a potential organ donor and a pregnant mother becomes entirely moot, as the fundamental goals behind each one are different  

I think you're missing the point completely, despite it being explained to you several times. The point of abortion is to terminate the pregnancy because the pregnant person doesn't want to through with it, it has nothing to do with actively terminating the life of the embryo or fetus.

 

Sure, in most cases the two things are one and the same because an underdeveloped fetus is unable to sustain itself, let alone continue its development, but that doesn't mean the intention of the procedure is to terminate that life. As another user already said, if there's a way to let the fetus continue its development after abortion, I believe no one is against that.

 

The whole point of this conversation is that a person doesn't want to carry a child and they shouldn't be forced to. Bodily autonomy always trumps other scenarios because the basic principle behind it is that no one should be able to tell anyone what to do with their body and that 100% applies to unwanted pregnancies. Imagine someone telling you you have to carry and let a life grow inside you for 9 months, with all the (sometimes life changing) physical and mental consequences that brings, but you are unable to have a saying on it. That's plain wrong. Treating someone as a walking uterus is just wrong.

[John Slayne]

5 hours ago, Literature said:

Lol you're just playing semantics to get around the obviously nefarious root behind most abortions: most abortions are done with the intent of eliminating the fetus from existence. You are using the euphemized synonym for abortion "eliminating the pregnancy" as if it means something when all it does it sugarcoat the real intent which is to get rid of the fetus as many surveys have already shown. If the fetus remains alive then the abortion is pointless. 

 

As such, your argument about "bodily autonomy" between a potential organ donor and a pregnant mother becomes entirely moot, as the fundamental goals behind each one are different  

That's not playing semantics, that's what it literally is according to the medical definition of an abortion. Deal with it. 

 

YOU are the one trying to change the definition to support your narrative. Because you are more interested in being right than to have an honest intellectual conversation, I have provided good and consistent arguments throughout without having to resort to strawmen and made up concepts with no justifications, unlike you. 

 

Funny how you once again ignore most of my points to focus on the definition, the one thing I am 100% correct anyway regardless of how people feel about abortions anyway and I have actually provided receipts for that, unlike you. 

 

Again, how are the fundamental goals different? Why is it okay to not use your kidney to save a life but it is not okay to not use your uterus to save a life? You still have yet to answer this.