There is certainly a right answer, my body, my choice. Get out of here trying to reason with the pro life side. There is no discussion. There is no compromise, there is no trying to understand those fools. My body, my choice no more discussion. That’s all the discussion we need
If you think you can force your subjective will on billions of people by plugging your ears and shouting “I’m right” you’re going to be very disappointed by life.
There is no one Christian opinion now or any time history about abortion. But if you want to go with Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III early abortion before quickening was not a sin as per the two latter that is when the fetus is ensouled. That is around the middle of the second trimester. Popes Sixtus V and Stephen V both were against it at any point. Luther seems to be against it at any point.
They absolutely do. They absolutely absolutely do. And society gets to have a boundary that says we don’t want unvaccinated people in our society. So those people who want to choose to not be vaccinated can go somewhere else.
let’s start with you’re not getting prosecuted for not having a vaccination. These people are going into other states to track people down. It is their body. It is their choice. There is no debate. We’re not talking about masks. We’re talking about abortion. Try to focus on a single issue. What does Hunter Biden have to do with this? I’m sure you think something.
You are way off base, but I doubt telling you this will convince you. I am pro choice; I already said this. My point is that this is a debate. There is no objective right or wrong answer. You must convince people that your stance is the just and correct one; and I don’t know many people who were convinced by having their stance dismissed without debate.
I’m so sick of this nonsense. The choice is between a secular society that respects everyone’s rights and beliefs and an extremist Christian society that only respects Christian beliefs, and abuses the law to enforce those exclusive beliefs.
Abortion is not considered murder in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other major religion except Christianity. The situation here couldn’t be more clear.
If you don’t want an abortion, then don’t get one. You do not have a right to force your religion on everyone else. You do not have a right to throw people in prison for violating your extremely subjective religious belief that no one else shares.
You can get out if here with your equivocating fake centrism.
What is or is not considered murder is irrelevant… murder is a legal construct fabricated entirely by humans. Killing another human isn’t always illegal, but that only shows that there is a discussion to be had about what killing of humans is allowed and what isn’t.
Did I not make it clear enough that I am pro-choice and an atheist? Why are so many people acting like I’m anti-choice and religious? I specifically made an argument that supports freedom of bodily autonomy and called out any religious justification for removing choice as irrelevant.
You do, but you don’t get to send your infectious brat to public school, and you might not get to drag your infectious ass into somebody else’s private property, like for example the place where you work, or into a regulated public space such as a government office. But you will not be held down and vaccinated against your will. 'kay?
Setting up a Sophie’s Choice does not support what you think you’re saying. If I crafted some extreme consequence for choosing to have an abortion-- while still allowing it, would you support that?
The underlying presumption with “my body, my choice” is that there aren’t applied consequences for making the choice, no?
Clearly, even with the risk of death, people still have abortions, because they are a NECESSARY option. So, yeah it’s already supported. All of that aside, why do you feel a need to punish women for nothing?
We have all heard of the “coat hanger abortions” performed everywhere. There are PLENTY of complications, namely death that arise from them, and yet, there are plenty of them happening daily.
I am not, nor have I ever, been arguing against choice. Perhaps I confused you with some unclear wording somewhere. I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” doesn’t necessarily mean society, or the law, shouldn’t care what happens to it.
Society absolutely shouldn’t care what happens to it, until it can function outside of the mother by itself.
The caveat is intent though. If the mother INTENDS to keep the pregnancy to term, then yes, there should be some limitations on what she does to it. Eg no drinking while pregnant or other SCIENTIFICALLY backed things that can damage the potential baby.
eh. I’d have to accept your assumption that a person is harmed by an abortion, as in a fetus is a person with rights. I don’t. Given that, as there is no other person harmed by an abortion there is no equivalence, unless of course you think that vaccines don’t work, are more risky than the disease they (don’t) prevent, or other anti-vac bullshit. Public policy cannot always accommodate idiotic beliefs alongside evidence based scientifically valid information when the idiotic beliefs can and almost certainly will cause harm to other people with rights. That is why it is acceptable to ban smoking where others will inhale your smoke, why it is acceptable to strictly enforce impaired driving laws, and why enforcing vaccination requirements is good public policy.
Well, I suppose you’re at least consistent. Most people agree that terminating a pregnant person’s pregnancy against her will should be a murder charge, myself included.
Does that mean a woman can sell her zygote? I’m working through the implications.
You know, it’s far simpler just to say “yeah, it has rights but in these circumstance this other person who also has rights has precedence.”
Sure, HOWEVER, not being vaccinated puts society as a whole at risk. So, there are two options, be part of society, and get vaccinated, OR, don’t get vaccinated, and don’t be part of society. It’s like wearing clothes in public. I sure as fuck don’t want to wear clothes, like ever, but I do, so I can be part of society.
An abortion affects the mother ONLY. Not an apples to apples comparison at all.
No, the “zygote” doesn’t have the ability to live without the life support from the mother. It isn’t sentient. It isn’t a fully developed being. It’s a clump of cells. It doesn’t get a say in the matter. Mostly because it can’t.
I see this sentiment pop up for often than I’d like. Are you implying that the only people worth protecting are people that can articulate that they need protection? Surely not (I sure hope not!) so what are you implying here? Silence is acceptance?
Ok, let’s use your silly argument. In the US, if someone isn’t capable of making decisions/speaking for themselves, someone is appointed power of attorney, and they make the decision for them. That’s their voice.
In the case of me, a potentially pregnant woman (not really I fixed that) having an unwanted pregnancy, the embryo, can’t say anything so the person, me, “carrying” the pregnancy is defacto power of attorney/voice for said embryo. So, no, they don’t have a say, but I do.
An anti-vaxxer does have a choice, but so does the society around them. If you do not vax you run the potential of carrying a larger load of a decease that can harm and/or kill me and/or my family simply for having been in the same space as you. I do not want that risk and if enough of society believe that risk to be too great, then you, the anti-vaxxer, must vacate the public space.
Abortion is explicitly different as, for one, it doesn’t physically effect any other human being except the mother. Now, beyond my feeling that this question is quite explicitly a smug attempt at a “got ya” question, in the case of an abortion, the Mother is the whole of society, and, like in the anti-vaxxer case, the society gets to determine what’s best for the whole… to be clear, that means the Mother has sole determination to whether to carry a pregnancy or to abort.
Physically? Not at all. The fetus is growing exclusively within the body of the mother. Nobody else is physically effected by that bodily relationship. If the Mother finds the fetus undesirable, or, far more likely, physically damaging to the mothers health and well being, they have sole determination to whether to continue physically caring for the fetus. Once the fetus is viable, the fetus, by definition, no longer requires the mother’s body and is it’s own separate entity.
The fetus is growing exclusively within the body of the mother.
Does being inside the pregnant person matter? If so, why? You’re trying to convince me that a zygote deserves no legal rights (remember, my stance is that this argument is nonsense and that pro-choice is 100% compatible with also giving a zygote rights). Corporations have rights, and they don’t even exist anywhere. So clearly society can give rights to whatever it decides to-- why should a zygote be one of those things?
If being inside the person did not matter, then remove the fetus and bring them to term outside the body as this question seem to imply this to be a possibility. If you do that, then everyone will apparently be happy as the mother would not risk body harm and those to whom the fetus has no relation but seems to choose to stick their business in anyway can be happy in the fact that all fetuses will come to term in absolute safety.
Not possible then? Ok. Then it remains the mothers sole discretion.
Corporations are not people. They are neither born nor live in the same sense as a human being, The legal rights of a corporation have no bearing on a mothers right for bodily autonomy.
If being inside the person did not matter, then remove the fetus and bring them to term outside the body as this question seem to imply this to be a possibility.
You know, being pro choice myself, I am aghast at how terrible arguments from the seemingly informed and educated people in this thread are. Truly, it’s been cringe-worthy for a while now.
We are discussing who or what society can give rights to. I pointed out that clearly a zygote is within the realm of possibility, because whether you like it or not, a corporation has rights. (note; this does not make a corporation a “person”). So, society can give a zygote rights-- the question becomes if they should. I don’t see how this question can be addressed by the physical location of any given zygote. You seem to disagree-- so explain why. Why is a zygote off-limits for having rights?
It might depend on what you mean by forced, but I meant it more as a hypothetical. the “my body, my choice” argument doesn’t logically differentiate between the two things. Which is why it’s ineffective at convincing people to support choice.
It might depend on what you mean by forced, but I meant it more as a hypothetical. the “my body, my choice” argument doesn’t logically differentiate between the two things.
Explain in simple english want you meant by this, then.
“My body, my choice” is not a sound stance supporting abortion because
it doesn’t only involve the pregnant person’s body; the entire conflict is because there is a zygote in the situation, as well
it sets up a defense against requiring vaccinations as a mandate to interact with society. Unless you mean to say that it’s okay if a woman is given the ““choice”” if abortion while also giving them an excessive consequence for making that choice
If the zygote wants to speak up against it then it should be listened to.
I saw groups of unvaccinated people legally hanging out throughout the COVID times, so can you elaborate on 'requiring vaccinations as a mandate to interact with society, please?
Does “My body, my choice” also apply to anti vaxxers? Do you support the stance that they should get to decide what to do with their body when it comes to vaccines, without any government punishment for making that choice?
If not, then what kind of defense is “my body, my choice”, really? A pretty weak one, right? Because it’s obviously not universally applied, so you need to defend why some instances it’s not “my body, my choice” and some instances it is. If you’re going to need to defend the defense, you might as well just drop the “my body, my choice” defense altogether and directly defend why it’s wrong.
And since it seems that if I don’t say it in every comment it will immediately be forgotten: I am pro choice. I do not believe the government should have the power to force people to undergo medical procedures against their will-- especially birth, but not limited to birth. I think even anti-choicers would be horrified if someone suggested that the government be allowed to force people to undergo organ donations to “save a life”; they just haven’t put 2 and 2 together. Which is my point-- that pro-choice people make bad choices when it comes to defending their position on abortion. It’s very often a complete dismissal without even an effort to explain.
I go on to elaborate on why you are mistaken. If you believe my explanation to be lacking, point out where. You still have questions pending that you should consider answering.
There is certainly a right answer, my body, my choice. Get out of here trying to reason with the pro life side. There is no discussion. There is no compromise, there is no trying to understand those fools. My body, my choice no more discussion. That’s all the discussion we need
If you think you can force your subjective will on billions of people by plugging your ears and shouting “I’m right” you’re going to be very disappointed by life.
Nah, MY body MY choice. Choose for yourself. No debate bro
There is truth in all perspectives and denying that helps no one, including yourself.
The people who think they can dictate what medical procedures another person can have should remember this.
People can dislike abortions all they want, but an abortion should strictly be between a woman and her doctor.
The irony of saying this when being pro life is forcing an exclusively Christian belief on other people.
There is no one Christian opinion now or any time history about abortion. But if you want to go with Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III early abortion before quickening was not a sin as per the two latter that is when the fetus is ensouled. That is around the middle of the second trimester. Popes Sixtus V and Stephen V both were against it at any point. Luther seems to be against it at any point.
Ummm… they’re speaking for themselves. Not forcing shit on anyone. And excercising their right of body autonomy.
I think you have things backwards basically.
Do anti-vaxxers also get to use “my body, my choice”? Why or why not?
They absolutely do. They absolutely absolutely do. And society gets to have a boundary that says we don’t want unvaccinated people in our society. So those people who want to choose to not be vaccinated can go somewhere else.
Is this the same as “if you want to have an abortion, go somewhere else”? Why or why not?
let’s start with you’re not getting prosecuted for not having a vaccination. These people are going into other states to track people down. It is their body. It is their choice. There is no debate. We’re not talking about masks. We’re talking about abortion. Try to focus on a single issue. What does Hunter Biden have to do with this? I’m sure you think something.
You are way off base, but I doubt telling you this will convince you. I am pro choice; I already said this. My point is that this is a debate. There is no objective right or wrong answer. You must convince people that your stance is the just and correct one; and I don’t know many people who were convinced by having their stance dismissed without debate.
I’m so sick of this nonsense. The choice is between a secular society that respects everyone’s rights and beliefs and an extremist Christian society that only respects Christian beliefs, and abuses the law to enforce those exclusive beliefs.
Abortion is not considered murder in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any other major religion except Christianity. The situation here couldn’t be more clear.
If you don’t want an abortion, then don’t get one. You do not have a right to force your religion on everyone else. You do not have a right to throw people in prison for violating your extremely subjective religious belief that no one else shares.
You can get out if here with your equivocating fake centrism.
I’m pretty sure he bible doesn’t explicitly state that abortion is murder or even bad. It’s interpretation.
What is or is not considered murder is irrelevant… murder is a legal construct fabricated entirely by humans. Killing another human isn’t always illegal, but that only shows that there is a discussion to be had about what killing of humans is allowed and what isn’t.
Did I not make it clear enough that I am pro-choice and an atheist? Why are so many people acting like I’m anti-choice and religious? I specifically made an argument that supports freedom of bodily autonomy and called out any religious justification for removing choice as irrelevant.
🤡🤡🤡
One affects other people, the other does not. Get out of here with your debate, my body, my choice.
This person has the right idea.
Rights are excercised not granted. Right to body autonomy too
What do you mean when you say “other people”?
You do, but you don’t get to send your infectious brat to public school, and you might not get to drag your infectious ass into somebody else’s private property, like for example the place where you work, or into a regulated public space such as a government office. But you will not be held down and vaccinated against your will. 'kay?
Setting up a Sophie’s Choice does not support what you think you’re saying. If I crafted some extreme consequence for choosing to have an abortion-- while still allowing it, would you support that?
The underlying presumption with “my body, my choice” is that there aren’t applied consequences for making the choice, no?
Clearly, even with the risk of death, people still have abortions, because they are a NECESSARY option. So, yeah it’s already supported. All of that aside, why do you feel a need to punish women for nothing?
We have all heard of the “coat hanger abortions” performed everywhere. There are PLENTY of complications, namely death that arise from them, and yet, there are plenty of them happening daily.
I am not, nor have I ever, been arguing against choice. Perhaps I confused you with some unclear wording somewhere. I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” doesn’t necessarily mean society, or the law, shouldn’t care what happens to it.
Society absolutely shouldn’t care what happens to it, until it can function outside of the mother by itself.
The caveat is intent though. If the mother INTENDS to keep the pregnancy to term, then yes, there should be some limitations on what she does to it. Eg no drinking while pregnant or other SCIENTIFICALLY backed things that can damage the potential baby.
Yes, that is an assertion, but why do you think this?
I mean, if you don’t understand that fundamental concept, there’s no helping you.
eh. I’d have to accept your assumption that a person is harmed by an abortion, as in a fetus is a person with rights. I don’t. Given that, as there is no other person harmed by an abortion there is no equivalence, unless of course you think that vaccines don’t work, are more risky than the disease they (don’t) prevent, or other anti-vac bullshit. Public policy cannot always accommodate idiotic beliefs alongside evidence based scientifically valid information when the idiotic beliefs can and almost certainly will cause harm to other people with rights. That is why it is acceptable to ban smoking where others will inhale your smoke, why it is acceptable to strictly enforce impaired driving laws, and why enforcing vaccination requirements is good public policy.
So if a pregnant person gets attacked and it causes a miscarriage, it shouldn’t be considered some form of murder or manslaughter?
no. next. on edit: the woman is the one harmed and her tort is what needs to be made right.
Well, I suppose you’re at least consistent. Most people agree that terminating a pregnant person’s pregnancy against her will should be a murder charge, myself included.
Does that mean a woman can sell her zygote? I’m working through the implications.
You know, it’s far simpler just to say “yeah, it has rights but in these circumstance this other person who also has rights has precedence.”
Women already ‘sell their zygotes’, its called a surrogate mother. We just pretend that is somehow different.
Sure, HOWEVER, not being vaccinated puts society as a whole at risk. So, there are two options, be part of society, and get vaccinated, OR, don’t get vaccinated, and don’t be part of society. It’s like wearing clothes in public. I sure as fuck don’t want to wear clothes, like ever, but I do, so I can be part of society.
An abortion affects the mother ONLY. Not an apples to apples comparison at all.
You forgot the zygote.
No, the “zygote” doesn’t have the ability to live without the life support from the mother. It isn’t sentient. It isn’t a fully developed being. It’s a clump of cells. It doesn’t get a say in the matter. Mostly because it can’t.
I see this sentiment pop up for often than I’d like. Are you implying that the only people worth protecting are people that can articulate that they need protection? Surely not (I sure hope not!) so what are you implying here? Silence is acceptance?
Ok, let’s use your silly argument. In the US, if someone isn’t capable of making decisions/speaking for themselves, someone is appointed power of attorney, and they make the decision for them. That’s their voice.
In the case of me, a potentially pregnant woman (not really I fixed that) having an unwanted pregnancy, the embryo, can’t say anything so the person, me, “carrying” the pregnancy is defacto power of attorney/voice for said embryo. So, no, they don’t have a say, but I do.
What is it you think I’m arguing here? It’s not that pregnant people should not be allowed the choice to have an abortion.
I also am pretty sure we’re having the same discussion in multiple threads. If you are comfortable with it, feel free to collapse them all into one.
An anti-vaxxer does have a choice, but so does the society around them. If you do not vax you run the potential of carrying a larger load of a decease that can harm and/or kill me and/or my family simply for having been in the same space as you. I do not want that risk and if enough of society believe that risk to be too great, then you, the anti-vaxxer, must vacate the public space.
Abortion is explicitly different as, for one, it doesn’t physically effect any other human being except the mother. Now, beyond my feeling that this question is quite explicitly a smug attempt at a “got ya” question, in the case of an abortion, the Mother is the whole of society, and, like in the anti-vaxxer case, the society gets to determine what’s best for the whole… to be clear, that means the Mother has sole determination to whether to carry a pregnancy or to abort.
Is this true? You can’t think of any other party that is involved?
Physically? Not at all. The fetus is growing exclusively within the body of the mother. Nobody else is physically effected by that bodily relationship. If the Mother finds the fetus undesirable, or, far more likely, physically damaging to the mothers health and well being, they have sole determination to whether to continue physically caring for the fetus. Once the fetus is viable, the fetus, by definition, no longer requires the mother’s body and is it’s own separate entity.
Does being inside the pregnant person matter? If so, why? You’re trying to convince me that a zygote deserves no legal rights (remember, my stance is that this argument is nonsense and that pro-choice is 100% compatible with also giving a zygote rights). Corporations have rights, and they don’t even exist anywhere. So clearly society can give rights to whatever it decides to-- why should a zygote be one of those things?
If being inside the person did not matter, then remove the fetus and bring them to term outside the body as this question seem to imply this to be a possibility. If you do that, then everyone will apparently be happy as the mother would not risk body harm and those to whom the fetus has no relation but seems to choose to stick their business in anyway can be happy in the fact that all fetuses will come to term in absolute safety.
Not possible then? Ok. Then it remains the mothers sole discretion.
Corporations are not people. They are neither born nor live in the same sense as a human being, The legal rights of a corporation have no bearing on a mothers right for bodily autonomy.
You know, being pro choice myself, I am aghast at how terrible arguments from the seemingly informed and educated people in this thread are. Truly, it’s been cringe-worthy for a while now.
We are discussing who or what society can give rights to. I pointed out that clearly a zygote is within the realm of possibility, because whether you like it or not, a corporation has rights. (note; this does not make a corporation a “person”). So, society can give a zygote rights-- the question becomes if they should. I don’t see how this question can be addressed by the physical location of any given zygote. You seem to disagree-- so explain why. Why is a zygote off-limits for having rights?
Who was ever forced to get a vaccine?
It might depend on what you mean by forced, but I meant it more as a hypothetical. the “my body, my choice” argument doesn’t logically differentiate between the two things. Which is why it’s ineffective at convincing people to support choice.
What?
No one was forced to get a vaccine. People are being forced to carry a baby to term because they are being denied abortions that they want.
I do not see where I said anything that you are refuting.
Explain in simple english want you meant by this, then.
How much simpler can I get?
“My body, my choice” is not a sound stance supporting abortion because
If the zygote wants to speak up against it then it should be listened to.
I saw groups of unvaccinated people legally hanging out throughout the COVID times, so can you elaborate on 'requiring vaccinations as a mandate to interact with society, please?
Thanks for the lecture about decorum Joe now shut the fuck up and let the adults talk.
Which adults are you referring to?
no one forced you to wear a mask. women ae being forced to carry their rapists child. comparing yourself to them is pretty fucked up.
That isn’t what I said or what I did.
Does “My body, my choice” also apply to anti vaxxers? Do you support the stance that they should get to decide what to do with their body when it comes to vaccines, without any government punishment for making that choice?
If not, then what kind of defense is “my body, my choice”, really? A pretty weak one, right? Because it’s obviously not universally applied, so you need to defend why some instances it’s not “my body, my choice” and some instances it is. If you’re going to need to defend the defense, you might as well just drop the “my body, my choice” defense altogether and directly defend why it’s wrong.
And since it seems that if I don’t say it in every comment it will immediately be forgotten: I am pro choice. I do not believe the government should have the power to force people to undergo medical procedures against their will-- especially birth, but not limited to birth. I think even anti-choicers would be horrified if someone suggested that the government be allowed to force people to undergo organ donations to “save a life”; they just haven’t put 2 and 2 together. Which is my point-- that pro-choice people make bad choices when it comes to defending their position on abortion. It’s very often a complete dismissal without even an effort to explain.
false.
I go on to elaborate on why you are mistaken. If you believe my explanation to be lacking, point out where. You still have questions pending that you should consider answering.