>


If I may please be an old man prior to submitting a real response... you write so well! But why why why must you use "u" and "ur". It pains me. Oy veh. Do as you will. Please ignore me.

aww, thank you! I sometimes write like that to be concise, I guess. But I'll make an effort to get rid of that habit in the future!
Anyway, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts! I particularly like the "it is better to err on the side of caution" argument you made with the curtain. I've heard it more formalized somewhere but I can't recall exactly where right now. 
Politics is so divided right now it's hard to keep a level head and engage authentically. I will admit that I am guilty of the same thing, even in this very thread. These are very complex issues, and it feels like people often try to reduce them to simplistic slogans. 
I will be going to college next year, so hopefully, I can do better in the future! CMV is one of my favorite subs and honestly it's just fun to both debate and see thoughtful comments and perspectives.
/u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I think it's worth reflection on what you're actually saying here. What does "if the fetus was a fully fledged person" actually mean? Does it make any sense to call something that has no capacity to exist outside a womb as "fully fledged"? But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section as an alternative. But for that matter, are newborn babies even "fully fledged people"?
I guess I'm trying to understand what you actually mean here without turning your view into a pointless tautology. Like, if you define "fully fledged person" as something that by definition should be saved, then of course you should save it, but I don't think you've really said anything. >

hmm, since the pro-life position is usually comparative to a baby, I'd say "fully-fledged" should mean "equivalent to a newborn infant in moral worth"

But if the hypothetical is that the fetus is more fully developed than a real fetus, then that changes everything because you could probably just do a c section

but since it's a thought experiment, let's just say we can't. 
This is a kind of circular reasoning on your part, no? The idea that only fully-fledged people can be delivered via c-section because fully-fledged people must be able to survive outside the womb. >

I think about the organ donation more like this: say you were to get into a horrible car accident, you were 100% at fault no way around it. You and the person you hit were rushed to the hospital, they lost a lot of blood, the hospital didn’t have their blood type, you were the exact same blood type. Would it be okay for the government to FORCE you to give them your blood? Yeah you’d be rude not too, but should the government have the ability to tell that you HAVE to give your blood? >

imo, yes.
and they kind of already do, since you'd be charged with manslaughter if they die. >

You’d be charged with manslaughter because hitting someone with your car is illegal. Not because you declined to give them your blood. >

right, and you'd be charged with manslaughter in the abortion case because forcing someone into existence without their consent and then starving them should be illegal. >

What you’re talking about making illegal is sex. You can’t “force someone into existence.” You can have sex, but sex only has a chance of conception. A chance that, I might add, is impossible to eliminate no matter how hard you try. 
Do you actually think sex should be illegal? >

no.
drunk driving is illegal, but driving is legal.
similarly, if you have sex without contraception, you should not be able to get an abortion. but if you have sex with contraception, you're golden. >

How would you go about determining who did or didn't use contraception before allowing them to get an abortion? >

That’s for the court to decide beyond a reasonable doubt.
Then again, I’m not talking about legal implementation, only moral imperative. >

I mean, in this comment thread at least you were very much talking about legality. >

Well my bad >

The analogy that was most convincing to me was this:
There are thousands of people on transplant lists around the country/world. Many of them will die imminently without a transplant. Most of us could spare some parts of some organs. Should we have to give them to others? What if it has no lasting effect on our health? What if it does but that it’s mild? Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.
Now, many of those organs are still useable when you die. Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?
If you believe a person should have autonomy over what happens to their body even AFTER death, despite the fact that taking away that autonomy would save the lives of others, then you cannot be anti-choice even if the fetus is a fully-fledged person from conception. >


Very few people would support a scheme where people had to share organs with others.

yep. but the distinction in my analogy is that u gave them the disease.

Should we force everyone to, upon their deaths, donate all of the organs that remain in good working form to save the lives of others?

ABSOLUTELY >

To further your analogy with a more realistic and natural example, imagine you cause a car accident. Your fault and all that. The other person affected now requires some form of transplant or blood transfusion. Could any form of authority force you to give your blood/organs to this person just because it is your fault that they are in this situation? >

Because the next argument will be that the driver of the other car tacitly consented to this by driving, take it a step further and say that you injure an innocent child in the back seat of the other car who had no choice in being in the car or not.
Do you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one? Of course not. >


Do you owe the innocent child a blood transfusion because you caused it's injury and are the sole reason it requires one?

yes. 

Of course not.

why not? >

Because you have bodily autonomy, and it is a ridiculous restriction of your most basic right to force someone to give a part of themselves medically to another person for any reason. Show me anywhere on the planet where a person is legally obligated to do it, show me a respectable moral framework where they're morally obligated to do it. You can't because it isn't an obligation because your right to your body outweighs basically everything, your right to life, a random third parties right to life, your victim's right to life are all traditionally subsumed to your right to not have your blood and organs harvested without your consent. >

this is not an argument. this is just a paragraph of "but bodily autonomy is absolute and better than all other rights because I said so" >

Singapore is the only country on the planet with opt-out organ donation post mortem, and even they let you opt out, of donating organs, after you aren't even a person anymore. That's how absolute bodily autonomy is as a general legal right, your right to no touchy your dead organs is worth more than anyone else's right to life. That's how things are, it isn't because I said so, it is how every government on the earth rules it. >


it is how every government on the earth rules it.

the CCP, north Korea, Republicans, middle eastern states, Russia, etc. happen to disagree...

it is how every government on the earth rules it.

funny, I remember these things called vaccine mandates... >


the CCP, north Korea, Republicans, middle eastern states, Russia, etc. happen to disagree...

They don't disagree, (well China has stolen organs from people who've been executed before, but they weren't supposed to do that, by their own laws). All those places agree at the absolute nature of bodily autonomy in general, they do however mysteriously make a carve out when it comes to the specific bodily autonomy of a woman carrying a child. 
I just don't see what the difference is, why would Republicans, the CCP, Russia all agree that corpses deserve the right to keep their organs functions to themselves but pregnant women don't? Why should we model our behavior on regressive authoritarian countries?

funny, I remember these things called vaccine mandates...

So, the thing about that is that the mandate wasn't a requirement. It was a logical list of things and places you couldn't do if you were unvaccinated because you'd be a risk to others. Like suspending your license if you're blind or otherwise disabled in certain ways, or quarantining someone with Ebola (or typhoid, or smallpox, or the plague for historical examples). 
It isn't that you don't have a right to your own body, it's that you don't have a right to play laser tag and go to Canada if you're potentially carrying a deadly disease. >

Now, I feel that you are having trouble pursuing arguments on morality because (1) your arguments are too reductive, and (2) you are struggling to bridge the gap between what you feel are intuitively (im)moral, and what established principles say is immoral.
Now, let me go through with you a couple of ethical theories that can perhaps help you better articulate the standards for morality. Because our "what is intuitively moral" is varied, unreliable, and often fail to resolve deliberate examples (or puzzles)
Deontology says that you do "what is right in the moment". This usually means that we establish some inviolable rules and principles to act upon. In this aspect, we can for example, say that murder is wrong, because killing someone (ending an existence) in itself is wrong (even if it may lead to better outcomes in the end) and so we shouldn't commit murder. You say that "no rights are absolute", but that might not be true under some deontological views - rights may be absolute, as long as they are not in contention with other rights.
(Act) Utilitarianism says that you should "maximise satisfaction (or happiness)" of everyone (or more commonly known as "the end justifies the means"). The famous utilitarian example is the trolley problem (diverting a travelling trolley to kill 1 person instead of 3), but here is an alternative example that is more relevant. Under utilitarianism, if five people in an hospital need different organs for a transplant, you can (theoretically) take someone in the hospital and give their relevant organs to the dying patients (assuming compatibility, of course). Needless to say, this hospital example doesn't really fly under any deontological theory.
But act utilitarianism also runs into problems - if you could walk in a hospital, and be randomly chosen to be killed for the sake of other people, no one would go to the hospital anymore! Rule utilitarianism comes in here - which says that we should establish rules to follow that give the maximum happiness to everyone.
Now, you can see how both deontology and rule utilitarianism are valid, similar in that we establish inviolable rules to follow (and similar enough to be confused in the debates of right to life vs bodily autonomy), but they can be  valid to different people.
From my view, the pro-life view is strongly related to deontology, and pro-choice view towards act utilitarianism. The pro-life view may arise from some deontological theory that champions the right to life above all others (the most 'absolute' right of them all, whichever origins it come from), and so it is immoral to violate this right, even if it is for the sake of other 'rights'.
The pro-choice view is strongly related to rule utilitarianism, and might come from some rule-utilitarian view, where the right to bodily autonomy is (one of) the most important. After all, if you could be forced to do things against your will in a hospital, no one would go to a hospital, and this stance in the abortion debate is a mere consequence of this view that champions bodily autonomy.
I cannot convince you that both views are valid, and we subscribe to each view, perhaps based on our moral intuition. I don't think this is a debate of rights, IMO this is a conflict of moral theories masquerading as a discussion of rights.
I can also comment on the vaccination policy in another thread with respect to rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism (in my view) does not support mandatory vaccination policies, but you can bet that it protects others' ability (or autonomy) to protect oneself from catching COVID, and "being shunned for being unvaccinated" is also a consequence of that. >

Wouldn't the pro-choice position also fall into deontology? Just, instead of championing the right to life, it champions the right to bodily autonomy? (in the case where the fetus is prescribed personhood) 
If we agree that both are based mostly or purely on personal intuitions, why put them into different buckets? 
Also, if the core differences on this topic stem from personal moral intuitions, its seems reasonable for that to be the position from which people argue about it. Even if it results in mostly people talking past each other. >


The only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?

This analogy is a bit silly, because it unnecessarily involves "magical" technology. The more natural analogy is to say that the blood transfusions are just ordinary blood transfusions, or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.
But regardless, the obvious answer to this hypothetical is: yes, of course. The inalienable right to bodily autonomy means that you're never morally obligated to do something like this. Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else. (In particular, since this right is inalienable, you can't lose it through your own actions. Your choice to have sex can't have the effect of alienating you from your right to bodily autonomy.) So even as stated, your analogy doesn't seem to prove what you want it to prove. >

It sounds like you believe bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, no matter what.   I’m curious if maybe some of the following hypotheticals would change your mind.
What if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?
What if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?   
What if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?
The level of inconvenience matters in my opinion.  Pregnancy is a massive inconvenience.  Also, if a child were 1000 yards away drowning, I can’t be expected to swim out there to save them.   
Personally, I am prochoice but I do not believe bodily autonomy should trump the right to life in all circumstances. I believe in most circumstances, the right to life trump’s bodily autonomy. As do most people.
The vast majority of people are against 9 month abortions for the purpose of convenience.  Luckily, those types of abortions are super rare anyway. >


What if the transfusion only had 5 minutes left, and the person wasn’t just a violinist, but a doctor who you knew saved lives on the reg?

You have no moral obligation to continue the transfusion.

What if pregnancy itself only lasted 1 day and was pain free?

You have no moral obligation to allow your body to undergo this process. Note that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have a right to kill the fetus: you have a right not to undergo the pregnancy process if you don't want to, and you have a right to medical care that stops that process in the most expedient and safe way possible.

What if you were walking next to a swimming pool and noticed a 2 year old fall in, would it be morally wrong to exercise your right to bodily autonomy and just keep walking? Or is there some level of moral obligation to reach over and pull the child out of the pool?

This doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here. >


This doesn't touch on the right to bodily autonomy at all, since it's not interfering with the integrity of your body, not taking away or changing the function of any of its parts. So you do have some level of moral obligation here.

Of course this is an issue of bodily autonomy. By stating that there is a moral obligation to save the child, this places limitations on what one can do with their body. 
Your initial post stated "Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else" in the case of blood transfusions. We can say something similar in the case of the child drowning. In fact, we can imagine the child needs to climb up your body to get out of the pool for whatever reason. You could also respond with "Your body is your body: you can't be morally obligated to give it to someone else."
Now, you say something about bodily integrity, but that is just a restatement of bodily autonomy, so it gets us nowhere. You then say the drowning child does not take away or change the function of any of your parts.
But this is not true. Just as blood transfusion changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. function of your blood), helping a child changes the function of some of your parts (i.e. the function of your limbs, possibly your heart rate, your brain as it needs to form new intentional states, etc.). >

This is very silly. A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body; I am just using it to get the child out of the pool. Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. >


A child climbing up my body to get out of a pool is not in any sense giving my body to someone else. It's still my body;

Of course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body. This also applies during pregnancy. 

Nor does it change the function of my body: changing its state does not change its function. 

Not sure what this distinction is supposed to be getting at. But I addressed function in the last paragraph. >


Of course, it's still your body. But the child is using it, which means you gave the child your body.

No? Allowing someone else to use something it not at all the same as giving them that thing. >

What's the morally relevant difference? >

The difference is that if I use my arm to pull a child out of a pool, it's still my arm the whole time, and it continues to be my arm after I pull the child out. Conversely, if I give blood to a child with leukemia, it's no longer my blood. >

So you think bodily autonomy is violated only if you permanently lose bodily tissue?
Two questions:

If I rape someone without permanently taking away any of their bodily tissue, is that not a violation of bodily autonomy?
Let's say that we know that if you try to save the drowning child in the pool, you will scrap your knee, resulting in a small loss of blood. Now, would you say that there is no obligation to save the drowning child, because this violates your bodily autonomy? >

Others have mentioned the bodily autonomy issue, that it doesn't make sense to require someone give up part of their body for someone else. However, I feel that we are getting the morality and legality issues confused.
Legally speaking, it doesn't make sense to have laws against abortion even if the fetus is a person. This is because legally speaking, you are never required to give up your body for someone else's life. You never have to give blood or organs if you don't want to, even after you die! In any situation where someone would rely on your body for their own life, no matter who's "fault" it is or how you got into the situation, the law prioritizes bodily autonomy, except in conservative areas where they want to put down women.
But what about morally speaking? That's what this is really about. Morally speaking, it would be considered wrong and awful for someone to get really drunk and injure themself in an avoidable way and then take up a bed at the emergency room. However, we still treat them and try to save them anyways. Morality is very subjective. It would certainly be wrong to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as your form of birth control. But the question is how often does this really happen? How often do women have abortions willy-nilly without considering the consequences? The answer is never. An abortion is a traumatic surgery physically and psychologically. And I think that's a piece missing from the conservative argument that abortions are wrong because they end human life. You can't divorce the theory from the reality, which is that abortion is expensive, rare, and traumatic.
So you can argue about the theoretical and about how taking a life is wrong, but you are ignoring the real experiences of women in society. You're not thinking about the many factors they take into account before deciding to go through with it. You're trying to make a blanket statement basically about what is right and wrong without the nuance of the real cases and real stakes. And when morality is so subjective, I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. So if I could change your view just a bit, I'd hope to make you rethink the absolutes and realize that morality isn't great at making such blanket statements. Even if you say "cold blooded murder is wrong" I can come up with examples of when it might be morally justified. Clearly, the same would be true for abortion. >


when morality is so subjective

Who gets to decide when morality is subjective? I'm sure both you and I agree abortion is subjective, but there are many pro-choicers and pro-lifers who beg to differ. This judgment is, of course, subjective as well...

I think it's generally a mistake to think in absolutes when it's such a controversial issue. 

A couple of hundred years ago, slavery was also controversial and "subjective." but I wouldn't fault an abolitionist for being absolute in their conviction.
All morality is subjective. Why is murder wrong? Because we decided it is. Because we decided to value life. For no reason other than the fact that that's what we decided. But that doesn't mean we just throw up our hands, say "murder is subjective," and move on with our day. >

Another aspect people don't want to talk about is that life at different stages has different relative values. If the woman is likely to die if she carried the fetus to term, while the fetus had a good chance of surviving; most (so-called) pro-life would allow the abortion. This implies that the woman who likely has more friends, and family that knows her, loves her, values her presence, investment society has made in her education and skills, etc, etc. means she is more valuable than the fetus.   
people don't like to talk about this and/or try to pretend like it doesn't exist but they all would choose the woman or fetus when presented with this scenario so that confirms the two different lives have a different value than each other.
for the few people who would choose the fetus or let nature take its course; I imagine this comes from either sexism and/or religion. For some religions (christian-science) medical treatment is going against gods-will. For others (Muslims, some extreme Christain secs) women are less valuable and easily replaceable; mostly just breeding stock and taking care of the house as a side task since they are too cheap/poor to hire maids.  Maybe some just really like babies over adults but I fail to understand how this is rational without the religious aspect   
Now that we got that out the way, we all agree that life at different stages has different values, how much do value that woman's ability to make her own choices in life for her happiness, economic situation, etc, vs the fetus who is only known to the woman as even existing? >

There's a step you jumped, I think, which is worth pointing out. It sounds like you're equating moral badness with illegality when you make the kidney comparison, but they're not one-to-one. There's things that are immoral which are still important for us to protect legally.
You say the government shouldn't force kidney donations. But morally, do you think a person should donate their kidney if they're the only viable match? What about donating their bone marrow, which is much less invasive? Would you feel guilty if you didn't donate? The truth is that someone will die and you could have stopped it. That would weigh on me. I would feel like I did a bad thing. >

hmmm !delta I actually do think I would feel guilty. Maybe logically the law should mandate that sort of thing. But really, there's just something icky about a mandate like that. I guess that's just my intuition speaking. >

The problem with a mandate is that some people would really be harmed by having to donate. Mostly for medical reasons, but in the case of surgery some would have other reasons as well, like not being able to afford to take time off while they recover or to pay for doctor visits for any potential complications. We could -- we would -- have ways for people to appeal it if they were called to donate. But donations like these are time sensitive, and there's not always enough time for people to go through the process of proving they would be unduly harmed.
A mandate would hurt people. And the people it would hurt would be the people who are already struggling, with disabilities or financial instability. It's not fair. >

Let's say a woman consented to sex, but took every legal possible way to prevent pregnancy that was available to her. She becomes pregnant. Are you saying that forcing her to carry and bear a child she does not want, that is feeding off of her without her consent, and medically affecting her body should be allowed because it got past all security measures to do so?

u should bite the bullet.

Why? Why would you force someone to give birth, knowing that the child is not wanted, and would probably be hated/not given a proper life? Our foster care system is already overloaded, and adoption is inherently traumatic. Why force the child to suffer? >

Honestly OP just read Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion.” She starts with the premise that a fetus is a person with a right to life. The conclusion is that the right to bodily autonomy supersedes another’s right to life. >

If we accept the premise of your hypothetical for the sake of the discussion, you have to also accept that you are actively valuing one life above another (the fetus above the pregnant person). You are saying that it is LESS immoral to force catastrophic and potentially life-ruining experiences on the pregnant person (nevermind the fact that birth does not necessarily equate a positive quality of life for the fetus either!) than it would be to terminate the pregnancy. It becomes a battle of morals (i.e. whose life is more valuable?). In this hypothetical, I would throw my lot in with pregnant people as having more intrinsic value than the fetuses, by virtue of their established ties to existence and thus their greater impact. The fetuses, pre-birth, can only have THEORETICAL impacts, and therefore have a lesser value at the time of the abortion. 
I'm not always great with words, so allow me to explain with my lived experience:
When I was pregnant with my (very much wanted) second baby, there was a risk of a uterine rupture. Uterine ruptures can be fatal to the mother and/or the baby, and incredibly time sensitive surgical interventions are needed (as in minutes can change the outcome from life to death). I had to have a very scary and very real conversation with my husband about who to save if God forbid it came down to it, and at this point I was 37 weeks along so I had a fully formed baby in me, not just a clump of cells. The fact of the matter is that had it come down to me or my baby, my loss would have created a direct, measurable and guaranteed impact on those around me. In our case, our biggest concern was what would happen to our existing child who was still a toddler and needed me. Was it immoral to choose myself over my baby if it came down to it? Tragic, yes, but immoral? I don't think it was. 
(Full disclosure, baby was born healthy and all is good, so I'm grateful that our scary scenario was only ever a hypothetical for us because for some people it isn't!) >

No, you wouldn’t put one life above the other if you carry the child. Instead, you give the child equal value to the mother. However, an abortion would mean not giving any value to that Fetus. It’s not just worth less than the mother, it’s worth nothing. 
I understand the way you see it. The mother has to carry the consequences of the pregnancy to bring the child to term. She loses on that deal if she doesn’t want to keep the child. But At the end of the day, none of these sometimes awful consequences can justify murdering a human being. That’s why the whole abortion argument (in my opinion) solely depends on whether or not the Fetus is a human being with a right to live. >

and that is a true statement. same as the post. >

If a fetus were actually a fully-fledged person, the woman it's assaulting could legally remove it in self-defense. >

What a shit take. >

Why? Explain >

I'm not even sure if I can explain why your take is terrible, if you're being serious of course, which if you are then you're most likely beyond saving and too far deep in your demented little world.
A fetus in no way harms it's mother when inside the womb. The fetus is being built while the mother cares for it, unless there is some sort of disorder, in a normal pregnancy the mother is in no way being "assaulted". Pregnancy is a form of commensalism. The mother protects the baby and does whatever she can to make it come out healthy. The fetus just stays inside and receives the nutrients from it's mother. Simple science.
I've heard a lot of reasons for abortion, but this one definitely takes the spot for "Most concerning" reason. >


A fetus in no way harms it's mother when inside the womb.

Yes or no question: is it Your View that all these women are lying? >


Buzzfeed
Perfectly normal things that happen during a pregnancy, none of which are perpetrated by the baby in question

No offense, but did you honestly think that pregnancy is easy? I don't think that anyone who has had children has ever said it was easy. >


did you honestly think that pregnancy is easy?

No. Did you think I did? >

You yourself don't even think pregnancy is easy, even though I doubt you even had one. Also I've talked to my mom before who has had 4 children including me and the way she described it was similar to the buzzfeed article you responded with. Everything has side effects and those are the side effects. I've even gotten to hear from some of her friends who are mothers and they told me "It's difficult".
Speaking of which, is the act of giving birth considered assault even though it is a totally normal thing? If you answered yes then you're anti birth. Period. >


is the act of giving birth considered assault even though it is a totally normal thing?

No, if she's giving birth with her consent.
Yes, if she's giving birth without her consent. If it's against the woman's consent, any act involving another person touching her genitals is assault.  Do you agree?

If you answered yes then you're anti birth.

I've never heard this term. Describe what makes someone "anti birth". >

Why do you have a special obligation to your own children? Let's say instead of your child getting leukemia, it is some random person in the world. Are you obliged to spend 9 months giving blood transfusions in that case? >

Try having children and then not taking care of them, see what happens to you. >

The way I think about it is this, should the government be able to force people to give up bodily autonomy to save people? In the original Violinist argument proposed by Judith Jarvis Thomson the point is that a person cannot be morally forced to save someone if it violates their autonomy. If it was the case that taking away bodily autonomy is less important than saving lives then why would it be immoral for doctors to kidnap people and steal their organs or fluids? 
But of course you already object to this in your initial statement, my prefered analogy is a car accident, let's say you are in a horrific car accident. It was your fault but you didn't do anything illegal and will not be charged with reckless driving or anything of the sort. You miraculously survive unharmed but the other driver is put into a coma. You wake up in the hospital and the doctor has set up a machine to give the injured driver your blood. The doctor explains that you must be hooked up to this man for 9 months or else he will die instantly, in his sleep. The question is should you be forced to give blood to this man for 9 months? If you think that you should be forced to, then what if you must be attached for 20 years? Surely it should not be seen as evil to say "no" and leave? 
No human should be just a vessel for keep another alive unless both parties are consenting. The implications of treating humans as vessels to keep others alive is awful. Look at how women have been dehumanised in the past, seen only as vessels of creating children. >

Your thought experiment is fascinating, because while I object to the premise of the violinist argument, I find myself just saying 'yes' to your thought experiment. (I'm wishy-washy, middle-of-the-road, on abortion btw). If the driver A is responsible for the predicament of driver B (even if not legally), it makes sense that he is obligated to take care of her. The time requirement seems no more ethically problematic than a prison sentence, the only difference is that the driver A would be doing something far more meaningful with his time than the average prisoner. >

I'm glad you can accept my thought experiment! We can disagree on the outcome of it but in general I personally feel it is more analogous to abortion. I should make it clear that I can see the case for arguing that it is morally right for a person to save that person (it is incredibly virtuous) my issue is with the state forcing you to do this. A moral obligation is not a legal obligation. For example it is morally good to donate money to starving children and to volunteer to help these children  that doesn't mean the government should enforce these moral actions. >

You are very clear in your comment that driver A is at fault but did nothing illegal. I'm wondering if your opinion on what the state aught to be able to do changes if we suppose driver A had done something illegal such as drunk or reckless driving? >

That a fetus is a human being is mostly a Christian belief.  Forcing this opinion upon others violates the first ammendment regarding religious freedom.  Several state courts have already struct down abortion bans based upon this.  If it's a personal moral question, that belongs to the individual, not the state. >

I will be downvoted to hell I am sure but I am both pro-choice and also believe that life begins at conception. Whoever that fetus was going to be is dead and gone and can never be created again, if humans have anything close to a soul, then that soul has been used. But I also believe it is morally just to have safe and legal abortions.
However abortions have happened for hundreds of years, probably thousands so banning abortions does nothing but put women at risk, on top of that whilst I may consider it a person, it isn't a viable person, it will die without a womb, a womb that belongs to another person, not just a womb pregnancy proper fucks with the body and that is a lot to ask of someone. 
Add to that how an unwanted baby could easily be at risk of abuse, state care for children is chocker with abuse and terrible pretty much everywhere.
My point is that currently there is no solution that doesnt present moral issues of some kind and out of all options available abortion is the least damaging. >

Are you then obligated to run into a burning building to try to save anyone inside of you are the only person around?  If someone points a gun at someone else, are you morally obligated to jump in the way?  I have mild but permanent nerve damage from my first pregnancy.  I still have mild incontinence issues despite physical therapy.  I almost died during my last pregnancy, and it's not that uncommon.  So let's be clear on what you are asking of people.  It is not just a mild inconvenience for 9 months.  You are asking them to risk death or permanent disability. >

We don’t force organ donors even if it is the only match, even if it’s intentional (munchenhausens by proxy) even if it’s family EVEN IF THEY WILL DIE IF YOU DONT, we would never even think of forcing someone to, for nine months, be a life support machine to a fully grown human, because we have the right to our own bodies correct? The circumstances don’t matter, because regardless of the situation at hand, it’s immoral asf to pressure someone into donating anything, even blood. it’s not killing, it’s pulling the plug on someone who cannot support themselves. >

We should >


a fetus is a person just like any other child, then abortion in cases where the mother's life is not at risk is immoral.

There's more than the issue of bodily autonomy here. Let's focus on the issue of moral vs immoral.
If a fetus is a person (it's not, but this is a thought exercise, right?), then abortion is homicide. However, there are examples of moral homicide (in defense of others), even legal homicide (capital punishment).
So - can killing a fetus be moral homicide?
You've already agreed the answer is yes (in defense of the mother's life). Therefore, can you change your mind to accept that there may be other scenarios of moral homicide?
One example that comes to my mind is the baby's health. If the baby develops without sufficient lungs such that to take it to term and give birth would force the baby to gasp for air, painfully and loudly dying over the course of an hour - would an abortion not be considered morally just?
What about a pregnancy that, though viable, if forced to continue would risk the mother's womb? Not her life, but the ability to bear future children. If this potential child has a right to life, but about the potential children she planned to have, but now can't?
Or how about twins that fail to separate, developing to share a heart - but one heart can't sustain two bodies so as they get bigger, the heart works so much harder that they have an 80% chance of being dead by age 8 with a significantly lower quality of life until then?
So then the question becomes: should the burden be on the law to assess every request for an abortion and have a judge decide if it would be a moral homicide (overtaxing the judicial system and treating abortion providers/seekers like potential murderers)...OR basing law on the belief that women aren't committing homicide or if they are that it's for a damn good reason, a reason which those of us not directly involved have no business asking them to justify? >

So how many attempted murder charges does my vasectomy get me in your philosophical world? >

None, since a sperm is not a fetus. >

Ok... so you've chosen the "sperm enters egg cell and one cell becomes two" as the dividing line for saying "it's a human".  Your dividing line is your own but also as arbitrary as anyone else's.  
Technically, because of the way they work, with this belief system of yours... birth control pills are actually killing millions (maybe hundreds of millions... impossible to tell really) of your definition of "human" each year.  I guess that should be quite an existential crisis for you to wrap your head around. >


so you've chosen the "sperm enters egg cell and one cell becomes two"

no, I haven't... that's just the most common pro-life premise, which I am holding as true for the sake of an independent thought experiment.

Your dividing line is your own but also as arbitrary as anyone else's.

we're not talking about my dividing line.

I guess that should be quite an existential crisis for you to wrap your head around.

hardly. zygotes are not babies. >

Your "independent thought experiment" is flawed right off the bat as "morality" is not some yes or no, one or zero calculation but instead is a highly fluid system of beliefs and differs greatly from group to group.  Killing a human for whatever reason can be "moral" and "justified" by groups or societies and has been since the birth of humanity. >

all morality is subjective. does that mean all discussions of morality are pointless? lmao. why are you even here if you believe in subjectivism? if you are really a subjectivist, then there is no moral difference between pro-life, pro-choice, racism, or anything else since all morality is fluid. >

Dude or Dudette you are on a worldwide forum and refuse to adopt a cultural point of reference for us to try to understand *your* definition of "morality" or "immorality" so... we're all stuck until then. >

fair enough, my argument is mostly intuitive after all. perhaps you can provide a moral framework that conflicts with my view and explain why I should follow it. >

The best I got is the golden rule ... and using that I will always side with the female and her choice as being the "moral" decision. >

well... if a fetus is a person....
then wouldn't the golden rule also apply to the fetus??? >


However, I believe this kidney disease comparison is not directly analogous to abortion and flawed for the following reasons:


u did not give them kidney disease


u are not the only one who can donate a kidney (if u see a child drowning u ought to help them if ur the only one (or few) around)


u have a special obligation to ur own children (u don't have to save starving kids in Africa, but you do have to feed ur own).



We can modify the hypothetical to meet these concerns easily.
To meet the second two concerns, imagine that a child needs a kidney from his parent in order to survive. Should the parent be forced to donate the kidney? No.
For the first concern, I take it that this is concerned with the fact that most women are responsible for their pregnancy. The question is whether most women are responsible in the relevant sense. It is true that a pregnant woman is causally responsible for the pregnancy (outside of cases of rape). But I deny that she is responsible in the relevant sense, i.e. the sense that would grant the fetus the right to use her body.
What do I mean by “in the relevant sense”? Typically, to say that an action makes an agent responsible for a victim’s needy circumstances implies that, if not for the agent’s action, the victim would have continued their life without being in those needy circumstances. In these cases, if the agent does not compensate the victim for their action, then they would have deprived the victim of something of value. Therefore, in these cases, it is plausible to hold an agent responsible in the relevant sense (i.e. grant the victim a right to compensation from the agent) as a means to minimize the deprivation of the victim.
To express this formally, we can say the following:
Let's say that agent A does act X which results in person B being in a needy condition. X grants B the right to compensation by A only if X deprives B of something that he would have had absent X.
This explains why there should be compensation for property damage; if I damage your property, then I deprive you of something that you would have had absent my action. This also explains why there should be compensation for bodily harm; if I physically assault you, then I deprive you of something that you would have had absent my action. In both of these cases, I perform an action that results in you being deprived of something that you would have otherwise had. I should be held responsible in the relevant sense (i.e. the victim has a right to compensation by me) as a means to minimize your deprivation.
However, similar reasoning does not apply to pregnancy. In the case of pregnancy, the relevant action by the mother is the conception of the fetus through voluntary sex (this is supposed to be the act that grants the fetus the right to use her body). But the fetus would not have had any life without this act. Thus, if a woman conceives a fetus and then aborts it, these actions do not deprive the fetus of anything that it would have had absent those actions. Therefore, forcing the woman to allow the fetus to use her body does not aid in minimizing the deprivation of the fetus. So her action does not grant the fetus the right to use her body. >

That makes sense if you look at it from a "depriving them of something positive" perspective, but what if you consider harming a negative in and of itself? Most people would say that never being conceived is preferable to be born and then killed, even if the end result is the same and the net "deprivation" is zero.
This kind of reads in a way where conception is giving a "gift of life" which gives the parent the right to take it away, but I don't think that's the case. >


Most people would say that never being conceived is preferable to be born and then killed, even if the end result is the same and the net "deprivation" is zero.

Unless you're an anti-natalist, I'm not sure why anyone would say that. Everyone who has ever lived has been born and died. Does this mean that, for everyone who ever lived, it was preferable that they were never born?

This kind of reads in a way where conception is giving a "gift of life" which gives the parent the right to take it away, but I don't think that's the case.

That's not the argument I'm making. I'm not saying that parents have the right to kill their children. I'm saying that the act of voluntary sex itself does not grant the fetus the right to the woman's body. The point is narrow: if the fetus does not have the right to the woman's body in the case of rape (which you grant), then the fetus also not have the right in the case of voluntary intercourse. The fact that the pregnancy is the result of voluntary sex is not a morally relevant distinction because the voluntary sex does not deprive the fetus of anything.
This does not imply that parents have the right to kill their children. Presumably you think parents do not have the right to kill their children for other reasons, for reasons that have nothing to do with the voluntariness of conception. E.g. a parent should not have the right to kill their children even if it was the result of rape.
My argument is only to deny the morally relevant difference between pregnancies due to rape and pregnancies due to voluntary intercourse (because there's no deprivation in both cases). It is not a general argument about when one can kill people. >


Does this mean that, for everyone who ever lived, it was preferable that they were never born?

presumably not, because they had a whole life to experience. 

The fact that the pregnancy is the result of voluntary sex is not a morally relevant distinction because the voluntary sex does not deprive the fetus of anything.

maybe not the fetus, but it completely denies the agency of the woman. 

a parent should not have the right to kill their children even if it was the result of rape.

yes, but they should be allowed to exercise bodily autonomy even if the rape child dies.
The point is that voluntary conception is tacit consent/responsibility to consequences. It's akin to throwing bricks off a bridge: sure it may be fun, but if you hit someone you have to reap the consequences. >


presumably not, because they had a whole life to experience.

I don't know what "whole life" is supposed to mean. People live for different periods of time. It seems like you're saying there is some magical threshold of time such that if a person does not live beyond that threshold, it is better for them to not have been born. But I'm not sure what the motivation for that is supposed to be.

maybe not the fetus, but it completely denies the agency of the woman.

One's agency is morally relevant (in the sense that would justify reducing their autonomy) only if someone else is harmed in the process. Exercising agency without depriving you of anything cannot grant you a right to use my body. 

yes, but they should be allowed to exercise bodily autonomy even if the rape child dies.

I'm talking about after birth, since presumably that's what you were getting at with "gift of life" point.

The point is that voluntary conception is tacit consent/responsibility to consequences. It's akin to throwing bricks off a bridge: sure it may be fun, but if you hit someone you have to reap the consequences.

This is not incompatible with my argument. One of the consequences of pregnancy is abortion. So I agree that voluntary conception is tacit consent to consequences. It's a tacit consent to abortion or pregnancy.
Now, you want to argue that abortion should not be an available consequence of voluntary conception. For example, if you throw bricks of a bridge, one of the available consequences should not be to walk away like nothing happened. And that's true. But that's because if you walk away like nothing happened, then you have deprived someone victim of something of value. This does not apply to abortion. If my act does not deprive someone of anything, then I should not be forced to suffer the consequence of caring for them. This is the case even if your act is responsible for their life. Consider the following case:

Imagine that your infant son has a fatal kidney ailment through no fault of your own. He requires a series of blood transfusions in order to live which requires you to remain connected to him for the next nine months. If you do not connect immediately, he will die within an hour. You voluntarily decide to connect and commence the transfusions. Several days pass. Should you be legally allowed to unplug after you have voluntarily connected?

To draw out the analogy with abortion:

The initial connection is like conception. The agent did an act that caused the needy being to be alive and dependent on the agent's body.
The state of dependency is like pregnancy. There is a being dependent on your body.
Unplugging is like abortion. Doing so is necessary to secure bodily control but would result in the death of the needy being. 

You should absolutely be allowed to unplug in this case (assuming that you were allowed to not connect in the first place). The fact that you initially connected does not imply that you must remain connected. This is because, if you had never connected in the first place, the kid wouldn't even be alive, so you aren't depriving the infant of anything by unplugging. Therefore, if you should be permitted to unplug if you were forcibly connected, then you should be permitted to unplug if you voluntarily connected.
Now, there might be other reasons to say that you should remain connected. For example, imagine that your son's kidney ailment was the result of abuse. In such a case, perhaps you should remain connected. But the fact that you should remain connected in this case has nothing to do with the fact that you initially connected. You should remain connected because you would otherwise deprive the kid of a life that he would have otherwise had. Thus, you should remain connected in this case even if you were forcibly connected to begin with. >

Whether or not a fetus is a person is irrelevant. For example, a person in kidney failure has no right to demand another person let them hook up their blood vessels to share kidney function. >

You clearly did not read the post >

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...
Also, NO, it wouldn't, because if you take up unwanted residence in someone else's abdomen, pretty sure it's not "immoral" to get rid of you. >

This is ridiculous. The child did not chose to reside in the woman. The woman, upon having consensual sex, gave some sort of consent to the possibility of having a child materialize within her. If we work under a moral framework that a fetus is a child with the moral consideration of any other person, then I don't see how it's possible to killing it. >


The woman, upon having consensual sex, gave some sort of consent to the possibility of having a child materialize within her.

Not a child. 
Not necessarily consensual.
Even if consensual, doesn't mean she consented to pregnancy.
If someone wants an abortion, there's an unwanted parasite residing in them. They're free to do what they want with the contents of their own body. >

To be clear, I am talking about consensual pregnancies where the fetus is mature in development.
There is a point where the fetus goes from being a fetus, to a baby and accrues the due moral consideration of any other human being. At the point that is established and the fetus is developed enough to be granted that moral consideration, I don't see how you can rationalize abortion unless it's a situation where the mother will die if the baby remains. If we go there, then there's nothing to say you couldn't remove an eight and a half month old baby and crush its skull with a hammer if the mother decided she no longer consented.

Even if consensual, doesn't mean she consented to pregnancy. 

She consented to the possibility of a pregnancy a lot more than the baby consented to being created.

They're free to do what they want with the contents of their own body 

Up to and including killing a child who had no choice about ending up in that situation? >


I don't see how you can rationalize abortion unless it's a situation where the mother will die if the baby remains.

I get this seems hard for some people to grasp, but I have zero desire to control women, tell them what they can and can't do.
It is 100% not my business what a woman does with the contents of her own uterus. At ANY point. What I think is wholly irrelevant. 

Up to and including killing a child who had no choice about ending up in that situation?

There's no child involved. People are born, have rights. Fetuses do not. >


I get this seems hard for some people to grasp, but I have zero desire to control women, tell them what they can and can't do.

Do you believe at any point before being born, that a fetus can develop sufficiently to become what we would recognize as a baby? Because you sound like you're refusing to deal with the supposition of the argument. Or do you think that a fully mature unborn child, days from birth, lacks any moral consideration until its umbilical cord is cut? Where is your cutoff point where a fetus goes from fetus without moral consideration, to a person with it? >


Where is your cutoff point where a fetus goes from fetus without moral consideration, to a person with it?

Birth >

Why? What gives a baby on one side of a birth canal have no moral consideration, while one on the other side doesn't? >


What gives a baby on one side of a birth canal have no moral consideration, while one on the other side doesn't?

The fact that one is an independent being and one is not. One is inside an independent being and one is not. 
You don't get legal status as a person until you're born. >


The fact that one is an independent being and one is not. One is inside an independent being and one is not. 

A baby is absolutely not independent in any sense upon leaving the womb. It cannot care for itself in any sense whatsoever. 

You don't get legal status as a person until you're born.

We're talking about morality, not legality. >

By this same token, war is immoral, death penalty is immoral, killing animals for their meat is immoral. The line has to be drawn somewhere so don’t get hung up on it and keep in your pro-choice convictions.
Having just had a baby myself, it is the most life changing and demanding experience; something no one could have prepared me for. Only the future mother of that baby has the right to decide if she’s up for the challenge; has the right support and backup, financial stability, etc. >


war is immoral

usually, but not always

death penalty is immoral

yep

killing animals for their meat is immoral

arguably, but animals are not humans, so logical consistency can be retained.

Having just had a baby myself, it is the most life changing and demanding experience; something no one could have prepared me for. Only the future mother of that baby has the right to decide if she’s up for the challenge; has the right support and backup, financial stability, etc.

hmmm, honestly this util argument is something I need to consider. Society and the financial (and thus material) wellbeing of the family are important factors here. !delta for showing me these other considerations. >

Do you think it is moral to kill 20 second old baby, because the billion dollar woman found out FTX collapsed and is now worth 0? >

!delta for explaining how this util argument is flawed. wow, I'm really flip-flopping here. >

You are absolutely correct. If you accept that fetus is a person or the life at conception argument, there is no way to morally justify abortion, unless some exceptions (rape, threatened life of mother, etc). The main battle therefore is whether fetus is indeed a person. Pro life think it is, pro choice think it isn't or are coping really hard with these types of examples of comfort, which don't apply to any other aspect of life. >

yep, thanks for the example, that was really powerful >

Oh, and also, you have to ask if it is moral for a woman with enough money and a husband to have an abortion if she doesn't want the baby (maybe because she doesn't feel like she is ready to be a mother), to which the answer is usually "yes, she should be able to choose" anyways, which shows you they don't care about the finances or stability. >

Not a single state has laws banning IVF. 
But in every single state, there is nothing stopping you from chucking your unwanted frozen embryos in the trash.
That's because the pro-life movement does not actually see things blobs of cells as people. 
It has always been about controlling women's bodies and sex. >


I'm pro-choice, mainly because I believe a fetus is not a person. Hence, a woman's bodily autonomy is the only thing that matters and abortion should be totally legal, at least for the first two trimesters.
But after trying to understand the pro-life position, I can't shake off the idea that if you were to accept the premise that a fetus is a person just like any other child, then abortion in cases where the mother's life is not at risk is immoral.

Personhood is irrelevant. 
I'm happy to concede from the instant of conception that a fetus is alive, human, and a person, with all the same rights as everyone else. 
Now, do I have a right to use your body to keep me alive against your will? No. 
If you refuse to use your body to keep me alive, did you murder me? No. I just died. 
We can grant the fetus all the same rights everyone else has. 
NOBODY, anywhere, at any time has the right to use another person's body to sustain their own live against the will of the person they are attached to. 
So, the fetus doesn't have that right either. >

Do you believe the government should have the right to force someone to donate a kidney if it will save the life of another? >

did you even read the post? >

No person has the right to use your body without your explicit and continued consent. No matter their age or viability. 
Period. 
Full stop. >

what if you were the one who shoved them into your body against their consent? >

Then we would be in a Looney Tunes cartoon and the abortion debate would be irrelevant in our wacky slapstick animated world. >

but that's exactly what happens in a pregnancy... by having sex, the fetus in created and forced into dependency without their consent. and if you believe a fetus is a person, that's an obvious problem. >

For the purposes of your CMV, we are all accepting that a fetus is a person.  But you are grossly misunderstanding pregnancy. 
Pregnancy isn't caused by a woman shoving a person into her body, despite your claim that 

that's exactly what happens in a pregnancy

A fetus isn't inside the woman until 10 weeks into her pregnancy.
So even by the rules you've established in your CMV -- rules which we're all playing along with -- a pregnant woman who is a month or two into her pregnancy does not have a person inside her. >

again, same difference. through your actions, fertilization, and subsequent development of the embryo, you materialize a person against their consent inside your body.
or just replace the word fetus with zygote and you get the same debate >

If the person is inside the women against their consent, we need to get that person out of her immediately.  Agreed? >

If I kidnap you and put you on a boat in the middle of the Pacific ocean against your consent, we need to dump you overboard immediately. Agreed? >

No
2nd time, if a person is inside a woman against their consent, we need to get that person out of her immediately. Agreed?
(please answer) >

no, if getting them out would kill them.
same answer as you :) >

The basic nature of an abortion is removing the tissue from the body that might develop into a baby.  The tissue "dies", for lack of a better word, because it is no longer part of the host body.  It's not immoral to remove something from your own body. >

you did not address the post. >

How so? >

you did not address the premise. >

In what way? >

the premise is that a fetus is a person, not "tissue." >

That doesn't change what I've said.  The goal of the abortion procedure is not to "kill" the thing inside of you, it's to remove it.  If that thing is a living breathing thing that can subsist of its own will, great.  If not, it will begin to decompose. >

Are you saying that something that can’t subsist on it’s own is not a person or that our hands are clean because we didn’t technically kill it? >


The most common objection is that Thomson's violinist argument can justify abortion only in cases of rape

in my scenario the action is voluntary. hence the exception for rape. >

I don’t think that’s true. Thompson addresses the argument that sex is voluntary in her paper. Basically, you haven’t consented to being pregnant just because you had sex. As an analogy, it’s clear that going for a walk at night doesn’t mean you have consented to being mugged. >

I'm familiar with Thompson's argument but have never liked it.
Different analogy. A woman goes to a bar after work to have a drink before heading home. She went there without the intent of becoming intoxicated. However, as the night progresses, she does become intoxicated and later attempts to drive home. During the drive she causes an accident which kills another person. She sobers up the next day and feels remorseful, and regrets having driven; however, argues that she should not be held responsible for the accident as she only consented to drink, not to the intoxication, and certainly not the vehicle accident.
We know the answer legally- but morally, is she not accountable for the life lost in the accident?
I say she is. She may not have intended to become intoxicated and drive drunk, but she consented to drink knowing that the natural consequence of consuming alcohol leads to intoxication. She may not have explicitly consented to being intoxicated, but she did consent through her actions while sober. As such, although unintended, she is responsible for the accident and death of another. >

That’s a different question. Yes she is morally responsible. The question is did she consent to having something done to her? >

I don't see it as a different question at all- it all comes to consent. Pregnancy is not "something done" to a woman- it's a natural biological condition requiring sex as a prerequisite.
For many women, sex involves risk of pregnancy. I am not arguing that consenting to sex is explicit consent to become pregnant- it isnt. My argument is that the very nature of sex requires implicit consent to the risk of pregnancy, including the consequences thereof. 
The drunk driving analogy is very relevant here. The woman only consented to drink (ie, sex). She did not explicitly consent to intoxication (ie, risk of pregnancy), let alone an accident (ie, condition of pregnancy). However, by consenting to drink (ie, sex), she implicitly consented to the natural consequence of drinking, intoxication (ie, risk of pregnancy). She may not have intended for anything more than a drink (ie, sex), but her willful and consenting actions produced the conditions required for the accident (ie, condition of pregnancy). >


Obviously, no right is absolute, and bodily autonomy is not absolute either. Whether it be vaccine mandates or the draft, bodily autonomy is violated by countless laws in favor of other interests.

It is not violated in draft or vaccine mandates - bodily autonomy is the ability of one person to demonstrate power and agency over choices concerning their own bodies. Draft does not strip you from that, it forces you to serve a in military - which has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Vaccine mandates also do not force you to take vaccine, they are specifying that for participation in certain public spaces you need to be vaccinated, you are fine to be non-vaccinated and not use those facilities.

However, I believe this kidney disease comparison is not directly analogous to abortion and flawed for the following reasons:  
u did not give them kidney disease

Even if you have given them kidney disease you cannot be forced to give them a kidney.

u are not the only one who can donate a kidney

Even if you are the only match you are not forced to give them a kidney

u have a special obligation to ur own children

And it is perfectly legal at any point of parenthood to give your children up for adoption.

A more apt analogy is as follows: Having (protected) sex comes with a small chance that your 1-year-old baby will contract lethal leukemia. The only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood transfusions?

Would it be moral to force you to continue these transfusions even if there is risk of death and health complications?
That is the problem with moral arguments - they are rooted in subjective morality and the law should give people option to decide according to their own morality in situations where there is no correct choice.

But if you believe a fetus is a child

And here we come to a final nail in the coffin. There is no objective measure by which fetus is considered a child. It is a position that is solely subjective and based on morality, not on any scientific basis. >


Draft does not strip you from that, it forces you to serve a in military - which has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.

It also includes a chance of a bullet tearing its way through your body. 

Vaccine mandates also do not force you to take vaccine, they are specifying that for participation in certain public spaces you need to be vaccinated, you are fine to be non-vaccinated and not use those facilities.

already gave delta for this.

Even if you have given them kidney disease you cannot be forced to give them a kidney.

well, then I believe you should.

Even if you are the only match you are not forced to give them a kidney

true. it's just another compounding variable I added.

And it is perfectly legal at any point of parenthood to give your children up for adoption.

yep, but you also can't just starve them to death without giving them up for adoption

Would it be moral to force you to continue these transfusions even if there is risk of death and health complications?

depending on how high the risk is ig. probably consult a doctor.

they are rooted in subjective morality

everything is rooted in subjective morality

should give people option to decide according to their own morality 

so... shooting people is legal if I decide it is moral?

in situations where there is no correct choice.

who decides which situations have "no correct choice?" oh wait... that decision is also subjective. 

There is no objective measure by which fetus is considered a child. It is a position that is solely subjective and based on morality, not on any scientific basis.

many things are not based on science. for instance, the right to bodily autonomy has no scientific basis. yet we enshrine it anyway. >


It also includes a chance of a bullet tearing its way through your   
body.

Not really, draft means military service, not combat service. A conscientious objector will still be drafted, will still be a soldier but will perform civilian work or noncombatant service in lieu of combatant military service.

well, then I believe you should.

Then you would need many law changes, starting with changes in donor laws as for now only donorship that is possible is “a voluntary and legally binding uncompensated transfer.” So you would need to designate organs as property for them to be able to be designated as recompensation, which would open a donor market to be exploited and finally it would need repelling and altering of V amendment. Quite a work here.

yep, but you also can't just starve them to death without giving them up for adoption

Because that would be cruelty, as you have other oprions. For fetus, we have no other options - either we force woman into pregnancy and labor or we allow abortion.

depending on how high the risk is ig. probably consult a doctor.

How high risks are acceptable? Is 14% risk of health complication justifiable for this?
Who bears the costs of forced pregnancy? Should the state which forced it bear the costs?
What about the miscarriages? If abortions are illegal, should we investigate miscarriages for possible crime?
And that is the other part of the issue - "I believe you should" is easy to say, discussion about what are consequences of making a belief into law are something that needs to be taken into account.

everything is rooted in subjective morality

And subjective morality becomes law if society agrees on it. I can believe anything but to make it into a law I need to make people support it.

so... shooting people is legal if I decide it is moral?

Yes, that is exactly what we do. Shooting people in self defense is considered moral. Shooting people as LEO or soldier is also considered moral.
Any action has judged their morality based on circumstances and in itself is not immoral.

many things are not based on science. for instance, the right to bodily autonomy has no scientific basis.

Do you consider sociology, psychology or philosophy "not a science"? >


Because that would be cruelty, as you have other oprions

so if, hypothetically, there were nowhere to adopt, starving your own child because of bodily autonomy is ok?

A conscientious objector

and someone who is not will be forced to combat
and I'm pretty sure the draft is basically just slavery/forced labor, objector or not. hence violating a different right, but I digress.

How high risks are acceptable? Is 14% risk of health complication justifiable for this?

idk

Who bears the costs of forced pregnancy? Should the state which forced it bear the costs?

the parents

What about the miscarriages? If abortions are illegal, should we investigate miscarriages for possible crime?

hypothetically, if fetuses were people, yes.

discussion about what are consequences of making a belief into law are something that needs to be taken into account.

maybe, but this post is about my beliefs, not a specific implementation into law.

I can believe anything but to make it into a law I need to make people support it.

who said anything about making laws and getting people to agree with me? I'm not running a campaign here.

Do you consider sociology, psychology or philosophy "not a science"?

well if you define literally everything having to do with morals and laws as a science, it kind of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy... and unlike hard science, those fields have very consequential and incompatible disagreements. >


so if, hypothetically, there were nowhere to adopt, starving your own child because of bodily autonomy is ok?

One has nothing to do with other - child can be taken care of anyone. That is the problem with hypotheticals in case of abortion - in that case fetus cannot survive without mother and mother inherently takes a physical toll just to allow fetus to survive and risks health problems by doing so.

and someone who is not will be forced to combat

Because they agreed to this. You have option to object to combat assignment and will not serve in one. Hence no one is forcing you to risk bodily harm.

and I'm pretty sure the draft is basically just slavery/forced labor, objector or not. hence violating a different right

Yep, I am only looking at it through bodily integrity lens, draft as a whole idea is stupid.

idk

But you are one to be sure to force it.

the parents

But the parents don't want to carry pregnancy, they are forced to do so. So on top of being forced to bear health risks, they are being slapped with financial costs?

hypothetically, if fetuses were people, yes.

And cause any woman that miscarry to get additional trauma of being investigated as killer of baby they wanted to have?
Your point seems to become more and more pro-fetus-life only.

maybe, but this post is about my beliefs, not a specific implementation into law.

If your belief are that you want to protect fetus life, you would not support laws that actually make it more common for fetuses to die, right?

who said anything about making laws and getting people to agree with me? I'm not running a campaign here.

But that is the issue - what matters is legality (and also viability to enforce law). Morality is your subjective position on something, as ling as it legal it is your choice if you feel ok with exercising that right. But if it's legal then your morality has nothing to do with choices of others as long as they are also within legality. And to enforce your belief you would need to change law.
Also if fetus is a child - should having sex with pregnant woman be considered sexual act involving minor? If you had sex with your partner and find put that she was 2 months pregnant - would we need to register you as sex offender? >

Morality matters less to me than practicality.
In reality, caring for a child is a huge and demanding process that takes up to 2 decades (even more honestly) of time and energy in commitments. You need a large amount of capital, a stable home, food/water and health needs for the child, education, everything. 
If the mother and father don't want to raise the child but is forced to, then that child grows up terribly, especially so if adopted. Adoption in the US is notoriously bad.
I think that a fetus is a future person in the making, but if both parents don't or realistically can't afford to care for them, then abortion is necessary. Life is full of things that are immoral but necessary and this is one of them imo. 
Maybe in the near future, birth control for both men and women with little side effects and non permanency will pop up and put this debate to an end. >


Morality matters less to me than practicality.

well, since morality is the study of right and wrong and what we should do, it is quite literally the ONLY thing that matters in EVERY DECISION WE MAKE.

a huge and demanding process that takes up to 2 decades

that is a pragmatic moral consideration. i.e. the demands of childcare create morally relevant burdens on the parent and on society. >

I stand firm in my view that the words "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" should be changed to be simply "pro-birth".  Once a life is here then it needs more than just birthing - it needs clothing, food, education, safety, loving parent/s, etc.  Children born to an unwilling mother are disadvantaged for life.  I will change my view when the world has fewer unwanted and abandoned children. >

I would argue that adding to the neglected children of the world is more immoral.
Ideally, children would grow up with all their needs met. An unwilling parent is not going to meet their emotional needs, even if they meet the physical. There’s also the issue of people who cannot afford to provide for a child’s physical needs and people who are physically unable to care for a child. 
You could argue for adoption but again, how many children spend years sat in group homes or being abused by foster parents? Until the adoption process is sorted, I’d argue that its not a consistently safe option.
Finally, the mother’s life is always at risk. Pregnancy and birth is not some magical process where things go right all the time. There are so many things that can go wrong and do go wrong all the time. Even for mothers who won’t die, that doesn’t mean they can carry on their life as normal. What about the woman with a high pressure job who is forced to take more time out to battle post partum depression? What about the avid baker who develops diabetes during pregnancy and can’t enjoy her favourite hobby? Its not as simple as popping a baby out and being done with it >

Updating your belief structure is challenging and there is a lot of bad information, arguments, and fallistic reasoning on both sides of the abortion debate.  Claiming the abortion debate is about bodily autonomy is and has always been a red herring.  There is no 'right' to bodily autonomy, and the entire concept of human rights collapses without a fundamental right to life; so its pretty easy to argue a persons assumed right to life is more important than their assumed right to bodily autonomy.  
The abortion debate is about the point at which life begins and the line needs to be drawn somewhere between conception and birth.  As you realize, the stakes for this line are quite high because if abortion is allowed too far in to a pregnancy its reasonable for a person to think you are actually killing a baby rather than removing a clump of unorganized dividing cells.  You seem to believe that the line should be drawn at the end of the second trimester and that's a very moderate pro life position to hold.  Welcome to the club, you can drop the pro-choice label as well if you like.
In every context other than abortion, a fetus at any point is considered a person.  If a woman is assaulted in the first trimester of her pregnancy and loses it, her assailant will rightfully be charged with homicide.  If a mothers baby naturally dies in the womb at 8 months of pregnancy, I'd be shocked to see someone try and convince anyone even remotely close to that situation 'well it's not like it was a real baby'.  
As a possible alternative view for you to change to or at least consider, the most compelling argument I've heard in the modern abortion debate is: "We determine time of death from the moment a person's heart stops, therefore life must begin when a heart starts beating." >

I'd consider it self-defense, or expunging a parasite, both moral choices.
If it were a full person then they would have no right to steal my life force or vitality, nor to damage me severely and possibly even permanently. >

My daughter lost her baby girl when she was 5 months pregnant. Which, according to you, she wasn't a "full fledged person". Now, I'm not sure what constitutes a "full fledged person" , she must have been just half a human then. But damn, it sure hurt us to hold her tiny little hand after she gave birth to that half of a person. My daughter said she looked like a person. Hmmm, I guess she'll be happy to hear her little girl wasn't a "full fledged person"  so no need to get upset. Thank you so much for that!! 
Now, let's cut the shit, because you have been misinformed. JUST LIKE I WAS ! And everyone else who has morals and regrettably believed the lies that led to us murdering our own child. ITS NOT A CLUMP OF CELLS!!! Don't believe me? Grow some balls and look it up. And I'm not talking about on the "Family Planning" murder cites funded by one of the most immoral, disgusting, sick minded freak who thinks if they do a "really good job with HEALTHCARE he can REDUCE the worlds population by A FEW MILLION! I know his vaccines have done a wonderful job of dumbing down us commoners (as was intended-he also said as much so look it up also) but try really hard to use your reasoning abilities, if you dare, and tell me what you think that means? These people make BILLIONS on our stupidity! Stop being stuck on stupid and do the UNBIASED research. But be warned, you will not be the same person afterwards. You can never be the same after seeing the depravity and immorality of those that y'all allow to dictate your morals! I'll never forgive myself. I just pray that my child will. >

Do you think God was justified in killing all the babies in Egypt? >

That wasn't "God" , lol. That was Someone that was more advanced and wanted humans to believe he was a god, if that damn kid didn't get in the way when he grew up and tell everybody the truth, lol. That's why he killed them. This "God" that people think is out there was made up to keep us in line. But if he were real. my understanding of that God says that He never would kill children. So why would anyone even believe that crap? >

Keep going I'm almost there >

I'm also pro CHOICE, except that I believe that the choice in question comes at the time when a woman CHOOSES to engage in an activity (ie. unprotected sex), knowing the possible consequences of her decision (ie. unwanted pregnancy) not at the time when she has to deal with the consequences of her choices. 
People need to begin taking responsibility fir the choices they make, instead of looking for an easy out. 
Now,  I know you'll throw the rape/incest card at me, but rape/incest only account for about 1% of all abortions performed,  add in issues of health crisis (ie. the life of the mother or child are at risk) and it brings you up to about a total of 8% of all abortions performed. But these are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule.
When people oppose abortion, the majority of them are opposing the 92% of abortions performed as a method of birth control by irresponsible women who want to have their fun without dealing with consequences. 
People who favor abortion call themselves pro choice, when the only option they support is the termination of an unborn life. You never hear them encouraging women to abstain from sex (guaranteed to prevent an unwanted pregnacy) , or to at least to have protected sex, using birth control pills, Condoms, IUDs, or even tubiligation. Instead, they argue that it's the man's responsibility to  respect women instead of pressuring them into sex, use Condoms, or get snipped, and while I fully agree and assert that men need to take more responsibility for their decisions,  men are not the ones risking a lifetime of responsibility for one night of fun. 
Furthermore,  women who choose to exclude men from the conversation with the argument, "My body, my choice" do not have the right to turn around and hold men responsible for the choices they (the women) made. You could have said no, but chose not to. (And again,  I am not talking about the 1% of incest/rape related abortions). This is just more deflection of personal responsibility.
Your body, your choice, I can agree, but I say choose responsibly, and accept the consequences of your choices, rather than punishing an unborn, innocent child who is not given the choice about what happens to their body. >

Lmao what in the religious guilt bullshit. You aren't pro choice. You're a fucken prolifer lmao >

First, at what point did I bring religion of any kind into the conversation. The basis of my argument is not about religion its about taking responsibility for your choices and actions. 
And yes I am pro life and anti abortion, I never said I wasn't. But I am also pro choice, because I  believe that women have more than one option, though i only support 1 of them under extreme circumstances (rape,  abortion, or threat to life)

Abstinence
Birth control
Tubiligation
Adoption
Raising the child
Abortion

The reality is that those who call themselves pro choice, do not believe in choice, because they are not open to any option except abortion. And guys who call themselves pro choice are the real hypocrites, they don't give a shit about women's rights,  they're only interested in anything that increases their opportunity to get laid without having to take responsibility for their actions. 
That's the bottom line my friend, people, men and women,  need to start taking responsibility for their choices and actions, and accept the consequences thereof, instead of looking for an easy out. >

Nope. This is literally the religious talking point about abortion. If you were pro choice. You'd support every single case of abortion, irrespective of whatever bullshit responsibility. And hell you fucking called fetuses unborn lives lmao, they aren't. >

Calling fetuses unborn lives is Science, not religion. The baby vs fetus argument is a semantics argument made to desensitize the reality of what happens during an abortion, so that women feel more comfortable about getting an abortion. 
And if I would "support every single case of abortion, irrespective of whatever bullshit responsibility" if we're truly pro choice, I have to ask if you would support and encourage abstinence as a means to avoid the need for having an abortion, if you are truly pro choice. >


I have to ask if you would support and encourage abstinence as a means to avoid the need for having an abortion, if you are truly pro choice.

That isn't pro choice you absolute wanker. That's pushing your bullshit on people. 

Calling fetuses unborn lives is Science, not religion.

Again, no. You are repeating prolife statements. Fetuses are a fucking clump of cells. You literally are a prolifer and a lying piece of shit because you don't even have the courage to be on in the open. You fraud >

Thank you for proving my point. When I say that I'm pro choice because I believe that women have options other abortion, but that I don't support or endorse one of those options (remember, I said that I don't support abortion,  but I did not deny it as an option), you tell me that I'm not pro choice, but when asked if you would support and endorse these same options, you are still allowed to call yourself pro choice even though you don't support every option a woman has-- you even deny abstinence as an option. So the fact is you are pro abortion and anti choice. 
As far as the science, the fact is that life begins at conception.  Words like fetus, zygote, infant,  toddler, etc, refer to stages of development. Referring to an unborn child by these developmental stages is only a means of dehumanizing them, no different from serial killers refusing to use a victims name, so that it makes it easier to take a life without the guilt. As far as the argument that these fetuses are just clumps of cells, well so are you my friend, you just happen to be in a later stage of development.  But even single celled organisms such as amoeba and paramecium are considered living animals. 
I find it amusing the way your side likes to argue science when it comes to matters like climate change, but deny science with regards to issues like pregnancy and gender.
It's also amazing, the way your side likes to argue by calling names,  and using charecter assassination tactics, but you never seem to offer any valid counter arguments based in fact, rather than emotion or personal opinion, to disprove the arguments you disagree with. >


I find it amusing the way your side likes to argue science when it comes to matters like climate control, but deny science with regards to issues like pregnancy and gender.

A fucking ha. Found the fascist hiding under pro choice garb. Fuck off and fuck you. I don't have the interest or the time to explain to a conservative nutcase basic science lmao >


Here, the issue is bodily autonomy vs the right to life.

Well let's clarify that, a woman's right to bodily autonomy. 
In my state, (if can be a misdemeanor or up to a felony) only the woman has bodily autonomy.  If she decides to go forward with the birth the state will come to me as the bio father and order me to pay support.  How do I pay for support?  By using my body to generate income.  If I don't use my body to generate income they will lock me in a cage under the threat of violence until I pay for said child. >

This post is absolutely disgusting. A fetus is 100% a human and 100% alive. A fetus is like any other stage of human development. 
Why is the baby never considered in abortion? It's always "the mother" but never "the baby." Pregnancy involves two people, the mother and child. 
Everyone has a right to life. You are saying if the child can be born with a disease, it should be killed. 
Ok then? Kill every patient in a hospital then. 
Every person has the right to have a shot at life, especially our young. >

Yeah I agree with you that if you do look at it as a person it would be immoral, but I think that's why they take into account how far along the baby is when considering abortions. There's also the hypothetical that if a girl is raped and she ends up being pregnant, would it be justified then >

In that case abortion would be fine, since if we're still using the same analogy, that would be like some witch doctor just attaching a baby to you in your sleep. >

well I don't think there's much of a debate here then. The only people who would feel conflicted are the ones who believe the fetus is a kid >


The only people who would feel conflicted are the ones who believe the fetus is a kid

yes, that is basically the title of my post. >

Well you see the people who oppose abortion think it is immoral so like you're just reinforcing that perspective? >

Question: how high are you? >

very >


A more apt analogy is as follows: Having (protected) sex comes with a 
small chance that your 1-year-old baby will contract lethal leukemia. 
The only cure is 9 months of blood transfusions from you and you only, 
which will automatically be delivered via teleportation. You decide to 
have sex anyway, and your child gets leukemia. Would it be moral for you
 to exercise ur bodily autonomy and terminate the automatic blood 
transfusions?

I don't think so. Imagine that science is able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that various actions that parents took turned out to be directly responsible for diseases later on in their children's lives. Like, you ate one too many hamburgers while the baby was in utero, or you smoking damaged your sperm. Would such parents be obligated to donate in these cases? >

Already gave delta for this “reasonable risk” argument >

Even in your scenario, it'd be perfectly fine to abort. Bec it's not the fetus' body🤷 >

and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bike >

Analogies without association to reality are not helpful here. They can be crafted to give any result you want, because they aren’t based on any factual assertions. 
Bodily autonomy IS absolute. Nothing can be forced to happen to your body you don’t want. If something is happening to your body that you don’t want, it is your right to do what needs to be done. That is absolute, and is the ultimate crux of a pro-choice argument. 
The part where it gets murky is when some people try to decide for other people what is right or wrong. I use right/wrong instead of morality, because there is a difference. There are things one shouldn’t do, or that someone might rightly believe to be wrong, that are still morally acceptable. So if person A looks at a decision faced by Person B, and decides that A knows what is best for B because of A’s own personal life situation, it would be understandable why A would feel outrage at B making a different choice. After all, A is absolutely sure of what they believe the right choice for B is, and for B to chose otherwise would be an affront to A’s own personal point of view (be that religious, ethical, or political). 
However, it is a false belief. The only person who can decide what is best for B is B. They are the one who knows all of the factors that need to be considered, and are using both external and internal factors to make their decision. 
Notice it was not necessary to put that last bit in the context of abortion, or any other decision? It is because it is a basic truth. Regardless of what one feels about abortion, it is not on them to make decisions for other people, and that kind of interference should be opposed above all else as a violation of personal autonomy. The moral decision is to leave other people alone to their own life decisions, and to manage one’s own life by their own ethos. THAT is where morality lies in this. 
But if one wants to decide for themselves what they believe to be right and wrong, we can talk philosophically about that. It can be understood why someone would believe a fully formed fetus is different than a developing one. And if someone believed there is a line after which abortion would be wrong, that is as good of a personal belief as any other, and is a reasonable way to make one’s own decisions. Legally, a baby isn’t a person until birth, so “murder” does not apply in this situation. 
And the last thing that makes this argument questionable is the idea that late-term abortions are elective. That just isn’t the case. The only abortions that take place on fully formed babies are ones where there is no other choice, and where either the mother’s life and health is at risk, and/or the baby is not likely to survive. This is the only situation where this happens, and it also falls into the personal autonomy argument above. Person A has no right to tell Person B that they must risk their life to deliver a child that isn’t going to survive the process anyway. Person A should not be getting involved in the difficult personal medical decisions of Person B, EVEN if it means a fully formed fetus is aborted. These decisions are hard enough without having people unrelated to the issue deciding what is best for people who they deserve no authority over. 
So how do I propose to change your view? I believe your opinion here is just fine for a person to hold. You can make all of your life decisions based on this point of view, and it would be your right to do so. But that opinion has absolutely NOTHING to do with what another person, facing difficult life decisions of their own, should decide. They, themselves, have their own point of view on the subject, and it is that view- along with that of their doctor- that should decide how they handle a given decision. >

My belief on abortion is that it should be available at any time and for any reason. Doesn't matter if its 5 minutes before birth. If the mother decides she wants to abort, no questions asked and it should be done >

Let me ask you then, if the law is required to protect "people" what do you consider a person? >

nah >

I'd love to see the birth of a full fledged person. Maybe there is a reason thst doesn't happen. >

The problem with your explanation is that we have emotional bonds with our baby. Aditionaly you give it a disease, because of your actions, so you inhibit its own autonomy. This changes things. A more neutral one is:
If you put your child up for adoption because you didnt know you were pregnant and therefore not ready. Are you morally obliged to donate a kidney, liver or anything else to the child at a later date? Sure, you share dna, but should you risk death or illness for what is essentialy a stranger, with some of the same source code? >

In order for me to engage with this, I would need someone to prove to me that a fetus is the same as my living breathing children. I don’t believe that. >

Person is a legal term, not scientific and not in any way relating to morality.
Please keep in mind, historically, non-whites were also not considered "persons".  
If you focus on the concept of human life, abortion quickly becomes immoral. >

What about rape? What about failed birth control? What about someone lying about birth control etc. 
Immoral is not something that the world agrees on. Personally, I would say that bringing a child into the world who is not wanted and submitting that individual to a lifetime of suffering because of it, is far worse than them not being born, even if you consider it "murdering them". >

I am personally against abortion (same views as Jimmy Carter) and hence would choose not to have one unless major health complications made me feel otherwise. That being said I have no issue with others making their own choices. What I do have issue with is others making their choices either to have an abortion or have a kid and expect either of those choices to be paid for by the taxpayers. You make your own choices so do that with your own paycheck. It's called responsibility. No one else should be accountable for your choices! >

This is a very minor point, and I don't think I disagree with your view overall (probably depending on whether you would say it would be right to ban it in that case), but I think one important answer to the kidney example should be that it is indeed morally better to donate your kidney when needed than not to. Just because you mustn't be forced to, doesn't mean there's not a better and a worse decision. >

Let's assume we have a fully fledged person, but in order to live that person NEEDS to be connected to another person through their bloodstream, relying upon them for life. Let's say this trading of life resources by the donor causes them all sorts of pain and negative health effects such as those of a pregnancy. Is it moral to force the donor to give life to the person who needs donation? Just to be clear many people would be ok with this deal.....depending on their capacity to support someone else. That being said FORCING this upon someone is immoral, even if they are a full human. It amounts to a form of slavery >

Who gets hurt by death?  The dead person doesn't miss themselves, they aren't upset to be dead, they're just dead.  Even if we assume that there is an afterlife, then death was never really the end and their fate was never up to anyone except whoever is in charge of overseeing the afterlife, amd this life was always doomed to be.a negligiblesliver on the end of eternity. The only people that get hurt by death are the ones who cared for the dead for the person who died.  If no one cares about that person, then who cares if they die?  Who actually gets hurt?  Not aborting the baby doesn't save their life, they are going to die someday. Why should it matter how long it takes to get there if no one is affected by the answer? >

I am going to use a different analogy but also, I think that your original view that is about moral or immoral is in and of itself, flawed. That’s an irrelevant argument because depending on upbringing/culture/religion, many things can be considered immoral that another group may see as moral. (Eating pork, honor killing, wearing pants as a woman, having multiple wives, etc) and these things are not based on fact but personal opinion based on upbringing. Realistically the only argument that matters for this type of situation is if the government should have the ability to make the laws surrounding it. 
My analogy would be, you get into a car accident that is 100% your fault, you chose to run a red light or drink and drive, whatever the case, it’s something you willingly admit you caused due to choices. In this accident, the person you hit sustained an injury to a vital organ so severe that they require a transplant. You happen to be a perfect match and could donate the organ to save their life, if you do not provide the organ, they will absolutely die, you have a high chance of surviving the surgery. Should the government be able to require you to donate the organ, undergo the surgery (even only slight risk in this scenario compared to high risk in pregnancy) pay for the surgery yourself, and continue to pay any relevant medical bills for the victim for the next 18 years? Absolutely not. Would it be “morally” correct to do so? Sure, a lot of people would agree that it would. That does not mean that it should be forced upon you with the threat of imprisonment if you do not comply. >


continue to pay any relevant medical bills for the victim for the next 18 years?

well, we definitely do that already.

That does not mean that it should be forced upon you with the threat of imprisonment if you do not comply.

well, it kind of already is, considering you may be facing vehicular manslaughter charges if you refuse... >

No, you absolutely aren’t required to pay the victims medical bills for 18 years, currently, there would be an insurance settlement and if the victim chose to pursue further damages later on through civil court that would be their right but in the criminal legal system, which is what i am discussing, 18 future years worth of medical bills would not be included in judgement. 
If the victim was to get a different donor that saved their life, you wouldn’t be subject to vehicular manslaughter even in this example. Yes, if the victim dies and the accident is your fault, there is potential for that charge due to the accident being your fault but you are focusing on an irrelevant point. My point is that you should not/are not able to be prosecuted for the action of refusing to give/use the organ to save them. Yes, you could be charged for their death if you refuse in this situation but you would be charged due to the at fault accident (which means you originally broke the law) not for the refusal to donate. Legal sex is legal. There is no crime committed in the act of becoming pregnant, to be legally required to use your organs to maintain the pregnancy is where the issue lies. >


If the victim was to get a different donor that saved their life, you wouldn’t be subject to vehicular manslaughter even in this example.

but to be analogous, you would be the only match.

insurance settlement

yes, but only because you had car insurance. 

but in the criminal legal system, which is what i am discussing, 18 future years worth of medical bills would not be included in judgement.

and neither would it be included for the child... you can always give up for adoption.

My point is that you should not/are not able to be prosecuted for the action of refusing to give/use the organ to save them.

maybe not the action in and of itself, but you are prosecuted for vehicular manslaughter.

Legal sex is legal. There is no crime committed in the act of becoming pregnant, to be legally required

Well if someone decides to make conception illegal unless you give birth then it would also be illegal.... we're not talking about legality here. >

I’ll take the L on your point about only match since you can’t just move a fetus to a different womb. 
Having insurance is irrelevant, even if you don’t have insurance there would be a personal injury case and at that point, future medical expenses would be calculated and if the jury/judge agreed, those expenses would be included in the judgement. You could only be held responsible for medical bills that were the result of the accident, when you have a child there is no way to anticipate future potential medical costs. 
If you give the child up for adoption, the future medical cost is out the window but you are still on the hook for the average cost of 18k for childbirth and the potential additional medical issues/cost you yourself could incur from the experience. 
Yes and if you caused someone else to die because you broke the law, regardless of if you could save them or not, you deserve to be prosecuted. 
I live in Missouri. Abortion is completely banned aside from very unique circumstances that satisfy a requirement to save the pregnant persons life. This means that if your pregnancy is confirmed non-viable, the baby will absolutely not survive, but still technically has a heartbeat, the mother must be coding before they can legally remove the fetus that wasn’t going to survive anyways. This means that a woman who miscarries late term must go through labor and deliver the corpse due to the action of removing the dead tissue being medically labeled an abortion. So, yeah, for me personally in the state i live, conception without birth is a crime. >


when you have a child there is no way to anticipate future potential medical costs.  
are still on the hook for the average cost of 18k for childbirth

well I mean when you drive there is also no way to anticipate future potential medical costs, yet here we are...
and that's another issue entirely, American healthcare is extremely overpriced.

Yes and if you caused someone else to die because you broke the law, regardless of if you could save them or not, you deserve to be prosecuted.

yes, and I'm saying if a fetus were a person, then we should make a law that says conception is a tacit contract between the mother and fetus because otherwise, an abortion is the same as refusing aid after causing an accident.

So, yeah, for me personally in the state i live, conception without birth is a crime.

that's sad, I feel like exceptions should be made for rape, when the mother's life is at risk, and when the fetus will die anyway. >

Well I mean... Parents aren't legally obligated to give their child a kidney either though, and the argument can certainly be made that they at least meet two criteria you stated, and if you squint in certain circumstances all three. 
Your first point, At least for pediatric kidney disease it was nothing the kid did to cause the problem, the source of the problem was their decision to procreate. 
Your third point being parents have an obligation to their children. Pretty straightforward. I don't see a need to elaborate
The second is where things get fuzzy. Matching can be complicated and the waiting list long, plenty of people die waiting every year, yet there a parent can sit, being a relatively good match, certainly better than no match at least, and let their kid die waiting for a deceased donor. Sometimes it legitimately does come down to them being the only possible donor before the child dies.
Yet, despite all of that, we do not force parents to donate an organ to save their living breathing child's life. So why should it matter whether a fetus is in fact a living being or not? Why does it have more rights to a parents organs than born and breathing child? >

i’m confused lmao- considering the leukemia analogy just isn’t possible, that doesn’t really hold up. a lot of people with a strong history of terminal illnesses still have children knowing full well they’ll probably inherit it as well. or if not them then their grandchildren. 
this happened to a family friend of ours, his mom had a specific disease that only affects biological women but can be carried by men, she had two kids. him and a daughter. the mom died, and then the daughter had two daughters and then she died from the same disease. and now both of her daughters have it as well. we still cannot comprehend why someone would do that to their kids knowing there’s a very strong chance they’d inherent a disease they will die young from. i think that’s fucked up, but that’s also not my choice to make. 
i don’t think anyone would let their child die after willingly having them if it didn’t directly lead to their death. i think most people would die for their children, i sure as hell would not, which is why i’m not having them. parents should do what they can for something they chose to bring into this world, which is why banning abortion will only lead to more child neglect and abuse. no one seems to care about the child when it’s actually a child. 
my family fosters kids and the majority of the infants are usually just waiting for their parents to be stable enough to take care of them. if they’re older than it’s more likely that they were neglected/abused and have nowhere else to go. i’ve never seen a prolifer give a single shit about actual children, because if they thought far enough into the future it starts to get difficult to justify. they do it for their own conscience, not for the children. 
my family and friends are the few people don’t foster kids for a check, we’re all pretty well off. so it’s not likely the majority of children will ever experience actual love and affection. idk how you could look one of those kids in the eye and tell them they should be grateful to be alive. especially considering all the foster kids who decide to take their own lives. damn the more i talk about it the angrier i get lmao- if you’re gonna be pro life at least do something to help the kids you claim to care about. >

Is taking a human life really immoral? It is illegal for sure, and most people "believe" you should not do it, but while we assume that human life is sacred, we have no proof of that proposition. I would argue you cannot apply logic to the abortion question unless you examine your underlying assumptions of whether human life is indeed sacred.
Assuming that human life is sacred, which in my view is a huge leap of faith, then the morality of taking another human beings life is clearly immoral. The question then becomes is a fetus a human life? Of course it is! 
Human beings are always, from the moment of conception to the end of life, in a process of becoming. I am not who I was yesterday, nor am I who I will be tomorrow; I am always in a state of becoming who I am. This is just the nature of a temporal existence. You lack your past and your future, you are in the process of becoming. So being a fetus is just another phase in a person's existence, in his becoming. Taking the life of a fetus, therefore, is ending that process of becoming, or in short, murder.
People often argue that a fetus is not a human being by virtue of the fact that a fetus cannot think, which occurs at about 6 months into a pregnancy. To me, that is like saying a person with severe Alzheimer's is no longer worthy of life because their thinking is so badly impaired.  While thought is an important milestone in human development, it is an arbitrary basis for deciding when a fetus becomes a full-fledged human being. Why not when a fetus can feel pain, or at any other of life's milestones.
Like a newly born baby is very different from fully-grown adult, being a new born does not detract from the baby's right to life--it is in every way a human being. Similarly, a new born is quite different from a fetus, but both are human beings. I am not aware of a fetus becoming anything except a human baby. 
Assuming that human life is not sacred and therefore not inviolable, society commits murder in some ways: We send young 18-year-olds to war where some of them will certainly be killed; we sentence some criminals to the death penalty; in some places we permit euthanasia. In short, we act inconsistent with the idea of human life being sacred.
We clearly don't believe that "life" itself is sacred: we kill animals of all sorts for food and other uses. So, other than religious reasons, what makes human life sacred? I would argue that human life is not sacred.  So the question of abortion is really up to the woman.
Questions about morality are impossible to answer definitively. You always end up in resorting to an appeal to authority, whether that be an appeal to God or to some philosopher's opinion. In either case, there is no way to confirm that either is correct. So we are left to our own devices--our own beliefs and judgements. In the end, each person has to decide for himself since no one can really prove that abortion is either right or wrong. >


In short, we act inconsistent with the idea of human life being sacred.

not necessarily. we can recognize that human life is sacred while also recognizing that other rights and obligations are just as important. in your war example, perhaps drafting people would be deontological wrong, but could save more lives in the long run, which would be consistent if your goal is preserving as much human life as possible.
but death penalty definitely goes against that, which means that I would probably just not support it or make a distinction between "any human life" and "an innocent human life." >

Licensed ejaculation with binding legal contracts seeking consent is the way. Licensed ejaculation will include training in child rearing, the women's cycle, empathy training, housework duty training, financial readiness training, college financial aid academic support training, and legal consequences for mental health or anguish endured by a woman at any point during the pregnancy, courtship, or wifehood, punishable with murder if the pregnancy miscarries due to stress of any kind caused by the man. The words "nagging and whining" used during a pregnancy becomes a hate crime, since speech is not protected either and would cause the woman mental stress while trying to bring the new person into the world. If the man requests or assists with obtaining an abortion in any way, he is charged with murder and failure to obtain a license and consent contract approved by the government is admission of guilt in the pursuit of future harm to the woman, emotionally and physically, and potentially the eventual murder of a fetus.  I mean, how far we taking the law? 🤷🏽‍♀️ And maybe, yah, like you say genetic compatibility testing prior to any kind of sex?   🤷🏽‍♀️ >

Lol >

Abortion was always immoral. What bothers me is that many people don't even take serious steps to prevent pregnancy and have no qualms about abortion. So many way of preventing pregnancy, but people choose to blindly have raw sex, without a plan a having a child. When they are pregnant, they now act as victims >

At least half of abortion seekers reported using protection. >

Abortion bad. >

If I may please be an old man prior to submitting a real response... you write so well! But why why why must you use "u" and "ur". It pains me. Oy veh. Do as you will. Please ignore me.   
I have given the abortion debate a great deal of thought and I have come to the conclusion that it is immoral in all cases without abnormal health risks. I do believe in bodily autonomy, but that's a right, and sometimes exercising a right can be immoral. For example, I am a strong advocate for freedom of speech and believe people have a right to use, for example, hateful slurs, but I will be among the first to point out that a person exercising that right is committing an act of immorality.   
I am not sure there is anyway to know whether the fetus is a person. What does that even mean? Unless you invoke religious text, which doesn't work for me, I don't see how you can answer this question. So why, when I don't know if it's a person, I still say confidently that it's immoral? Well, if I told you that behind a curtain there may be a person there, but there may not be a person there, and you are welcome to shoot it and find out, and then you shot the curtain and found no one there, this willingness would be an act of immorality.   
To be honest, I've been wrestling with this for a while, and your argument that folks are drafted, and in this way lose their bodily autonomy--that is a powerful argument. It seems to solidify this in mind.  
But all this said, as I stated in the beginning, I am still pro-choice to a degree. I don't know exactly when the cut-off should be, but when there is no abnormal health risk, the cut-off can't be in the 3rd trimester I don't think. That seems insane.
Abortion is a difficult topic. There's so much at stake, and no clear indicator of life on which we can mutually agree.