comment: >
  
  Question: how high are you?
context: /u/Comfortable_Tart_297 (OP) has awarded 6 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 >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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?
  
  I think this would be a wonderful thing. I realize it would never happen, and won't push for it, beacuse I realize it will upset a lot of people and be too unpopular due to how many people view death/the dead. But I wish we could do this. Dead people don't need their organs, they're dead. They don't need anything and they also have no feelings. Dead bodies are intimate objects like chairs or stuffed animals. Dead bodies are not capable of experiencing any sort of harm. 
  The only reason "respecting" dead bodies matters is beacuse it hurts the feelings of living people when they find out a dead body was "mistreated". I say this as someone who is an organ donor and would be 100% cool with leaving my body to science. (It's something I've thought about recently but I haven't gotten around to researching where as my odds of dying soon are low so it's not high on my to-do list.) I genuinely don't care what happens to my flesh after I'm gone. It's really a shame to waste it when we could help actual living people who can still be helped. Assuming you consider saving lives a good thing, I suppose. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  
  or to specify that the baby must remain physically connected to you for nine months.
  
  ok sure, say the living baby is strapped to your back by a tube for 9 months.
  
  yes, of course.
  
  but why?
  For instance, we decided that we are going to make sure people who don't get a COVID vaccine are basically shunned from many aspects of society. That is violating bodily autonomy in order to prevent them from hurting others. How is this any different? >
  
  
  we decided that we are going to make sure people who don't get a COVID vaccine are basically shunned from many aspects of society.
  
  We do? I think it's important to specify what aspects and what culture you're talking about here. Because, as someone from California, the most liberal state in the country, there isn't anything I can think of that requires a COVID vaccine.
  What, exactly, are the unvaccinated being shunned from where they are required to reveal their vaccination status and then ridiculed? >
  
  well, just going to school requires a whole host of vaccines. and some government jobs too.
  but !delta for ig showing me that vaccine mandates aren't that stringent.
  But the thing is, I personally believe vaccine mandates SHOULD be more stringent. You haven't changed my view. I still believe that in cases like vaccines, prioritizing people's lives matters more than bodily autonomy. and hence for my analogy as well. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Moldy_But_Whole (4∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  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? >
  
  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? >
  
  If a fetus were actually a fully-fledged person, the woman it's assaulting could legally remove it in self-defense. >
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman... the woman is the one who literally made the fetus and put the bullet inside herself, even if she did it unintentionally.
  and pregnancy is really not as dangerous as some guy trying to shoot u. that's also why I made an exception for when the mother's life is in danger (as determined by a doctor) >
  
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  "Yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes? >
  
  Yes or no question: If a siam twin is really annoyed at the other and really doesn't want to live with him/her, does he/she have the right to cut the other's head off? >
  
  No
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  2nd time, "yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes? >
  
  The question you are posing is irrelevant, and is probably no at least for the first x weeks (first time I hear about digit and have a hard time translating it, but I'm guessing at limbs). Do you then by the same token believe that it is immoral to remove embryo?
  Did fetus have the agency to insert itself inside a woman's body?
  Edit: I'm retarded. Ignore the no to your question. >
  
  
  Do you then by the same token believe that it is immoral to remove embryo?
  
  No
  
  Did fetus have the agency to insert itself inside a woman's body?
  
  No
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  3rd time, "yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes?
  (please reply with either a yes or a no) >
  
  It's a yes, but this yes does not mean anything... If you are at the gynecologist and he puts fingers in your vagina, do you have the right to shoot him if you withdraw consent mid examination?
  Ok, so fetus did not have the agency, which is very important when you are talking about killing another person. Actually it was your actions, that caused the fetus to end up where it is. >
  
  
  If you are at the gynecologist and he puts fingers in your vagina, do you have the right to shoot him if you withdraw consent mid examination?
  
  No
  
  Actually it was your actions, that caused the fetus to end up where it is.
  
  I deny your accusation. Provide proof that I impregnated someone.
  
  It's a yes, but this yes does not mean anything...
  
  Then it's a yes to somebody else's question.  A yes to my question means something: it means that this person currently has one or more of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes.
  
  but the fetus is not attacking the woman
  
  4th time, "yes or no" question: Does this person currently have any of their digits inside a woman's pelvic area against her wishes?
  (please reply with either a yes or a no) >
  
  If my Auntie had wheels she’d be a bicycle. >
  
  and that is a true statement. same as 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. >
  
  you did not address the post. >
  
  I said -- 
  
  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. >
  
  I know you said that. That does not address the premise, nor the analogical argument I made, in any capacity. >
  
  
  I know you said that. That does not address the premise, nor the analogical argument I made, in any capacity.
  
  It does address the premise. 
  It doesn't delve into impossible things, no. >
  
  
  It does address the premise.
  
  no it doesn't. here's why:
  
  you take up unwanted residence
  
  "you" (as in the fetus) did not take up residence. You were forced to reside without consent.
  
  It doesn't delve into impossible things
  
  well it has to in order to engage with the thought experiment.... why are you here if not to discuss the philosophical thought experiment? >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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? >
  
  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!) >
  
  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? >
  
  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. >
  
  damn... I have dabbled slightly in philosophy before bc I used to do debate, but thank you for laying it all out on the table. I should really get back into Kant. I feel like this is an issue with no easy answers, and hence, people should really have more empathy for the other side of the aisle. !delta for helping me frame this issue from a deontological/rule util perspective. >
  
  Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/dernbu (1∆).
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  in other words, starvation. >
  
  Well, no.  If you have an abortion and that abortion dies of starvation, you and your doctor have made a series of very nonsensical decisions.
  More like, never having been actually alive in the first place because of not having a brain or any organs. >
  
  but that's the premise of the post. read the title again. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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? >
  
  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 >
  
  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?