Abortion should be a human right. All countries that don’t respect that should pay huge fines. Thanks for giving that example.
See how silly you’re being? The parent comment already shared that large parts of the world have different values.
I’d be curious of your take when your proposed value isn’t chosen and there is no recourse.
Corpses have more bodily autonomy than women after Dobbs.
> In no other case is a human being, living or dead, legally required to give up their organs, bodily fluids, or other part of themselves, nor to literally risk their lives, for another human being.
In many other cases are humans legally required to literally risk their lives for another human being. Would you like me to give you examples?
> Corpses have more bodily autonomy than women after Dobbs.
I guess this is something US specific?
You have not addressed anything in the comment you're replying to. I think the right to abortion is the less bad of the two options, but I can also understand the people who say that abortion is murder. Can't you?
Is refusing to donate blood, bone marrow, etc, murder?
Is not mandating the donation of viable organs after death murder?
None of these things are required of people, in the name of bodily autonomy. None of these inactions are considered murder. And yet you expect women to donate their bodies for 9 months to something that is not yet a person, and take the very, very real risk of injury, permanent disability, or death, and the near-certainty that their bodies will never be the same again, to support what you call a human life.
The logic does not follow. It does not matter whether life begins at conception, at first heartbeat, at differentiated brain development, or at birth: In no case other than pregnancy is a human being societally expected or legally required to give even a part of their body to keep another human being alive, regardless of how safe the procedure may be.
And in the inverse, a few months ago I saw a lot users here arguing in favor of forcing Covid vaccinations against the person’s will to protect immunocompromised. Where do you stand on that?
Legalizing slavery doesn't mean you're forced to own slaves.
Some folks believe certain actions are intrinsically immoral and no one should be allowed to do them.
So a human female and a human male copulate and they conceive something not-human? What species is it if it is not Homo sapiens? If it is not Homo sapiens, why does it apparently have human DNA (distinct from either the female and male that were involved)?
Why is it that when two humans copulate, they produce something not-human, but when every other mammal pairs copulate they produce something of the same species?
In your opinion when does it go from being not-human to being human? Is is gradual, on a spectrum? Or is it binary: at a certain point in development there is some characteristic that becomes present
The body inside her body is not hers. Unfortunately biology does not conform to our fantasyland.
Forcing those who are against this to pay a fine is against their will.
Or she was raped, or nobody taught her anything but religious abstinence bullshit and she didn't even know the ramifications.
> The body inside her body is not hers
So if you take that "body" inside her out of her, what happens to it? It dies unless it's the late stages (what, 6 months in?) It's entirely dependent on her to grow to become a human being.
I’m not talking about abstinence, plenty of birth control options are available. Men need to take more responsibility and wear a condom.
> So if you take that "body" inside her out of her, what happens to it? It dies unless it's the late stages (what, 6 months in?) It's entirely dependent on her to grow to become a human being.
Yes this is biology, and? If you ever had to visit a NICU you’ll see plenty of 20 some week old pre-mature babies (or “bodies” in your case) that are just as human as you and I. They are just in a different stage in life. They need food to survive, just like you and I. I have a 1 year old, he is dependent on me to grow and survive.
Abortion should be a a right regardless of the reasons. It’s not more of a right because the woman was raped. In both cases, they don’t want a thing growing in their uterus, no matter their reasons.
The real problem is, in my opinion: should we force a human to maintain another human against their will? What if we could extract the fetus and grow it in vitro instead of aborting it? In the same vein, does a parent legally have to be an organ donor for their child?
These are questions we can answer and debate on even if we disagree on whether a fetus is alive or not.
A twisted example based on your comment: should be allowed to remove tumours? They have a slightly different DNA from the host therefore they are not “property” of the sick and therefore should be left there!
I know, a different opinion on a left wing dominant forum. It’s pretty wild.
> First and foremost willing unprotected sex is not the only reason for getting pregnant! Contraceptive are not 100% effective and there is rape.
I address this in another comment below.
> Third sometimes there are medical reasons for abortions (Malta recently almost killed a mother that had a miscarriage… the child was 100% going to die but as long as the fetus’ heart was beating they could not remove it and therefore the mover risked sepsis)
You’re citing very rare events to support the main issue which is the majority of abortions are out of convenience, which is where the main issue is.
For these rare events there can be middle ground found here.
> Second the body inside her might not belong to her (although… debatable) but her body is still hers and therefore she is entitled to remove anything inside of her. > A twisted example based on your comment: should be allowed to remove tumours? They have a slightly different DNA from the host therefore they are not “property” of the sick and therefore should be left there!
This is arguing the same point in my opinion. The tumor does not grow into a human. The tumor is not able to survive outside of the womb in a NICU as a human.
In Colorado you can get an abortion up to 9 months. There’s legislation trying to pass abortion allowance up to the moment of birth, and some have been recently successful in passing. Many states in the US allow abortions in 2nd trimester which is where a baby can survive outside the womb in a NICU.
But you are already doing that stating that abortion should be illegal altogether! You just set the threshold very early on!
I personally don't think we should have governments protecting lives or rights or anyone - therefore if abortion happens that's unfortunate but I wouldn't spend resources chasing that.
That said abortion is obviously murder and immoral, no matter how convenient it can be.
No, it’s not « obvious ». Many disagree on that, that’s kind of the whole point of the current debate.
And many pro-life folks say that you're killing a child. It's his/her body.
We don't allow parents to to kill 'inconvenient' child post-birth† so according to their argument neither should we pre-birth.
† Well:
* https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-n...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After-birth_abortion
* https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2017/07/13/should-one-be-allo...
Just to be clear: are we talking about the pre-birth situation or the post-birth situation (as practice in the Netherlands)?
Otherwise, we're pretending sentience is magically conveyed as the baby passes through the birth canal, which is silly.
You're right, that is silly. It is a silly, misleading straw-man argument.
Sentience isn't and never was the test. People in long-term comas still have rights.
Also, it's hard to define precisely, harder to test in new-born infants, who are not all that "wired up" anyway at the time of birth.
It's the fundamental point in the debate, so it's far from a trick question?
b) As Mr Buttigieg said, ""If it's that late in your pregnancy, then almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term" - engage with that instead of repeating yourself?
c) As the other commenter (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31892643) says, this is a nonsense hypothetical
> One singular example of an abortion at 39 weeks where the mother didn't want the baby. I guarantee you can't actually find one even though you claim it exists
> It's the fundamental point in the debate
It is not, or should not be.
> believe there is a point ... shouldn't be allowed.
Again, should be a medical decision between patient and doctor, not a legal one, and not a numeric comparison.
But yes, the basic problem remains, humanity remains divided on very basic things. And enforcing unity would be ugly.
The rise (those damn Christians!) and fall (those damn Goths and Huns!) of Rome, the fall of Napoleon’s rule (those damn Russians!), the rise of Hitler (those damn Jews!), USA after Pearl Harbor (those damn Japanese!), downfall of Germany in 1945 (this damn war!), end of the Japanese imperial era (those damn bombs!) and the subsequent Americanization of Japan, fall of Great Britain’s monarchy after the war (those damn royalty!), the late 60’s major loss of civil liberties in the US (those damn blacks!), the entire Gaddafi affair (those damn clan monarchs / those damn Yankees!), USA becoming a surveillance state after 9/11 (those damn terrorists!), rise of the Taliban (those damn Yankees again!) …
I don't think forcing my opinion on anyone who disagrees is correct, but then neither do I want others' opinions forced on me.
What about the human rights of the unborn babies?
And who determines whether or not the unborn have rights? Rights are given by god, not some legislature.
Whose god? Allah? Buddha?
No, rights are natural, books with legends and stories have nothing to do with it, but their legal framework is provided by legislatures.