Many don’t believe this is a human right, and you enforcing this on them is going against their will. This is authoritarian.
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.
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.
But yes, the basic problem remains, humanity remains divided on very basic things. And enforcing unity would be ugly.