Converation thread

“Statistics show that 65% of women who have abortions deal with various psychological challenges afterwards. Abortion does not help women but harms them.”

Actually, studies show that the vast majority of women who received an abortion feel relieved more than anything; after all, if you aren't ready/don't want to have a child, then having a basic medical procedure that achieves exactly that would obviously be a huge benefit for you. In fact, recent studies show that over 95% of women feel they made the right call in having an abortion: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study

I don't care what studies you have, killing an innocent life, no matter how relieved the mothers say they feel, is wrong.

If someone is using your body without your consent, then they are fundamentally not innocent. Even if you consider a fetus to be "a life", it would still be perfectly justified to kill it so it doesn't continue to use your body. Even if you were connected to a grown *** adult person, who was hooked up to you to live, you would still have every right to sever that connection, even if it means killing him.

No other person has the right to use your body without your continued consent; not the government, not a stranger, not your family, not a fetus, no one. You have every right to stop them from using your body if you don't want them to, including killing them if necessary, because they are the one violating you and your bodily autonomy. They are inherently not innocent if they're using your body without your consent.

I totally get where you're coming from. Imagine a scenario where you wake up one day and find yourself connected to a famous violinist who needs your body to survive. You were never asked for permission, and now you're stuck with this person. In a situation like this, it would be understandable to feel the right to disconnect yourself, even if it means the violinist won't survive. That's the thing about bodily autonomy; it's a deeply personal and individual right that no one should be able to violate, regardless of the consequences. So, what are your thoughts on the importance of personal autonomy in shaping our moral and ethical decisions?

I agree. Personal autonomy is one of the most important rights we have.

The pro-life rhetoric is an incredibly dangerous and oppressive tactic used to strip the fundamental right of bodily autonomy away from us, and needs to be opposed at all costs. More direct action needs to be taken to combat this blatant violation of human rights across the US.

While I understand the importance of personal autonomy, I think it's essential to consider the pro-life perspective as well. For instance, some argue that the fetus, as a potential human life, has a right to life that must be weighed against the mother's right to bodily autonomy. One could argue that both the rights of the mother and the fetus should be taken into account, and that a balance should be sought.

It's important to recognize that not all pro-life advocates are driven by oppressive intentions, but rather by genuine concern for the potential life of the fetus. Instea…  Read mored of dismissing their perspective outright, perhaps we should try to better understand their point of view and engage in constructive dialogue to find common ground.

What are some ways we can approach this conversation while respecting both the pro-choice and pro-life perspectives?

The issue with the pro-life perspective is that it suggests someone else's right to life should come before your own right of bodily autonomy, which is not the case. It does not matter that the other party has the right to live, because their right does not allow them to violate your consent over your own body. You still have the fundamental right to determine who can or cannot use your body, for any or no reason, regardless of whether or not there is life on the line.

If this was not the case, then the state would be morally allowed to force people into having organ/blood donations any…  Read more time someone else's life was at risk. It would mean that your right to choose what happens with your own body could be overruled by anyone who argues that their life is at risk.

While I understand the importance of bodily autonomy, it's worth considering that the pro-life perspective is not solely about prioritizing someone else's right to life over the mother’s bodily autonomy. Rather, it focuses on the recognition that the fetus, as a developing human being, possesses intrinsic value and potential. Some pro-life advocates argue that the well-being of both the mother and the developing child should be taken into account, and that the right to life should be protected from conception.

For example, let's think about the case of conjoined twins…  Read more who share vital organs. Separating them might result in one twin's death, but keeping them together could limit both of their lives. In such a case, deciding what to do involves weighing the rights and well-being of both individuals, which may not always align with a straightforward bodily autonomy argument.

I invite you to consider this example and provide a counter argument or solution that takes into account the complex nature of rights and responsibilities in such situations.

Even assuming that the fetus has a right to life upon conception would still not change the fundamental conclusion that it does not have a right to use the mother's body without her consent. Having the right to life still does not entitle you to the use of anyone else's body, even if your life is directly at risk. Even if a fully grown adult was at risk of dying, and was connected to the only person in the world who could save their life, that host would still have every right to revoke consent to the further use of their body, thus severing that connection and killing the person.…  Read more You simply cannot be forced to overrule consent for your own body, even if it means someone else dies; it does not matter whether that person is a fetus or a fully grown adult. That's exactly why the status of life of the fetus, or any other person, is irrelevant to the argument. You are free to consent to having someone else use your body to save their life, but you cannot be forced to hand over that consent.

It is NOT the woman's body, it is the BABY's body and the baby has a right to HIS OWN BODY PERIOD END OF STORY PISS OFF!

While I appreciate the enthusiasm in your argument, let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture. When discussing abortion, we're not only talking about the baby's body but also the woman's body that's carrying the baby. It's like a tandem bicycle, where both riders (the mother and the baby) are connected, and their well-being is tied together.

Now, the baby indeed has a right to his own body, but the woman also has a right to her own body. The challenge here is to find a balance between these two rights. For example, if a woman's life is at risk…  Read more due to the pregnancy, the question becomes a bit more complicated. It's like our tandem bicycle going down a hill too fast, where one rider needs to make a tough decision to protect themselves.

So, I invite you to consider this tandem bicycle scenario and provide a counter-argument or solution that takes into account the interconnectedness of the mother's and baby's rights. How can we navigate this complex issue while respecting both rights?

First of all, there is absolutely no objective evidence to support the existence of any god or deity, not to mention that the right of religious freedom means that your religious beliefs do not get to dictate other people's lives.

Secondly, if the right to life was paramount to all other rights, then I assume you believe that the government should have the moral and legal right to pull you out of your home and perform mandatory organ/blood removals, transplants, vaccinations, or other medical procedures on you to save the lives of other random people, right? After all, if the right for other people to live is more important than your right to bodily autonomy, then others would have the right to use you or your body any time someone's life is at risk. Is that genuinely the world you believe in? Where your bodily autonomy should be overruled in anyRead more instance where someone else's right to life is at stake?

I DO NOT USE CHAT GPT, LIAR, NOR WILL I EVER! THERE IS MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE UNDER YOUR NOSE SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD ALMIGHTY! AND IF RIGHTS ARE NOT VESTED IN HIM WHERE DO THEY COME FROM I ASK?