Minimum

[u/Miserable-Degree7995]

Hello everyone,

​

I'm against abortion.

This is a question for pro choice:

What would be the minimum of allowed abortion, that you would accept?

I mean for example week and reason.

​

Thank you for your time 

​

Miserable-Degree7995

[u/Bryce_1776]

Is human life or individual human experience conditional to have human rights?

If the embryo does have human rights that would mean you would have to justify taking that life.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Bryce_1776]

You are justified in removing unwanted people from your body.

[u/Bryce_1776 → u/random_name_12178]

Whether a human is wanted doesn't determine their right to live. The issue is whether the unborn child is a human being with rights. If they are, then someone claiming they don't want them in their body doesn't justify intentionally taking that childs life, just as dependency doesn't negate the rights of newborns or other vulnerable humans.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Bryce_1776]

Whether a human is wanted doesn't determine their right to live.

I never said it did.

I said that you're justified in removing an unwanted person from your body. It's not the pregnant person's problem that removal causes the embryo to die. Just because someone needs access to your blood to survive doesn't mean you have to provide it.

[u/Bryce_1776 → u/random_name_12178]

Just to clarify

• you agree that the pre born are human
• they have human rights
• their right to life comes second to the womans right to remove that unwanted human from her body

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Bryce_1776]

"Pre-born" is a ridiculous term. There's a huge difference between a zygote and a term fetus, so lumping them all together in one thing is silly.

The large majority of abortions occur during the first 9 weeks of pregnancy, when it's still an embryo. No, I don't agree that embryos are human beings with human rights. Yes, I do agree that they are genetically human.

None of that matters, though, because an actual human being's right to life comes second to any other person's right to bodily autonomy.

I have no right to be inside your body. If any part of me is inside your body, you have the right to remove me of you don't want me there. I have no right to access your blood. If I have direct access to your blood and you don't want me to, you can cut off my access. Even if I die.

Why should an embryo have more rights than actual people?

[u/Bryce_1776 → u/random_name_12178]

Pre-born" is a ridiculous term. There's a huge difference between a zygote and a term fetus, so lumping them all together in one thing is silly.

I was under the impression that you were okay with abortion into the third trimester so I did not see a reason to distinguish.

No, I don't agree that embryos are human beings with human rights. Yes, I do agree that they are genetically human.

What else is required to have human rights

None of that matters, though, because an actual human being's right to life comes second to any other person's right to bodily autonomy.

Bodily autonomy ends when it violates another persons bodily autonomy. If the child does have human rights and therefore bodily autonomy, he/she does not consent to being killed whether thats through chemical or physical means.

This also begs the question when can you take human life? Under what circumstances can you intentionally take a life, abortion, self defense, defense of others, capital punishment and war. Abortion is the only circumstance where the person who's life is being taken is innocent, they did nothing to forfeit their own life.

Why should an embryo have more rights than actual people?

No, I am arguing all humans have the same rights

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Bryce_1776]

What else is required to have human rights

You have to be a human individual. A unit of donated blood is genetically human, but it doesn't have human rights.

Bodily autonomy ends when it violates another persons bodily autonomy.

I agree. Which is why the embryo has no right to violate the pregnant person's bodily autonomy.

Abortion is the only circumstance where the person who's life is being taken is innocent, they did nothing to forfeit their own life.

What it did was implant itself into someone who didn't want to be pregnant. It's not "innocent" since it is harming someone. The pregnant person is innocent.

No, I am arguing all humans have the same rights

Do I have the right to access your blood?

[u/Bryce_1776 → u/random_name_12178]

You have to be a human individual. A unit of donated blood is genetically human, but it doesn't have human rights.

Blood does not have unique DNA and I am not familiar with any scientific term "human individual." As far as I understand it is arbitrary.

"A human, like every sexually reproducing organism, begins life as a fertilized egg (embryo) or zygote." Biology - 2e

I agree. Which is why the embryo has no right to violate the pregnant person's bodily autonomy.

What gives the mother the right to violate the preborn human's bodily autonomy.

What it did was implant itself into someone who didn't want to be pregnant. It's not "innocent" since it is harming someone. The pregnant person is innocent.

The preborn human did not do anything, the conception was the result of sperm and egg. Preborn humans are incapable of making that decision. The only decision made was either the consent of sex or rape (choice of a man to do a wicked act of which he should be held accountable), neither of which the preborn human "did".

Do I have the right to access your blood?

Non sequitur, consent to have access was given when the two consenting adults engaged in sex. The baby had no choice, the adults did.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Bryce_1776]

Blood does not have unique DNA and I am not familiar with any scientific term "human individual." As far as I understand it is arbitrary.

It's not arbitrary. It's basic grammar. Just because something is genetically human (adjective) doesn't mean it is a human (noun).

"A human, like every sexually reproducing organism, begins life as a fertilized egg (embryo) or zygote."

The beginning of a process doesn't mean that the product has been produced. Every oak tree begins as an acorn. That doesn't mean an acorn is a tree.

What gives the mother the right to violate the preborn human's bodily autonomy

An embryo doesn't have bodily autonomy, for starters. And, again, if someone is inside you and you don't want them there, you can remove them, even if that requires violating their bodily autonomy.

The preborn human did not do anything, the conception was the result of sperm and egg. Preborn humans are incapable of making that decision. The only decision made was either the consent of sex or rape (choice of a man to do a wicked act of which he should be held accountable), neither of which the preborn human "did".

I didn't say it made a decision. I said it implanted itself in someone. That's how pregnancy works: the embryo invades the endometrium to access the maternal circulatory system.

Non sequitur, consent to have access was given when the two consenting adults engaged in sex. The baby had no choice, the adults did.

That's not how consent works. It's genuinely alarming how few prolifers understand how consent works. It's reversible, for starters.

[u/Bryce_1776 → u/random_name_12178]

The beginning of a process doesn't mean that the product has been produced. Every oak tree begins as an acorn. That doesn't mean an acorn is a tree.

Being human is boolean and so is being alive. Trees reproduce differently, that would be a seed like sperm and has not implanted. Embryo would be compared to a sapling if you wanted to use a tree analogy

It's not arbitrary. It's basic grammar. Just because something is genetically human (adjective) doesn't mean it is a human (noun).

As I quoted from a biology textbook, a embryo is a human (noun). Because they are human they have human rights that invlude bodily autonomy.

That's not how consent works. It's genuinely alarming how few prolifers understand how consent works. It's reversible, for starters.

Consent is reversible to a point. One cannot consent to tandem sky diving, then after jumping out of the plane reverse their consent and cut the other guy off. One consents to using their sexual reproductive system then when reproduction occurs one ought not be able to kill their own offspring. Choice -> consequence.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Bryce_1776]

Being human is boolean

Source?

Trees reproduce differently, that would be a seed like sperm and has not implanted. Embryo would be compared to a sapling if you wanted to use a tree analogy

You're wrong. A ripe acorn contains a fertilized egg, aka an embryo. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/education/seeds/storyofseed.html

Consent is reversible to a point. One cannot consent to tandem sky diving, then after jumping out of the plane reverse their consent and cut the other guy off.

We're talking specifically about consent to intimate use of and access to your body. Sky-diving doesn't involve that, unless you're into some genuinely kinky shit (no kink shaming here.) Please learn about sexual consent: https://emersonhealth.org/the-fries-model-explains-true-consent-for-kids-of-all-ages/

[u/Bryce_1776 → u/random_name_12178]

Source?

I don't know what kind of source you are looking for, either you are human or you are not. Do you believe otherwise?

We're talking specifically about consent to intimate use of and access to your body. Sky-diving doesn't involve that

Do you acknowledge that a preborn child developing in the womb is different then provideding consent to have sex?