If you support abortion sue to bodily autonomy then you have to support abortion up until birth

It is. Human is a designation. It would be a human skin cell. We will sometimes shorten the term of a human being to a human, but that doesn't change the fact that what is inside a woman is still a human, even if it is not a being. And yes it is the DNA that makes that designation. As I noted, that has no bearing on whether the human entity inside the woman is sentient or aware or conscious or anything. One that is brain dead but still has a functioning body is very much akin to a fetus. The body is still a human. Whether someone is home or not is another matter. But in the end, the issue of human or conscious or sentient or whatever is a red herring to whether or not the woman has bodily autonomy. She either has it or she doesn't. And if she doesn't, then neither do the rest of us, and that means we can start taking organs as needed to save live, whether the originator wants to donate it or not.

 

Your absolutist nonsense ignores the reality that we are, as is often the case, attempting to balance competing interests that, obviously, evolve over time.

Can a right be asserted by the State on behalf of a microscopic, mindless amalgam of human cells at the beginning of a pregnancy be equated to that of a viable, sentient individual that has developed over nine months of gestation? Not unless one fancies the long-abandoned notion of preformationism.

​

In the history of embryology, the homunculus was part of the Enlightenment-era theory of generation called preformationism.
The homunculus was the fully formed individual that existed within the germ cell of one of its parents prior to fertilization
and would grow in size during gestation until ready to be born.
​

Interestingly, while authoritarian politicians in countries like Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Iraq abrogate the rights of women, an advanced nation such as Canada does not presume to limit a citizen's freedom, but leaves such matters to the individual most concerned, in consultation with medical and spiritual advisers whom she trusts. In Canadian provinces, abortions are regulated similarly to other health-care procedures.

 

You may see it that simply, others don't, and limits ARE legally imposed which don't allow her to have it removed after a certain point in development simply because she no longer wants it inhabiting her body. And of course, in your simplistic fashion, you fail to address the dichotomy of prosecuting or not prosecuting the ending of the same human life depending on who is doing the killing.

 

Incorrect. Cite for me one law in the US that prevents a woman from obtaining an induced labor in order to have it removed after a certain point in development simply because she no longer wants it inhabiting her body.

I did. I noticed that you didn't address that argument, in your simplistic fashion.

ETA: Just noticed the time stamp. I will allow that you might not have gotten to it yet.

 

Drugging someone without their consent is an abhorrent violation no matter the reason or the outcome. And I'm not determining the value of a human life, society is. I haven't put my personal views forth one way or the other, other than to say I think it's a problem to base the legality of causing the death of a fetus on the feelings of the pregnant woman. I don't discount the bodily autonomy argument, up to a point of fetal development. But I do have a problem with prosecuting someone other than the pregnant woman for killing a fetus if we allow abortion at that point of development. The life that existed and was killed is the same, and should not be treated differently depending on who is doing the killing, or whether said life was "wanted" or not.

 

My reply was to Cybred, who has a consistent pattern of one word or one line responses to arguments, which I view as simplistic.

 

As I have pointed out before, when it comes to the woman's body, the status of the fetus is irrelevant. If it does not have or no longer has her consent, then it is in violation of her bodily autonomy. This is no different than if a person outside her body is doing something without her consent. We can make an argument that if a method exists that allows to violator of her consent to continue to live, then that effort has to be taken as long as the violation stops. To run a parallel for the body autonomy and consent point, without trying to equate the acts themselves, if she is being raped, then if the rapist can be made to stop without killing him, it should be done, but if he dies because of the effort, too bad. He is the violator, not her. With a person other than the woman is the one who kills the fetus when it is not consented to by the woman, then he is at a minimum in violation of the woman's bodily autonomy. If the fetus is considered a person, then so be it, but that personhood would only apply to situations where the fetus is not in violation of another's bodily autonomy and consent. In the case of an abortion, the fetus is the violator. In the case of another causing the fetus, that other is the violator not the fetus. The fetus is being given no more of a double standard than an external person who is violating a person's consent and bodily autonomy.

And yet you dodged the question. Let's review. You said:

I countered that there are no such limits, and asked you to show me where there are such limits, and provided the conditions by which your statement, as written, is proven wrong.

 

Except there's no dichotomy.

 

According to that logic killing someone in self defense is no different than intension murder.

 

You countered that a woman could simply request an induction to remove it from her body after viability. She could certainly request that, but what would be the point in terms of an abortion? Such an induction would likely result in a live birth, which obviously a woman desiring an abortion does not want. In the early weeks after viability, the fetus would require extensive and costly medical treatment. In what states do you believe a doctor would perform an induction simply because the mother no longer wishes to be pregnant? No medical necessity, just doesn't want to be pregnant anymore. I'd be shocked if she could find one.

In the only instance I'm aware of where a doctor terminated pregnancies after viability for non-medical reasons, he was prosecuted. A legitimate physician isn't going to perform an abortion after viability unless it is medically necessary, nor is a legitimate physician going to perform an induction after viability until the pregnancy is within the standard accepted for no negative outcomes for the resulting infant unless there is a compelling medical reason to do so.

That, IMO, is where your argument fails. Please explain where you believe a woman is allowed to legally obtain such medical care.

 

I disagree. When you kill someone in self defense, that person is deliberately trying to harm you. Very different than going out and killing someone who is not trying to physically harm you. In the case of a fetus, it is not deliberately trying to harm the woman, it simply exists as a result of a biological process that occurred as a result of deciding to have sex. But whether or not it is deliberately trying to harm her, society has decided that it is ok for her to remove it which results in it's death, because she has bodily autonomy and it's in her body. In a case where a fetus is killed by another's actions, how does it magically become a person with a right to life?

 

Because its killed against the woman's will, no magic involved.

 

That does not mean her life cannot be threatened by the foetus.

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/worsening-u-s-maternal-health-crisis-three-graphs/
The maternal mortality stats for America are already horrendous they will get worse in states with abortion bans


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_mortality_in_the_United_States


https://abcnews.go.com/US/abortion-stands-state-year-overturning-roe-wade/story?id=100229092

 

I did not counter an argument of your that was in terms of an abortion. Once again let's review:

Your argument here does not limit the scope to the procedure of abortion

The termination of the offspring is not within her rights directly. The results of a right exercised does not constitute a right in and of itself. Her right is the removal of the user of her bodily resources that does not have consent to those resources. Whether that results in termination or not is not part of the right. It's one of the reasons why I noted that the use of a futuristic technology could moved a pre-viable fetus to an artificial womb and her right would have been satisfied.

Now you are changing the goal posts. I specifically noted that the woman's right of bodily autonomy does not entitle her to the services of another. If she cannot find a person willing to do an abortion even in a state where it is legal, then she doesn't get one unless she does it herself. But that is not a legally imposed limited. That is one personally imposed by medical individuals.

Please provide that piece of evidence.

A legitimate physician is one who has received their doctorate. I think what you are wanting to say is that an ethical physician isn't going to perform an abortion after viability. And that's before we note the strawman of the argument, since I responded to an argument about the legal limits of removal of the fetus after a certain point. Double strawman really, as whether a doctor is willing to perform a procedure or not is a separate issue from whether it is legal or not.

Oh that's easy. Keeping in mind that I am making the argument against "...her to have(ing) it removed after a certain point in development...", if it isn't illegal then it's legal. There has to be a law to make something illegal. It's why I asked you to show me a law that makes having an induced labor illegal for the purpose of her simply not wanting it in there anymore.

 

Regardless of intent, the fact remains that simply being pregnant has risks, which include permanent damage to her body or even death. It is her right to opt out of such risks before they manifest. Why would you tell a person that they have to risk death. @Bowerbird has already provided the mortality rate, and that doesn't cover the various permanent damages that could occur.

It's the same principle of why it's alright to kill a guy in self defense who is assaulting me, but not when he is insulting me. The former is a violation of my bodily autonomy, the later is not. The woman is removing the fetus in response to the violation of her bodily autonomy, the outside person is not experiencing a violation of their bodily autonomy.

 

And if her life is actually being threatened by her fetus, that is a different situation than what we have been discussing.

 

I get all that. But it doesn't address, for example, a drunk driver crashes into a car containing a pregnant woman. She survives the crash but the fetus is killed. The drunk driver (in some places) is charged with the death of the fetus as if it were a born person (i.e. murder, manslaughter, etc). I get the argument that the woman "wanted" the fetus, but if it isn't a person if she opted to kill it via abortion, it isn't a person when the drunk driver kills it either. I can see a civil suit for damages, but I can't see treating a life differently depending on whether it is wanted or not and who is doing the killing. To me, what physically exists is the core issue, not how anyone "feels" about it.

 

But whether or not its a person is irrelevant.

 

Not really because who gets to say what level of threat is acceptable? Is it her decision? Her doctor or as is happening apparently is some,of the states - the hospital lawyers

 

It still becomes a matter of the fetus is in violation of the woman's bodily autonomy (if consent is not given or withdrawn), but it is not in violation of the drunk driver's bodily autonomy. That's why I made the comparison, to show that the situation itself is different and that personhood isn't actually relative.

 

Being pregnant is a risk and threat in and of itself. Essentially what you are doing is telling a person who has made it to the top of he ski slope, and then changes his mind, that he has to ski down anyway, even at the risk of breaking a limb or their neck. The parallel addresses only the risk taking aspect of pregnancy, and no other aspect, so please avoid the comparison of taking someone's life on the ski slope. But you can't say to the person that they are only allowed to avoid the skiing if their life is in immediate danger.

 

Agreed. It is absurd to claim "murder" of a pre-viable fetus, whether it is terminated by the woman's choice or in an auto accident. Auto accident injuries can be severe and life-altering without being murder, or even manslaughter.

 

Irrelevant? Since when is it or should it be possible to charge someone with murder or manslaughter of a non-person?

 

Obviously it should be medical doctors making the determination of what is a life-threatening medical condition.

 

Well, apparently we can when it comes to balancing the life interests of the fetus after viability versus any risks to the pregnant woman. "Any risk" and "life-threatening risk" are two different things and after viability only life-threatening risk as determined by doctors is the standard to be met in most states, and was also the standard prior to Roe's overturn.