The debate "Abortion should be legal bc until fetus has a brain or organs it is just flesh" was started by
July 25, 2019, 12:01 pm.
25 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 36 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
mwest0097 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
milk_tea, guchch, MADHURA, The_Pyschoone1, mwest0097, jbusey, codyray16 and 18 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, Threelip, suwani, Deat, jrardin12, bigbuttgal, YoungBenShapiro, Sumit082, Delta_Force01 and 27 visitors disagree.
It's not like not finishing a meal. They knew that if they had sex it could lead to pregnancy and they chose to do it anyways. That's like saying, "I have body autonomy so I can start swinging my knives around people and that's okay." Your freedom ends when it restricts others freedom; that's why I can't kill whoever I want. So, the conversation really is solely about whether or not the fetus has equal rights to an out-of-womb child.
Fair enough, most people I've spoken to don't have this view though. And I've found pro-lifers using this view, which I believe is a mischaracterisation of the movement, to show how barbaric Pro-choice is.
What's your reasoning in thinking body autonomy is more valuable than life?
I am fine with the distinction. Even if a baby is a person, fully and completely, I still think it would be wrong to force a mother to give birth to a person if they don't want to. The person inside her doesn't have the right to force that any more than a non-person.
The mother has the right to choose because the fetus is not a person yet. It's an unconscious ball of cells that does not have rights to infringe on.
You push people away when you argue a mother's right to choose outweighs the baby's right to live. It alienates people who don't make the human life vs personhood distinction.
Most pro-lifers I've spoken to say that's what the Pro-choice movement is and I've always said "I've never met someone who had such a radical belief. The right to choose is based on a belief that the fetus is not a person, not that your right to your body is more important than someone else's right to live." Am I now wrong?
@Allrix, but doesn't that go the other way as well. Does a baby have the freedom to be born even if it infringes on the rights of the mother who doesn't want to give birth?
the consequences are not minimal as pregnancy has many risks. hemorrhage during child birth, preeclampsia/eclampsia which can be fatal, gestational diabetes which has a correlation with causing actual diabetes after childbirth. also the months of discomfort and limited ability to work/function. many health/benefit plans treat it as a disability, and not everyone has access to these benefits and must continue to work. if adoption is an option, the man faces absolutely zero consequences.
furthermore adoption is not an ideal option seeing as we refuse to even discuss it as a major issue in either party. although there are plenty of other issues to settle.
I absolutely agree we should err on the side of caution until we do know when it is sentient. but there are points were we 100% know there is no higher brain function. early enough there is no brain to function at all. when it is *just* a ball of cells, it is absolutely not a person. you are preventing it from becoming a person, but you are not killing a person. as historybuff said earlier, picking up a seed is not the same as killing a tree.
The consequences to women are minimal as well when they give the child for adoption.
Also, if we do not yet know where the line is, should we not err on the side if caution towards life/personage?
some see the fetus as a person, some do not. I don't think either qualifies as an objective analysis. some people see taxation as theft, that doesn't make it so.
the truth is that it is definitely a person at some point before birth, and definitely not a person for some time after conception. where that line falls during development is still an open question. however, I dont think a teenage mistake should dictate someone's future. especially when the consequences of this mistake are different for the different sexes. very easy for men to say women should be more careful. men have no need for that carefullness. even with child support their consequences are minimal.
There's limits to individual freedom when it impinges on the rights of others though. You go to jail for murder. It's actually in opposing this view you have that turns people into pro-lifers because they see the baby as another person
Bodily autonomy and individual freedom
what reason do you consider relevant to abort?
I think abortion should be legal, but I don't think this is a relevant reason.
the brain is amongst the first organs that begins developing. it's also the last to finish. the question should be not when its basic shape starts forming, but when does it start generating sentience of any level.
Also the heart and early brain are developed very early into the pregnancy, far earlier than most abortion laws allow a mother to terminate. Are you against those laws?
I think conciousness is the cut-off. A brain or a heart are arbitrary. Conciousness is more than the development of senses though. Electronics, trees, germs all have senses but they're not concious.
Organs and brains are still flesh. And, should I be able to cut off your finger because it's just flesh? Well, flesh and bone I guess.