Is the pro choice idea that it isn’t 🪦☠️ a baby or that it’s not wrong to ☠️ a baby if it is the mother’s choice?
Its not really relevant, the "death" is a consequence of the choice, but not the choice itself. The choice is to opt out of pregnancy, it juat ao happens that a fetus is not viable outside of the mother's body. If science found a way to somehow allow a fetus to keep developing outside of the mother's body, it would be akin to someone opting out of parenthood by adopting out their child
That’s true, however since that’s not scientifically possible at this point in time it’s a false equivalency. Currently it would be more accurately compared to putting a poison in your child’s drink before bed to ☠️ them because you’d like to opt out of parenting. You can feel free to stand by your point, just clarifying
I dont think the lack of alternative options changes anything about the parallel being drawn there, I think actually its a more productive option for pro lifers. Instead of demanding that people lose medical autonomy, they can press for developments in those possible alternative options. The parallel you drew about poisoning a child is less accurate because that is about opting out of parenthood, not out of pregnancy. I mentioned opting out of parenthood as a comparison, but abortion is not the same thing. It's medical, it has to do with how you use your body, whereas opting out of parenthood is more complicated as it is a legal and social issue but not a medical one. In the case of wanting to opt out of parenthood, we lose sight on the fact that abortion is about bodily autonomy and consent. Here's an example of how parents are already protected in their right to bodily autonomy when it comes to having kids. If you have a kid and they wind up needing an organ from you to survive, you…
So the only way to opt out of pregnancy is to not get pregnant. Once you are pregnant, it’s not longer under the umbrella of opting out, it’s taking away the life that’s already existing within the womb. You don’t have to care, that’s just what it means. So the only way you can “opt out” once you’re already pregnant is through poisoning through pills or taking them apart limb by limb once the body is large enough. That’s why your equivalent idea of adoption isn’t the same, whereas poisoning is the same.
The fetus has no or less value in that stage. It doesn’t have a conciseness or ever had a conciseness. So we value the bodily autonomy of the mother more.
My thoughts on the matter are pretty simple. Nobody... At any stage of development (embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult, elderly, etc.)... has the right to use someone else's body without EXPLICIT and ONGOING consent.
A fetus isn’t a baby. “Baby” can be used casually for multiple stages, but that doesn’t make all those stages the same thing. People call toddlers babies, teenagers babies, and young adults babies too. People call anyone younger than them a “baby”. That doesn’t mean a toddler is literally a baby or a teenager is literally a baby. Embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, and toddler are different developmental stages. And either way, the bodily autonomy argument still stands. No human has the right to use another person’s body, organs, blood, or tissue to stay alive without ongoing consent. We don’t force blood donation, organ donation, or even corpse donation. So it’s inconsistent to say a pregnant person should be forced to provide their body to sustain a fetus.
(GIF)[https://media.tenor.com/buAQuUvIzx8AAAAC/patrick-patrick-star.gif]
It's not murdering a baby, in most cases the embryo is smaller than a quarter
And a 5 year old is smaller than an adult. Does that make the 5 year old’s life less valuable?
Okay, we can play this thought argument. If a facility is burning down and in the facility is one living child but 100 vials of fertilized eggs, would you save the 100 vials or the living baby?
As far as being less or more valuable, that argument doesn't work very well because there are so many factors at play. And the value of the two are totally different categories
fetuses aren't babies, retard
Embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler are all stages of development that are casually called “a baby”
retard is what I casually call you, but are you one?
It’s sad when someone isn’t able to engage with logical concepts and shows with silly childish personal attacks
…that it is NOT killing a baby. and i’m saying this as a pregnant woman who would never make the choice to terminate myself, but i’ll still fight for the right to choose for others. it’s far more nuanced than “killing a baby” and twisting the situation that way is why so many women are unable to access safe healthcare and end up dying. if anyone wants to debate this with me feel free, but you better make sure you’re damn well educated.
When do they become a baby?
someone who has fully expelled from its mothers body and has an independent existence.
So it’s a baby if it’s outside the womb at 25 weeks but not a baby if it’s inside the womb at 25 weeks?
assuming you're asking in good faith the idea is that 1 a baby still in the womb is in a similar state to an individual on life support, the accepted medical view of someone on life support is that they are in a special state of life where there next of kin can make choices for them of whether or not to continue with said life support and 2 its more about the fact that making abortion illegal causes more harm than good, unsafe abortions will end the life of both baby and mother, and children far too young could die from having to give birth, and the restrictions on abortion cause doctors to hesitate in moments of crisis because they don't want to be accused murder if the baby is stillborn, so in summary it is killing a baby in the same way consenting to taking your Grandma off life support would be killing your grandma, technically correct but a very very weird way to look at it
Is it ok for me to go and take a kidney from someone who doesn’t consent to the donation if I need it to live? No? Why why would a uterus be different?
It's that it's not actually a baby and that the various aspects of society are far more complex than just ensuring every pregnancy is fostered into a birth
They only think about themselves barely about anything else
The best way for men to reduce the amount of abortions is to stay celibate.
Why men are the problem tho. It takes two to make a Baby
Abortion can’t happen without an irresponsible ejaculation from a man.
Both
The 2nd
The argument is death is better than desertion, but they fight more for the right to abort than to take care of impoverished and unwanted children.
Are pro-life fighting for impoverished and unwanted children?
Without going into semantics it is the 2nd