Sea Lion

Being religious and conservative on this relatively liberal site

[grahjah-deactivated20191103]

Abortion Destroys the Potential for Life

Gee, I have a lot on my mind today...

Ok so tell me I’m not the only one who thinks the fetus/baby aurgument is irrelevant.

People can try to deny the baby is actually human in the womb. What cannot be denied is that what grows in the womb will become a human. Nothing else can do that. An animal cannot become human. A robot cannot become human. What grows in a woman’s womb? That can and will.

If you don’t think abortion kills a life, it’s still killing potential for life. That should be reason enough not to.

[motherbychoice]

Not having sex every single time I am fertile destroys the potential for life.

Taking birth control destroys the potential for life.

Having a vasectomy destroys the potential for life.

Having a tubal ligation destroys the potential for life.

Taking EC destroys the potential for life.

Ejaculation outside of a fertile body destroys the potential for life.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

You’ve basically just described the reasoning behind the Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality... You are a true theologian.

[motherbychoice]

In your opinion no one ever has a moral obligation to let someone use his or her body to survive. My question is, what are some moral obligations that we do have?

It is a matter of fact that no one is ever legally entitled to anyone else's body.

I am not interested in discussing morality as that is a waste of time since morality is subjective.

Have a day.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Even if you think morality is subjective, what, in your subjective opinion, are some moral obligations you think we have?

[michellepsychologist]

💛 Feel good posts 💛

[shane-actually]

moderator: how would you hand civil inequality

beto:

[provoice]

I support anyone who has had an abortion.

Any reason. No exceptions.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Including sex selective abortion? Yikes…

[provoice]

Abortion is not the underlying issue in that situation.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Even if you think sexism is the underlying issue, you still shouldn’t support a person who would be willing to give their body to keep a boy alive but not willing to give their body to keep a girl alive. That’s similar to saying you support someone who would happily donate their organ to a white kid, but would refuse to donate their organ to a black kid.

[deletedprofile7-deactivated2019]

[tobeyisprochoice]

Abortion does not kill babies.

Planning for parenthood can mean planning if/when you’re willing/able to be a parent. Pregnancy and parenthood should be a choice.

[tobeyisprochoice]

@scottsummers18 Abortion is not murder. It does not meet the legal criteria for the crime.

Oh, and I’m not a Mr.

[tobeyisprochoice]

@scottsummers18 No matter what way you try to spin it, abortion is still not murder.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

When pro life people say “abortion is murder” we are not saying that abortion meats the legal critea for murder. We understand that murder is a legal term and for something to be murder, it technically has to be illegal. We are claiming that abortion is killing an innocent human, and therefore should be considered murder under the law. Stop trying to sound smart by acting like pro life people don’t know the dictionary definition of the word muder. Actually adress the argument.

Is the fetus human?

Is the fetus innocent?

Does an abortion kill the fetus?

[aridara]

The problem is that anti-choicers have absolutely no problems when I put my own bodily autonomy above the survival of an already-born person. Even if my decision will result in that person’s death. Even if that person is human. Even if that person is innocent.

Likewise, anti-choicers have absolutely no problems when I put my own bodily autonomy above the survival of a fetus that I’m not currently carrying. Even if my decision will result in that fetus’ death. Even if that fetus is human. Even if that fetus is innocent.

So, how come that anti-choicers DO have a problem when I put my own bodily autonomy above the survival of a fetus that I’m currently pregnant with - and ONLY in that case? How come anti-choicers call this “murder”, but not the previous two cases?

THAT is a fucking problem. We pro-choicers define “murder” in a consistent manner. Anti-choicers don’t.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

I am not quite sure what you are talking about. In what situations are pro life people OK with letting an already born person die? In what situations is a pro life person OK with letting a fetus die?

[deletedprofile7-deactivated2019]

[tobeyisprochoice]

Abortion does not kill babies.

Planning for parenthood can mean planning if/when you’re willing/able to be a parent. Pregnancy and parenthood should be a choice.

[tobeyisprochoice]

@scottsummers18 Abortion is not murder. It does not meet the legal criteria for the crime.

Oh, and I’m not a Mr.

[tobeyisprochoice]

@scottsummers18 No matter what way you try to spin it, abortion is still not murder.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

When pro life people say “abortion is murder” we are not saying that abortion meats the legal critea for murder. We understand that murder is a legal term and for something to be murder, it technically has to be illegal. We are claiming that abortion is killing an innocent human, and therefore should be considered murder under the law. Stop trying to sound smart by acting like pro life people don’t know the dictionary definition of the word muder. Actually adress the argument.

Is the fetus human?

Is the fetus innocent?

Does an abortion kill the fetus?

[tobeyisprochoice]

So when y’all say “abortion is murder,” you’re lying? Thanks for clarifying!

Is the fetus human? Yes.

Is the fetus innocent? No, it’s neutral.

Does an abortion kill the fetus? Usually, but not necessarily.

Even if the answer to all those questions was yes, abortion would still not be murder. Why? Because it does not meet the legal criteria for the crime. Which, btw, doesn’t begin and end with “illegal.” But maybe you already know that.

I understand y’all want abortion to be considered murder. That doesn’t mean that it is, or that it should be. So when y’all say abortion is something it’s not, you are wrong. And if you’re doing it knowing you’re wrong, then you’re lying.

But, not to worry. I’m going to keep correcting y’all. Even if that *gasp* makes me “sound smart.”

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Using a more colloquial definition for the word murder, as opposed to the dictionary definition isn’t lying. When pro life people say “abortion is murder” there is no attempt to deceive. People who use the phrase“capitalism is theft” aren’t lying. You know this. Second, no one is opposed to ending a pregnancy in such a way that keeps the fetus alive, so when I talk about abortion I specifically mean induced miscarriage. So it seems like we agree that a fetus is human, and that the fetus is not guilty. I think a case can be made that someone who is “not guilty” is by definition innocent, but It’s not necessary to prove my point. So explain why it is acceptable to kill someone that is not doing anything wrong?

[deletedprofile7-deactivated2019]

[tobeyisprochoice]

Abortion does not kill babies.

Planning for parenthood can mean planning if/when you’re willing/able to be a parent. Pregnancy and parenthood should be a choice.

[tobeyisprochoice]

@scottsummers18 Abortion is not murder. It does not meet the legal criteria for the crime.

Oh, and I’m not a Mr.

[tobeyisprochoice]

@scottsummers18 No matter what way you try to spin it, abortion is still not murder.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

When pro life people say “abortion is murder” we are not saying that abortion meats the legal critea for murder. We understand that murder is a legal term and for something to be murder, it technically has to be illegal. We are claiming that abortion is killing an innocent human, and therefore should be considered murder under the law. Stop trying to sound smart by acting like pro life people don’t know the dictionary definition of the word muder. Actually adress the argument.

Is the fetus human?

Is the fetus innocent?

Does an abortion kill the fetus?

[provoice]

I support anyone who has had an abortion.

Any reason. No exceptions.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Including sex selective abortion? Yikes...

[motherbychoice]

@dont-dismembrio-that-embryo you like to just step out of discussions when you realize you’ve made a horrible point and have no way to defend/explain it without sounding horribly hypocritical. And that’s okay. Ima let you do that because it’s kind of your modus operandi.

But first…

Here you argued that everyone should be helped but since we can’t help everyone we have a duty to help those closest to us. And since we are specifically talking about bodily sacrifices, one can only assume you are arguing that we have a duty to give of our very bodies to help those closest to us. Which could apply to anyone in our lives from immediate family to extended family and friends.

All my questions above are certainly valid. And have very little to do with me misunderstanding you and more to do with the fact that you aren’t prepared to follow your argument to its logical conclusion.

And then here, we have you arguing that perhaps the government should enforce these duties if we are unwilling to do so without legal encouragement:

So it would certainly seem that you’re willing to entertain the idea of using force as a means to make people comply. All I’m asking is who, exactly, is on the hook here? Just the person who gives birth to them? Or other parent/s as well. And maybe even how far that reaches? If I place a child for adoption, am I spending the rest of my life waiting for a knock on the door to let me know my kidney will be taken for them should I be a match?

And then here you seemed to argue (contrary to other reblogs where you seemed to imply this duty stretches beyond pregnancy) that only pregnant people are duty bound to give up their bodies for their offspring:

So that makes me wonder… if I am not technically that (potential) child’s parent (I’m a surrogate) or I’m not biologically their parent (I conceived through donation and IVF) is my bodily autonomy void? Or does that responsibility pass on to the biological relationship?

Furthermore, why do you sometimes seem to include both partners and other times only the partner who is carrying the embryo/fetus? Surely if one partner must give up bodily autonomy for the sake of the embyo/fetus/child, then the other must as well? Otherwise you have some serious hypocrisy going on.

I get it. You’re not really sure how it would all work. Or even how you believe it should work. And that’s either because you didn’t put much thought into it or because you can’t decide what would best align with your own morals. But let’s not pretend that has anything to do with me not being able to understand or even you having trouble articulating. Admit and own your shortcomings and stop projecting.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

I don’t bow out of arguments because I think I’ve made a horrible point. Sometimes It gets late and I go to bed, sometimes I get bored of being on tumblr. If you want to continue arguments we’ve had in the past that you think I’ve dipped out of, we can, but I don’t think it would be all that productive. I also think we’ve only had one or two long discussions like this in the past... but anyway, Organ donation fails much more often then carrying to term fails, So it’s not a perfect analogy. Second, a it’s a basic philosophical and legal principle that refraining to save someone is different than is different from killing someone. My point is that if a you are the only person that can save someone’s life then you have a moral duty to save that person’s life. This is especially true if you are close to that person, like if your brought that person in to the world, either as a mother or a father, if you have formed a personal relationship with them over time, or as in the case of surrogate motherhood, IVF, and adoption, if you have agreed to take care of them for a time. I thought you would agree with all of this. If we could agree on the morals, we could then talk about when the government should be enforcing these morals. I mentioned things like taxes to show that the government already enforces some morals, and that you’re likely ok with this. We are required to give some of our earnings to support the common good. However we don’t seem to agree on morals as you seem to think that it is morally ok to let someone die if saving them requires the use of your body. Given that we don’t agree on the morality, I just don’t think we could ever agree on legality either, hence why I ended the discussion. If you have questions It’s easier for me to answer them if they are asked individualy, rather than in long blog posts like this, but I would be happy to answer any questions.

[prolifeproliberty]

Question for pro-choice tumblr

If bodily autonomy trumps all other rights, how do you deal with the issue of suicide?

If a person who is physically healthy decides they want to end their life, wouldn’t that also be “my body, my choice?”

If so, is it anti-choice to support suicide prevention?

[yesimaprolifefeminist]

“No one has the right to use another person’s body against their will”

But the unborn need that right. I wholeheartedly believe that and I don’t think you can change my mind on that. The unborn need that right like no one else does. We were all unborn at one point. Every human on earth has had to live in a womb for ~9 months. Everyone.

If no one has the right to survive the first nine months of life, no one’s right to life is guaranteed. Ever.

[motherbychoice]

I hate to break it to you, but no one’s right to life is guaranteed anyway.

And no one has the ‘right to survive.’ People die all the time because they don’t have access to the resources they need to survive.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

People dying because of a lack of vital resources is a bad thing. It is especially bad when it is the parent who refuses to give their child what he/she needs to survive. Parents have an obligation to take care of their kids. During the first nine months of a person’s life, this obligation includes carrying the child to term.

[motherbychoice]

Parents do not have a legal obligation to give of their very bodies to anyone. Not even their children.

Furthermore, having a child does not mean one has to care for them.

And no. I do not have a legal obligation to wreck my body just because an embryo implants in my uterus.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Leaving legality a side for now, let’s say there was a situation in which your child would die unless you gave up part of your body to save them, like a lung or a kidney. What would you do?

[motherbychoice]

Legality shouldn’t be set aside. It’s a hugely important part of this discussion. Because the discussion isn’t “should people choose to do this or that.” The discussion is, quite literally, “should people have their bodies violated and be forced to do this or that.”

Of course people should be free to choose to donate their organs/bodily resources. I myself am looking into being a live donor. It’s an awesome thing. As long as it is completely consensual.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

I don’t think legality should be left aside permanently either, It’s the main thing we are talking about. I was putting it aside temporarily because I was trying to make a point first about what we are morally obligated to do, and then use that point about morals to talk about when the government should have the ability to make people do what is morally right and when the government should allow people to do something even if it is morally wrong. Anyway, it’s very good that you’re gunna be a live donor. So it seems like you would use your body to save your dying child, right?

[motherbychoice]

Sure.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

And why is that?

[motherbychoice]

Because I don’t want my children to die or suffer if it can be helped.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

So since it is bad for your children to die or suffer, it is a good thing to sacrifice your body to save them. That would be very noble of you. It would be a bad thing for you to let your children die and suffer. Do you agree with this?

[motherbychoice]

It would be bad for anyone to suffer and die. And it’s a good thing to help others.

But it is not a bad thing to refuse to do so to protect yourself.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Yes, anyone suffering and dying is bad, and everyone should be helped, This is why compassinate people make sacrifices to help others. It is important that everyone be helped or taken care of, but it is impossible for everyone to make sacrifices everyone. For this reason, we have a special duty to help those closest to us. Hence, parents have a duty help their kids, even when that help involves sacrifice. Do you agree that parents have a special duty to help their kids? Do you agree that being a loving parents means sometimes making sacrifices for your kids?

[motherbychoice]

Help their kids? Sure. Sacrifice for their kids? Sure.

Should they be required to do so even to their own physical detriment? Should their rights and bodies be violated against their will? Nope and nope.

But you’re operating under the assuption that I, personally, would consider an embryo equal to one of my children. I do not. And will never. I just don’t give a single flying fuck what happens to an embryo. And any that invades my body will be evicted with a quickness.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

I understand how it can be hard to view an embryo as one of your own children. Embryos can’t think or feel the same as more developed people do, however, It is still important view a human as human at all stages of development, otherwise there is no argument to be made against killing an infant so long as it’s done painlessly. The idea that innocent people can be killed for a good enough reason, as long as said person hasn’t yet reached a level of self awareness, is a dangerous path.

But it looks like we have found common ground on the parents making sacrifices for their children front, so that is good. It seems like we disagree on where a parent’s duty to make theese sacrifices end. Where do you think a parents duty make make sacrifices end and why do you think that?

[motherbychoice]

An embryo isn’t my child. Period. I didn’t even see my wanted pregnancies as my children until birth. It was all just potential until that moment. I could have miscarried, shrugged, and went on. No big deal. And it’s the same now. Maybe even more so. Because now an embryo would be a threat to my health that I’m not willing to take and a threat to the well being of my kids.

Of course human embryos are human. And it would be perfectly acceptable to kill a newborn IF that newborn was inside of or otherwise physically attached to another person draining their bodily resources and endangering their life and health and killing them was the only way said person could protect themselves. That’s the point you asswipes seem to keep glossing over.

It’s not at all comparable to killing someone for funsies. A pregnancy would be a threat to my health and life. It would be a tremendous drain on my finances (somewhere in the ballpark of $5,000 if my insurance doesn’t have a separate prenatal deductible, if so it would be even more). It would threat my income (which is how I provide for myself and my kids). It would mean even more money lost (think another $5,000 to meet the next year’s deductible) to pay for another surgery to repair my body. It would mean loss of income. It would mean my kids losing the precious time they get with us. It would mean literally not being able to pay my bills.

Pregnancy is a huge fucking physical, mental, and financial drain and it should always be chosen freely and never forced.

I mean, if I have to choose between all of that (for a kid I don’t even want to have, mind you) or a few hundred bucks for an abortion? I’m going with abortion.

I don’t feel like any human should be legally required to give of their very body for anyone else. Not even if that human is related to them. Not even if they are carrying that human inside of them. Not even if it means death (to one or more others as a dead body can potentially save up to 8 people but still shouldn’t be violated without consent).

Why do I think that? Because THAT is an actual slippery slope. Our bodies have to, at any and all costs, remain our own. That has to be the line we don’t allow ANYONE to cross.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

I never compared an abortion to killing someone for fun. My point was that if you can kill an unborn child for a reason you think is good enough, it follows that it’s ok to kill an infant for a reason that you see as good enough. Maybe the infant is not using anyone else’s body, but they use other resources and using your logic some people could argue that the toll unwanted infants take is great enough to justify killing them, similar to how you say that the toll unwanted fetuses take is great enough to justify killing them.

Second, it’s somewhat arbitrary for you to say that our bodies have to remain our own. Would you say the same thing about our property and earnings? I assume not, because if that was the case you couldn’t support taxes. Would you say the same thing about our time and effort? I assume not, because if that were the case then a parent wouldn’t be required to spend the time to raise their kid, or spend the time effort and money required to put the kid up for adoption or leave the kid with a responsible adult.

You have agreed that good parents have a duty to make sacrifices for their kids. If a parent makes the sacrifice to donate an organ to save the kids life that is being a good parent. Similarly if a parent carries a child to term, that is also being a good parent. Do you agree?

[yesimaprolifefeminist]

“No one has the right to use another person’s body against their will”

But the unborn need that right. I wholeheartedly believe that and I don’t think you can change my mind on that. The unborn need that right like no one else does. We were all unborn at one point. Every human on earth has had to live in a womb for ~9 months. Everyone.

If no one has the right to survive the first nine months of life, no one’s right to life is guaranteed. Ever.

[motherbychoice]

I hate to break it to you, but no one’s right to life is guaranteed anyway.

And no one has the ‘right to survive.’ People die all the time because they don’t have access to the resources they need to survive.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

People dying because of a lack of vital resources is a bad thing. It is especially bad when it is the parent who refuses to give their child what he/she needs to survive. Parents have an obligation to take care of their kids. During the first nine months of a person’s life, this obligation includes carrying the child to term.

[motherbychoice]

Parents do not have a legal obligation to give of their very bodies to anyone. Not even their children.

Furthermore, having a child does not mean one has to care for them.

And no. I do not have a legal obligation to wreck my body just because an embryo implants in my uterus.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Leaving legality a side for now, let’s say there was a situation in which your child would die unless you gave up part of your body to save them, like a lung or a kidney. What would you do?

[motherbychoice]

Legality shouldn’t be set aside. It’s a hugely important part of this discussion. Because the discussion isn’t “should people choose to do this or that.” The discussion is, quite literally, “should people have their bodies violated and be forced to do this or that.”

Of course people should be free to choose to donate their organs/bodily resources. I myself am looking into being a live donor. It’s an awesome thing. As long as it is completely consensual.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

I don’t think legality should be left aside permanently either, It’s the main thing we are talking about. I was putting it aside temporarily because I was trying to make a point first about what we are morally obligated to do, and then use that point about morals to talk about when the government should have the ability to make people do what is morally right and when the government should allow people to do something even if it is morally wrong. Anyway, it’s very good that you’re gunna be a live donor. So it seems like you would use your body to save your dying child, right?

[motherbychoice]

Sure.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

And why is that?

[motherbychoice]

Because I don’t want my children to die or suffer if it can be helped.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

So since it is bad for your children to die or suffer, it is a good thing to sacrifice your body to save them. That would be very noble of you. It would be a bad thing for you to let your children die and suffer. Do you agree with this?

[motherbychoice]

It would be bad for anyone to suffer and die. And it’s a good thing to help others.

But it is not a bad thing to refuse to do so to protect yourself.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Yes, anyone suffering and dying is bad, and everyone should be helped, This is why compassinate people make sacrifices to help others. It is important that everyone be helped or taken care of, but it is impossible for everyone to make sacrifices everyone. For this reason, we have a special duty to help those closest to us. Hence, parents have a duty help their kids, even when that help involves sacrifice. Do you agree that parents have a special duty to help their kids? Do you agree that being a loving parents means sometimes making sacrifices for your kids?

[motherbychoice]

Help their kids? Sure. Sacrifice for their kids? Sure.

Should they be required to do so even to their own physical detriment? Should their rights and bodies be violated against their will? Nope and nope.

But you’re operating under the assuption that I, personally, would consider an embryo equal to one of my children. I do not. And will never. I just don’t give a single flying fuck what happens to an embryo. And any that invades my body will be evicted with a quickness.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

I understand how it can be hard to view an embryo as one of your own children. Embryos can’t think or feel the same as more developed people do, however, It is still important view a human as human at all stages of development, otherwise there is no argument to be made against killing an infant so long as it’s done painlessly. The idea that innocent people can be killed for a good enough reason, as long as said person hasn’t yet reached a level of self awareness, is a dangerous path.

But it looks like we have found common ground on the parents making sacrifices for their children front, so that is good. It seems like we disagree on where a parent’s duty to make theese sacrifices end. Where do you think a parents duty make make sacrifices end and why do you think that?

[yesimaprolifefeminist]

“No one has the right to use another person’s body against their will”

But the unborn need that right. I wholeheartedly believe that and I don’t think you can change my mind on that. The unborn need that right like no one else does. We were all unborn at one point. Every human on earth has had to live in a womb for ~9 months. Everyone.

If no one has the right to survive the first nine months of life, no one’s right to life is guaranteed. Ever.

[motherbychoice]

I hate to break it to you, but no one’s right to life is guaranteed anyway.

And no one has the ‘right to survive.’ People die all the time because they don’t have access to the resources they need to survive.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

People dying because of a lack of vital resources is a bad thing. It is especially bad when it is the parent who refuses to give their child what he/she needs to survive. Parents have an obligation to take care of their kids. During the first nine months of a person’s life, this obligation includes carrying the child to term.

[motherbychoice]

Parents do not have a legal obligation to give of their very bodies to anyone. Not even their children.

Furthermore, having a child does not mean one has to care for them.

And no. I do not have a legal obligation to wreck my body just because an embryo implants in my uterus.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Leaving legality a side for now, let’s say there was a situation in which your child would die unless you gave up part of your body to save them, like a lung or a kidney. What would you do?

[motherbychoice]

Legality shouldn’t be set aside. It’s a hugely important part of this discussion. Because the discussion isn’t “should people choose to do this or that.” The discussion is, quite literally, “should people have their bodies violated and be forced to do this or that.”

Of course people should be free to choose to donate their organs/bodily resources. I myself am looking into being a live donor. It’s an awesome thing. As long as it is completely consensual.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

I don’t think legality should be left aside permanently either, It’s the main thing we are talking about. I was putting it aside temporarily because I was trying to make a point first about what we are morally obligated to do, and then use that point about morals to talk about when the government should have the ability to make people do what is morally right and when the government should allow people to do something even if it is morally wrong. Anyway, it’s very good that you’re gunna be a live donor. So it seems like you would use your body to save your dying child, right?

[motherbychoice]

Sure.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

And why is that?

[motherbychoice]

Because I don’t want my children to die or suffer if it can be helped.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

So since it is bad for your children to die or suffer, it is a good thing to sacrifice your body to save them. That would be very noble of you. It would be a bad thing for you to let your children die and suffer. Do you agree with this?

[motherbychoice]

It would be bad for anyone to suffer and die. And it’s a good thing to help others.

But it is not a bad thing to refuse to do so to protect yourself.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Yes, anyone suffering and dying is bad, and everyone should be helped, This is why compassinate people make sacrifices to help others. It is important that everyone be helped or taken care of, but it is impossible for everyone to make sacrifices everyone. For this reason, we have a special duty to help those closest to us. Hence, parents have a duty help their kids, even when that help involves sacrifice. Do you agree that parents have a special duty to help their kids? Do you agree that being a loving parents means sometimes making sacrifices for your kids?

[yesimaprolifefeminist]

“No one has the right to use another person’s body against their will”

But the unborn need that right. I wholeheartedly believe that and I don’t think you can change my mind on that. The unborn need that right like no one else does. We were all unborn at one point. Every human on earth has had to live in a womb for ~9 months. Everyone.

If no one has the right to survive the first nine months of life, no one’s right to life is guaranteed. Ever.

[motherbychoice]

I hate to break it to you, but no one’s right to life is guaranteed anyway.

And no one has the ‘right to survive.’ People die all the time because they don’t have access to the resources they need to survive.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

People dying because of a lack of vital resources is a bad thing. It is especially bad when it is the parent who refuses to give their child what he/she needs to survive. Parents have an obligation to take care of their kids. During the first nine months of a person’s life, this obligation includes carrying the child to term.

[motherbychoice]

Parents do not have a legal obligation to give of their very bodies to anyone. Not even their children.

Furthermore, having a child does not mean one has to care for them.

And no. I do not have a legal obligation to wreck my body just because an embryo implants in my uterus.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Leaving legality a side for now, let’s say there was a situation in which your child would die unless you gave up part of your body to save them, like a lung or a kidney. What would you do?

[motherbychoice]

Legality shouldn’t be set aside. It’s a hugely important part of this discussion. Because the discussion isn’t “should people choose to do this or that.” The discussion is, quite literally, “should people have their bodies violated and be forced to do this or that.”

Of course people should be free to choose to donate their organs/bodily resources. I myself am looking into being a live donor. It’s an awesome thing. As long as it is completely consensual.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

I don’t think legality should be left aside permanently either, It’s the main thing we are talking about. I was putting it aside temporarily because I was trying to make a point first about what we are morally obligated to do, and then use that point about morals to talk about when the government should have the ability to make people do what is morally right and when the government should allow people to do something even if it is morally wrong. Anyway, it’s very good that you’re gunna be a live donor. So it seems like you would use your body to save your dying child, right?

[motherbychoice]

Sure.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

And why is that?

[motherbychoice]

Because I don’t want my children to die or suffer if it can be helped.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

So since it is bad for your children to die or suffer, it is a good thing to sacrifice your body to save them. That would be very noble of you. It would be a bad thing for you to let your children die and suffer. Do you agree with this?

[yesimaprolifefeminist]

“No one has the right to use another person’s body against their will”

But the unborn need that right. I wholeheartedly believe that and I don’t think you can change my mind on that. The unborn need that right like no one else does. We were all unborn at one point. Every human on earth has had to live in a womb for ~9 months. Everyone.

If no one has the right to survive the first nine months of life, no one’s right to life is guaranteed. Ever.

[motherbychoice]

I hate to break it to you, but no one’s right to life is guaranteed anyway.

And no one has the ‘right to survive.’ People die all the time because they don’t have access to the resources they need to survive.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

People dying because of a lack of vital resources is a bad thing. It is especially bad when it is the parent who refuses to give their child what he/she needs to survive. Parents have an obligation to take care of their kids. During the first nine months of a person’s life, this obligation includes carrying the child to term.

[motherbychoice]

Parents do not have a legal obligation to give of their very bodies to anyone. Not even their children.

Furthermore, having a child does not mean one has to care for them.

And no. I do not have a legal obligation to wreck my body just because an embryo implants in my uterus.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Leaving legality a side for now, let’s say there was a situation in which your child would die unless you gave up part of your body to save them, like a lung or a kidney. What would you do?

[motherbychoice]

Legality shouldn’t be set aside. It’s a hugely important part of this discussion. Because the discussion isn’t “should people choose to do this or that.” The discussion is, quite literally, “should people have their bodies violated and be forced to do this or that.”

Of course people should be free to choose to donate their organs/bodily resources. I myself am looking into being a live donor. It’s an awesome thing. As long as it is completely consensual.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

I don’t think legality should be left aside permanently either, It’s the main thing we are talking about. I was putting it aside temporarily because I was trying to make a point first about what we are morally obligated to do, and then use that point about morals to talk about when the government should have the ability to make people do what is morally right and when the government should allow people to do something even if it is morally wrong. Anyway, it’s very good that you’re gunna be a live donor. So it seems like you would use your body to save your dying child, right?

[motherbychoice]

Sure.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

And why is that?

[yesimaprolifefeminist]

“No one has the right to use another person’s body against their will”

But the unborn need that right. I wholeheartedly believe that and I don’t think you can change my mind on that. The unborn need that right like no one else does. We were all unborn at one point. Every human on earth has had to live in a womb for ~9 months. Everyone.

If no one has the right to survive the first nine months of life, no one’s right to life is guaranteed. Ever.

[motherbychoice]

I hate to break it to you, but no one’s right to life is guaranteed anyway.

And no one has the ‘right to survive.’ People die all the time because they don’t have access to the resources they need to survive.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

People dying because of a lack of vital resources is a bad thing. It is especially bad when it is the parent who refuses to give their child what he/she needs to survive. Parents have an obligation to take care of their kids. During the first nine months of a person’s life, this obligation includes carrying the child to term.

[motherbychoice]

Parents do not have a legal obligation to give of their very bodies to anyone. Not even their children.

Furthermore, having a child does not mean one has to care for them.

And no. I do not have a legal obligation to wreck my body just because an embryo implants in my uterus.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

Leaving legality a side for now, let’s say there was a situation in which your child would die unless you gave up part of your body to save them, like a lung or a kidney. What would you do?

[motherbychoice]

Legality shouldn’t be set aside. It’s a hugely important part of this discussion. Because the discussion isn’t “should people choose to do this or that.” The discussion is, quite literally, “should people have their bodies violated and be forced to do this or that.”

Of course people should be free to choose to donate their organs/bodily resources. I myself am looking into being a live donor. It’s an awesome thing. As long as it is completely consensual.

[dont-dismembrio-that-embryo]

I don’t think legality should be left aside permanently either, It’s the main thing we are talking about. I was putting it aside temporarily because I was trying to make a point first about what we are morally obligated to do, and then use that point about morals to talk about when the government should have the ability to make people do what is morally right and when the government should allow people to do something even if it is morally wrong. Anyway, it’s very good that you’re gunna be a live donor. So it seems like you would use your body to save your dying child, right?