(Note: I had to type this really quickly again, I apologize for any possible grammar/spelling mistakes, logical issues, broken links, unfinished arguments, etc.)
Except it’s not her body!
It is. It always is. That woman has bodily autonomy. Everything that happens in her body is her choice.
No, it isn't, not when that choice is ending the life of another human. That baby may be inside her body, but it's not her body. Understood? If this only affected the woman then I would allow it, but there is another living creature involved. So while women should have full control over their own bodies, that baby is a separate being and deserves its right to life.
You might be thinking, "But Ella, the woman's body created it, it relies on her, and it could potentially hurt her, so shouldn't she have the right to remove it?"
And while I understand where you might be coming from, no, she shouldn't. By "removing" it, she's violating the child's right to live, which is, in my opinion, a pretty important right to have.
And with the tumor argument I saw mentioned earlier, let's just clear things up: Despite the people who refer to cringey children on the internet as "literally cancer", a child is not the same as a tumor.
A tumor isn't human. It will never be human. And if not removed, it will most likely kill its host.
A fetus, on the other hand, is a growing, developing human being, and it most likely won't kill its host, or in this case, mother. (If it does have the potential of killing the mother, then removing it would be a reasonable option, but we've already established that.)
Pregnancy is not fun. Your body changes so much in a few months, and there are literally thousands of side effects.
I'm fully aware, I may not have ever experienced pregnancy but I've seen all sorts of bizarre things happen to my mom, from random cries of agony to excessive weight gain, mood swings, uncontrollable laughter, vomiting, and sometimes being unable to stand from how much it hurts.
It’s not for everyone, and it’s a sacrifice only people who really want a baby should have to make.
And once again, the baby shouldn’t have to take the sacrifice either. The accident’s already happened, there’s nothing anyone can do to change that. Someone has to suffer, either the mother or the child.
I don’t ever want to be pregnant, which is a choice I, and only I can make.
I don’t either, I’ve dealt with enough children to know that it’s not for me. Which is why, if I’m lucky, my body will never see another human. I’m going to protect myself in every way possible, and if I ever want children, I’ll adopt them.
…Yet despite that, if I ever end up pregnant, I’ll gladly take whatever torment is thrown at me. Killing the child wouldn’t magically undo the damage, so if I have to suffer to let another human live, I’ll take that pain or even worse. That baby is about as guilty as I would be in that situation, and for all I know, the baby could be the only thing that gets me through the rest of my life.
That’s how it works. Your body, your rules.
That's true, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else without their consent. And as mentioned before, the baby is a separate person, so you have no right to kill it off.
It is her body, Ella. That clump of cells she created. The woman can decide what she wants to do with it.
It's her body that the fetus is growing inside of, changing, stealing nutrients from.
No. It isn't. She may have taken a part in creating it, but it’s a separate being with a separate life.
Technically, a fetus is a 'malignant' growth. (I mean this in the medical terminology way. Meaning- that the growth continues to grow and affect the nature of its host.)
Correct, but unlike other growths, this is an innocent human being. Not to mention it only feeds off of the mother for as long as it has to before living a separate life, plus it doesn’t take away all her nutrients, just enough to survive. Other growths, on the other hand, will most likely continue to feed until there’s nothing left, possibly killing the host.
The fetus doesn't have "it’s own DNA, it’s own body, it’s own future, it’s own heartbeat…" until much later on.
Actually, the baby has its own DNA from the very moment of conception, it does have its own body even if that body is simply a "clump of cells" attached to another human, it has its own future before it exists (even inanimate objects have futures, everything has a future, even if that future is death), it may not have a heartbeat yet but it starts at 22 days old and can often be seen at as early as 5 weeks. Most abortions are performed way after that period.
(More sources just in case)
It is her choice. It's her body, her life,
I think I've said this enough times, but it's not her body, it's not her life. If that was the case, she'd be the one that dies. She is trying to take another's life so they don't inconvenience or affect her, which isn't a right or a choice, it's murder.
her well being that is getting affected first.
Her well being. Being the most affected. Compared to the well being of the one who's actually losing their life. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree there…
Once again, I'm going to give my brutally honest, biased, and possibly ignorant opinion, and that's that unless choosing otherwise will kill the mother (not harm, not inconvenience, kill), there is no justifiable reason to let the child die. None. It's already alive and there's nothing that can undo it.
…Also, if I see anyone try to use "overpopulation" or "don't like abortions? Don't get one!" as an argument, I will not hesitate to throw a pencil at you because I'm too much of a chicken to touch actual weapons or bricks, plus I happen to have a large supply of pencils in all sorts of colors. So far, you guys have actually given decent arguments. I'm proud. Please, for the love of all things delicious and commonly topped with butter and syrup, keep it up.
So you would force a woman to carry something within her body that she does not want?
Okay, I’m going to give my extremely blunt and biased opinion here:
I think it’s more humane to force someone through unwanted labor as a consequence of their actions than to brutally, painfully murder someone else who can’t speak for themselves because of a mistake their parents made. Sure, neither of them are fair or deserved, but the first one sounds a bit less… Insane. Just my opinion though.
Interesting to see that you would choose to take someone's right to their own body away.
As mentioned before, the child may be connected to and inside the mother's body, but it is not her body or her right, it's an entirely different human being which she does not get to murder. No human's rights are more important than another's, and the baby/fetus deserves a right to life.
Sex is not a crime. It shouldn't be treated as such by saying that they should be held accountable for an accident.
I know it's not, and while the woman should not be held guilty, the child shouldn't either. No matter which choice is made it's unfair to someone, either the woman suffers intensely for a while but the child lives, or the child dies an early death while the woman only suffers a little bit. You can decide for yourself which seems more reasonable, and in my opinion, I think it's best to let both live.
Labor is traumatizing most women suffer immensely afterward (Postpartum depression) and to add 'unwanted' on top of that is cruel. That's torture and unnecessary punishment. That is inhumane.
It is terrible, awful, and inhumane, but so is the other option.
Also, I've noticed that a lot of you guys seem to be pushing the torment of labor way out of proportion. Yes, it's possibly the most painful thing in the world, but you're making it seem like the pain is constantly at its worst and will kill nearly everyone who experiences it, leaving the few survivors to slowly suffer a plethora of mental illnesses, as they wait in agony for death to release them.
…It's just a bit unrealistic. Sure there are a lot of possible side effects, but most of them are pretty rare.
I mean, If things were truly that traumatic every time, I wouldn't have more than 2 siblings… My mom is perfectly healthy mentally even after 11 pregnancies (possibly 12, although I am counting her multiple miscarriages.), she does have a few physical health problems but they have nothing to do with the number of children she's had. It is painful torment, but most of the pain comes from actually giving birth, and it doesn't usually last forever. The woman still has a chance of living a happy, healthy life even after the pain, while the baby wouldn't.
Imagine you got a splinter because you played in some old trees and your parent told you that you couldn't remove it because you need to suffer the consequences of what you did. Would that be fair? Would it be fair if it got infected and ruined your entire body and you suffered until it was flushed out of your body? Is that fair?
…
I'm sorry, but that's not a very good comparison.
Of course it's not fair, the splinter isn't a human. being. (Or a developing human being, or "human cottage cheese", or whatever you feel like calling it.) Removing it isn't going to kill another lifeform, the suffering caused won't have any positive benefits towards anyone, the body was not designed to have sharp pieces of wood lodged into it, the splinter doesn't rely on the human to live, and even if it did it's a splinter, not a child, it isn't sentient, it's already dead in a way, it will never grow into anything beautiful, it doesn't have a soul, and it doesn't deserve the right to lodge itself into a living person. Babies aren't disposable shards of wood and I'm slightly offended that you'd even make that comparison.
And before you shout "It's not a baby, it's a clump of cells", let's face it: I'm a clump of cells. You're a clump of cells. We're all clumps of cells, that's how the human body works. Some of these clumps may resemble potatoes or cottage cheese instead of adult humans, but (in this case) they're still human cells.
Not to mention, that "clump" doesn't behave like a clump. They appear to act independently of any signals from the mother, and maybe I'm misinformed here but if it was actually her body, wouldn't that affect it? Also, the "clump" is only reliant on the mother for shelter and nutrients, and it still relies on her for those things after birth.
(Source) (Yet another source) (I think this counts as a source too…?) (I apologize if these aren't very good, I don't know what sites are 100% reliable and what ones aren't.)
I feel extremely weird talking about this
I know if the mother is considering an abortion, she probably didn’t intend to get pregnant in the first place. It was all an accident, and she shouldn’t be fully blamed. But there are so many ways to prevent this situation that don’t include killing the child, so who’s fault is it, the mother for not being cautious enough or the baby for existing?
It's not only a females fault. Sex is a two-way street. It's no one's fault if it is an accident and it is a fully adult decision in which to take care of it. It's not the business of some politician in New York what a woman in southern California does with her body. She has a right to decide if she wants children now…or later.
Correct. As mentioned before, the woman doesn't deserve punishment, but neither does the baby.
Quick question, If a woman was pregnant and wanted to get an abortion but the father believed it was murder and didn't want her to, would he be "taking away her rights" or should he have an opinion since he created the child as well? Just wanted to know your thoughts.
…Also, kinda unrelated but can we agree that most politicians are crazy? Some of the things they say…
Maybe the mother did try to prevent it and it didn’t work out for whatever reason. It still isn’t the baby’s fault, so why should they be killed for it? If you’re going to do the thing that’s known for creating babies, you have to accept the fact that there is, indeed, a chance you’ll end up with babies, so if you’re not ready for them, don’t risk it.
Good luck trying to tell humans to stop having sex just because there is a risk of babies.
Okay, if I've been educated properly, "sex" is naturally the act of two humans, male and female, each joining together to reproduce and create another human. They're called "reproductive organs" because they're intended for reproducing, and while there might be exceptions or other uses that still doesn't change the original purpose.
I'm not going to shame or attack anyone who decides to use it otherwise, I may disagree but that's simply my opinion and in no way am I allowed to force that on anyone else.
I am not in any way trying to take away a woman's rights or reduce them to nothing but a broodmare. Actually, now that I think about it, how the heck does saying “people should think about the possible consequences before consenting” have anything to do with treating women as sex objects? Seriously, I fail to see the connection. (I honestly feel like I'm being unfair to men, I've barely mentioned them the whole time when they, too, are affected by the situation, and when I do mention them it always seems to show them as sexually driven monsters… To all the guys reading this, you're actually really awesome and I don't mean to portray you otherwise.)
Hand sanitizer is intended for sanitizing your hands. It can be used for multiple other reasons, cleaning your phone screen, removing certain stains, you can even have some fun by pouring it in a bowl, lighting it on fire, and watching it BUUUURRRNNNNNNNNNN, but that's still not what it's made for. You can't get angry if, by using it improperly, you end up breaking your phone or setting the entire house on fire. (I know, I know, hand sanitizer doesn't have the same emotional or romantic benefits and is not the same at all. I'm not trying to compare the two, just prove my point that while something can have other purposes than what it's mainly intended for, we still have to acknowledge the risks of using it differently. Actually I'm just trying to sanitize my brain from some of the things I had to read about in order to properly debate this)
Many people are informed of the dangers of pregnancy, but much fewer know about the dangers and risks of abortion.
There are risks to any procedure and the risks that come from pregnancy and birth far outweigh any of these dangers and risks. You have a higher chance of dying during complications of birth than any abortion.
The US has one of the highest maternal death rates in the world, at an average of 23.8 deaths out of every 100,000 births. Meaning, if I'm calculating this correctly, your chance of dying from giving birth in the US is a whopping one percent, much less in other countries (UPDATE: Upon further reading, I've discovered that this number includes the deaths caused by abortion as well. Not sure if that changes much, just mentioning it). Meanwhile, the chances of the woman dying from abortion are %0.1. So while you're correct there, the woman is more likely to die from giving birth than having an abortion, it's still unlikely.
The chances of a baby dying from abortion are anywhere from 95% to 99%, and while infant mortality rates when it comes to birth are dropping significantly, they're still far more likely to die than the mother in both scenarios.
(Source) (Another source just in case) (And another (One more) (Just, take all the sources.)
How about in cases where the mother didn’t consent at all? It’s not her fault in the slightest, but it’s not the child’s either. So why should this baby have to receive the death penalty for something they didn’t cause?
Do you know the percentage of abortions that are done without consent? It's ridiculously low within the united states. A woman must sign a plethora of consent forms before a doctor can even touch her.
Woah, hold up, that exists? I was referring to the small percentage of rape cases and how the baby isn't guilty of punishment for someone else's crime, but now I have a lot more concerns…
So a woman has no right over the fetus' life? The fetus that she is creating? The fetus that is literally leeching life off of her? The fetus that will become her baby?
She has some rights over it, but its life is not one of them.
That kind of thinking is wild. If you take that into account a woman would have no right to what happens to the fetus after it is born. she wouldn't be able to choose what school it goes to, what it eats for dinner, what clothes it will wear, etc…
I'm having trouble seeing your logic here. Before the child is born, the mother can control what it eats or doesn't eat by changing her own diet, and she has that right. After the child is born, the mother does still have the right to choose what foods her baby eats. But the moment she takes food away from them entirely and leaves them to die, it's considered child abuse/murder. So why isn't it considered abuse/murder to take away the child's food and life weeks before?
Yes, the mother has some rights over her child, but the right to kill it isn't one of them.
One thing mothers also have to do is take partial responsibility/punishment for their child and/or their actions, for example, if a three-year-old managed to accidentally damage someone else's car (using this as an example because apparently, I did that once), the mother would have to apologize and pay for repairs. The accident wasn't her fault or her child's, but someone's got to take the punishment, and until the child is old enough to understand and be responsible for their own actions, the mother has to step up.
It is her body. She gets to decide.
I've been over this a thousand times. That body isn't hers. It's inside of her, but it isn't her. You can question whether or not that body deserves rights, but there's no questioning the fact that it's another human with another future. Okay? Okay.
Now that I have all that out of the way, let me ask you a question: At what point would you consider the fetus a life deserving of rights? I'm not looking for a vague answer like "somewhere within the second trimester" or anything along those lines, I want to know the exact week and the reasoning behind your choice.
