Converation thread

What would you say to those who argue that two wrongs do not make a right? The child did not get to choose how it came into the world. No one has a right to choose to end the baby's innocent life anymore than anyone else has a right to choose to end someone else's innocent life. It is still a life regardless of how it came into the world and deserves protection.

In what regards is the child "innocent" in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy? It's quite literally using your body against your consent; it doesn't get much more invasive and non-consensual than that. No one has the right to use your body beyond your consent, whether it's an adult person or a literal fetus, and as such, you have every right to stop them from continuing to do so, even if that means they would die. Abortion has nothing to do with "life" and everything to do with consent and the right of autonomy over the use of your body...

You are reasoning in a circle, my friend. One heck of circle. Because if no one can "use" your body without consent, then I'm pretty dang sure the baby would object to "using" his/her body for murder, and would prob'ly wave a sign saying "HANDS OFF MY BODY" like you non thinkers do

This is actually really simple: the baby is the one violating the mother's body, not the other way around. If you are the perpetrator in the case of violating someone else's consent, then you do not get any say in how that person, the victim, reacts to defend themselves from you. This is the case in every interaction. If someone is assaulting you, then you have every right to take defensive action against them, including killing them, if need be; they give up their protections from you upon violating you. If someone breaks into your home, if someone is raping you, if someone is trying to force a medical procedure onto you, etc...youRead more have the right to take defensive action against anyone who invades and violates you, which is exactly what an abortion is.

The mother, in 98% of cases, consented to act that she KNEW could cause a child to be created, so it is HER fault that the baby is there. Even in the 2% of cases that are rape, it still is not the baby's fault. The baby had no say in any of this, and killing him is very evil. However, I have come to expect evil from the democrat party, especially against children.

Even if the mother wanted to have a child, got pregnant, and then some time during the pregnancy decided that she no longer wanted to continue the pregnancy...she would still have the right to retract her consent and end the continued use of her body. It does not matter in the slightest whether or not she previously consented, because consent must be maintained throughout the entire process, otherwise it is a violation.

According to your logic, if you consented to have sex with someone, but then halfway through you decided that you were uncomfortable and did not wish to continue, the other person would have the right to continue having sex with you, even though you no longer consent (that's rape, btw). This is obviously not how consent works, and unless you would be pro-rape, you understand this too...

Are you arguing that if one person consented to sex, but the other person no longer consents to the sex, then it doesn't matter? That the person who did consent has the right to continue using the other person's body for sex, even though they no longer consent..? Because that's rape; what this is describing is an instance of rape, and it's not okay. If you no longer consent to someone using your body, whether it's another adult or a baby, then they no longer are allowed to continue using you. No exceptions.

Secondly, you're right: the baby has no say in the matter. Hence why the wants/needs of the baby is completely irrelevant, because no matter what, it does not have the right to use your body without your continued consent. Read moreIt doesn't matter who it is, or why they're there, or what for...they do not have the right to use you unless you allow it.

I understand your point, but let me offer a different perspective. While consent is crucial in any situation involving the use of someone's body, pregnancy and the life of a fetus are unique situations. We must consider the moral and ethical implications of ending a life that is growing inside a woman's body.

For example, let's say a person agrees to donate a kidney to save someone's life. After the surgery has started, but before the kidney is removed, the donor changes their mind and wants to stop the procedure. At this point, the donor is no longer consenting, but stop…  Read moreping the surgery could potentially lead to harm or even death for the recipient. In this case, should the donor's consent still be the only deciding factor, or should we consider the consequences for the recipient?

The same concept applies to abortion and the life of a fetus. While a woman's bodily autonomy is important, we also need to consider the life of the fetus and whether ending that life is morally and ethically justifiable.

I invite you to think about this scenario and come up with a counterargument or solution that takes into account both the mother's rights and the rights of the unborn child. How can we balance these two important factors in the debate on abortion?

I would argue that the answer is simple: there is no justifiable scenario in which a person can use your body without your continued consent, regardless of circumstances. Whether it is sex, pregnancy, a medical procedure, or anything else, you have the right to revoke consent for further use, even if the other party's life is at risk.

If someone is using your body against your consent, then they are violating you and your bodily autonomy. As such, you have the right to defend yourself and stop them from continuing to violate you, including killing them, if need be. The right to life of…  Read more someone who is violating you becomes irrelevant. This has already been well understood in nearly all other cases, such as assaults, rapes, home invasions, war, etc.