>

No one is allowed to be in my body without consent.
If I consent to sex (someone in my body), I can withdraw consent at ANY TIME. Even if I consented for 5 minutes, then said no - as soon as I say no, you aren't allowed to be in my body anymore. Staying in my body past that point is rape.
If an embryo is in my body and I don't want it there, I can withdraw consent and have the embryo removed. Even if I did consent at one point. I don't now - so it cannot be there any longer. 
An embryo is not alive. It's a clump of cells that constitute a potential life. It does not have more rights than I do. It does not have a right to be inside my body without my consent.
/u/GlobalKamikaze (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

“If i was a woman and I was pregnant, I’d die for my child.”
And that’s your choice.
Why do you think you get to choose for everyone else?
And by your rationale, nobody should ever be allowed to kill in self defense. >

Do you support mandatory organ donation?
And, like, yes, I imagine it is a lot easier to claim that you would totally die for your child if you know for a fact you will never have to back up your words. >

If someone dies and their organs can be donated, yes I think that should be done. The dead person cannot take them with them after all. I know that is also a consent issue, but I think in that specific scenario, it's ultimately better for society if organs are harvested and donated to those in need to continue their life. >

What about the people who are alive? You can donate a bunch of stuff while living. >

I would say no then unless it's the choice of the person >

Why, then? What makes forcing someone to donate their body to an embryo fine, but forcing someone to donate part of their body to another person is beyond the pale? >

Because in one scenario you most likely chose to create said embryo. >

So then should biological parents be legally required to give survivable organ donations to their children ?
Even estranged children ? 
Hypothetical: Your child hated you, ditched you as soon as they turned 18, and hasn't spoken to you in 20 years. Now they need a half lung donation. Should you be legally forced to go provide that half lung, even against your will ? >

No the child now has to live with the consequences of their actions >

What about adopted children ? Are they entitled to their bio mothers organs ? >

Well I think to start, organ donation is different than supporting a child in the womb, in one scenario, you lose a functional organ (or part of one) in order to aid someone in need, in pregnancy, the body diverts some resources to provide some nutrients to the growing fetus.
I would say they can't be legally compelled to donate an organ to their child. You are however legally compelled to care for your child and if you are negligent, the child is removed from your custody. Pregnancy seems more inline with providing care (food and shelter) than permanent loss of organs >

I have a child. If I was pregnant again and it was life threatening, I would choose to live for my child. She needs a mother more than a sibling and a grieving father. >

The murder argument is often a non starter, because there is no agreement that the fetus is living or even a human being. It's  a clumb of cells, it has the potential for life. But so does a bunch of other stuff. >

There's not agreement because pro abortion people know that if they agree it's alive they'll have to justify murder. It's alive >

"Alive" does not equal "human".
An embryo is clearly alive. It is not a human in any moral sense of the word. >

Paradoxical as it sounds. Every study done proves that legal and safe access to abortion reduces the overall occurrence of abortion in a population.
If your goal is to reduce abortions you should be fighting for to make abortion safe, legal and accessible to anyone that wants it. >

The inconvenient truth underlying all these debates. >

So don't have an abortion.

I'm very iffy on whether or not someone pregnant should be able to abort the baby if carrying the baby to term means her death or extreme risk to her body. I say this because, I know if I was a woman and had to choose between my unborn baby's life and mine, I'd choose theirs. 

You're not. Thus it's not your decision to male. Your choices are your choices. You don't get to impose your choices on someone else. 
If you were in that situation would you be ok with someone else coming in and saying you weren't allowed to choose? >

I find it weird that abortion is the thing where people have to be tied to the consequences. In any other walk of life we take risks and, if something goes wrong, we have things in place to help. Someone hikes out into nowhere and gets stranded then we still send mountain rescue out to save them. Maybe we caution them a little about taking the right preparations in future but we don't typically go "No, no more sending paramedics in the hills. They knew what they were getting into".
Sex comes with a risk of pregnancy, some people will get unlucky or be plain careless, but that doesn't seem like a good reason to refuse help afterwards. So that first side of things always feels really weak as an argument to me and I think people only try it to attempt to rationalise their other feelings about the issue.
The bit that does need seriously addressing, and what it all comes down to for me, is what value we assign to a foetus. I'm assuming we all place some value on human life in general. We're all opposed to post-birth killing. And I'm also assuming we don't all think it's wrong to kill things. We're probably all on board that it's okay to harvest wheat even though the plant is very much "alive".
So what do you value about the foetus? Do you see it as a "human life"? Is it about future potential? What is it?
To give my view, when I look at what characteristics I value, I don't think a foetus has them. Definitely not in the early stages of pregnancy. Maybe it gets harder in the end stages. Maybe I can't pinpoint the moment it changes. But it's very hard for me to reconcile that a cluster of cells with no consciousness has some value such that a woman can't have them removed if she so wants. >

or even that that fetus has MORE value than the woman harboring it, so much so that she can't legally make her own medical decisions about it. >


I say this because, I know if I was a woman and had to choose...

There's your issue, right there: you're not a woman. You can't say you know what you would do because if you were a woman your life would have been incredibly different. You think the way you think now because you've grown up with every precise experience you have, and some of those experiences are because you are male. Had you grown up as a woman, you would have experienced different hormones, different friends, different parenting... And with all those different experiences, odds are, your would have different opinions.
There's not to say you're guaranteed to feel different about this particular topic... You may have still grown up to be anti-choice, but your view and approach would be slightly different. Especially the "being iffy if mom's life is in danger", because that could literally be you some day. But it never will be. You're never in danger of ending up pregnant. You'll never be the first to know that anybody is pregnant, because it won't be you wondering, worrying, potentially giving up your career and being primary caretaker. All you have to do is stick it in, have a minute of fun, and you're done. You can attempt to be supportive, but that's still not experiencing it.
You are in no position to make decisions for others on a topic you literally have no chance of ever facing. >

Came here to say the same thing. He’s not a woman. 
Excellent response by you 👏🏼 >

What are your thoughts on ectopic pregnancies? >

From what I know an ectopic pregnancy often results in the death of both mother and child which is something I addressed >


I don't think its right to create a child then kill it to save your own skin. A parent should be willing to die for their child. 

This is perhaps, the single most heartless take I have seen so far. When a mothers life is in danger, that's an extreme case. The parents aren't jumping for joy that simply terminating the pregnacny will save the mother. It's an awful situation I don't wish upon anyone.
Doctors go to extraordinary lengths to try and save both. Considering every single option, but sometimes there are none. Sometimes you have to make the awful decision that the termination has to happen. For the sake of the mother, her partner, her family and so on.
An ectopic pregnancy will NEVER be viable. It cannot grow, it will never be born. It is only endangering the mother. >

So if a doctor performs an operation to save the mother's life that risks the life of the baby, that's OK, right?   If you're willing to risk the mother, surely you'd be willing to risk the baby.  Wouldn't that be fair? >

Does it mean that otherwise both the baby and mother would die? >

You want absolute certainty that is life or death? Because, oh boy, medicine is rarely so binary and clear cut. But it's nice to work in just moral concepts detached from reality. >

Women have always had abortions throughout history. In fact, even in Europe in the middle ages, there was a time when the Catholic church did not care about abortions. It was political and economic conditions that changed the Church's policy and got the state involved by making laws. 
Humankind has never cared about "life" inside a womb for most of our history. 
In fact, you expected one or two of your kids to die at a very young age. A few survived. It's only now that we have such advanced medical care and the ability to look inside the uterus that we now even care about children even before they are born. It give us some moral responsibility to take care of children and the fetus to the best of our ability. But it still does not mean that the fetus is sacred and its future must be put above the lives of existing, breathing human beings. 
And why stop at the fetus? Why not the sperm? Really that's the trigger to create the baby. You're really going to allow people to throw away babies in a condom? At least the Catholic church is consistent in their logic. 
And the thing is, abortion always has been and always will be extremely common. 1 in 4 women have had an abortion. The number would be even higher if our laws and culture weren't so opposed to it. So because all of these people are opposed to your point of view, I think it's better if you just keep it to yourself and live our life that way, and leave other people to do what they feel is best. >

You keep saying "child". It's not a child, nor is it a baby.
Killing is not the same as murder.
Rape victims bodies are constitutionally autonomous from the state.
Pregnant women's bodies are constitutionally autonomous from the state.
People who fuck do it because it feels good. Whether or not they want a baby is not yours or the states business. >

Do you think it's okay to kill people just because they inconvenience you >

This question is irrelevant to the debate. Regardless, no, I don't. Unfortunately what is aborted is not a person. >


I don't think murder is right in any scenario

So if someone was trying to kill your child, or other innocents, then it would be wrong of you to stop them by killing them?
And if someone had a horrible, painful, terminal illness, then it would be wrong to end their misery through mercy killing?
It is wrong to kill people in a war?
It is wrong to have the death penalty for people who are serial killers and will not stop?
There are no circumstances at all in which it is right to kill another human being. Human life is completely the be all and end all, and not killing trumps any other reasoning at all? >

I would say that killing should be the absolute last resort, if they cannot be stopped other than killing then the necessary actions should be taken to prevent the greatest loss of life.
If they consent yes
I think war is bad, it's concerning that you don't think war is bad
Yes if they are in jail the threat is handled
That's not what i said >

Uh - I didn't say anything at all about what I think about war!
So, you do not think that murder is always wrong? >

Serious question. Do you understand the difference between embryo, fetus, and child? You're using them interchangeably in your OP. That leads to an inherently dishonest discussion. >

I think OPs point (NOT one that I agree with) is that all those words essentially mean the same thing, “human.” OP genuinely sees a fertilized egg the same as a person of any age after they are born. This is a pretty no-nuance take that’s arguably pretty unscientific, but that’s sort of the crux of this irreconcilable issue; science doesn’t give us a clear answer with certainty. For that reason, I am 100% pro choice. Without a clear and obvious framework on how to decide what is and isn’t a “human life” in this context, it should be up to the pregnant person to decide for themselves and their own body what they choose to do or not do. That said, if someone has come down on the other side where they genuinely feel a fertilized egg is a person and therefore abortion is murder, I don’t think there’s a way, even scientifically, to argue that person out of that position. Essentially, it’s an impossible CMV, and the reason why the abortion debate will probably continue forever. 
I think the pro choice side of this debate will have more luck/success in securing the right to abortion for everyone if we are capable of taking the imaginative leap that, at least a portion of the “pro life” side does genuinely see a fertilized egg as no different than a person. Once we understand—though by no means accept—that point of view, we are better positioned to debate it, though I feel it will in all likelihood continue to be extremely fraught if not simply impossible. >

Let's say you're in a fertility clinic and a fire breaks out. All the fertilized emrbyos that people had paid for and are waiting to be implanted are in danger of burning up. There's also a 3 year old child who's stuck and will probably die unless someone helps him. You're the only other person there who can help and you only have time to save one.
Do you save the embryos and let the child burn to death? Or save the child and leave the embryos? >

Sigh,


Murder, by definition, requires it to be unlawful.   If it is legal it is lawful and therefore not murder.


A fetus, wholly incapable of life under any circumstance is not a person.  It is not life.   It is a parasitic lump of cells which is, and this is the important part, wholly incapable of life.  This is why it's called a fetus and not a baby. >

So Hitler didn’t murder 6 million Jews because that was legal? I know I’m using an extreme example, but the “murder is always unlawful” line is idiotic. >

If the world considered it lawful, would D-day have happened? >

The Allies didn't even know about the Holocaust by D-Day. That isn't remotely why they invaded. The actual example here is the Nuremberg Trials. >

On the rape issue: 
You're making a false equivalence with male victims of rape. The reason (male on female) rape is often an "acceptable" reason for abortion is because the female victim would otherwise be forced to carry the child for 9 months, in an act not of her own fault. It is a punishment to the victim, who has already suffered enough trauma. This is much different than someone who forgets to use contraceptives or contraception failed. She didn't want to have sex, and her choice was taken away from her.
With (female on male) rape, the male wouldn't get the choice to abort (because it's not his body) but would you be in favor of him being able to get out of child support payments, as the pregnancy was the result of the victim? This is what's been referred to as a "financial abortion" and is often mentioned here as the male alternative to abortion for unwanted pregnancies. >


A parent should be willing to die for their child.

Most people who want pregnancies don't want a child in the first case. Plus, most cases where a pregnancy would kill a woman, the baby wouldnt make it either. So what's the point of dying for a child that wont live either way? >

SO you agree with the points I made in the rest of the paragraph >

No, I dont. I think it's stupid to expect women to sacrifice her body and even her life for something that isn't even alive or conscious yet. Sounds to me like you don't respect women or their right to make choices for their body. >

The question fundamentally hinges on whether the death of an early-stage embryo is murder. And I don't think that it is. You are killing a living thing, but that living thing is in no meaningful sense "human".
Most abortions take place very early in pregnancy. Two-thirds are before 8 weeks, a stage at which the developing embryo is about the size of a key on the keyboard on which I'm tying these words. It does not have any of the higher brain function that we usually consider the difference between a human and an animal, and we as a culture accept killing animals for far smaller levels of convenience than not having to go through a pregnancy. It is not sentient.
And no, it's not because it has a unique human genetic code. Identical twins start with identical codes, but we consider them different individuals. A cell culture has a human genetic code, but it is obviously not a person. A line of cells from a woman who died in 1951 is still alive in laboratories around the world, is she still alive?

And it gets worse. Imagine for a sec that embryos were human and that we take causing the death of an embryo as murder. We all agree that taking an action that kills a human is bad, and that taking an action that has a significant chance of killing a human incidentally is also bad, right?
But here's the thing: a large percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage. The exact percentage isn't known, but it's at least 20%, and probably much higher since many miscarriages occur before a woman knows she's pregnant (and she's therefore never aware she had one). Estimates range as high as 50%. 
But such deaths would be an obvious natural consequence of having children. There are about 4 million births in the US every year. Even if we take the 20% low end, that would imply 1 million spontaneous deaths in the process of those births, making it by far the leading cause of death in the US. If abortion is murder, then pregnancy is reckless endangerment, and far more people die of (involuntary) abortion than die of heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc (depending on where you take the 20-50% number, it's somewhere between 1.5x and ~7x the rate of the leading causes of death). >

Do you believe it is a full human as soon as the sperm meets the egg? 
If not, at what point do you consider it to be a full human? 
Are you against birth control methods that may cause fertilized eggs not to implant? 
What are your feelings about embryos created for IVF? 
If a woman has, say, 4 other kids, do you think that makes any difference when it comes to the decision of saving her or the fetus? >

There is NO other circumstance in which we legally force you to give your organs/blood/etc to someone else. 
Not even if someone will imminently die without your help.  
Not even if you're the only person in the world with the right organ or blood type. 
Not even if you caused their injuries or illness. 
Not even if it's a child. 
Not even if it's your child. 
Not even a little harmless sample. 
Not even if you're dead. >

Okay, walk with me here. 
Scenario 1. You're driving a car, and you impact another car and kill the driver, that's murder (legal definition notwithstanding, I'm actually pretty sure it's manslaughter but that's irrelevant to this discussion) That makes sense, right? You hit another car with your car, and that impact was lethal to the other driver. 
Scenario 2. You're driving your car, and the other driver hits you with their car. The impact is fatal for them, but you survive. Are you, by virtue of being struck by the other driver, at fault for their death? Obviously not, right? I mean, they hit you. 
This is more or less how people view the typical abortion dilemma. "If a woman was raped, it's not her fault she got pregnant, and she should be allowed to abort, but if sex was consensual she took a risk and should be responsible for getting pregnant." I find this to be a flawed way of looking at it because in virtually any other situation where risk is involved, humankind has invented ways to safeguard themselves or assist themselves or each other- even when those risks were ill advised or harmful.
If you crash your car, you can have people come rescue you, recover your car, help you with medical bills or repairs, etc. But you chose to drive the car, despite knowing it's risky. You should be saddled with all of the consequences, right? Paying 100% of medical bills and repair fees, pushing the car to a repair shop, and walking to a hospital.
"But that's different! An abortion is ending a human life!" It's not, though. It is not a human. Humans have complex brains and higher thinking. Humans use tools, understand language, and engage socially. Animals remember information, display emotions, and possess empathy. An embryo does none of these things. It is not a baby or even a fetus. You could argue that it will be a human, that's more sensible- because arguing that an embryo is a human life is just straight up incorrect.
So, fine. Abortion is wrong because an embryo will become a human. But then, no condoms. That's countless potential lives lost! Masturbating? Right out, you're just spilling hundreds and thousands of future humans into a rag. A far worse crime than aborting a single potential life, frankly.
Which leads me to my last point; Why do you care? You're a man. You will never have a period, experience female hormones, or get pregnant. You will never experience your body being drained for months and months by a parasite you might not even want. You will never suffer the wild mood swings and cravings and agony of a pregnant woman. You will never have to risk being raped and forced to carry the baby of your attacker. You will never have to risk your life on a roll of the dice- no- a flip of a coin to carry a child because your choice, your decision on how to govern your own body, was stolen from you. You'll never have to endure any of that, and yet you, a man, stand in opposition to women who want to choose for themselves because you simply decide it's wrong without ever having to go through the struggles yourself. >


I don't think murder is right in any scenario

I stopped reading right there.
Abortion is not murder.  Your entire view is flawed. >

Same, it’s just same stupid arguments of all other pro lifers. It’s quite clear OP cares more about an unborn clump of cells than women’s rights >

At what point is an abortion.... murder?
The fertilization of an egg into a blastocyst happens quite often.  The body spontaneously aborts more than half of those zygotes.  A little bit of stress, or a small glass of wine, or a workout right after fertilization is plenty to prevent implantation.
If a fertilized egg is a human and ending its existence is akin subject to law in the same way as ending a child, then any of these activities are, at best, manslaughter.
In most people's opinion, a vigorous exercise the morning after sex isn't a crime.  But it terminates a blastocyst (a human by your definition).  Is that exercise a crime?  Note, manslaughter does not require intent, or knowledge.   Would you advocate for a prohibition on vigorous exercise for women of childbearing age across the board?  Some Islamic societies do that, not ostensibly to protect fetuses, but it has that side effect.
If no, then at what point does the zygote become "human"?  At what point is protecting a zygote "going too far"? >

Would you die for a fetus if you already had two children depending on you? Because a majority of the women who get abortions already have children. >

If you're not a woman with a child inside you, you have no say in this matter. A woman should have the right to choose if she wants to give birth and take a lifelong responsibility to raise a child or not. You or me are literally no one to decide what she wants to do with her life. >

I’m curious what is this female birth control that’s 100% effective because I’ve very never heard of it? >

Here is the senerio. Two 16 year olds are in love. They have sex. They get pregnant. The girl's good catholic mother says she cannot bring a baby home and offers no help. They were actually excited about the idea of a baby, but it was not the right time and they didn't have support. They decide to abort. They grow up, get married. In their mid 20s they start their family. They have built careers and a life where they can support kids themselves because they are now adults. They have two kids in 2 years. Their first born grows up to be the first one in the family to go to college, and to graduate graduate school. They were middle class at best, but made a great lift for themselves. They never forgot their first child. They even bought a burial plot with them to never be used to be in place of the child they wanted and had to give up. 
This is my parents story. I am only here because they had an abortion. Is my life worth less? Do you think I shouldn't exist? >

“In cases of rape, I understand that women DON’T NECESSARILY have a Choice?