>

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.
/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?