17 comments
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
joesffseoj
Analogies are poor arguments unless you're trying to circumvent logic. Pregnancy is not a gambling transaction. Risks are taken in every moment of daily life. When I get in an Uber, I know that it could end in a car crash. If my driver's negligence causes a crash that leaves me disabled, I have legal recourse to mitigate my loss. I don't just accept any and all consequences of my risky ride because I have reasonable expectations about the outcome. The same is true for women who chose to have sex without expecting to get pregnant and usually practicing contraception with very low failure rates.

The gambling analogy is also poor for many common pregnancy scenarios. Firstly, abortion should not be analogous to killing another player at the table. Abortion is analogous to preventing a new player from joining the table and depending on the mother for gambling money. Of course the analogy also fails to acknowledge women who find themselves pregnant without consent (rape, incest), or whose pregnancy turns into a fatal situation for the mother if not treated with a medical abortion. What do you say to the woman whose husband gambled all her money in roulette? Situations like this usually constitute fraud and would actually be refunded. The woman has the right to unwind the fraudulent transaction, she never assumed any risk. Similarly, a woman facing a fatal pregnancy is subject to unexpected risk. How do you explain to the woman at the roulette table that her bet has been changed to "all in" while the wheel is still spinning? This would obviously never be acceptable in a casino. The analogy breaks down here.
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Danny Convile
My partner left me and my two kids for a couple months, I tried to beg him even I called he didn’t pick up when he come back home the 3rd week he told me he wanted a divorce I was so sad I cried all night he left again I was so lonely the next day I was searching for something online when I found a spell caster called DR ADO-OBI who have helped so many people with their various issues and problems, so I contacted him with my problems he told me it will take 24hrs and my husband will be back to me I did everything he told me to do and the next day very early my husband came back kneeling and begging he cancelled the divorce we are now happy together, DR ADO-OBI he also cure...HIV/AIDS,HEPATITIS,LOW SPERM COUNT,CANCER DISEASES,FIBROID DISEASES,GONORRHEA,GONORRHEA,FALLOPIAN TUBE,PREGNANCY,HERPES,LOTTERY SPELL.
All thanks to DR ADO-OBI he can also help you too, contact him directly if you need his assistance on Email.... adoobisolutiontemple@gmail.com
Or Website Blog on https://adoobisolutionhome.blogspot.com/ WhatsApp on +27844284407 thank you..
Avatar Placeholder
kpeua
Your arguments, for the most part, would be laughable if not so tragic. I stopped reading when you compared pregnancy to roulette. Another bull-in-a-china-shop church lady doing immense damage.
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
kjh23
First of all, ANY pregnancy most certainly can cause serious or life threatening complications up to and including death. I knew a man whose wife suddenly died after suffering a birth related blood clot. I was watching a tv show recently where something went wrong at birth and the woman had a 5 percent chance of survival but pulled through due There can be dangerous levels of bleeding bleeding, the need for emergency surgery, life threatening conditions such as out of control blood pressure, serious infections, blood clots etc. No this does not happen in most pregnancies but it does happen and can occur unexpectedly. Once can read on "obstetrical emergencies". The claim on here that pregnancy poses no possible serious or life threatening effect is dead wrong. What percentage of women or how many die is not relevant, the fact that it can and does happen unexpectedly and as such, women certainly earlier in the pregnancy have the right to decide if they want to take that risk . People have bodily autonomy, a father can't be forced by the government to give a kidney to save his son's life, an irresponsible drunk driver who causes a crash can't be force to give blood to the victims of his crash, a sexually irresponsible man can't be force to give a vasectomy, even a corpse can't have organs taken from it unless he gave consent during life. However, the minute a sperm hits and egg inside a woman, the anti-abortionists, she loses all bodily autonomy and must be expected to undergo medical procedures, risk serious medical or life threatening complications, surgery, blood transfusions etc. No, a fetus before viability does NOT override a woman's bodily autonomy. She can't be forced to continue a pregnancy because of the potential for life just like a man can't be forced to give a kidney to save already born grown son's life. Pro-life is anti-life and anti-woman treating women a hosts and chattel.
Hide Replies 3
Avatar
Administrator
Emily - Speaker/Writer/Coach at ERI
The article does not claim that pregnancy poses no possible serious or life threatening effects. The article does claim that the chance of those effects occurring is so low that that risk cannot be considered "legitimate" enough to justify killing another person in order to prevent it. If I found myself stranded at sea in a tiny boat with a toddler who I knew carried a disease that, when I inevitably catch it, has a life-threatening risk of 0.017%, it seems obvious that I can't throw that toddler overboard - killing the toddler - in order to avoid that very small risk to my life. The risk is real, yes. but not enough that I can kill the toddler. The flu has a life-threatening risk too, but it seems obvious that I can't throw a toddler with the flu overboard to avoid that risk to my life. We do have bodily autonomy, yes, and we should never force anyone to "donate" their body to another person as in blood donation or kidney donation. But we don't have a right to kill another person. IF the pro-life position is correct that the fetus is a person like you and I, which we argue for in this video (https://youtu.be/louYc-9cvE0), then we shouldn't be allowed to intentionally kill other people. We talk a lot more about blood donation and bodily rights versus abortion in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmBrUcpOxDw
Hide Replies 2
Avatar Placeholder
kjh23
Forced birthers dismiss the threat of pregnancy but it is very real. No, most pregnancies are not life endangering but unexpected serious or life threatening situations can and do occur every day , thousands in the USA and millions around the world.. Most pregnancy deaths do not occur because today's medicine means in a dangerous situation, the woman's life can be saved by surgery ,blood transfusions etc. Occasionally though a woman dies. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what the death statistics are, pregnancy can unexpectedly cause serious or potentially life threatening complications up to death as well as medical procedures such as surgery etc, As such, any woman has the right IMO certainly in earlier pregnancy to choose whether to take such risk. The toddler in the boat analogy doesn't matter because the toddler is not part of her bodily autonomy. I do not believe "life" begins at conception but
hypothetically playing the devil's advocate, even if it did, it wouldn't matter, due to bodily autonomy , no woman is obligated to continue a pregnancy and take those risks. As was said, we can't force a man to donate his kidney to his already born son to save his life and that is less risky than childbirth and a woman is not obligated and should not be forced to continue a pregnancy to save the potential for life. You may feel that the risk of death is too small to justify abortion but neither I or lot of people don't . I'm not trying to change your views as you believe what you believe and that's your right but those with your views do not have the right to force them on other's bodies and they have the right to make their own medical issues. We will just have to agree to disagree as long as we can each make our own decisions.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar
Administrator
Emily - Speaker/Writer/Coach at ERI
You're right that the toddler is not inside her body like a fetus is, but I do think that the toddler story has just as much of an effect on her bodily autonomy; if the toddler is carrying a disease that I am absolutely guaranteed to catch, that has an effect on my bodily autonomy! If we make it even more analogous to pregnancy, let's say that the toddler carries "the pregnancy disease" which gives you all the same symptoms of pregnancy, all the same risks, all the same chances of dying/health complications, etc. Maybe instead of a boat, we're in a tiny spaceship in outerspace, and there's absolutely no way to avoid me breathing in the germs from the toddler with "the pregnancy disease." I'm guaranteed to get it unless I kick the toddler out of the spaceship where the toddler will die. I still don't think I have the right to kill the toddler, even though it is an infringement on my bodily autonomy to force "the pregnancy disease" onto me. I do think that we have rights to our bodily autonomy, and it's basically the most important right we have; that's one of the reasons that rape and sexual assault are so wrong! But I do think that our bodily autonomy has a limit when you're going to kill another person. We agree that no one should be forced to donate their kidney or donate blood, you shouldn't even be forced to donate to your own child. But that toddler in the spaceship and pregnancy are a different type of situation because you're killing, and I think that matters. I think killing is the kind of thing we should have laws against. Of course, if "life" doesn't actually begin at conception, none of this is actually relevant because abortion would have to be fine! Did you get a chance to watch the video I linked to last time (https://youtu.be/louYc-9cvE0)? I'm curious what you think of it, since that actually seems to be our major place of disagreement. Thanks for the great conversation, I appreciate your willingness to have a respectful dialogue about such a controversial topic. People with different views tend to be awful at talking to each other honestly!
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
dr_ford_raped_me
If a fetus isn't an aggressor, why does it kick the pregnant person?
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
Navi
It’s not an aggressor in the sense of the pregnancy itself being an assault. The kicking could be considered an aggressive action, but it’s not remotely harmful enough to justify lethal force (leaving aside the fact that an abortion after the kicking can be felt isn’t going to be a particularly gentle procedure for the pregnant individual). And it’s the only aggressive action that the fetus actually initiates.
Avatar Placeholder
Ivybug
Conception is an effect. Gestating is an action that requires ongoing consent.
Hide Replies 7
Avatar Placeholder
a clump of 37 trillion cells
Gestating is an action that requires ongoing consent.
Consent requires two autonomous agents. One that gives it and one that receives it. In the case of pregnancy, who exactly receives the consent? The fetus CANNOT receive consent.

Consent means agreeing to or approval of something.
This by definition requires two autonomous agents. When I go out in the rain, I don't give consent to the clouds to pour water on me. And that's cause the clouds cannot receive consent! When a woman gestates a fetus, she does not give consent to pregnancy. And that's cause the fetus cannot receive consent!

This is the typical anti-abortion underlying view that a woman should basically be punished for having sex.
I expected you to hold this foolish view. This is a pro-choice conspiracy theory claiming that the "real" reason pro-lifers want to impose restrictions on abortion is because they secretly want to punish women. That's right. All these arguments about fetal personhood and fetal value are just a biiiig coverup. Makes perfect sense!
Please use your brain. If we wanted to punish women for having sex, don't you think we'd find a smarter way to do it? The majority of sexual acts (the ones that are done for fun and do not aim at procreation) do not result in pregnancy. Meaning that most women would have sex and get away with it.
Not to mention how more and more secular people are joining the pro-life movement. Surely, all of those atheists want to impose a theocracy and punish women for having sex, amirite?

Someone might wander into my house if I leave the door open, doesn't mean I have to let them stay. An open door is not a lease agreement.
The person that wanders into your house CAN receive your consent. But guess who cannot?

You guys have to twist reality into the weirdest things to make a point.
The irony of that statement..

There are no "rules" that say you HAVE to stay pregnant, that's not something you agree to at any point.
There should be. I'm referring you to my response to another comment of yours.
There were no rules that said you HAVE to pay the money you owe to the winner of a poker game UNTIL we made them.
Avatar
Administrator
Emily - Speaker/Writer/Coach at ERI
Gestating is not a separate action from the effect of conception. For example, let's say that I went to the casino and decided to play roulette at a table where the rules stated that if I lost, I'd have to pay X amount of money every day for the next 9 months. I clearly knew that those were the rules before I consented to play the game, and I chose to play anyways. I could have withdrawn my consent at any time before the bets were closed and they spun the wheel, but I didn't withdraw my consent. So once the game is over and I lost, I don't get to remove my consent from paying X amount of money every day for the next 9 months. You can't say that "losing is an effect, but paying for the next 9 months is an action that requires ongoing consent." Paying for the next 9 months was part of the effect of losing, and it was known at the time you consented to play the game that that might happen. Consent is ongoing, and I'm glad that our society is promoting better education about sexual consent. But pregnancy is an effect, and you can't separately consent to effects after you've consented to the action.
Hide Replies 5
Avatar Placeholder
Unverified comment
kjh23
Consent means agreeing to or approval of something. Having sex is not consenting to pregnancy, just like a man having sex does not consent to fatherhood. Most people who are having sex do not want or consent to pregnancy. Yes, actions can and do lead to certain results but that does not mean they consent to them. If I drive a car, I know that by driving I could get in an auto accident doesn't mean that I consent to it or if I drink to much doesn't mean that I want or consent to a hangover. This is the typical anti-abortion
underlying view that a woman should basically be punished for having
sex. How dare she had sex, the tart should pay. Nothing much is said about
the man but weak lip service because it's considered ok for boys to be boys.
You don't see anywhere near the level of hostility towards men who cause
a pregnancy and walk away. Just saying.
Avatar Placeholder
Ivybug
Someone might wander into my house if I leave the door open, doesn't mean I have to let them stay. An open door is not a lease agreement.

A woman consenting to sex with a man makes an agreement between her and the man. It does not magically create an agreement between her and a third party that doesn't even exist. That's not how consent and agreements work. Hiring a caterer for my party doesn't mean I have to let people stay I don't want there, even if I invited them in the first place.

What are your thoughts on bankruptcy? Since, you know, we have an entire system to help people get out of paying money they agreed to pay? Immoral is it? Are you working to make it illegal? All those people who got sick and can't pay their medical bills need to lose their house! Right? They agreed to pay the money, AND they got treatment!
Avatar Placeholder
Ivybug
It is actually a separate action. You guys have to twist reality into the weirdest things to make a point. There are no "rules" that say you HAVE to stay pregnant, that's not something you agree to at any point. Sex IS NOT a promise to gestate if conception occurs. Knowing you might get pregnant is not the same as specifically agreeing to the terms of a bet.

Who are you even making this agreement with? The unborn? What are you getting from the unborn in return? What is the prize that you get FROM THE UNBORN? Do you realize contracts have to have both sides giving something up? You can't even HAVE a valid agreement in a situation like this!

Gestation is an action the requires ongoing consent.
Hide Replies 2
Avatar
Administrator
Emily - Speaker/Writer/Coach at ERI
Thank you for your inquiries on the article. I think the differences between our views have become clear and we're no longer able to have a productive engagement with ideas. I've made responses to your latest questions already in this and other comment threads on this site. Hiring a caterer for your party doesn't mean you have to let people stay you don't want there, even if you invited them in the first place, but if the only way to kick them out is to kill them, then you can't kill them. People can absolutely get out of paying money they agreed to pay, but if the only way out is to kill someone, then you can't kill someone.
You wrote on a different comment thread: "But since you want to play stupid games, yes she has the right to end the pregnancy EVEN IF IT MEANS KILLING THAT 39 WEEK OLD FETUS." Since you allow for killing regardless of the age of the fetus or what other options would be available like induced labor, then of course we won't agree about this either. You have made your position clear, as have I. I am merely making the claim that killing isn't an acceptable solution. Thank you for the discussion.
Hide Replies 1
Avatar Placeholder
Ivybug
You are allowed to kill to remove people from your body in other instances. Obviously the importance of your body sovereignty is different than that of a house or money. The point was to demonstrate the flaws in your basic principles, which was achieved quite well.

And please don't lie. Regardless of other options is not my position, it is in fact the opposite. In the example you quoted, no other option was available. It was specified labor COULD NOT be induced. If you want to jump into a conversation, at least be accurate.

People have different ideas about the very subjective elements here - what is important enough to justify someone dying? What rights are most important? Which only compounds the evil of trying to force women to remain pregnant against their will. Granting ownership and control of someone's body to another person like that is abhorrent.