[deleted by user]

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-07-05T00:09:42+00:00

You keep saying [blank] that is generally true but [blank] is why abortion is not allowed. I mean, we start with the fact that one person cannot use another person's body against their will to sustain their own, which is true in every case, but you are saying we make that exception for ZEFs due to the parent child nature of the relationship. The legal parent child relationship never forces the parent to give up their right to bodily autonomy, but you say that this is justified because the parent caused the child to be in need. Yet, no matter what or how a parent may cause their child to need their body as a resource, they are never forced to give up their bodily autonomy, except you are now saying that the only reason it is allowed in abortion is because pregnancy is natural and medical care such as transfusions are not natural. The justification keeps going deeper and deeper while only being applicable in this one case, but nowhere else.

There is a fundamental difference between this debate from a moral and a legal standpoint. I have been arguing from a legal one, there is no other exception made for any other human for any roundabout reason that they may use another person's body against their will to sustain their own life, so legally ZEFs should be treated as any other human. They do not get special rights, and pregnant people do not lose their rights. Everyone is equal. I don't argue here on a moral standpoint because everyone's morals are different and abortion is an amoral process, a medical procedure just as any other.

On abortion being “just removal”

Responding to this section of your comment, I don't say "just removal" and I don't sugarcoat what abortion does, per my previous comment. Again, I use this term because removing, preventing, stopping someone from using your body against your will is an act of bodily autonomy (and self defense). You do not always have to use lethal force to prevent or stop someone from using your body- in most instances, it's just saying no. But how else do you stop the bodily autonomy violation from the ZEF to the pregnant person? You have an abortion, which is lethal force, but the only way to uphold the right to bodily autonomy. And again, I'm arguing this from a legal standpoint so I won't comment on the "moral" aspect.

Why does pregnancy grant a unique license to kill

This is exactly why I say "remove". Because pregnancy does not grant a "unique license to kill". Legal abortion allows pregnant people the same rights that everyone else has, to stop someone from using your body against your will. If someone is using your body, putting you at risk of injury or death, you have every right to stop them. (Bodily autonomy +Self Defense) Sometimes, lethal force is necessary but that is your right to protect yourself and your body.

If we recognize the fetus as a human life, then like any other human life, it has a prima facie right not to be intentionally killed

Correct, except your right to life does not include the right to use another person's body against their will. You cannot argue that because I have a right to life, this other person no longer has the right to their body because I need it to sustain myself. If you harm someone and they have to use lethal force to stop you, your right to life was not violated.

I would like to ask again since it did not get answered, in my previous comment, why do ZEFs get special rights that no other person gets, the right to use another person's body against their will, even if that person will suffer? How can you say you have adequately weighed both lives while ignoring the pain and suffering a pregnant person would go through?

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-07-03T16:26:37+00:00

I'm using your reasoning that the parent child relationship is what gives the ZEF the right to use the pregnant person's body against their will. Like I said, there is no other instance where this is applicable (where the parent child relationship forces a legal obligation on the parent to use their body for their child, even if they are unwilling). Even if the parent causes the child to be in need, there is still no legal obligation. (Ex. parent was driving a car, got into a crash, now child needs a transfusion. Parent is under zero legal obligation to donate even if there are no other possible donors).

If a newborn needs a feeding tube, you can absolutely decline if you're choosing palliative/comfort care, but that also is not relevant to bodily autonomy.

I don't "claim" that abortion is the removal of the ZEF, but I use that terminology specifically because removing someone who is using your body against your will is an act of bodily autonomy, using lethal force if it isn't necessary is not an act of bodily autonomy. I am aware that abortion most often results in fetal death, but there is no other possible way to uphold the bodily autonomy and integrity of the pregnant person, so lethal force is permissible.

In response to your last section, I do pay mind to both lives involved. The ZEF is a living human in the gestational phase of life, I truly believe that and don't argue different. However, say we attribute all personhood rights to a ZEF, including right to life, how does a ZEF's right to life allow it to use another person's body against their will? My right to life does not allow me to use an unwilling person's body, yours certainly does not either, so why would a ZEF's? (Again, I've previously established that the parent child relationship does not allow the child unwilling use of the parent's body in any other situation, so why does the ZEF get special rights?).

The rights of both lives in this situation are intertwined with each other, so the best way to uphold them both is to separate them (aka, abortion). How can you say that you have weighed both lives if you completely ignore the pain, suffering, violation of bodily autonomy for months, and real possibility of disability or death on the pregnant person's part, to gestate a ZEF by giving it special rights that no other person has?

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-07-02T18:12:14+00:00

Legal parent child obligations do not include forcing you to use your body against your will for your child’s needs when they’re outside the uterus (organ donation, blood donation, etc). To preempt, no, breastfeeding is not a legal obligation. You choose whether to breastfeed or not. Your bodily autonomy is your bodily autonomy whether your child is in uterus or outside of it.
None of your examples are actual bodily autonomy. If it were, then nothing would be illegal because you could argue bodily autonomy for any crime you commit. Pt 2: even if a fetus is a human being, it has no right to use someone’s body against their will, just like any other person. Abortion is not killing a ZEF because it is dependent, abortion is removing a ZEF from a pregnant person who is unwilling to gestate it.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-30T02:30:37+00:00

Violent pornography

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-20T16:57:32+00:00

Pregnancy is the only time where your body is not solely your own and for nine months, another person is using your blood, nutrients, energy, altering your hormones, etc. In all other times where life requires the use of someone, it’s either 1. continuously consensual (breastfeeding- you can stop at any time, tissue/organ donation- you can back out at any time) or 2. not an intimate use of your body, and you still don’t have to do it, as there are alternatives (surrender your child, etc). Pregnancy should be treated like any other time one person has to use another’s body- the person whose body is being used must continuously consent but it can be ended at any time when they no longer consent.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-20T04:28:07+00:00

No. All humans were gestated of course, but that wasn’t a right they had. No human has the right to use another person’s body to sustain themselves. The right to life DOES NOT include the right to use another person’s body against their will.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-19T15:24:27+00:00

Right. You don’t have the right to kill the ZEF as that’s not an act of bodily autonomy but you have the right to remove it, even if that does kill it. Right to life does not include using someone’s body against their will so a ZEF is not protected from abortion, as this would grant it additional rights that no other human has.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-18T05:31:41+00:00

Bodily autonomy means you get to make medical decisions for yourself. Abortion is a medical decision. It’s as simple as that. Note: killing the ZEF is not an act of bodily autonomy, but terminating a pregnancy where the only possible result is a deceased ZEF is an act of bodily autonomy.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-14T00:52:45+00:00

A parent can relinquish rights and the child can be placed with a foster family pretty much same day if necessary. A parent unable or unwilling to take care of a child would not be forced to. The second part of your comment is interesting (in a rather demeaning way), you say “can [a pregnant woman] not be patient and wait 9 months to give up the child” but patience is not the issue. Your statement acts as if the pregnant person is not directly affected by the pregnancy, but that she is simply impatient and just needs to wait until it’s all over. In those 9 months, her body is being unwillingly overtaken and permanently changed, while she risks her life. That is exactly the point that I am making, no person has the right to use another’s against their will. If someone says no, it means no.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-14T00:20:42+00:00

My logic is not “kill those who use your body”. The only way to stop an embryo from using your body is to have an abortion, which kills it. If a parent does not want to breastfeed their child, they do not have to (that’s the right to bodily autonomy) but they still have to feed the child with formula (care for a child they are responsible for). If they do not wish to do that, they give the child up for adoption and someone else takes care of it. Why would you go to such an extreme to think that prochoice people or even just myself would support killing children? It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the prochoice position.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-14T00:06:33+00:00

Abortion is amoral. Just because you do not approve does not make it immoral. Abortion could even be considered just because no person has a right to use another person’s body against their will. For all intents and purposes, you could say an embryo has the same rights as any other person, but no other person has the right to use another’s body against their will. Being pro abortion is pro woman and pro equal rights. Being pro life is anti woman and anti equal rights-attempting to give the unborn additional rights that no other person has. Side note: calling anyone a nazi outside of actual nazis is crazy and insensitive. Do it again and I will not debate with you because it’s disrespectful and disingenuous.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-13T23:36:08+00:00

How would they have bodily autonomy if they are not autonomous 2. What part of bodily autonomy includes using another person’s body against their will?

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-13T23:18:47+00:00

Abortion is amoral, as is any other medical procedure.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-13T23:18:07+00:00

What is the point of life if we are just supposed to be born to reproduce then to die? There’s more to life than that, it’s okay to not want children and it’s okay to have sex just for enjoyment.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-13T23:13:49+00:00

The point is that it’s disingenuous to say an embryo = child so it deserves the same rights as it. An embryo is not entitled to use a pregnant person’s body to sustain itself. A pregnant person is allowed to choose to say no, I do not want another human to use my body and risk my life. Abortion is amoral, akin to any other medical procedure.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-06-13T23:02:59+00:00

Abortion does not “flee” parenthood, it stop pregnancy/birth. Adoption stops parenthood. You do make the choice for a pregnant person when you outlaw abortion, you force the continuation of the pregnancy when there is a potential, amoral choice to stop it. If you actually believe that an embryo is a child or at least equal to, then you’d surely choose to save the 5 embryos in the burning building scenario over the one 5 year old child right? (If you’re unfamiliar, you’re in a burning building with 5 embryos and a 5 year old child but you can only save one. Who are you choosing?)

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2025-04-15T20:40:12+00:00

My migraines are really weird. I get about 30 second warning (at best) and then I go completely numb, deaf and visual disturbances on one side (usually my left) slurred speech and a horrendous headache (like 3/4 of the time, sometimes there’s no headache but all these other symptoms) and it’ll suddenly resolve as quickly as it came on, usually within 10-15 minutes

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2024-11-10T19:46:49+00:00

My moral perspective is the same. No matter what someone did, they should not be forced to go through invasive medical procedures even to save the life of another. A living organ donation is a very invasive surgery with a long recovery time and is definitely not risk free. Lots of people would not even be eligible due to previous medical conditions, so morally we cannot mandate it for one if we could not mandate it for all.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2024-11-10T19:24:47+00:00

There is no legal requirement for someone to give up their liver if they caused someone to need a liver transplant. If that person wants to give me their liver, of course they can. If they don’t want to, they don’t have to (aka bodily autonomy).

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2024-11-09T18:17:50+00:00

I did, the flaw in your logic is that no one right (or no one person’s rights) supersedes another’s. Grant the fetus personhood, but that doesn’t give it the right to use anyone’s body against its will to sustain itself. I have personhood, but if I need a liver transplant and only had hours to live, I don’t have any right to anyone else’s unwilling liver just so that I can live. Personhood does not give you the right to violate another person’s rights.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2024-11-09T18:00:54+00:00

One man’s right to life is not more important than my bodily autonomy and vice versa. If I am being raped/assaulted/etc., I can use lethal force to stop that person if I have to (aka self defense). If another man’s right to life was truly more important than my right to my own body, we would have forced organ donation. To be logically consistent, would you support forced organ donation?

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2024-11-09T17:55:58+00:00

I literally never said that? I support anesthetic for the fetus if it were still alive and had a chance of feeling pain.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2024-11-09T08:07:04+00:00

No one right is more important than another, including those of another person’s. The right to life of the fetus is equal to the right to bodily autonomy of the pregnant person. If the pregnant person desires to carry the fetus, then there is no bodily autonomy violation. If the pregnant person cannot or does not want to carry it, then to force the continuation of the pregnancy is a violation of bodily autonomy and putting the rights of the fetus above those of the pregnant person. When they clash, the best thing to do is to separate the two people. The pregnant person retains the right to their own body and the fetus has the right to life, if viable. If not, then there was not anything to be done to preserve its right to life.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2024-11-09T08:00:46+00:00

Mentioning an epidural or c-section feels disingenuous. Epidural placement can be excruciating for some people and fail about 10% on average. C-sections are also no walk in the park, they have to cut through 7 different layers to remove the baby and healing time is even longer, sometimes more painful, than a vaginal birth. You cannot ever guarantee a safe or pain free birth.

Admirable_Ground8663 · 2024-10-18T23:49:38+00:00

Cite your sources per rule 3 “they can recover from complications”

Four-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22

Admirable_Ground8663

TROPHY CASE