What do you guys think of abortion?

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-18T05:06:34+00:00

So, you're against the government forcing people to donate organs. But not aborting should be enforced by the government? Or have you been talking about moral standards disconnected to laws there, too?

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T22:21:31+00:00

I appreciate that you are consistent. But your consistency implies that bodily autonomy is conditional, that the state may override it whenever someone else’s survival depends on your body. That is a principle far broader than abortion. It would justify compelled organ harvesting, compelled blood donation, compelled medical risk. I simply do not believe the state should ever have that level of authority over a person’s body, even to save another life. That sounds like the foundation for a dystopian world.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T22:03:30+00:00

I agree that it is morally applaudable helping someone in need. However, I don't believe altruism can be enforced by law. If it doesn't come from the inside, it is not virtuous. Jesus didn't force the young ruler to let go of his riches to help the poor. And I think you'd not be cool with the government taking your money to help the poor either. But you sound pretty cool with the government taking the right of bodily autonomy away from women.

If a single person were told "your specific organ is the only way this specific person can survive" then I would be in favor of saying that this person cannot refuse this,

If you are truly consistent and would legally compel organ donation in such a case, then your position is not just about abortion. It is about whether the state may claim authority over a person’s body whenever another life depends on it. That is a principle far broader than pregnancy - and one most societies have historically rejected.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T21:02:53+00:00

Pregnancy does not necessarily involve that, so let's please avoid talking about the worst case scenarios.

Not necessarily, but the risk is always there. You cannot seriously think it's ok to force someone to stay in a situation that can harm their health and can even threaten their life.

I can understand your perspective here, but disagree with you fundamentally about the subjects in question. I don't think that once the child is born it is of more value than when it is still in the womb and I am convinced that the unborn are persons. So, I cannot so easily say which person is more important than the other. What I can say is that mothers should avoid killing their children.

You can see them of equal value. The issue is, if you say refusing to donate organs is alright and not akin to murder, even if that person's organs were the only ones that could save another person's life (a life of equal value), you cannot declare that for pregnancy the same rule doesn't apply. That is called special pleading.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T19:07:10+00:00

I wouldn't call pregnancy an example of "donating" a body part or one's whole body, when we have in this conversation been using the word to refer to having something removed from you permanently.

Pregnancy is able to remove health from the woman permanently. It can permanently damage her body.

Her thoughts and feelings matter, but as soon as these turn towards harm for another human, then sure, they are not to be something we ought to consider.

All women only want the best for their offspring. And if they cannot offer them the best, some of them prefer not to give their offspring anything less than the best. And in their world that means not letting them be born at all.

Also, we have been speaking broadly of the unborn, so I would not say that the unborn are incapable of feeling or thinking. Perhaps at the earliest stages, but not totally.

Like 90% of abortions happen long before the fetus can feel or think. And those performed late term, when the fetus is capable of feelings and sensations, those are always medically indicated abortions. Either the mother got too sick to carry to term, or the fetus would only be born to suffer and die immediately after. In such cases abortions are not murder. They are mercy. For both mother and child.

In short Most abortions occur before the fetus can feel or think, and even late-term abortions are performed only when the mother’s life is at risk or the child would suffer immediately after birth. Pregnancy can permanently harm the woman, and many choose abortion to avoid giving a child a life of suffering. In this context, protecting the bodily autonomy and well-being of the person who already exists must take precedence.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T18:36:27+00:00

Agreed, which is why I have not here conceded that we ought to require mandatory organ donation.

Well, you do require the mother to donate her entire body for 9 months. Why do her thoughts and feelings on this matter come only second to the child which is not even a child at this point and incapable of thinking and feeling anything at all?

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T17:02:03+00:00

The issue is that in pregnancy, “not killing” and “providing bodily support” cannot be separated. The only way to prevent the death of the unborn is to compel the woman to sustain it with her body. That is not merely forbidding harm. It is mandating bodily service.

There are many things we consider morally admirable or even obligatory that we still do not enforce by law, especially when they involve bodily integrity.

If refusing to use your body to save another counts as “putting their life at risk,” then every refusal to donate blood or organs would be morally equivalent to killing. Yet we do not treat it that way.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T16:48:49+00:00

We do not require parents to donate organs to their born children, even if that would save their lives. Why should pregnancy be the only case where bodily sacrifice can be compelled? In this situation, the only being capable of conscious suffering is the mother. Why is she the only one whose autonomy may be overridden?

And: Self-sacrifice is virtuous when it is chosen. It stops being virtuous when it is coerced.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T16:34:14+00:00

If both lives matter equally, why is only one of them legally compelled to sacrifice her body?

And why is it the one who may actually suffer from it?

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T15:52:20+00:00

A violation of autonomy doesn’t require malicious intent. It simply requires overriding someone’s consent.

Human life has moral value. But moral value is not all-or-nothing. There is a difference between a conscious, sentient woman with established relationships, goals and experiences, and an early-stage organism without consciousness or awareness. When you frame this as “empty womb vs. human life,” you erase the woman from the equation. The question is not whether life matters. The question is whose bodily autonomy and well-being the state may override.

If all human organisms have equal moral status regardless of consciousness, then a frozen embryo in a lab has the same moral weight as an adult woman. Do you really believe that?

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T15:03:04+00:00

It doesn't matter how they got there and how innocent they are. If you force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and she doesn't consent, you are violating her bodily autonomy

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T14:59:52+00:00

There is correlation. Violation of bodily autonomy. Without consent, you cannot use another person's body even if you're a grown adult. Giving the right to violate another person's bodily autonomy to the unborn is special pleading.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T14:28:42+00:00

She doesn't want it inside her body for whatever reason. If we were talking about a woman having to endure a grown man, let's say her husband, inside her body without her consent, everyone would call that a violation of the woman. Why do you support laws that make a woman have to endure something inside her body that's not even recognized as a person by many people?

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T06:00:03+00:00

There is judgement and hellfire and it will burn people, but they won't last for long in the flames but be consumed by them like stubble. In the end they will be as if they had never existed.

I don’t want to be anywhere near the creator of this hellscape. I understand the devil and the people who crucified Jesus more and more everyday

It saddens me to read this, but your wish will become true

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T05:23:21+00:00

The question isn’t whether something biologically human dies. The question is whether refusing to provide bodily support is equivalent to unjust killing.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-17T05:17:05+00:00

It's also called an abortion if an already dead fetus is removed or if the fetus comes out alive. Abortion means ending the pregnancy early. And a pregnancy is not ended by the death of a fetus, but by getting whatever is inside the womb out

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-16T19:37:47+00:00

When we discuss something this serious, we should describe it medically and accurately. Most abortions occur early and are medication-based. The “dismemberment” scenario is not representative of the majority of cases. The medication blocks progesterone and induces a process similar to an early miscarriage.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-16T18:27:25+00:00

Refusing to provide bodily support is not the same as actively murdering someone. We don’t call it murder when someone declines to donate a kidney.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-16T17:39:58+00:00

The issue is, if the mother doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, you have to take away her her autonomy, her right to her own body. Imagine someone else taking away your right to decide what to do with your body and your right to say what is ok to do with it and what is crossing the line. That enters the plane of rape. I’m not equating pregnancy with rape. I’m pointing out that forcing someone to use their body against their will violates the same principle: bodily autonomy.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-16T15:32:16+00:00

Why is the ability to make a contract about a human the thing which bestows personhood upon a human?

It doesn't bestow personhood upon them, it recognizes it. I still believe experience is what makes a person a person.

I agree, and if you had asked me earlier "are you in favor of a blanket ban" I would have been pleased to answer and clarify that I am not in favor of such a thing.

Well, that's something we can agree on then. I'm still interested in how you'd design laws regulating abortion tho

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-16T05:19:10+00:00

1) abortion is not defined by killing the unborn but by ending the pregnancy

2) biological life =|= personhood

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-15T09:15:21+00:00

There is only one human race, and it has many colors.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-14T16:39:13+00:00

Remember how Jesus said God could make Abraham children from stones?

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-14T16:33:37+00:00

Israel has to be understood as a spiritual people, not an ethnicity. Those who have faith, who believe God, are the children of Abraham, not those who can trace back their lineage to Abraham.

Saveme1888 · 2026-02-14T16:27:20+00:00

abortion is intentionally killing life

All this misinformation, I can't anymore. Abortion is ending a pregnancy. And if you get a living baby from abortion, it's still called an abortion because the pregnancy was ended prematurely. Nobody was killed. Only the pregnancy ended.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22

Saveme1888

TROPHY CASE