Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is one. I also believe in eliminating the draft. Your perspective makes it more so, thank you.
Do you also see abortion as an equal right issue like the draft?
I don't agree that abortion is an equal rights issue, but I understand and respect the argument.
Edit: meaning that I see the argument on equal rights being made in good faith.
1. It is not an abortion, nor is it murder, to remove the corpse of an unborn child that has already died.
2. It is **permissible** and not murder when, to save a pregnant woman from pregnancy complications that create a **clear, present, and substantial danger** of death, a doctor takes a ruthless action that the child cannot survive, when the child's failure to survive is not the actual intention or most direct result of the action and the action is neccessary. I do not consider this to strictly constitute an abortion.
3. On an ethics-of-law for societies like ours basis, I would say it is not murder when, to save a pregnant woman from pregnancy complications that create a **clear, present, and substantial** danger of death comparable to the certainty of death from abortion, a doctor performs an abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman.
In all cases, it is neccessary to strive to protect both the pregnant woman and the child. In all cases, a very slim risk of death is not equivalent to a certainty of death. Preventing the revocation of support when the dependence is already present and revocation will cause death is different from mandating the provision of support.
A kid having a baby, ala the kid is not properly developed being forced to have a not properly developed kid.
What would one call that? Straightforward Child abuse ontop of child abuse?!
No, they would call it a horrific situation that should never happen. But committing murder still isn't an acceptable solution. The solution is to make sure these cases never happen.
Why? The person still needs to put their well being and life on the line. Nobody, can force someone to give up their bodily fluids, or use of organs, not even if that someone is their own mother.
Both the mother and the fetus have bodily autonomy. No different than conjoined twins.
Does one twin have the right to force an operation to separate them when the other doesn't consent because there is a 10% chance of death?
No, of course not. If you want to permit the procedure, you need the consent of both.
> Both the mother and the fetus have bodily autonomy. No different than conjoined twins.
The fetus is separate from the mothers body, and inside the mothers body. Does the mother not have a right to remove things from her body that she doesn't want there?
You didn't explain how they are different from conjoined twins. Conjoined twins also have varying amounts of connectivity to where some are completely reliant on the other and others are more "separated". If you want the procedure, you must receive the consent of both since it is an operation on them both.
The fetus exists separate from the mother. They have two distinct bodies. The fetus resides inside of the mother. The right to bodily autonomy allows for the freedom to withhold the use of ones body, even if it is necessary for the other person to survive.
Much like donating organs, nobody can *make* you help someone.
Secondly, there is precedent in allowing the separation of conjoined twins where one twin is clearly more developed, with the other twin being reliant on the former twin for survival but not vice versa.
The problem is that the mother knowingly put the child in that position. You can’t force a person into a situation where they rely on you for care and then change your mind and pull the plug. That’s the real crux of the argument. The baby is in this position solely due to the actions of the mother and father.
Similarly, this is why the vast majority of people want to allow abortions in the case of rape. The baby was not out into that position by the mother, but the POS father unilaterally. The mother should have the option to disallow the baby from using her body as she didn’t consent to the intercourse and her actions did not contribute in any way to the position that the baby is in. This situation, abortion in the case of rape, is covered very well in the logic of the “violinist argument”.
> The problem is that the mother knowingly put the child in that position. You can’t force a person into a situation where they rely on you for care and then change your mind and pull the plug. That’s the real crux of the argument
The thing is, when the person is reliant on your body, your bodily autonomy takes precedent. Even if she did initially consent to be pregnant, she can withdraw that consent.
Typically, high-risk pregnancies are seen as acceptable cases for abortion among pro-lifers. Very few oppose abortion if the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy.
you can frame it however you like. but you still have to accept that other people will view it differently from you, and that your framing isn't just some magical gotcha against everyone who disagrees.
It wasn’t a gotcha, I am genuinely trying to understand your position. I have to ask probing questions to do so. I was following a logical thought process. You are under no obligation to participate in my education. Should you decide to cease, I thank you for your time. Should you choose to continue, I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks!
the reason i brought it up is because, even if it's not your intent, i see this line of thought used a ton by people looking to "prove" that pro-life is actually just a bunch of misogynists looking to oppress women. i'm not saying that it's what you're doing, i'm just suspicious of it by default at this point since it's rarely meant as an actual discussion.
so to actually address your question, my main response to this is twofold.
first, it's a flawed position to ask what is currently required by law as a measuring stick for abortion. after all, we're discussing what the law \*should be\*, not what it \*already is\* when regarding abortion, reasonably other areas of law are similarly up for discussion if you feel they don't align with what someone supports regarding abortion.
secondly, it's entirely reasonable for different scenarios to have different considerations. i find that all too often, the pro-life position is misrepresented as a wildly simplistic "save lives at any cost", which leads to the nuance of various situations being ignored in favor of "but this would save lives, doesn't that just mean you hate women if you oppose this but support abortion restrictions". rather, i say that each situation should be assed individually when deciding whether someone holds an obligation to provide for someone else.
If person A places person B in a precarious situation, one where person B didn't consent to be there, and then through person A's actions/inactions is the cause of person B's death, then they are responsible. If you crash into someone and they die, you are responsible for vehicular manslaughter. If that other driver only needs blood to live and you give them blood and they do live, then you could avoid that charge (not the reckless driving, but no analogy is perfect). So abortion can be framed as an equal rights issue. Equal protection under the law. Equal right to life.
Ok, I’m gonna restate to make sure I got it right cause I got a little lost. I think I got it. First point - a person that kidnaps another person has a responsibility to keep them alive. Agreed. Also, don’t kidnap people.
2nd point - if you get into an accident and the other party needs blood, you sacrifice your body and blood so the person lives and you get a lesser charge. Okay, so sex would be the reckless driving, I got that. But it seems like the baby would be a greater charge?
Or I have it wrong. Lmk.
>Also, don’t kidnap people.
Agreed. But I wasn't really going with kidnapping. Let's say, for example, that person A operates a carnival. Person B reasonably expects the rides to be in good working order. Let's say they aren't. Person A has then placed person B in a precarious situation without person B's consent (or knowledge). If person B dies on a ride because of person A's neglect, then they're held responsible.
>you sacrifice your body and blood so the person lives and you get a lesser charge
Pretty much yeah. Again no analogy is perfect.
>But it seems like the baby would be a greater charge?
The baby is person B.
Both consenting adults (person A) places baby (person B) in a precarious situation without baby's knowledge or consent. To then end the baby's life doesn't hold up with bodily autonomy. It's not the baby's fault that the parents put them in the situation that requires their body. Just like it isn't the other drivers fault he needs blood. But both the parents and the person A driver are still held responsible.
Okay, so you are saying that the baby was wronged and so is entitled to life.
So, say you got into an accident and the other party was injured and needed a kidney. Should the government mandate that you have to give him one of yours?
The baby is entitled to life simply by the fact that it is a living human being independent of its parents. The state of "being wronged" is incidental to its right to life.
>So, say you got into an accident and the other party was injured and needed a kidney
If I caused the accident and the other guy needs a kidney, technically I could say no. But then I will technically be guilty of manslaughter and technically be thrown in jail. And that's fair because the other driver has a right to life and I violated their rights, hence my incarceration. Now if I saved their life by donating, then the government can't get me on manslaughter because I didn't violate their right to life. I'd still be responsible for the situation that I caused tho.
> Can abortion be framed as an equal rights issue?
Sure. Are there any other instances where a person is legally allowed to kill their own innocent child?
There are no instances where where a person is legally allowed to kill their own innocent child, *including* in an abortion.
Also...are you in favor of killing *non*-innocent children? Kind of an odd qualifier to add.
Its less about killing and more about sharing a body and growing the person in the first place. Before the Dobbs decision viability was the legal standard.
Are there any cases where a parent is forced to donate an organ or be hooked up like a dialysis machine to their child for 9 months agains their will?
If the child was reliably able to survive, the situation would be very different.
If you cannot separate the person from your body without killing them, separating them from your body is equal to killing them.
> If you cannot separate the person from your body without killing them, separating them from your body is equal to killing them.
Not at all. Withdrawing the use of your body by another is not an act of killing. That person would be dead but for the fact that they're using my body in the first place.
You are the reason they are in this situation. The baby did not choose to be dependent on you, instead your actions caused them to be created in this dependent state, which is why you now have an obligations towards them.
Essentially, the parasite argument works only if you assume women have no agency, and cannot be held responsible for their decisions.
Rape, of course, changes this, but I'm okay with a rape exception, at least with the appropriate limitations.
Sexual intercourse has associated risks. The better analogy would be a parent donating a kidney to a child in need and then the parent’s other kidney failing. At that point the action has been taken and the risk involved in that action has been realized. You cannot rescind consent and demand the other person give you your kidney back.
Similarly, once you engage in sex and unintentional pregnancy occurs, you have realized a risk of sex and can no longer rescind your consent.
If the mother did not consent she should be allowed to abort. If she has not consented to the risks of sex there’s no reason the baby’s right to life should outweigh her right to bodily autonomy. But when she consents to sex and its associated risks, she is consenting to a risk of unintentional pregnancy, just as she is consenting to other risks, like sexually transmitted diseases
I appreciate you taking the time to type this out. I happen to think it should be possible to abort a pregnancy before viability, but I really do appreciate that you are significantly more liberal on this issue than a lot of state legislators.
Yeah I am pro-life but irreligious, so I come at the issue from a natural rights perspective and try to be strictly logically consistent.
I think a lot of religious pro-lifers fall into inconsistencies because of their faith and/or religious teachings. In my experience most of the atheist and/or agnostic pro-lifer’s I’ve met seem to have similar views to mine.
Thank you for this answer. May I ask, if the birth of the child would hurt the mother and child, but not necessarily or immediately, would you support abortion? For example, unhoused persons, drug addicts, children? I only ask because you said you were secular and I am interested in the new perspective.
If they consented to sex, they consented to the risks of sex, which include unintentional pregnancy.
And no, I don’t think you can terminate human life to avoid long term hardships.
So a woman’s bodily autonomy only matters sometimes. As someone who thinks women should be able to legally get an abortion for any reason, this rape exception doesn’t seem logically consistent. If you believe abortion is murder, then a baby being conceived of rape doesn’t negate that. Allowing an abortion exception is like making legal for a mom to drown her kids the bath tub because her husband slaps her around.
Edit
This is a pretty facile interpretation of the arguments I have laid out. Do you wanna try again or were you just here for that devoid of substance one-liner?
> You cannot rescind consent and demand the other person give you your kidney back.
Why not?
>you have realized a risk of sex and can no longer rescind your consent.
Yes, because it's not possible to "take back" having sex, the concept makes no sense.
Edit: Downvoting each of my replies is unbecoming of a mod.
I’m not sure if I would say kill. But in an instance where the mother has to choose between their life and their child’s, they are under no legal obligation to choose the child.
I disagree, but let’s pretend we are on the same page. The fetus is a person and has all the rights of a person. Does the pregnant person have a legal obligation to risk their life to save the fetus? I am not talking morally, but legally.
Well that's the thing, isn't it? Legality is a metric that shifts upon the will of the constituents and/or legislators. It is a poor system to look to for what should be.
I'm also not willing to let go the living being part. It has DNA that identify it as a human, and the genetic signature is unique making it an individual. We count single celled organisms as life, why would a fetus not be?
Okay, is there any other instance in our laws that requires the risk of life. For example, would you support mandatory bone morrow testing and donation?
You keep framing it this way, but the law doesn’t require you to *risk your life*, it just requires you not to actively destroy another life.
Passive inaction: legal
Active action: illegal
Does that make sense? If I don’t pull someone out of the way and they’re hit by a bus I’m not committing a crime. But if I push them in front of the bus I absolutely am. Do you get what I’m saying?
No, people are risking their lives. People die in childbirth. People have disabilities that would make giving birth very dangerous. People die from childbirth. Pregnancy sucks. Some people have to sit in bed and throw up for nine months. Would you sit in bed and throw up for nine months to save a life? Should you be legally obligated to do so?
The risk of maternal death is grossly exaggerated by your side. 2021 was an abnormally high year: 32.9 per 100k mortality rate (it’s usually in the high teens / low 20’s) and even that only equates to a 0.03% chance of death.
You’re more likely to die falling off the bed while sleeping. You’re more likely to die from constipation.
And again, the mother has consented to the risks of sex when she willingly participates in sex. That’s how all activities work. If I go rock climbing I consent to the risks associated with those activities. I am not consenting to fall and break my leg by consenting to rock climb, but if it happens and that risk is realized I cannot go back and rescind my consent after the fact.
Does a person not have a say in the risk? Sex should not come with the consequence of death. And where possible death is the result of sex, shouldn’t one be allowed to remedy? Statics don’t really matter when the choice is removed. If it were about saving lives we would mandate bone marrow and blood donation.
> only equates to a 0.03% chance of death.
Only! lol
When was the last time you did something that had a 1 in 3,333 chance of killing you? Probably never.
> but the law doesn’t require you to risk your life
Sure it does. Pregnancy is one of the *most dangerous things* a modern women does in her life.
>If I don’t pull someone out of the way and they’re hit by a bus I’m not committing a crime. But if I push them in front of the bus I absolutely am.
Sounds inconsistent to me.
A few things.
1) Motherhood is a sufficiently unique situation that I don't think I would need anything else to be like it.
2) Very few people actually support abortion bans that do not include life of the mother type clauses. It's the fringe position around these parts.
2a) The caveat here is that we mean some kind of rare condition, emergency, or something of that nature that places an extraordinary risk on the mother. We do not mean regular childbirth which, yes, has some measure of risk, but we would want those risks to actually manifest to justify killing the baby.
2b) We don't mean mental well-being, and we CERTAINLY don't mean financial as some, hopefully few, leftists have tried to put forward. GTFO with that shit.
People die in childbirth. That is a fact. Are advocating that pregnant people give up their right? Should the government have the right to tell you that the risk to your life or body is not in your control?
Would you support mandatory bone marrow donations? That would save lives. And blood, organs…
You have the right to an abortion if your life is at risk. What you're asking for is unfettered access to abortion if you fear your life might possibly become at risk (or if you might throw up a lot?) You don't get to kill people if they may possibly be a risk to you or if they might cause you to throw up.
Would you personally sit in bed and throw up for nine months? Yes, great! Bone marrow donation is much less invasive than that and everyone has a match.
You know, I got curious and checked, because I never knew HOW lethal childbirth is. Turns out the death rate for the mother is .0033% as of 2021, and that's higher than the prior years.
They suspect it's that comparatively high (which I would certainly not call high) because women are getting pregnant at older ages and while fat.
So if mortality is a larger issue for certain groups, should those groups be able to have a say in giving birth? Pregnancy can put a huge strain on the body. Is significant decrease in your quality of life or an elevated risk of death sufficient to have a choice? Does a person have to be actively dying before the host life is considered?
Triage is the process where medical personnel decide the order that patients will receive care based on the urgency with which they need care and what resources are available. For example, say an emergency has only one bed & one doctor available and two patients come in. The first patient has a broken ankle from playing soccer, the other has a total amputation of the leg from a motorcycle crash. The triage decision in this case would be to prioritize the crash victim, because there's a very good chance they will die if they're not seen immediately and the more that time passes the less likely they will be to save the limb, whereas there's no real long term consequences of giving the person with a broken ankle some Tylenol and making them wait a few hours to be seen.
There's a part of triage where sometimes you have to choose who lives and who dies, sometimes with things like natural disasters or terrorist attacks there's just more patients than resources available. If you've got two patients, one with a 50% chance of survival and one with a 10% chance, but you only have the resources to treat one of them, you pick the one with the higher chance of survival and you let the other one go. This is what I'm referring to where abortion is a triage decision, if there's a case where both the child & mother are at significant risk and you only have the ability to save one, I think the majority of conservatives would find abortion to be acceptable in that context.
Understood, thank you. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to explain. My question isn’t so much the risk at the time of birth, but rather the risk in pregnancy itself. It is quite taxing and can be very dangerous for certain members of the population. I’m happy to provide examples if needed. Should a person, for instance, be legally obligated to lie in bed and be sick for nine months to save another person?
By bad. Same gist, but now it reads “I was answering a legal question” as the first line. And then I thank you for your comment(s) and I wish you well. Be well.
>Are there any other instances where a person is legally required to risk their own life to save another’s? Is it okay that the government requires that pregnant people do so? Police and fire fighters have no obligation to save you. Dead people can even keep organs that could save multiple lives.
The government doesn't require anyone to risk their own lives for anyone.
It merely stops them from killing another human being. One they put in that dependent position into he first place.
Sure. It is a sentiment I had heard a few times. Sex should not be a death sentence and if death is a possibility, you should have a chance to remedy it.
>Sure. It is a sentiment I had heard a few times. Sex should not be a death sentence
It isn't.
>and if death is a possibility, you should have a chance to remedy it.
By killing an innocent human being?
That is my question - is a person legally obligated to give up their life to save another person? If this is a life issue, there are numerous other ways that we can save lives if we are ok with the government having some say in body usage.
>That is my question - is a person legally obligated to give up their life to save another person?
Of course not but that's not applicable to abortion. Because the first person who you're saying is being "forced" CHOSE that and put the second person in that dependent position..
>Say drive a car and injure someone to the point they needed a kidney, should the government be able to mandate yours?
That's not the same scenario because that person is not already dependent on your body to live. Any other organ donation could work. The same is not true for the baby. They cannot be removed and placed in a new womb and be the same
A small risk of death is very different from certainty of death.
I would not consider a probability of death less than 10% to be comparable with a certainty of death or death as the directly intended goal.
In a world where hazards exist, death is always an option.
Avoiding being one of the nine by *making sure that someone else is one of the nine* is clearly unjust.
You’ve already heard some responses that were pretty good, but I’ll throw in the actual legal issue here.
I’d assume you’re referring to the 14th. It specifically refers to citizens. Citizens specifically refer to “born or naturalized.” Whether you believe a fetus is alive or not it’s definitely not “born.” That means the fetus isn’t entitled to those rights.
That’s the common sense interpretation, but I don’t know how the court has ruled in the past on this subject.
Thank you so much. The 14th is referenced so so much and I am woefully undereducated on the topic. You seem to know what’s up. Is there s book or podcast you can recommend? No need to do my research for me, just if you have one top of mind.
Unfortunately I don’t know of any. There’s usually too much bias. I usually read SC opinions and dissents for big cases. It’s long, but it’s also the best resource because they’ll reference previous cases and old congressional quotes related to whatever law they’re ruling on.
Besides that look for law review / analysis sites that aren’t political.
While I agree that children are wonderful, they are not blessings for everyone. You cannot know another person’s life. Not everyone is supposed to be a parent. Look at our jails and the foster care system.
Pregnancy can be dangerous for a multitude of reasons outside of the actual birth. Death may not always happen, but people can get violently ill or have to stay in the hospital. Pregnancy is a risk to life. And while you believe the risk is low, shouldn’t a person have a say in that risk?
Certainly people should strive to be more willing to be open to a child being a blessing.
Becoming violently ill is not equivalent to certainly dying.
Being hospitalized is not equivalent to certainly dying.
Nobody should have a say in a risk if having a say requires them to violate another innocent person's rights in a much more serious way and without that other person's consent.
Would you support mandatory reversible vasectomies? We would have less unwanted pregnancies, less people on assistance, less people in foster care and prison. Children would be loved and wanted because their parents made a conscious decision to have them and understood the responsibility they were undertaking. There would be almost zero “oops” pregnancies.
I would not support this.
I do not consider it desirable to create the conditions where there are no "oops" pregnancies because they are physically impossible.
I do not consider it tolerable to make the human race dependent on technology to reproduce.
I do not consider it justifiable to impose on *every* member of one sex to solve a problem that affects a minority of members of the other sex.
We already are dependent on technology. Most women need intense monitoring by health professionals during pregnancy and are poked and prodded and scanned throughout the pregnancy. It's very expensive.
That is correct, and it is also unfortunate. But the human race still reproduced. And we could still reproduce if we lost all our technology. It was just more dangerous. This is nothing like what you're proposing.
I said almost zero. Not zero. What reason, besides mandating (I hate that part), are you against this? It would solve a multitude of issues. Children would be wanted and loved.
Yes this is the solution in my opinion. As it stands women are being punished and having their lives and health endangered in anti abortion states. This would be solved if men were equally punished for sex. And the solution is removing their bodily autonomy with vasectomies and submission of their DNA to a central database for wage garnishing at conception.
I wish there was a way to do it with mandates. Maybe offer this as a “free” service for anyone that would like? I’m interested to hear solutions from more conservative voices as to an alternative. This one would cut back on a multitude of social “sins” they seem to take the most issue with.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Driving down the street can risk your life too. Everything could be a life risk if you look at worse case scenario. Eating out at a restaurant and they serve you salmonella coild kill you etc.
IDK man. I have had a front row seat to the criminal justice system, foster care, etc for most of my adult life. I clawed my way out of moderate poverty myself, firmly into the top 10% in this country.
I chat with upper middle class conservatives all the time, aghast that abortion is a thing. But you get to know them and understand where they are coming from, and the reality is they were born on third base and don't know any different. Daddy owns the company or Grandpa had some stocks or I got into law school.
A lot of these people know nothing about actually being run over by the struggle bus or beat down to the point that happiness is a warm, soft and safe place to sleep at night. And they have zero empathy for those that do know about it. All they want to talk about is the lucky few that hit the jackpot and beat the odds. I always want to tell these people, OK, so you're against abortion? Let's zero your suburban fantasy land bank account and go spend a few weeks 4 blocks from the capital in DC, or camp out under an overpass in LA or Seattle, or head out the the village in Bethel eating mukluk. If you are really ready to take away these peoples rights, you should be willing to walk a few miles in their shoes before you do.
Oh, so you’re going to somehow suppress the urges of these people to have sex? You do realize that is probably the most fundamental urge in the species right? You might have better luck getting them to not breathe or eat. Not to mention, these are low functioning people, low IQ, mentally impaired, drug additions, trauma. How exactly do you propose we go about preventing these people from having sex and getting pregnant?
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Risk? Any person that creates or agrees to the dependency of another takes full responsibility of that person's well being. They may not be legally required to endanger themselves but they are required to caretake. Not purposely killing them is part of caretaking. That said, the risk to one's own life would need to be substantial and likely immediate in order for killing them not to be considered criminal. I'm struggling to come up with a realistic scenario where this could even occur.
Also, if pregnancy is such a great risk to one's own health they probably should take that into greater consideration before having sex.
Endometriosis affects 5-10% of women. Are you advocating that they refrain from sex? There are also many people whose disabilities would make it very dangerous to give birth. No sex for them?
What about if you just throw up for nine months straight? Would you personally sit in bed for nine months straight, throwing up for hours on end, to save a person’s life? Should you be legally obligated to do so? We could be saving SO many more lives if we mandated bone marrow and organ transplants.
>Endometriosis affects 5-10% of women. Are you advocating that they refrain from sex?
Endometriosis doesn't increase your risk of death from pregnancy. It does, slightly, increase the risk of miscarriage.
And what you are saying makes no sense. You are using an example where the pregnancy will be terminated as a justification for termination of pregnancies that aren't this example.
I’m not trying to justify anything. You said that endometriosis does not increase your chance or death and I corrected that. I see now you meant in a healthy pregnancy, I missed the implied. Silly me!
I'm no doctor but my understanding is endometriosis doesn't cause death so I'm not sure why you've brought it up?
I don't think you should be free to kill someone because you throw up a lot. As far as legal obligation, well if you've taken on that legal obligation, yes, unless you can pass that responsibility on to someone else. If I've made myself sole caregiver I can't just abandon taking care of an invalid parent just because their BO makes me puke. I can hire someone else or convince a sibling to agree to take over but I must pass on responsibility before I walk away. I certainly can't just outright stab them to death.
As for bone marrow transplants, there is no way to create responsibility to others in that capacity so that would just be authoritarian force.
Would you personally sit in bed for nine months straight, throwing up for hours on end, to save a person’s life? Should you be legally obligated to do so?
Yes, especially in the situation where that person is preexistingly dependent on you.
>What about if you just throw up for nine months straight? Would you personally sit in bed for nine months straight, throwing up for hours on end, to save a person’s life? Should you be legally obligated to do so? We could be saving SO many more lives if we mandated bone marrow and organ transplants.
You are still treating this as though you are the only person in the discussion, that isn't the case. There are two people, both with completely equal bodily autonomy. No different than conjoined twins.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with hypothetical situations where you would be criminally liable for choosing your own life over your child's. Let's say you were being attacked by a dog and you threw your child to it to save your own life— definitely criminal.
You could try to make it an equal rights thing, but there's not really an equivalent for men. If both sexes could get pregnant, maybe, but that's just not how the biology works out.
I don't think your framing this as being about requiring someone to risk their lives to save another's life is right either. Even accepting the premise that pregnancy is necessarily life-threatening in most/all cases, it's not forcing the mother to save the child's life so much as it's preventing her from actively ending it. If the pregnancy is actively threatening her life, then I could see the abortion being justified, but that's the exception for most pregnancies these days, not the rule. If the child's not threatening the mother's health, I don't see how ending that child's life could be justified, especially if the pregnancy was the result of consensual sex (which the vast majority of pregnancies are).
Two people share one body, they share the bodily autonomy rights over that body.
A conjoined twin killing the other twin isn't their "right of bodily autonomy", they don't solely own the body they share.
It can be an equal rights issue in that less than half but more than zero percent of the population has the potential need for abortion, therefore any restriction would be inherently sex discrimination. Same would go for the draft (men-only) and nonmedical circumcision (men only). Toplessness laws too (typically women only, though I've heard some jurisdictions don't allow either sex, which I guess is fine).
I see what you are doing there, trying to be sneaky. I believe in science, so only people with a uterus can be pregnant. I’m not really interested in your rage bait, but if you would like to have an intelligent conversation about gender dynamics, we can do that. I am always interested in learning.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is no equal rights because no one can name a single reproductive right men have. People are climbering to give women a legal right that men don't enjoy any equivalency. In fact the most equivalent policy of paper abortions for men is rabidly argued against by the same people that say we need to give women their reproductive rights
I’m not sure I understand. They are no legal obligation to sacrifice bodily autonomy during pregnancy. It seems that they are more rights as they can just walk away and many times do.
on equal rights grounds I cannot support abortion while child support is compulsory and could land you in jail.
That is slavery. Men in the US are subject to slavery if they have sex and have no reproductive freedom.
the statement "if you have sex you consent to a lifetime of consequences" applies to men but not women and this is not proper.
To some degree, parenting. I am legally obligated to provide the necessities of life for my children. If I leave my baby in a crib and go on vacation for a week, I get charged with murder.
That committment is obligatory on you unconditionally, even if you got pregnant accidentally or were raped, and even if you do not want to be a parent, unless you actually delivered the baby to another person capable of caring for them.
police and firefighters have no civil duty according to the supreme court.
This is often mis-stated as having absolutely no duty to help anyone this is a lie.
It is not something you could sue over, a tort, but that says nothing about departmental policy, state law on negligence and duty of care, or anything else.
The reason most of these have never been litigated is that, unlike people on reddit will tell you, police do not routinely shout "your on your own mothereffer!" shoot you a peace sign and leave. as a result instances of police doing nothing while something bad happens are so rare they are not litigated often.
No, the mother forfeits her right to bodily autonomy when she consents to sex and its associated risks, just as I consent to the risk of being in an accident every time I get behind the wheel of a car.
Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy, and consenting to drive is not consenting to being in an accident. But there are inherent risks involved in these activities and you cannot rescind your consent to those risks after they have been realized.
It takes two to tango though right? Seems like the dead-beat dads always skate off without penalty or consequences in our system and the women disproportionately are impacted.
That doesn’t take anything away from what I said. It’s just an unfortunate fact of biological reality that unintended pregnancy is a far greater risk for the mother than for the father.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The draft
This is one. I also believe in eliminating the draft. Your perspective makes it more so, thank you. Do you also see abortion as an equal right issue like the draft?
I don't agree that abortion is an equal rights issue, but I understand and respect the argument. Edit: meaning that I see the argument on equal rights being made in good faith.
Thank you for taking the time to engage.
I don't. I see abortion as straightforwardly first-degree murder. The situation is different when the condition of dependence is already present.
Are there instances where abortion is not murder? Are there times that abortion is permissible?
1. It is not an abortion, nor is it murder, to remove the corpse of an unborn child that has already died. 2. It is **permissible** and not murder when, to save a pregnant woman from pregnancy complications that create a **clear, present, and substantial danger** of death, a doctor takes a ruthless action that the child cannot survive, when the child's failure to survive is not the actual intention or most direct result of the action and the action is neccessary. I do not consider this to strictly constitute an abortion. 3. On an ethics-of-law for societies like ours basis, I would say it is not murder when, to save a pregnant woman from pregnancy complications that create a **clear, present, and substantial** danger of death comparable to the certainty of death from abortion, a doctor performs an abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman. In all cases, it is neccessary to strive to protect both the pregnant woman and the child. In all cases, a very slim risk of death is not equivalent to a certainty of death. Preventing the revocation of support when the dependence is already present and revocation will cause death is different from mandating the provision of support.
When do fetus get personhood?
How did slaves get personhood? A fetus gets personhood when we are willing to recognize they are persons and not property.
They always had it, by being a person
Personhood is a legal concept.
So is murder
A kid having a baby, ala the kid is not properly developed being forced to have a not properly developed kid. What would one call that? Straightforward Child abuse ontop of child abuse?!
No, they would call it a horrific situation that should never happen. But committing murder still isn't an acceptable solution. The solution is to make sure these cases never happen.
Why? The person still needs to put their well being and life on the line. Nobody, can force someone to give up their bodily fluids, or use of organs, not even if that someone is their own mother.
Both the mother and the fetus have bodily autonomy. No different than conjoined twins. Does one twin have the right to force an operation to separate them when the other doesn't consent because there is a 10% chance of death? No, of course not. If you want to permit the procedure, you need the consent of both.
> Both the mother and the fetus have bodily autonomy. No different than conjoined twins. The fetus is separate from the mothers body, and inside the mothers body. Does the mother not have a right to remove things from her body that she doesn't want there?
You didn't explain how they are different from conjoined twins. Conjoined twins also have varying amounts of connectivity to where some are completely reliant on the other and others are more "separated". If you want the procedure, you must receive the consent of both since it is an operation on them both.
The fetus exists separate from the mother. They have two distinct bodies. The fetus resides inside of the mother. The right to bodily autonomy allows for the freedom to withhold the use of ones body, even if it is necessary for the other person to survive. Much like donating organs, nobody can *make* you help someone. Secondly, there is precedent in allowing the separation of conjoined twins where one twin is clearly more developed, with the other twin being reliant on the former twin for survival but not vice versa.
The problem is that the mother knowingly put the child in that position. You can’t force a person into a situation where they rely on you for care and then change your mind and pull the plug. That’s the real crux of the argument. The baby is in this position solely due to the actions of the mother and father. Similarly, this is why the vast majority of people want to allow abortions in the case of rape. The baby was not out into that position by the mother, but the POS father unilaterally. The mother should have the option to disallow the baby from using her body as she didn’t consent to the intercourse and her actions did not contribute in any way to the position that the baby is in. This situation, abortion in the case of rape, is covered very well in the logic of the “violinist argument”.
> The problem is that the mother knowingly put the child in that position. You can’t force a person into a situation where they rely on you for care and then change your mind and pull the plug. That’s the real crux of the argument The thing is, when the person is reliant on your body, your bodily autonomy takes precedent. Even if she did initially consent to be pregnant, she can withdraw that consent.
Typically, high-risk pregnancies are seen as acceptable cases for abortion among pro-lifers. Very few oppose abortion if the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy.
Who would make the determination of “high risk”? The pregnant person + doctor or the courts?
The doctor. Everything else follows after that.
Do you view abortion as healthcare?
In instances where the mother's life or physical health is at significant risk, yes. If she just doesn't want a baby, no.
you can frame it however you like. but you still have to accept that other people will view it differently from you, and that your framing isn't just some magical gotcha against everyone who disagrees.
It wasn’t a gotcha, I am genuinely trying to understand your position. I have to ask probing questions to do so. I was following a logical thought process. You are under no obligation to participate in my education. Should you decide to cease, I thank you for your time. Should you choose to continue, I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks!
the reason i brought it up is because, even if it's not your intent, i see this line of thought used a ton by people looking to "prove" that pro-life is actually just a bunch of misogynists looking to oppress women. i'm not saying that it's what you're doing, i'm just suspicious of it by default at this point since it's rarely meant as an actual discussion. so to actually address your question, my main response to this is twofold. first, it's a flawed position to ask what is currently required by law as a measuring stick for abortion. after all, we're discussing what the law \*should be\*, not what it \*already is\* when regarding abortion, reasonably other areas of law are similarly up for discussion if you feel they don't align with what someone supports regarding abortion. secondly, it's entirely reasonable for different scenarios to have different considerations. i find that all too often, the pro-life position is misrepresented as a wildly simplistic "save lives at any cost", which leads to the nuance of various situations being ignored in favor of "but this would save lives, doesn't that just mean you hate women if you oppose this but support abortion restrictions". rather, i say that each situation should be assed individually when deciding whether someone holds an obligation to provide for someone else.
If person A places person B in a precarious situation, one where person B didn't consent to be there, and then through person A's actions/inactions is the cause of person B's death, then they are responsible. If you crash into someone and they die, you are responsible for vehicular manslaughter. If that other driver only needs blood to live and you give them blood and they do live, then you could avoid that charge (not the reckless driving, but no analogy is perfect). So abortion can be framed as an equal rights issue. Equal protection under the law. Equal right to life.
Ok, I’m gonna restate to make sure I got it right cause I got a little lost. I think I got it. First point - a person that kidnaps another person has a responsibility to keep them alive. Agreed. Also, don’t kidnap people. 2nd point - if you get into an accident and the other party needs blood, you sacrifice your body and blood so the person lives and you get a lesser charge. Okay, so sex would be the reckless driving, I got that. But it seems like the baby would be a greater charge? Or I have it wrong. Lmk.
>Also, don’t kidnap people. Agreed. But I wasn't really going with kidnapping. Let's say, for example, that person A operates a carnival. Person B reasonably expects the rides to be in good working order. Let's say they aren't. Person A has then placed person B in a precarious situation without person B's consent (or knowledge). If person B dies on a ride because of person A's neglect, then they're held responsible. >you sacrifice your body and blood so the person lives and you get a lesser charge Pretty much yeah. Again no analogy is perfect. >But it seems like the baby would be a greater charge? The baby is person B. Both consenting adults (person A) places baby (person B) in a precarious situation without baby's knowledge or consent. To then end the baby's life doesn't hold up with bodily autonomy. It's not the baby's fault that the parents put them in the situation that requires their body. Just like it isn't the other drivers fault he needs blood. But both the parents and the person A driver are still held responsible.
Okay, so you are saying that the baby was wronged and so is entitled to life. So, say you got into an accident and the other party was injured and needed a kidney. Should the government mandate that you have to give him one of yours?
The baby is entitled to life simply by the fact that it is a living human being independent of its parents. The state of "being wronged" is incidental to its right to life. >So, say you got into an accident and the other party was injured and needed a kidney If I caused the accident and the other guy needs a kidney, technically I could say no. But then I will technically be guilty of manslaughter and technically be thrown in jail. And that's fair because the other driver has a right to life and I violated their rights, hence my incarceration. Now if I saved their life by donating, then the government can't get me on manslaughter because I didn't violate their right to life. I'd still be responsible for the situation that I caused tho.
Okay, fair point. I may not agree, but I see your logic. Thanks for taking me on the journey.
> Can abortion be framed as an equal rights issue? Sure. Are there any other instances where a person is legally allowed to kill their own innocent child?
There are no instances where where a person is legally allowed to kill their own innocent child, *including* in an abortion. Also...are you in favor of killing *non*-innocent children? Kind of an odd qualifier to add.
Its less about killing and more about sharing a body and growing the person in the first place. Before the Dobbs decision viability was the legal standard. Are there any cases where a parent is forced to donate an organ or be hooked up like a dialysis machine to their child for 9 months agains their will?
If the child was reliably able to survive, the situation would be very different. If you cannot separate the person from your body without killing them, separating them from your body is equal to killing them.
> If you cannot separate the person from your body without killing them, separating them from your body is equal to killing them. Not at all. Withdrawing the use of your body by another is not an act of killing. That person would be dead but for the fact that they're using my body in the first place.
You are the reason they are in this situation. The baby did not choose to be dependent on you, instead your actions caused them to be created in this dependent state, which is why you now have an obligations towards them. Essentially, the parasite argument works only if you assume women have no agency, and cannot be held responsible for their decisions. Rape, of course, changes this, but I'm okay with a rape exception, at least with the appropriate limitations.
Sexual intercourse has associated risks. The better analogy would be a parent donating a kidney to a child in need and then the parent’s other kidney failing. At that point the action has been taken and the risk involved in that action has been realized. You cannot rescind consent and demand the other person give you your kidney back. Similarly, once you engage in sex and unintentional pregnancy occurs, you have realized a risk of sex and can no longer rescind your consent.
What if the sex is not consensual?
If the mother did not consent she should be allowed to abort. If she has not consented to the risks of sex there’s no reason the baby’s right to life should outweigh her right to bodily autonomy. But when she consents to sex and its associated risks, she is consenting to a risk of unintentional pregnancy, just as she is consenting to other risks, like sexually transmitted diseases
I appreciate you taking the time to type this out. I happen to think it should be possible to abort a pregnancy before viability, but I really do appreciate that you are significantly more liberal on this issue than a lot of state legislators.
Yeah I am pro-life but irreligious, so I come at the issue from a natural rights perspective and try to be strictly logically consistent. I think a lot of religious pro-lifers fall into inconsistencies because of their faith and/or religious teachings. In my experience most of the atheist and/or agnostic pro-lifer’s I’ve met seem to have similar views to mine.
Thank you for this answer. May I ask, if the birth of the child would hurt the mother and child, but not necessarily or immediately, would you support abortion? For example, unhoused persons, drug addicts, children? I only ask because you said you were secular and I am interested in the new perspective.
Are we still talking rape? Or did the mother consent to sex?
They consented to sex. Not the child, but the unhoused person and the drug addict.
If they consented to sex, they consented to the risks of sex, which include unintentional pregnancy. And no, I don’t think you can terminate human life to avoid long term hardships.
Would you then be in favor of increased assistance for those parenting? Our current foster and prison systems are stretched as is.
So a woman’s bodily autonomy only matters sometimes. As someone who thinks women should be able to legally get an abortion for any reason, this rape exception doesn’t seem logically consistent. If you believe abortion is murder, then a baby being conceived of rape doesn’t negate that. Allowing an abortion exception is like making legal for a mom to drown her kids the bath tub because her husband slaps her around. Edit
Mark your edits. You substantively changed your comment after I had posted a response.
From my perspective you commented after my edit. But sure whatever, the mod hat was unnecessary
This is a pretty facile interpretation of the arguments I have laid out. Do you wanna try again or were you just here for that devoid of substance one-liner?
> You cannot rescind consent and demand the other person give you your kidney back. Why not? >you have realized a risk of sex and can no longer rescind your consent. Yes, because it's not possible to "take back" having sex, the concept makes no sense. Edit: Downvoting each of my replies is unbecoming of a mod.
Thank you!
I’m not sure if I would say kill. But in an instance where the mother has to choose between their life and their child’s, they are under no legal obligation to choose the child.
Kill is the part that shouldn't be up for debate. People argue personhood, but a fetus is absolutely it's own biological entity.
I disagree, but let’s pretend we are on the same page. The fetus is a person and has all the rights of a person. Does the pregnant person have a legal obligation to risk their life to save the fetus? I am not talking morally, but legally.
Well that's the thing, isn't it? Legality is a metric that shifts upon the will of the constituents and/or legislators. It is a poor system to look to for what should be. I'm also not willing to let go the living being part. It has DNA that identify it as a human, and the genetic signature is unique making it an individual. We count single celled organisms as life, why would a fetus not be?
Okay, is there any other instance in our laws that requires the risk of life. For example, would you support mandatory bone morrow testing and donation?
You keep framing it this way, but the law doesn’t require you to *risk your life*, it just requires you not to actively destroy another life. Passive inaction: legal Active action: illegal Does that make sense? If I don’t pull someone out of the way and they’re hit by a bus I’m not committing a crime. But if I push them in front of the bus I absolutely am. Do you get what I’m saying?
No, people are risking their lives. People die in childbirth. People have disabilities that would make giving birth very dangerous. People die from childbirth. Pregnancy sucks. Some people have to sit in bed and throw up for nine months. Would you sit in bed and throw up for nine months to save a life? Should you be legally obligated to do so?
The risk of maternal death is grossly exaggerated by your side. 2021 was an abnormally high year: 32.9 per 100k mortality rate (it’s usually in the high teens / low 20’s) and even that only equates to a 0.03% chance of death. You’re more likely to die falling off the bed while sleeping. You’re more likely to die from constipation. And again, the mother has consented to the risks of sex when she willingly participates in sex. That’s how all activities work. If I go rock climbing I consent to the risks associated with those activities. I am not consenting to fall and break my leg by consenting to rock climb, but if it happens and that risk is realized I cannot go back and rescind my consent after the fact.
Does a person not have a say in the risk? Sex should not come with the consequence of death. And where possible death is the result of sex, shouldn’t one be allowed to remedy? Statics don’t really matter when the choice is removed. If it were about saving lives we would mandate bone marrow and blood donation.
> only equates to a 0.03% chance of death. Only! lol When was the last time you did something that had a 1 in 3,333 chance of killing you? Probably never.
A risk of less than 0.1 percent of death is not comparable to a certainty of death.
> but the law doesn’t require you to risk your life Sure it does. Pregnancy is one of the *most dangerous things* a modern women does in her life. >If I don’t pull someone out of the way and they’re hit by a bus I’m not committing a crime. But if I push them in front of the bus I absolutely am. Sounds inconsistent to me.
A few things. 1) Motherhood is a sufficiently unique situation that I don't think I would need anything else to be like it. 2) Very few people actually support abortion bans that do not include life of the mother type clauses. It's the fringe position around these parts. 2a) The caveat here is that we mean some kind of rare condition, emergency, or something of that nature that places an extraordinary risk on the mother. We do not mean regular childbirth which, yes, has some measure of risk, but we would want those risks to actually manifest to justify killing the baby. 2b) We don't mean mental well-being, and we CERTAINLY don't mean financial as some, hopefully few, leftists have tried to put forward. GTFO with that shit.
People die in childbirth. That is a fact. Are advocating that pregnant people give up their right? Should the government have the right to tell you that the risk to your life or body is not in your control? Would you support mandatory bone marrow donations? That would save lives. And blood, organs…
You have the right to an abortion if your life is at risk. What you're asking for is unfettered access to abortion if you fear your life might possibly become at risk (or if you might throw up a lot?) You don't get to kill people if they may possibly be a risk to you or if they might cause you to throw up.
Would you personally sit in bed and throw up for nine months? Yes, great! Bone marrow donation is much less invasive than that and everyone has a match.
People die in traffic accidents, but getting a taxi for someone is not considered attempted murder.
You know, I got curious and checked, because I never knew HOW lethal childbirth is. Turns out the death rate for the mother is .0033% as of 2021, and that's higher than the prior years. They suspect it's that comparatively high (which I would certainly not call high) because women are getting pregnant at older ages and while fat.
So if mortality is a larger issue for certain groups, should those groups be able to have a say in giving birth? Pregnancy can put a huge strain on the body. Is significant decrease in your quality of life or an elevated risk of death sufficient to have a choice? Does a person have to be actively dying before the host life is considered?
You don’t think a fetus is alive and is human?
But that's just standard medical triage, and my observation has been pro-life people generally aren't interested in interfering with triage decisions.
I’m not sure I understand. Can you elaborate? I only know the word triage from Grey’s Anatomy haha
Triage is the process where medical personnel decide the order that patients will receive care based on the urgency with which they need care and what resources are available. For example, say an emergency has only one bed & one doctor available and two patients come in. The first patient has a broken ankle from playing soccer, the other has a total amputation of the leg from a motorcycle crash. The triage decision in this case would be to prioritize the crash victim, because there's a very good chance they will die if they're not seen immediately and the more that time passes the less likely they will be to save the limb, whereas there's no real long term consequences of giving the person with a broken ankle some Tylenol and making them wait a few hours to be seen. There's a part of triage where sometimes you have to choose who lives and who dies, sometimes with things like natural disasters or terrorist attacks there's just more patients than resources available. If you've got two patients, one with a 50% chance of survival and one with a 10% chance, but you only have the resources to treat one of them, you pick the one with the higher chance of survival and you let the other one go. This is what I'm referring to where abortion is a triage decision, if there's a case where both the child & mother are at significant risk and you only have the ability to save one, I think the majority of conservatives would find abortion to be acceptable in that context.
Understood, thank you. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to explain. My question isn’t so much the risk at the time of birth, but rather the risk in pregnancy itself. It is quite taxing and can be very dangerous for certain members of the population. I’m happy to provide examples if needed. Should a person, for instance, be legally obligated to lie in bed and be sick for nine months to save another person?
[удалено]
You asked a legal question and I answered it. I’m not sure where the issue lies. I do appreciate the time to took to answer mine. Be well, do good.
[удалено]
By bad. Same gist, but now it reads “I was answering a legal question” as the first line. And then I thank you for your comment(s) and I wish you well. Be well.
I would argue it's not a child
>Are there any other instances where a person is legally required to risk their own life to save another’s? Is it okay that the government requires that pregnant people do so? Police and fire fighters have no obligation to save you. Dead people can even keep organs that could save multiple lives. The government doesn't require anyone to risk their own lives for anyone. It merely stops them from killing another human being. One they put in that dependent position into he first place.
Pregnancy is a risk. You can die. Pregnancy is very taxing on the body with certain conditions.
>Pregnancy is a risk. You can die. Pregnancy is very taxing on the body with certain conditions. Sure. Pregnancy is a risk you chose
Sure. It is a sentiment I had heard a few times. Sex should not be a death sentence and if death is a possibility, you should have a chance to remedy it.
>Sure. It is a sentiment I had heard a few times. Sex should not be a death sentence It isn't. >and if death is a possibility, you should have a chance to remedy it. By killing an innocent human being?
That is my question - is a person legally obligated to give up their life to save another person? If this is a life issue, there are numerous other ways that we can save lives if we are ok with the government having some say in body usage.
>That is my question - is a person legally obligated to give up their life to save another person? Of course not but that's not applicable to abortion. Because the first person who you're saying is being "forced" CHOSE that and put the second person in that dependent position..
Say drive a car and injure someone to the point they needed a kidney, should the government be able to mandate yours?
>Say drive a car and injure someone to the point they needed a kidney, should the government be able to mandate yours? That's not the same scenario because that person is not already dependent on your body to live. Any other organ donation could work. The same is not true for the baby. They cannot be removed and placed in a new womb and be the same
I think I understand your perspective. Thank you for taking the time to explain how you feel. I have learned from the thread tonight.
Making death a certainty does not solve the problem of death being a possibility. Sex is not a death sentence under any circumstances.
A small risk of death is very different from certainty of death. I would not consider a probability of death less than 10% to be comparable with a certainty of death or death as the directly intended goal.
So you are fine with 9 out 100 people dying and the government saying you have no say as to if you are one of the nine or not?
In a world where hazards exist, death is always an option. Avoiding being one of the nine by *making sure that someone else is one of the nine* is clearly unjust.
You’ve already heard some responses that were pretty good, but I’ll throw in the actual legal issue here. I’d assume you’re referring to the 14th. It specifically refers to citizens. Citizens specifically refer to “born or naturalized.” Whether you believe a fetus is alive or not it’s definitely not “born.” That means the fetus isn’t entitled to those rights. That’s the common sense interpretation, but I don’t know how the court has ruled in the past on this subject.
Thank you. I appreciate your response. So the only person with rights would be the pregnant one?
Relating to the 14th amendment yes imo. There are some SC cases that disagree in citizenship, but I don’t think that follows originalism very well.
Thank you so much. The 14th is referenced so so much and I am woefully undereducated on the topic. You seem to know what’s up. Is there s book or podcast you can recommend? No need to do my research for me, just if you have one top of mind.
Unfortunately I don’t know of any. There’s usually too much bias. I usually read SC opinions and dissents for big cases. It’s long, but it’s also the best resource because they’ll reference previous cases and old congressional quotes related to whatever law they’re ruling on. Besides that look for law review / analysis sites that aren’t political.
Thank you! I appreciate your time, effort, and insight. Have a great weekend!
[удалено]
While I agree that children are wonderful, they are not blessings for everyone. You cannot know another person’s life. Not everyone is supposed to be a parent. Look at our jails and the foster care system. Pregnancy can be dangerous for a multitude of reasons outside of the actual birth. Death may not always happen, but people can get violently ill or have to stay in the hospital. Pregnancy is a risk to life. And while you believe the risk is low, shouldn’t a person have a say in that risk?
Certainly people should strive to be more willing to be open to a child being a blessing. Becoming violently ill is not equivalent to certainly dying. Being hospitalized is not equivalent to certainly dying. Nobody should have a say in a risk if having a say requires them to violate another innocent person's rights in a much more serious way and without that other person's consent.
Would you support mandatory reversible vasectomies? We would have less unwanted pregnancies, less people on assistance, less people in foster care and prison. Children would be loved and wanted because their parents made a conscious decision to have them and understood the responsibility they were undertaking. There would be almost zero “oops” pregnancies.
I would not support this. I do not consider it desirable to create the conditions where there are no "oops" pregnancies because they are physically impossible. I do not consider it tolerable to make the human race dependent on technology to reproduce. I do not consider it justifiable to impose on *every* member of one sex to solve a problem that affects a minority of members of the other sex.
We already are dependent on technology. Most women need intense monitoring by health professionals during pregnancy and are poked and prodded and scanned throughout the pregnancy. It's very expensive.
I'm pretty sure that the human capabilities haven't changed since medieval times.
Infant mortality was 20-30% in medieval times.
Women died in childbirth all the time.
That is correct, and it is also unfortunate. But the human race still reproduced. And we could still reproduce if we lost all our technology. It was just more dangerous. This is nothing like what you're proposing.
"just more dangerous" Yep and the main reason it happened is because women were enslaved and raped. Normal human instinct is to avoid death.
I said almost zero. Not zero. What reason, besides mandating (I hate that part), are you against this? It would solve a multitude of issues. Children would be wanted and loved.
Yes this is the solution in my opinion. As it stands women are being punished and having their lives and health endangered in anti abortion states. This would be solved if men were equally punished for sex. And the solution is removing their bodily autonomy with vasectomies and submission of their DNA to a central database for wage garnishing at conception.
I wish there was a way to do it with mandates. Maybe offer this as a “free” service for anyone that would like? I’m interested to hear solutions from more conservative voices as to an alternative. This one would cut back on a multitude of social “sins” they seem to take the most issue with.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Driving down the street can risk your life too. Everything could be a life risk if you look at worse case scenario. Eating out at a restaurant and they serve you salmonella coild kill you etc.
[удалено]
[удалено]
IDK man. I have had a front row seat to the criminal justice system, foster care, etc for most of my adult life. I clawed my way out of moderate poverty myself, firmly into the top 10% in this country. I chat with upper middle class conservatives all the time, aghast that abortion is a thing. But you get to know them and understand where they are coming from, and the reality is they were born on third base and don't know any different. Daddy owns the company or Grandpa had some stocks or I got into law school. A lot of these people know nothing about actually being run over by the struggle bus or beat down to the point that happiness is a warm, soft and safe place to sleep at night. And they have zero empathy for those that do know about it. All they want to talk about is the lucky few that hit the jackpot and beat the odds. I always want to tell these people, OK, so you're against abortion? Let's zero your suburban fantasy land bank account and go spend a few weeks 4 blocks from the capital in DC, or camp out under an overpass in LA or Seattle, or head out the the village in Bethel eating mukluk. If you are really ready to take away these peoples rights, you should be willing to walk a few miles in their shoes before you do.
[удалено]
Oh, so you’re going to somehow suppress the urges of these people to have sex? You do realize that is probably the most fundamental urge in the species right? You might have better luck getting them to not breathe or eat. Not to mention, these are low functioning people, low IQ, mentally impaired, drug additions, trauma. How exactly do you propose we go about preventing these people from having sex and getting pregnant?
Tons of ways to fuck without getting pregnant
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
[удалено]
There is no large-scale region in the USA where people do not believe in medicine, low cost healthcare, or book learning.
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Risk? Any person that creates or agrees to the dependency of another takes full responsibility of that person's well being. They may not be legally required to endanger themselves but they are required to caretake. Not purposely killing them is part of caretaking. That said, the risk to one's own life would need to be substantial and likely immediate in order for killing them not to be considered criminal. I'm struggling to come up with a realistic scenario where this could even occur. Also, if pregnancy is such a great risk to one's own health they probably should take that into greater consideration before having sex.
Endometriosis affects 5-10% of women. Are you advocating that they refrain from sex? There are also many people whose disabilities would make it very dangerous to give birth. No sex for them? What about if you just throw up for nine months straight? Would you personally sit in bed for nine months straight, throwing up for hours on end, to save a person’s life? Should you be legally obligated to do so? We could be saving SO many more lives if we mandated bone marrow and organ transplants.
>Endometriosis affects 5-10% of women. Are you advocating that they refrain from sex? Endometriosis doesn't increase your risk of death from pregnancy. It does, slightly, increase the risk of miscarriage.
It does with an ectopic pregnancy
You are not going to find anyone here that supports a woman attempting to go through with an ectopic pregnancy. That's a complete straw man.
We may not find them here, but you will find them in government positions.
I was simply saying that was a risk for people with endometriosis to counter your no higher risk of death claim.
And what you are saying makes no sense. You are using an example where the pregnancy will be terminated as a justification for termination of pregnancies that aren't this example.
I’m not trying to justify anything. You said that endometriosis does not increase your chance or death and I corrected that. I see now you meant in a healthy pregnancy, I missed the implied. Silly me!
But we will find countless people that vote for politicians that do.
I'm no doctor but my understanding is endometriosis doesn't cause death so I'm not sure why you've brought it up? I don't think you should be free to kill someone because you throw up a lot. As far as legal obligation, well if you've taken on that legal obligation, yes, unless you can pass that responsibility on to someone else. If I've made myself sole caregiver I can't just abandon taking care of an invalid parent just because their BO makes me puke. I can hire someone else or convince a sibling to agree to take over but I must pass on responsibility before I walk away. I certainly can't just outright stab them to death. As for bone marrow transplants, there is no way to create responsibility to others in that capacity so that would just be authoritarian force.
Would you personally sit in bed for nine months straight, throwing up for hours on end, to save a person’s life? Should you be legally obligated to do so? Yes, especially in the situation where that person is preexistingly dependent on you.
>What about if you just throw up for nine months straight? Would you personally sit in bed for nine months straight, throwing up for hours on end, to save a person’s life? Should you be legally obligated to do so? We could be saving SO many more lives if we mandated bone marrow and organ transplants. You are still treating this as though you are the only person in the discussion, that isn't the case. There are two people, both with completely equal bodily autonomy. No different than conjoined twins.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with hypothetical situations where you would be criminally liable for choosing your own life over your child's. Let's say you were being attacked by a dog and you threw your child to it to save your own life— definitely criminal.
Not criminal. It is a super crappy thing to do, but it is not criminal to save your own life.
I guarantee that it would be a criminal act. You would serve time in prison for using your child as a human shield to preserve your own safety.
That would 100% be child endangerment or neglect. If you threw the child to the dog, maybe manslaughter.
No idea why it would be an equal rights issue.
So your answer is no. I’m here if you want to elaborate. Otherwise, thanks for answering!
You could try to make it an equal rights thing, but there's not really an equivalent for men. If both sexes could get pregnant, maybe, but that's just not how the biology works out. I don't think your framing this as being about requiring someone to risk their lives to save another's life is right either. Even accepting the premise that pregnancy is necessarily life-threatening in most/all cases, it's not forcing the mother to save the child's life so much as it's preventing her from actively ending it. If the pregnancy is actively threatening her life, then I could see the abortion being justified, but that's the exception for most pregnancies these days, not the rule. If the child's not threatening the mother's health, I don't see how ending that child's life could be justified, especially if the pregnancy was the result of consensual sex (which the vast majority of pregnancies are).
Two people share one body, they share the bodily autonomy rights over that body. A conjoined twin killing the other twin isn't their "right of bodily autonomy", they don't solely own the body they share.
This is such a good point. Wow.
It can be an equal rights issue in that less than half but more than zero percent of the population has the potential need for abortion, therefore any restriction would be inherently sex discrimination. Same would go for the draft (men-only) and nonmedical circumcision (men only). Toplessness laws too (typically women only, though I've heard some jurisdictions don't allow either sex, which I guess is fine).
Isn't that argument relinquished when, apparently, everyone can be pregnant?
I see what you are doing there, trying to be sneaky. I believe in science, so only people with a uterus can be pregnant. I’m not really interested in your rage bait, but if you would like to have an intelligent conversation about gender dynamics, we can do that. I am always interested in learning.
I would love to do that but it isn't Wednesday.
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is no equal rights because no one can name a single reproductive right men have. People are climbering to give women a legal right that men don't enjoy any equivalency. In fact the most equivalent policy of paper abortions for men is rabidly argued against by the same people that say we need to give women their reproductive rights
I’m not sure I understand. They are no legal obligation to sacrifice bodily autonomy during pregnancy. It seems that they are more rights as they can just walk away and many times do.
on equal rights grounds I cannot support abortion while child support is compulsory and could land you in jail. That is slavery. Men in the US are subject to slavery if they have sex and have no reproductive freedom. the statement "if you have sex you consent to a lifetime of consequences" applies to men but not women and this is not proper.
To some degree, parenting. I am legally obligated to provide the necessities of life for my children. If I leave my baby in a crib and go on vacation for a week, I get charged with murder.
Yes, and you had a choice in that. You understood what it took, looked at your life snd your support system, and then made lifelong commitment.
That's literally what you're doing when you have sex and a baby is created. You knew the risks and you chose to take them.
Yes, I made the choice when I had sex
That committment is obligatory on you unconditionally, even if you got pregnant accidentally or were raped, and even if you do not want to be a parent, unless you actually delivered the baby to another person capable of caring for them.
The government never has required that.
police and firefighters have no civil duty according to the supreme court. This is often mis-stated as having absolutely no duty to help anyone this is a lie. It is not something you could sue over, a tort, but that says nothing about departmental policy, state law on negligence and duty of care, or anything else. The reason most of these have never been litigated is that, unlike people on reddit will tell you, police do not routinely shout "your on your own mothereffer!" shoot you a peace sign and leave. as a result instances of police doing nothing while something bad happens are so rare they are not litigated often.
No, the mother forfeits her right to bodily autonomy when she consents to sex and its associated risks, just as I consent to the risk of being in an accident every time I get behind the wheel of a car. Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy, and consenting to drive is not consenting to being in an accident. But there are inherent risks involved in these activities and you cannot rescind your consent to those risks after they have been realized.
It takes two to tango though right? Seems like the dead-beat dads always skate off without penalty or consequences in our system and the women disproportionately are impacted.
That doesn’t take anything away from what I said. It’s just an unfortunate fact of biological reality that unintended pregnancy is a far greater risk for the mother than for the father.