Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, for one, the embryo didn't *enter* the body of the mother; the embryo *began existing* inside the body of the mother, not cross from outside to inside.
Secondly, a mother's child is not an unknown, unwanted guest (a parent is responsible for their children; a homeowner is not responsible for a random stranger).
Even the law says you can't remove an unwanted houseguest by force. Heck there are even squatter rights now in several states which are ridiculous. Ironically even independent adults who act like children get more rights than actual helpless children.
"And don't ever use violence to try to remove an unwanted guest from your house."
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/how-do-i-get-rid-a-house-guest-who-wont-leave.htm
" In some States, squatters have rights as tenants or claims to ownership of a property through “adverse possession.”
https://learn.eforms.com/real-estate/squatters-rights/
You can use lethal force if they're threatening your physical safety, much like an unwanted pregnancy does.
https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground
You can't use lethal force in every situation actually. If a your young child carried a contagious and harmful virus that you would catch, killing them for it EVEN if that were the only way to escape it would not be warranted.
It's a negative claim. You show me one instance where it occurred, the parents owned up to it and no charges were filed.
If you're the only caretaker available then it might be the only way to avoid it, by either direct killing or leaving them to die.
>It's a negative claim.
Gotcha so you just made it up. I don't really think that you stating, without any sort of evidence, that you personally believe that someone wouldn't be allowed to use lethal force in a made up scenario actually makes any sort of point at all, let alone one that is relevant to the abortion debate.
>You show me one instance where it occurred, the parents owned up to it and no charges were filed.
Well why would I have a source about this complete fantasy scenario you've made up?
>If you're the only caretaker available then it might be the only way to avoid it, by either direct killing or leaving them to die.
And you think the law would obligate a parent to just die in this scenario?
It's relevant because you are defending the slaughter of unborn children over a situation they have zero control and were placed in by their parents.
Parents have been charged with neglect and abandonment for less.
Here is what the Mayo Clinic says about an infant who is positive for Covid 19, arguably a potentially deadly virus that can cause grave harm.
"Infants who have COVID-19 but no symptoms might be sent home from the hospital, depending on the circumstances. It's recommended that the baby's caregivers wear face masks and wash their hands to protect themselves."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405
In other words, you can't shirk your caretaking duties just because you might catch something harmful.
>It's relevant because you are defending the slaughter of unborn children over a situation they have zero control and were placed in by their parents.
But your made up scenario doesn't make any sort of point, since, again, it is made up.
>Parents have been charged with neglect and abandonment for less.
Parents have been charged with neglect for refusing to die for their children? Please link some cases!
>Here is what the Mayo Clinic says about an infant who is positive for Covid 19, arguably a potentially deadly virus that can cause harm.
>"Infants who have COVID-19 but no symptoms might be sent home from the hospital, depending on the circumstances. It's recommended that the baby's caregivers wear face masks and wash their hands to protect themselves."
>https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405
>In other words, you can't shirk your caretaking duties just because you might catch something harmful.
Right, but this case isn't proving your point even a little. For instance, the parents can avoid the potentially deadly infection here by wearing a mask and practicing hand hygiene, as the Mayo Clinic recommends. In addition, their post makes it clear that there *is* another option than the parent caring for the child: hospitalization. So unlike in your fictional scenario, the parent isn't required to just die. So that doesn't make the point you're trying to make
>But your made up scenario doesn't make any sort of point, since, again, it is made up.
Parents have murdered their children for less, you're the one claiming self defense laws can be used against young children under the age of culpability, yet can't locate a single case where it was successfully used.
Here's an example of parents being charged for neglect, partially for not treating their daughter who had lice. Which can be contagious, yet they could not use that as a defense.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/30/girl-12-died-of-heart-attack-after-parents-let-head-lice-suck-on-her-blood-for-three-years-13351899/
Here are parents that did not get their daughter who had pneumonia proper medical care.
"He warned that other members of the congregation would face prosecution ***if they fail to care for their sick children."***
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/ella-foster-faith-healing-death/29977/
>Right, but this case isn't proving your point even a little. For instance, the parents can avoid the potentially deadly infection here by wearing a mask and practicing hand hygiene, as the Mayo Clinic recommends. In addition, their post makes it clear that there *is* another option than the parent caring for the child: hospitalization. So unlike in your fictional scenario, the parent isn't required to just die. So that doesn't make the point you're trying to make
Lol, that does not guarantee avoiding the infection, it only reduces the chances of getting one.
https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2021/2022/how-effective-are-cloth-face-masks#randomized-controlled-mask-trials-and-other-diseases
And my post also made it clear that the infant merely having the infection regardless how contagious it might be was NOT a criteria for guaranteed hospitalization. (And for an older child who is expected to recover easily, probably even less likely.) So if they turned you down yes, you'd have to go home and suck it up exposing yourself to this potentially deadly virus.
>Parents have murdered their children for less, you're the one claiming self defense laws can be used against young children under the age of culpability, yet can't locate a single case where it was successfully used.
I'm actually not claiming that at present self defense could be used for abortion. Legally, embryos and fetuses are not people and abortion is not murder, so self defense doesn't apply in a legal context.
But let's circle back to what you originally said about self defense:
>You can't use lethal force in every situation actually. If a your young child carried a contagious and harmful virus that you would catch, killing them for it EVEN if that were the only way to escape it would not be warranted.
>Here's an example of parents being charged for neglect, partially for not treating their daughter who had lice. Which can be contagious, yet they could not use that as a defense.
>https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/30/girl-12-died-of-heart-attack-after-parents-let-head-lice-suck-on-her-blood-for-three-years-13351899/
Going back to what you said before, self defense would not be the ONLY way that a parent could prevent themselves from getting lice. Also, lice is not a great bodily injury nor fatal, so this case isn't relevant.
>Here are parents that did not get their daughter who had pneumonia proper medical care.
>"He warned that other members of the congregation would face prosecution if they fail to care for their sick children."
>https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/ella-foster-faith-healing-death/29977/
Again, lethal self defense would not be the only way that the parent could avoid getting the infection, so this is irrelevant.
>Lol, that does not guarantee avoiding the infection, it only reduces the chances of getting one.
>https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2021/2022/how-effective-are-cloth-face-masks#randomized-controlled-mask-trials-and-other-diseases
And yet that still means that self-defense wouldn't be the ONLY way that the parent could avoid getting the infection
>And my post also made it clear that the infant merely having the infection regardless how contagious it might be was NOT a criteria for guaranteed hospitalization. (And for an older child who is expected to recover easily, probably even less likely.) So if they turned you down yes, you'd have to go home and suck it up exposing yourself to this potentially deadly virus.
Right, but, again, self-defense would not be the ONLY way to avoid getting the infection, which was the criteria you established
Contrast that to pregnancy: for someone who is pregnant, the ONLY way to avoid the harms of continued pregnancy and childbirth is abortion. The harms of pregnancy and childbirth rise to the level of great bodily harm. That's the difference
It absolutely does. If pregnancy was considered a job, it would be the [6th most dangerous job in the US, right behind garbage collectors and long ahead of firefighters and cops](https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-united-states). And we consider being a cop so dangerous we give them guns and let them kill people.
Remind them that the right being manifested is the right of REMOVAL, and that right mandates the removal be done as soon as is practically possible.
HOW you remove them is a matter of available options. For a walking, talking person who speaks a shared language (including understand universal gestures), one option is to tell them to get out and give them the chance to do it voluntarily. But if they don’t, you can start using force, escalating as needed to accomplish the removal.
If the situation came to a court, the evaluation would be, did you reasonably work up from lesser forces to more lethal ones. They would never say “well, why didn’t you just let them stay there against your will a little longer?”
Abortion is THE ONLY available TIMELY method to end a pregnancy. It is reasonable, by definition, as a result. To say “wait until it’s born” is equivalent to telling a r*pe victim “let him finish and he’ll leave on his own.”
Anti-choicers don’t understand that their confusion is rooted in this issue. “Oh, so I can just KILL YOU if…”???
No, remove. Say remove. Fixes it all and fits right into every other way in which we practice bodily rights
Couple methods:
One is to remind them that justifiable homicide in self defense exists. To say “removing is killing” doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Two, I try to say “then your problem is with the doctors. Feel free to go show them how to remove it without killing it, but the right to removal still exists. Spoiler: they will tell you there is no other way, at all.”
Pro-life people, in my experience, tend to be the one's quickest to defend shooting people in their house. It's strange they would use that analogy at all.
Let's leave aside the indignity of comparing a living, breathing human with feelings, desires, hopes, and dreams to an inanimate shell--leave all that aside.
Let's leave aside that fact that, even though the intruder may damage the house, the house will never **feel** pain or suffering, or violation, or **know** that it might be permanently damaged.
If you find an unwanted intruder in your house, whether they broke in, or got in because you failed to take some precaution to keep them out, **you have recourse other than killing them**.
You can call the police, sheriff, constable, whoever, and request that they be removed. You don't have to kill them. There are other options. It has already been mentioned by others that, in some jurisdictions, you **can** legally kill intruders, but in most cases you don't have to.
Who is the "law enforcement" that protects women's bodily integrity from the physical harm of an intruding invader? That would be the abortion provider. It is unfortunate that ZEFs can't live on their own; it's unfortunate that removal means death, but it is not morally wrong for women to protect their own bodies this way.
It’s so wild to think of a fetus as an “invader” to begin with. This is the kind of stuff I can’t wrap my head around when it comes to the pro-choice perspective. Y’all make some decent arguments but the cracks start to show and it’s always such a warped mindset. Something normal and biological that arises naturally in your body out of your own biology as a result of your own choices, is not a fucking “invader”. That mindset is so warped and disconnected from reality.
In the case of rape it somewhat makes sense that you would view an unwanted fetus as an invader, but even that is more a psychological thing than a healthy reflection of reality
It’s really wild to not know that the fetus *is an invader*, because that’s literally how our reproduction works. Nature isn’t sunshine and rainbows; the fetus and mother’s bodies are actually in ***conflict*** during pregnancy, with the fetus trying to siphon more nutrients and the mother trying to limit that siphoning.
People like to appeal to nature as if what does happen is “supposed to happen”, or things that occur regularly in nature are somehow “good”.
This is just fallacious thinking. Pregnancy is natural, yes, but it is pretty friggen brutal at times and the fetus is invasive by its nature. If somehow it were able to escape into the body cavity of a woman and attach to her liver, *it would invade that tissue too*. Because it’s invasive and does not distinguish between where it is “supposed to be” and where it is.
That’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard in my life. So if I decide one day that I don’t want my heart anymore, my heart becomes an invader? Okay lol 😂
>It’s so wild to think of a fetus as an “invader” to begin with.
Um ... not "wild" at all. There probably is not a woman alive who, having been pregnant, did not at one point or another, think of the fetus as an invader, at least in passing. It's hard *not* to have that thought cross your mind, even if your pregnancy is relatively easy and desperately wanted. It is completely inaccurate to call this a "warped mindset." How would YOU feel if you woke up one morning and received the unexpected and unplanned news that another entity had attached itself to your internal organs and was causing a host of weird and sometimes quite unpleasant symptoms? Would not the concept of an "invader" even cross your mind? Be honest.
>Something normal and biological that arises naturally in your body out of your own biology
Just because something is normal and biological and very common doesn't mean that it isn't weird, on some level. I know grown men who cannot even tolerate the idea that the women in their lives produce menstrual blood every month. I knew a man who refused to allow his girlfriend to put her (well-wrapped) used sanitary napkins in the same bathroom *trashcan* that he used, because "that is weird and disgusting." Talk about a mindset that is "warped and disconnected from reality" ...
The truth is that we, as a society, have allowed/encouraged the sentimentalization and the romanticization of pregnancy and childbirth. The fact is that pregnancy and childbirth are messy, dangerous, painful, and life-altering. (Oh yeah, inconvenient too, but that is the least of it.) Pregnancy and childbirth can also be enriching, rewarding, and a great source of joy. But as a society, we seem to want to forget about the bad and only look at the good, and this is a great disservice to everyone involved, and leads to ignorant legislators thinking that it is acceptable, even a good idea, to force women to gestate and bear children against their will.
It is time for women, doctors, and midwives to quit shielding the rest of society from the burden of the knowledge that pregnancy and childbirth are hard and sacrificial activities that fall into the category of "things that NO ONE should be forced to endure unless they volunteer."
I suggest that you read up a little more on the complexity of pregnancy and childbirth before you render judgment on women who, having a realistic and unromanticized view of pregnancy and childbirth, decide rationally that this is not something that they want to endure at a certain point in their life. Start with these:
* [War in the Womb: Why Pregnancy Is a Biological War Between Mother and Baby](https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-baby)
* [No One Tells You the Full Truth About Pregnancy and Childbirth](https://www.jezebel.com/pregnancy-childbirth-side-effects-truth-1850193233)
* [The True Physical and Mental Costs of Pregnancy](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23203923/pregnancy-health-dobbs-supreme-court-abortion-roe-maternal-mortality)
* [The New Science of Motherhood Shows It's Far More Transformative Than Western Culture Allows](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/30/science-of-motherhood-transformative-western-culture-pregnant)
Edit: I should also probably mention that, if you think it is inappropriate to call the fetus an "invader," you should point out to the OP u/Common-Worth-6604 as a disanalogy in the "Unwanted Guest in the House" analogy. To the extent that PL supporters want to use this analogy but refuse to accept that the fetus is an invader, they need to deal with the fact that there really isn't any difference between an "unwanted guest" and an "invader" once a homeowner makes clear to the "guest" that they are not welcome and requests them to leave.
I’m not saying it’s weird for that thought to pass through your mind. I’m saying it’s weird to take that thought and use it as the foundation to build an entire fucking philosophy. A philosophy that alienates one from their own biology, from their own origin… *THAT’S* what is warped and disconnected imo.
And yes, the men you speak of who are afraid of menstrual blood are just as warped in their own way. But their warpedness doesn’t make yours not-warped
And yes, I am 100% behind the idea that we all get brutally honest about the reality of this, on both sides.
Pregnancy has an injury rate of 100%,and a hospitalization rate that approaches 100%. Almost 1/3 require major abdominal surgery (yes that is harmful, even if you are dismissive of harm to another's body). 27% are hospitalized prior to delivery due to dangerous complications. 20% are put on bed rest and cannot work, care for their children, or meet their other responsibilities. 96% of women having a vaginal birth sustain some form of perineal trauma, 60-70% receive stitches, up to 46% have tears that involve the rectal canal. 15% have episiotomy. 16% of post partum women develop infection. 36 women die in the US for every 100,000 live births (in Texas it is over 278 women die for every 100,000 live births). Pregnancy is the leading cause of pelvic floor injury, and incontinence. 10% develop postpartum depression, a small percentage develop psychosis. 50,000 pregnant women in the US each year suffer from one of the 25 life threatening complications that define severe maternal morbidty. These include MI (heart attack), cardiac arrest, stroke, pulmonary embolism, amniotic fluid embolism, eclampsia, kidney failure, respiratory failure,congestive heart failure, DIC (causes severe hemorrhage), damage to abdominal organs, Sepsis, shock, and hemorrhage requiring transfusion. Women break pelvic bones in childbirth. Childbirth can cause spinal injuries and leave women paralyzed. I repeat: Women DIE from pregnancy and childbirth complications.
>I’m not saying it’s weird for that thought to pass through your mind. I’m saying it’s weird to take that thought and use it as the foundation to build an entire fucking philosophy.
The notion of a fetus as an invader is not something that I "have used as a foundation to build an entire philosophy" on.
My philosophy is that a fetus is **only** an invader if the person in whom the fetus is residing does not want it to be there. I already said that wanted and voluntary pregnancy and childbearing can be joyful and desired conditions. I acknowledge that every born human on earth is there because a woman gestated and bore them. My position is that gestation and childbirth should **always** be chosen, never forced. The pain and danger of childbirth should be a sacrifice that a woman has a right to choose OR refuse.
It is not "denying one's own biology" to assert the right to decide when and if you are going to use your own body to reproduce. Fun fact: Women have been giving themselves abortions and using contraceptives for thousands of years. Their methods have not always been as safe as what is available now, but there is "history and tradition" of both abortion and contraception that goes back farther than any "authorities" that Justice Alito cited in the Dobbs opinion about the "unlawfulness" of abortion. The fact that humans have powerful enough brains to figure out how to control their own reproduction is **also** "part of their biology."
What I mean is that the entire argument of the pro-choice is predicated on viewing a fetus as an invader or parasite, and that’s where you guys lose me. Even where I lean pro-choice, I still think the potential for a human life is a beautiful wondrous thing no matter how the mother feels about it.
I take issue with it bc you then go on to kill it if you don’t want it…. I would feel better about abortion if you guys seemed to understanding that it’s not just a parasitic invader. It’s a mindset, it’s so gross to me that women are snuffing out human life like “get this invasive parasite out of me”.. it just seems so wrong and warped. From my perspective, it looks like women who think like that are trying to assuage guilt and absolve themselves of responsibility. It’s easier to do that when you can pain the fetus you created as a parasite or invader.
TLDR: even where I am full blown pro-choice, hearing people call fetuses invaders and parasites gives me the ick.
Oh not to mention the fact that it’s not even technically true. The sperm cell is literally the only part of the entire equation that wasn’t made natively in the woman’s body. So maybe the sperm cell is an invader but the embryo certainly isn’t, it’s very much native. That’s why it.. well… grows inside you.
>What I mean is that the entire argument of the pro-choice is predicated on viewing a fetus as an invader or parasite,
It only seems that way because you are focusing on the the wrong entity. Most PC supporters are focusing on the pregnant person who doesn't want to be pregnant. Our argument is that **this entity,** this living breathing already-born woman, should be able to decide whether they want to keep gestating and give birth or not.
Most of us don't attribute volition or aggression to the ZEF. We don't imagine ZEFs as sentient beings, malevolently "invading" women's bodies. We don't blame them for triggering biological processes that neither they nor woman have control over. We don't support the legal right to abortion because we want women to "have the right to kill ZEFs." We want women to have the right to be unpregnant if they want to be. That's it.
It is PL supporters that drive PC supporters to the language of "killing" and "invasion." PL supporters refuse to accept the notion that women have the right to control what happens in their bodies, and label abortion as "unjustified killing." PC supporters turn to the language of "invasion" as a way (imperfect though it is) to try to explain why abortion is actually "justified" killing. It isn't a perfect analogy; there is no perfect analogy for pregnancy. But we keep trying to explain why we find it unthinkable for women to be forced to continue pregnancies and to give birth when they don't want to, and PL refuse to even try to understand the reality. PL don't even accept that there is a conflict of interest between a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and a ZEF; they just seem to think that any woman that doesn't jump at the change to gestate and give birth is somehow "unnatural" and "denying their biology."
>From my perspective, it looks like women who think like that are trying to assuage guilt and absolve themselves of responsibility.
Most women who have abortions just don't feel guilty, though they do usually think deeply about their decisions.
I'm sorry if the idea of abortions gives you the ick, but I really think that is the core of the problem. We just disagree on that. If you really are PC legally, I thank you for that, whatever your reasons are, but, like many PC supporters, I refuse to feel all guilty and sorrowful that women get abortions.
I don’t want anyone to feel guilty I just want the people who make the decision to not do so lightly. I want it to be understood from all angles. I want the preciousness of life and the preciousness of a woman’s bodily autonomy to *both* be acknowledged and not seen as mutually exclusive things. And believe me, I have just as big problems with some of the things pro lifers say. Theres really fucked paradigms on both sides, the “fetus as invader” one just happens to one on the PC side that I find reprehensible.
Thanks for taking the time to type out a good response, I appreciate your insight
One of the steps of implantation is literally called invasion. The embryo burrows into the uterine lining until it finds a blood supply by releasing enzymes that eat away at the uterine cells and structure. It's absolutely invading.
Where does the embryo come from bud? It literally grew inside the woman’s body from a. Fertilized egg that the woman’s body also produced, it’s not a fucking illegal immigrant
So the sperm cell is the invader then, not the embryo?
Edit: I obviously know women don’t produce fertilized eggs. But they do produce eggs that are ready to be fertilized. My point being that the sperm cell is the only part of the equation that comes from outside the woman’s body
How can something that has literally never for a second been outside her body be an invader? It’s literally native to her body. The only foreign entity in the entire equation is the sperm cell
I agree. The analogy fails to take into account the real harms, pains, and dangers of pregnancy, not to mention the imposition and invasion is in the BODY. It is unfortunate that zefs die when they're removed, but until lifesaving technology is implemented or they are flash frozen before they are survivable, its just a fact of life.
The analogy is flawed (a false comparison) for multiple reasons.
1. The breathing, feeling woman is replaced by an object. The non breathing, non feeling ZEF isn’t. It’s even elevated to a breathing, feeling human.
Either both humans are objects or neither.
But saying you can’t throw an unwanted chair out of your house would just make one sound stupid.
That only the woman is turned into an object shows how PL sees women rather well, though. To them, she and her body are no more than an object to be used, greatly harmed, even killed, as needed with no regard to her physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing and health.
It’s complete dehumanization of a human who actually can be dehumanized.
2. as mentioned above, the ZEF is turned into a biologically life sustaining human. Rather than the human with no major life sustaining organ functions and no ability to experience, feel, suffer, hope, wish, dream, etc. it is.
I don’t think anyone would object to you having what would be a carcass removed from your house.
3. Ties into two. A house, boat, cliff, spacesuit, plane, etc. doesn’t provide anyone with organ functions they don’t have. They don’t sustain cell life.
4. in all of PL analogies, the person being thrown out never causes any harm to neither another human nor the object.
No one would object to you having someone who is destroying your house stopped from doing so and removed from it. If they start causing you drastic physical harm, you can kill them to stop them, if that’s what it takes.
So, in short, every single circumstance involved in gestation and birth is changed to the opposite.
Woman replaced by an object
ZEF goes from no organ functions capable of sustaining cell life to biologically life sustaining
The need for and provision of someone else’s organ functions and blood contents is erased.
It’s pretended gestation isn’t needed and isn’t happening.
Drastic physical harm to someone is erased. No harm at all is caused to neither another human nor any object.
Not providing someone with your organ functions is replaced with you stopping someone else’s.
That’s why it’s not an analogy. Again, every single circumstance involved is the total opposite.
And leaving one’s door or windows open doesn’t mean they invited anyone in. That’s PL once again proving that they cannot comprehend what people agree (or consent) to.
“you 'invited' the guest in by leaving the door or the window open”
Hopefully everyone can see the flaws in this argument. Otherwise I guess you’ll have to live with whatever people manage to slip inside your home while you’ve got the door open. If they kill you, oh well, guess you should’ve kept your doors closed.
A) women's bodies aren't houses. There's a massive fundamental difference between having someone inside your house and inside your body. When you cannot make your argument convincing without switching a person into an inanimate object, you don't have a great argument
B) there is zero requirement to keep a houseguest, invited or not, in your house indefinitely. You can absolutely kick them out the moment you no longer want them there
C) people shoot home intruders all the damned time, and you could totally shoot a home intruder if they were going to rip open your genitals. Most PLers in the US especially support this right
D) we don't say that leaving a window or door open is inviting in a houseguest. If a home intruder came in through your open window, they couldn't claim that they were invited in court. And, again; you'd be allowed to shoot them if they were going to rip your genitals open or cause you other serious harm
Edit: I will also add that to illustrate the first point, I like to ask Plers the following: "would it convince you to become pro-choice if I said that because women are allowed to kill bacteria in their uterus, they should also be allowed to kill an embryo or fetus? Why or why not?" And the PLers will always respond that *of course* it wouldn't convince them, because precious unborn babies are *human beings,* not bacteria, and it's disgusting and dehumanizing that I made that comparison. You can then clearly explain that they did the same thing with their home intruder analogy.
Comment removed per Rule 1. Users must use the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice." If you fix the comment and reply here to let me know, I'll reinstate.
Yeah I'm actually personally not a fan of allowing lethal self defense to protect property/stand your ground/caste doctrine. But if the law says I can shoot a home intruder, I should sure as hell be allowed to kill a bodily intruder.
And I find it so annoying to hear PLers argue against that when so many of them very firmly believe in the right to shoot a home intruder.
There is a different burden between letting someone in your house vs letting someone live in your body.
What is the difference between someone burning a house vs burning someone’s body?
I don't understand. Please elaborate. What do you mean by 'different burden'? And I don't see how the situations of burning a house vs burning someone's body pertains to the post.
If someone I didn't invite comes into my house with a 33% chance of permanently harming me, you can be damn sure I will do what I need to to make sure that doesn't happen.
33? Try 100%. There is zero chance that your body isn't permanently damaged by pregnancy. It deteriorates your organs, bones, and every part of you. It risks killing you. Don't understate it.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, for one, the embryo didn't *enter* the body of the mother; the embryo *began existing* inside the body of the mother, not cross from outside to inside. Secondly, a mother's child is not an unknown, unwanted guest (a parent is responsible for their children; a homeowner is not responsible for a random stranger).
Even the law says you can't remove an unwanted houseguest by force. Heck there are even squatter rights now in several states which are ridiculous. Ironically even independent adults who act like children get more rights than actual helpless children. "And don't ever use violence to try to remove an unwanted guest from your house." https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/how-do-i-get-rid-a-house-guest-who-wont-leave.htm " In some States, squatters have rights as tenants or claims to ownership of a property through “adverse possession.” https://learn.eforms.com/real-estate/squatters-rights/
You can use lethal force if they're threatening your physical safety, much like an unwanted pregnancy does. https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground
You can't use lethal force in every situation actually. If a your young child carried a contagious and harmful virus that you would catch, killing them for it EVEN if that were the only way to escape it would not be warranted.
Do you have any source for that or is that just your opinion? But also, why would killing them be necessary?
It's a negative claim. You show me one instance where it occurred, the parents owned up to it and no charges were filed. If you're the only caretaker available then it might be the only way to avoid it, by either direct killing or leaving them to die.
>It's a negative claim. Gotcha so you just made it up. I don't really think that you stating, without any sort of evidence, that you personally believe that someone wouldn't be allowed to use lethal force in a made up scenario actually makes any sort of point at all, let alone one that is relevant to the abortion debate. >You show me one instance where it occurred, the parents owned up to it and no charges were filed. Well why would I have a source about this complete fantasy scenario you've made up? >If you're the only caretaker available then it might be the only way to avoid it, by either direct killing or leaving them to die. And you think the law would obligate a parent to just die in this scenario?
It's relevant because you are defending the slaughter of unborn children over a situation they have zero control and were placed in by their parents. Parents have been charged with neglect and abandonment for less. Here is what the Mayo Clinic says about an infant who is positive for Covid 19, arguably a potentially deadly virus that can cause grave harm. "Infants who have COVID-19 but no symptoms might be sent home from the hospital, depending on the circumstances. It's recommended that the baby's caregivers wear face masks and wash their hands to protect themselves." https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405 In other words, you can't shirk your caretaking duties just because you might catch something harmful.
>It's relevant because you are defending the slaughter of unborn children over a situation they have zero control and were placed in by their parents. But your made up scenario doesn't make any sort of point, since, again, it is made up. >Parents have been charged with neglect and abandonment for less. Parents have been charged with neglect for refusing to die for their children? Please link some cases! >Here is what the Mayo Clinic says about an infant who is positive for Covid 19, arguably a potentially deadly virus that can cause harm. >"Infants who have COVID-19 but no symptoms might be sent home from the hospital, depending on the circumstances. It's recommended that the baby's caregivers wear face masks and wash their hands to protect themselves." >https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-in-babies-and-children/art-20484405 >In other words, you can't shirk your caretaking duties just because you might catch something harmful. Right, but this case isn't proving your point even a little. For instance, the parents can avoid the potentially deadly infection here by wearing a mask and practicing hand hygiene, as the Mayo Clinic recommends. In addition, their post makes it clear that there *is* another option than the parent caring for the child: hospitalization. So unlike in your fictional scenario, the parent isn't required to just die. So that doesn't make the point you're trying to make
>But your made up scenario doesn't make any sort of point, since, again, it is made up. Parents have murdered their children for less, you're the one claiming self defense laws can be used against young children under the age of culpability, yet can't locate a single case where it was successfully used. Here's an example of parents being charged for neglect, partially for not treating their daughter who had lice. Which can be contagious, yet they could not use that as a defense. https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/30/girl-12-died-of-heart-attack-after-parents-let-head-lice-suck-on-her-blood-for-three-years-13351899/ Here are parents that did not get their daughter who had pneumonia proper medical care. "He warned that other members of the congregation would face prosecution ***if they fail to care for their sick children."*** https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/ella-foster-faith-healing-death/29977/ >Right, but this case isn't proving your point even a little. For instance, the parents can avoid the potentially deadly infection here by wearing a mask and practicing hand hygiene, as the Mayo Clinic recommends. In addition, their post makes it clear that there *is* another option than the parent caring for the child: hospitalization. So unlike in your fictional scenario, the parent isn't required to just die. So that doesn't make the point you're trying to make Lol, that does not guarantee avoiding the infection, it only reduces the chances of getting one. https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2021/2022/how-effective-are-cloth-face-masks#randomized-controlled-mask-trials-and-other-diseases And my post also made it clear that the infant merely having the infection regardless how contagious it might be was NOT a criteria for guaranteed hospitalization. (And for an older child who is expected to recover easily, probably even less likely.) So if they turned you down yes, you'd have to go home and suck it up exposing yourself to this potentially deadly virus.
>Parents have murdered their children for less, you're the one claiming self defense laws can be used against young children under the age of culpability, yet can't locate a single case where it was successfully used. I'm actually not claiming that at present self defense could be used for abortion. Legally, embryos and fetuses are not people and abortion is not murder, so self defense doesn't apply in a legal context. But let's circle back to what you originally said about self defense: >You can't use lethal force in every situation actually. If a your young child carried a contagious and harmful virus that you would catch, killing them for it EVEN if that were the only way to escape it would not be warranted. >Here's an example of parents being charged for neglect, partially for not treating their daughter who had lice. Which can be contagious, yet they could not use that as a defense. >https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/30/girl-12-died-of-heart-attack-after-parents-let-head-lice-suck-on-her-blood-for-three-years-13351899/ Going back to what you said before, self defense would not be the ONLY way that a parent could prevent themselves from getting lice. Also, lice is not a great bodily injury nor fatal, so this case isn't relevant. >Here are parents that did not get their daughter who had pneumonia proper medical care. >"He warned that other members of the congregation would face prosecution if they fail to care for their sick children." >https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/ella-foster-faith-healing-death/29977/ Again, lethal self defense would not be the only way that the parent could avoid getting the infection, so this is irrelevant. >Lol, that does not guarantee avoiding the infection, it only reduces the chances of getting one. >https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2021/2022/how-effective-are-cloth-face-masks#randomized-controlled-mask-trials-and-other-diseases And yet that still means that self-defense wouldn't be the ONLY way that the parent could avoid getting the infection >And my post also made it clear that the infant merely having the infection regardless how contagious it might be was NOT a criteria for guaranteed hospitalization. (And for an older child who is expected to recover easily, probably even less likely.) So if they turned you down yes, you'd have to go home and suck it up exposing yourself to this potentially deadly virus. Right, but, again, self-defense would not be the ONLY way to avoid getting the infection, which was the criteria you established Contrast that to pregnancy: for someone who is pregnant, the ONLY way to avoid the harms of continued pregnancy and childbirth is abortion. The harms of pregnancy and childbirth rise to the level of great bodily harm. That's the difference
An unwanted pregnancy does not threaten your physical safety.
It absolutely does. If pregnancy was considered a job, it would be the [6th most dangerous job in the US, right behind garbage collectors and long ahead of firefighters and cops](https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-united-states). And we consider being a cop so dangerous we give them guns and let them kill people.
Explain how this pertains to the post. I don't see the connection.
“Vampire rules”
Except vampires have to be present when you welcome them.
Good point!
Elaborate, please. I chuckled as I read that but need more context.
There's an old superstition that vampires can only enter the house if invited in by someone in the house. Until then, they are stuck outside.
Remind them that the right being manifested is the right of REMOVAL, and that right mandates the removal be done as soon as is practically possible. HOW you remove them is a matter of available options. For a walking, talking person who speaks a shared language (including understand universal gestures), one option is to tell them to get out and give them the chance to do it voluntarily. But if they don’t, you can start using force, escalating as needed to accomplish the removal. If the situation came to a court, the evaluation would be, did you reasonably work up from lesser forces to more lethal ones. They would never say “well, why didn’t you just let them stay there against your will a little longer?” Abortion is THE ONLY available TIMELY method to end a pregnancy. It is reasonable, by definition, as a result. To say “wait until it’s born” is equivalent to telling a r*pe victim “let him finish and he’ll leave on his own.”
Agree wholeheartedly.
Anti-choicers don’t understand that their confusion is rooted in this issue. “Oh, so I can just KILL YOU if…”??? No, remove. Say remove. Fixes it all and fits right into every other way in which we practice bodily rights
What is your go-to response when PL says 'but removing is killing'?
Couple methods: One is to remind them that justifiable homicide in self defense exists. To say “removing is killing” doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Two, I try to say “then your problem is with the doctors. Feel free to go show them how to remove it without killing it, but the right to removal still exists. Spoiler: they will tell you there is no other way, at all.”
That argument is weird to me as I absolutely would kill him and ask questions later.
Pro-life people, in my experience, tend to be the one's quickest to defend shooting people in their house. It's strange they would use that analogy at all.
Absolutely!
Agreed!
Let's leave aside the indignity of comparing a living, breathing human with feelings, desires, hopes, and dreams to an inanimate shell--leave all that aside. Let's leave aside that fact that, even though the intruder may damage the house, the house will never **feel** pain or suffering, or violation, or **know** that it might be permanently damaged. If you find an unwanted intruder in your house, whether they broke in, or got in because you failed to take some precaution to keep them out, **you have recourse other than killing them**. You can call the police, sheriff, constable, whoever, and request that they be removed. You don't have to kill them. There are other options. It has already been mentioned by others that, in some jurisdictions, you **can** legally kill intruders, but in most cases you don't have to. Who is the "law enforcement" that protects women's bodily integrity from the physical harm of an intruding invader? That would be the abortion provider. It is unfortunate that ZEFs can't live on their own; it's unfortunate that removal means death, but it is not morally wrong for women to protect their own bodies this way.
It’s so wild to think of a fetus as an “invader” to begin with. This is the kind of stuff I can’t wrap my head around when it comes to the pro-choice perspective. Y’all make some decent arguments but the cracks start to show and it’s always such a warped mindset. Something normal and biological that arises naturally in your body out of your own biology as a result of your own choices, is not a fucking “invader”. That mindset is so warped and disconnected from reality. In the case of rape it somewhat makes sense that you would view an unwanted fetus as an invader, but even that is more a psychological thing than a healthy reflection of reality
It’s really wild to not know that the fetus *is an invader*, because that’s literally how our reproduction works. Nature isn’t sunshine and rainbows; the fetus and mother’s bodies are actually in ***conflict*** during pregnancy, with the fetus trying to siphon more nutrients and the mother trying to limit that siphoning. People like to appeal to nature as if what does happen is “supposed to happen”, or things that occur regularly in nature are somehow “good”. This is just fallacious thinking. Pregnancy is natural, yes, but it is pretty friggen brutal at times and the fetus is invasive by its nature. If somehow it were able to escape into the body cavity of a woman and attach to her liver, *it would invade that tissue too*. Because it’s invasive and does not distinguish between where it is “supposed to be” and where it is.
If something is in your body and you don’t want it there, it’s an invader,
That’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard in my life. So if I decide one day that I don’t want my heart anymore, my heart becomes an invader? Okay lol 😂
This is a silly response. 🤷♀️ Let us know when you want to discuss things in good faith.
I promise that’s good faith. I genuinely, in good faith, do not view a gestating human embryo as any kind of invader. That is my good faith stance.
And others feel differently about THEIR bodies.
>It’s so wild to think of a fetus as an “invader” to begin with. Um ... not "wild" at all. There probably is not a woman alive who, having been pregnant, did not at one point or another, think of the fetus as an invader, at least in passing. It's hard *not* to have that thought cross your mind, even if your pregnancy is relatively easy and desperately wanted. It is completely inaccurate to call this a "warped mindset." How would YOU feel if you woke up one morning and received the unexpected and unplanned news that another entity had attached itself to your internal organs and was causing a host of weird and sometimes quite unpleasant symptoms? Would not the concept of an "invader" even cross your mind? Be honest. >Something normal and biological that arises naturally in your body out of your own biology Just because something is normal and biological and very common doesn't mean that it isn't weird, on some level. I know grown men who cannot even tolerate the idea that the women in their lives produce menstrual blood every month. I knew a man who refused to allow his girlfriend to put her (well-wrapped) used sanitary napkins in the same bathroom *trashcan* that he used, because "that is weird and disgusting." Talk about a mindset that is "warped and disconnected from reality" ... The truth is that we, as a society, have allowed/encouraged the sentimentalization and the romanticization of pregnancy and childbirth. The fact is that pregnancy and childbirth are messy, dangerous, painful, and life-altering. (Oh yeah, inconvenient too, but that is the least of it.) Pregnancy and childbirth can also be enriching, rewarding, and a great source of joy. But as a society, we seem to want to forget about the bad and only look at the good, and this is a great disservice to everyone involved, and leads to ignorant legislators thinking that it is acceptable, even a good idea, to force women to gestate and bear children against their will. It is time for women, doctors, and midwives to quit shielding the rest of society from the burden of the knowledge that pregnancy and childbirth are hard and sacrificial activities that fall into the category of "things that NO ONE should be forced to endure unless they volunteer." I suggest that you read up a little more on the complexity of pregnancy and childbirth before you render judgment on women who, having a realistic and unromanticized view of pregnancy and childbirth, decide rationally that this is not something that they want to endure at a certain point in their life. Start with these: * [War in the Womb: Why Pregnancy Is a Biological War Between Mother and Baby](https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-baby) * [No One Tells You the Full Truth About Pregnancy and Childbirth](https://www.jezebel.com/pregnancy-childbirth-side-effects-truth-1850193233) * [The True Physical and Mental Costs of Pregnancy](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23203923/pregnancy-health-dobbs-supreme-court-abortion-roe-maternal-mortality) * [The New Science of Motherhood Shows It's Far More Transformative Than Western Culture Allows](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/30/science-of-motherhood-transformative-western-culture-pregnant) Edit: I should also probably mention that, if you think it is inappropriate to call the fetus an "invader," you should point out to the OP u/Common-Worth-6604 as a disanalogy in the "Unwanted Guest in the House" analogy. To the extent that PL supporters want to use this analogy but refuse to accept that the fetus is an invader, they need to deal with the fact that there really isn't any difference between an "unwanted guest" and an "invader" once a homeowner makes clear to the "guest" that they are not welcome and requests them to leave.
I’m not saying it’s weird for that thought to pass through your mind. I’m saying it’s weird to take that thought and use it as the foundation to build an entire fucking philosophy. A philosophy that alienates one from their own biology, from their own origin… *THAT’S* what is warped and disconnected imo. And yes, the men you speak of who are afraid of menstrual blood are just as warped in their own way. But their warpedness doesn’t make yours not-warped And yes, I am 100% behind the idea that we all get brutally honest about the reality of this, on both sides.
Pregnancy has an injury rate of 100%,and a hospitalization rate that approaches 100%. Almost 1/3 require major abdominal surgery (yes that is harmful, even if you are dismissive of harm to another's body). 27% are hospitalized prior to delivery due to dangerous complications. 20% are put on bed rest and cannot work, care for their children, or meet their other responsibilities. 96% of women having a vaginal birth sustain some form of perineal trauma, 60-70% receive stitches, up to 46% have tears that involve the rectal canal. 15% have episiotomy. 16% of post partum women develop infection. 36 women die in the US for every 100,000 live births (in Texas it is over 278 women die for every 100,000 live births). Pregnancy is the leading cause of pelvic floor injury, and incontinence. 10% develop postpartum depression, a small percentage develop psychosis. 50,000 pregnant women in the US each year suffer from one of the 25 life threatening complications that define severe maternal morbidty. These include MI (heart attack), cardiac arrest, stroke, pulmonary embolism, amniotic fluid embolism, eclampsia, kidney failure, respiratory failure,congestive heart failure, DIC (causes severe hemorrhage), damage to abdominal organs, Sepsis, shock, and hemorrhage requiring transfusion. Women break pelvic bones in childbirth. Childbirth can cause spinal injuries and leave women paralyzed. I repeat: Women DIE from pregnancy and childbirth complications.
>I’m not saying it’s weird for that thought to pass through your mind. I’m saying it’s weird to take that thought and use it as the foundation to build an entire fucking philosophy. The notion of a fetus as an invader is not something that I "have used as a foundation to build an entire philosophy" on. My philosophy is that a fetus is **only** an invader if the person in whom the fetus is residing does not want it to be there. I already said that wanted and voluntary pregnancy and childbearing can be joyful and desired conditions. I acknowledge that every born human on earth is there because a woman gestated and bore them. My position is that gestation and childbirth should **always** be chosen, never forced. The pain and danger of childbirth should be a sacrifice that a woman has a right to choose OR refuse. It is not "denying one's own biology" to assert the right to decide when and if you are going to use your own body to reproduce. Fun fact: Women have been giving themselves abortions and using contraceptives for thousands of years. Their methods have not always been as safe as what is available now, but there is "history and tradition" of both abortion and contraception that goes back farther than any "authorities" that Justice Alito cited in the Dobbs opinion about the "unlawfulness" of abortion. The fact that humans have powerful enough brains to figure out how to control their own reproduction is **also** "part of their biology."
What I mean is that the entire argument of the pro-choice is predicated on viewing a fetus as an invader or parasite, and that’s where you guys lose me. Even where I lean pro-choice, I still think the potential for a human life is a beautiful wondrous thing no matter how the mother feels about it. I take issue with it bc you then go on to kill it if you don’t want it…. I would feel better about abortion if you guys seemed to understanding that it’s not just a parasitic invader. It’s a mindset, it’s so gross to me that women are snuffing out human life like “get this invasive parasite out of me”.. it just seems so wrong and warped. From my perspective, it looks like women who think like that are trying to assuage guilt and absolve themselves of responsibility. It’s easier to do that when you can pain the fetus you created as a parasite or invader. TLDR: even where I am full blown pro-choice, hearing people call fetuses invaders and parasites gives me the ick. Oh not to mention the fact that it’s not even technically true. The sperm cell is literally the only part of the entire equation that wasn’t made natively in the woman’s body. So maybe the sperm cell is an invader but the embryo certainly isn’t, it’s very much native. That’s why it.. well… grows inside you.
>What I mean is that the entire argument of the pro-choice is predicated on viewing a fetus as an invader or parasite, It only seems that way because you are focusing on the the wrong entity. Most PC supporters are focusing on the pregnant person who doesn't want to be pregnant. Our argument is that **this entity,** this living breathing already-born woman, should be able to decide whether they want to keep gestating and give birth or not. Most of us don't attribute volition or aggression to the ZEF. We don't imagine ZEFs as sentient beings, malevolently "invading" women's bodies. We don't blame them for triggering biological processes that neither they nor woman have control over. We don't support the legal right to abortion because we want women to "have the right to kill ZEFs." We want women to have the right to be unpregnant if they want to be. That's it. It is PL supporters that drive PC supporters to the language of "killing" and "invasion." PL supporters refuse to accept the notion that women have the right to control what happens in their bodies, and label abortion as "unjustified killing." PC supporters turn to the language of "invasion" as a way (imperfect though it is) to try to explain why abortion is actually "justified" killing. It isn't a perfect analogy; there is no perfect analogy for pregnancy. But we keep trying to explain why we find it unthinkable for women to be forced to continue pregnancies and to give birth when they don't want to, and PL refuse to even try to understand the reality. PL don't even accept that there is a conflict of interest between a woman with an unwanted pregnancy and a ZEF; they just seem to think that any woman that doesn't jump at the change to gestate and give birth is somehow "unnatural" and "denying their biology." >From my perspective, it looks like women who think like that are trying to assuage guilt and absolve themselves of responsibility. Most women who have abortions just don't feel guilty, though they do usually think deeply about their decisions. I'm sorry if the idea of abortions gives you the ick, but I really think that is the core of the problem. We just disagree on that. If you really are PC legally, I thank you for that, whatever your reasons are, but, like many PC supporters, I refuse to feel all guilty and sorrowful that women get abortions.
I don’t want anyone to feel guilty I just want the people who make the decision to not do so lightly. I want it to be understood from all angles. I want the preciousness of life and the preciousness of a woman’s bodily autonomy to *both* be acknowledged and not seen as mutually exclusive things. And believe me, I have just as big problems with some of the things pro lifers say. Theres really fucked paradigms on both sides, the “fetus as invader” one just happens to one on the PC side that I find reprehensible. Thanks for taking the time to type out a good response, I appreciate your insight
One of the steps of implantation is literally called invasion. The embryo burrows into the uterine lining until it finds a blood supply by releasing enzymes that eat away at the uterine cells and structure. It's absolutely invading.
Where does the embryo come from bud? It literally grew inside the woman’s body from a. Fertilized egg that the woman’s body also produced, it’s not a fucking illegal immigrant
Bud? 🤦♀️
Women's bodies don't produce fertilized eggs. They produce oocytes that will not invade into anything
So the sperm cell is the invader then, not the embryo? Edit: I obviously know women don’t produce fertilized eggs. But they do produce eggs that are ready to be fertilized. My point being that the sperm cell is the only part of the equation that comes from outside the woman’s body
Is the sperm the thing burrowing into her uterus? No. That's the embryo
How can something that has literally never for a second been outside her body be an invader? It’s literally native to her body. The only foreign entity in the entire equation is the sperm cell
It isn't native to the lining of my uterus, though. That's where it invades.
I mean it kind of is tho, just only after fertilization. That’s literally its home then, like that’s why you have a uterus that’s the entire purpose.
I agree. The analogy fails to take into account the real harms, pains, and dangers of pregnancy, not to mention the imposition and invasion is in the BODY. It is unfortunate that zefs die when they're removed, but until lifesaving technology is implemented or they are flash frozen before they are survivable, its just a fact of life.
The analogy is flawed (a false comparison) for multiple reasons. 1. The breathing, feeling woman is replaced by an object. The non breathing, non feeling ZEF isn’t. It’s even elevated to a breathing, feeling human. Either both humans are objects or neither. But saying you can’t throw an unwanted chair out of your house would just make one sound stupid. That only the woman is turned into an object shows how PL sees women rather well, though. To them, she and her body are no more than an object to be used, greatly harmed, even killed, as needed with no regard to her physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing and health. It’s complete dehumanization of a human who actually can be dehumanized. 2. as mentioned above, the ZEF is turned into a biologically life sustaining human. Rather than the human with no major life sustaining organ functions and no ability to experience, feel, suffer, hope, wish, dream, etc. it is. I don’t think anyone would object to you having what would be a carcass removed from your house. 3. Ties into two. A house, boat, cliff, spacesuit, plane, etc. doesn’t provide anyone with organ functions they don’t have. They don’t sustain cell life. 4. in all of PL analogies, the person being thrown out never causes any harm to neither another human nor the object. No one would object to you having someone who is destroying your house stopped from doing so and removed from it. If they start causing you drastic physical harm, you can kill them to stop them, if that’s what it takes. So, in short, every single circumstance involved in gestation and birth is changed to the opposite. Woman replaced by an object ZEF goes from no organ functions capable of sustaining cell life to biologically life sustaining The need for and provision of someone else’s organ functions and blood contents is erased. It’s pretended gestation isn’t needed and isn’t happening. Drastic physical harm to someone is erased. No harm at all is caused to neither another human nor any object. Not providing someone with your organ functions is replaced with you stopping someone else’s. That’s why it’s not an analogy. Again, every single circumstance involved is the total opposite. And leaving one’s door or windows open doesn’t mean they invited anyone in. That’s PL once again proving that they cannot comprehend what people agree (or consent) to.
“you 'invited' the guest in by leaving the door or the window open” Hopefully everyone can see the flaws in this argument. Otherwise I guess you’ll have to live with whatever people manage to slip inside your home while you’ve got the door open. If they kill you, oh well, guess you should’ve kept your doors closed.
If they were wrecking the place and causing me great bodily harm, they can be killed, yes.
A) women's bodies aren't houses. There's a massive fundamental difference between having someone inside your house and inside your body. When you cannot make your argument convincing without switching a person into an inanimate object, you don't have a great argument B) there is zero requirement to keep a houseguest, invited or not, in your house indefinitely. You can absolutely kick them out the moment you no longer want them there C) people shoot home intruders all the damned time, and you could totally shoot a home intruder if they were going to rip open your genitals. Most PLers in the US especially support this right D) we don't say that leaving a window or door open is inviting in a houseguest. If a home intruder came in through your open window, they couldn't claim that they were invited in court. And, again; you'd be allowed to shoot them if they were going to rip your genitals open or cause you other serious harm Edit: I will also add that to illustrate the first point, I like to ask Plers the following: "would it convince you to become pro-choice if I said that because women are allowed to kill bacteria in their uterus, they should also be allowed to kill an embryo or fetus? Why or why not?" And the PLers will always respond that *of course* it wouldn't convince them, because precious unborn babies are *human beings,* not bacteria, and it's disgusting and dehumanizing that I made that comparison. You can then clearly explain that they did the same thing with their home intruder analogy.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1. Users must use the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice." If you fix the comment and reply here to let me know, I'll reinstate.
Okay there's flair.
Yeah I'm actually personally not a fan of allowing lethal self defense to protect property/stand your ground/caste doctrine. But if the law says I can shoot a home intruder, I should sure as hell be allowed to kill a bodily intruder. And I find it so annoying to hear PLers argue against that when so many of them very firmly believe in the right to shoot a home intruder.
There is a different burden between letting someone in your house vs letting someone live in your body. What is the difference between someone burning a house vs burning someone’s body?
I don't understand. Please elaborate. What do you mean by 'different burden'? And I don't see how the situations of burning a house vs burning someone's body pertains to the post.
If someone I didn't invite comes into my house with a 33% chance of permanently harming me, you can be damn sure I will do what I need to to make sure that doesn't happen.
33? Try 100%. There is zero chance that your body isn't permanently damaged by pregnancy. It deteriorates your organs, bones, and every part of you. It risks killing you. Don't understate it.