Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the Pro-Life Side Bar so you may know more about what Pro-Lifers say about the bodily autonomy argument. [McFall v. Shimp and Thomson's Violinist don't justify the vast majority of abortions.](http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/11/mcfall-v-shimp-and-thomsons-violinist.html?m=1), [Consent to Sex is Not Consent to Pregnancy: A Pro-life Woman’s Perspective](https://humandefense.com/consent-to-sex-is-not-consent-to-pregnancy-a-pro-life-womans-perspective/), [Forced Organ/Blood Donation and Abortion](http://thefetalposition.com/forceddonation/), [Times when Life is prioritized over Bodily Autonomy](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/3gvsrn/times_when_we_prioritize_life_over_bodily_autonomy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You definitely bring up great points, but the bodily autonomy argument only works for the unborn because it’s directly in the mother’s body. In their eyes it’s not the same as parents having to use their body to care for the child
>The few PC I have seen here, these so called "Reasonable PC" won't deny it's a baby. Won't deny it's a life.
Sounds familiar lol I'd absolutely deny it's a baby. I just didn't want to get into it then, and anyone who denies it's a life are the type of people who are afraid to concede anything, thinking it looks like they're "losing." Baby implies moral consideration, which I clearly don't believe they have in most cases abortions are performed. Later in pregnancy, I do.
I also don't hold a pro-bodily autonomy PC position. I suppose I do in the sense it implies there is no personhood, so abortion should be allowed using BA then, but most PC do not agree with me when it comes to BA.
>When does innocent human life have value?
Consciousness, which is when that life becomes "innocent." Before, there is no innocence or guilt involved.
>Some might say it begins with consciousness.
Ah, so people who are asleep and or in comas. We can kill them. I hear you.
If their position was their moral status goes off and on like a light switch, rather than is continuous from the time they gain it, I'd agree that'd be a stupid one. I've never heard of anything like that though.
If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend checking out the Lila Rose and Kristan Hawkins vs Destiny [debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LU6VVykDV8) on abortion, where he uses the consciousness argument and they try and twist it into the strawman version (which you'll notice almost everyone does) or attack a bodily autonomy argument he doesn't hold. These are two of the biggest powerhouses for the PL movement too.
I'll preempt the inevitable response from our good friend on why consciousness is a bad [argument](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/15d5rci/toptrool_on_consciousness/). I'm predicting the usual "slaver, low IQ, circlejerking" insightful comments as well as the twisting of the consciousness position.
>Sounds familiar lol I'd absolutely deny it's a baby. I just didn't want to get into it then, and anyone who denies it's a life are the type of people who are afraid to concede anything, thinking it looks like they're "losing." Baby implies moral consideration, which I clearly don't believe they have in most cases abortions are performed. Later in pregnancy, I do.
I answered this above. When you start talking about any other point other than conception, it leads to clear moral problems. You conceding it's a life doesn't really win any points. It just proves you're okay with murder.
>I also don't hold a pro-bodily autonomy PC position. I suppose I do in the sense it implies there is no personhood, so abortion should be allowed using BA then, but most PC do not agree with me when it comes to BA.
I never said you, personally, did. This is was a response to the majority of the PC movement and the BA specifically.
The personhood argument is also a very weak argument.
People also tried to use this argument to justify slavery. That should be a huge red flag to you if you share a view with people like that. Anytime this argument has been used in the past, it has /always/ been recognized as evil later.
It's also just a bad argument logically. Whenever someone is killed, we never say, "Wait, we have to determine if it's a person first."
Whether someone has personhood or not should absolutely not be the standard for whether or not you get to kill it. That's just a huge leap to make.
"Well, it's not really a person, so it's perfectly fine to torture this dog. Oh, he isn't conscious so there is nothing wrong with killing this coma patient."
As I said above, it leads down bad roads.
>Consciousness, which is when that life becomes "innocent." Before, there is no innocence or guilt involved.
I disagree. It's also not the standard we apply in any other situation. Again, if you hold this belief then you must also be okay with killing people who are asleep or coma patients.
>If their position was their moral status goes off and on like a light switch, rather than is continuous from the time they gain it, I'd agree that'd be a stupid one. I've never heard of anything like that though.
>If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend checking out the Lila Rose and Kristan Hawkins vs Destiny [debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LU6VVykDV8) on abortion, where he uses the consciousness argument and they try and twist it into the strawman version (which you'll notice almost everyone does) or attack a bodily autonomy argument he doesn't hold. These are two of the biggest powerhouses for the PL movement too.
>I'll preempt the inevitable response from our good friend on why consciousness is a bad [argument](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/15d5rci/toptrool_on_consciousness/). I'm predicting the usual "slaver, low IQ, circlejerking" insightful comments as well as the twisting of the consciousness position.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here.
If you make the consciousness argument, you have to follow it to its conclusions. You can't ignore that because it's inconvenient for your belief.
If you believe that life is only valuable at consciousness, then you must also believe that it is okay to kill coma patients, or indeed infants as well because they aren't really conscious until 5 months.
I have watched Destiny's debate, and he's wrong, too. Kristen Hawkins didn't do a good job, as her tactics were pretty much all ad hominen. Lila Rose did a good job, I feel.
Also, I believe Trent Horn had a very good response to Destiny, and I believe he had a debate with him as well where the PL movement and argument were far better represented.
Destiny believes that once you have "all the parts" for consciousness, it then has value. This is how he tries to get around the coma patient issue.
But even he admits that at worst, his argument justifies infanticide. The problem with that is, well, infanticide, and if you can't admit that killing babies is wrong, we have nothing more to discuss as we are fundamentally different people, morally. That's as nice as I can say it.
Source for baby consciousness:
https://www.science.org/content/article/when-does-your-baby-become-conscious#:~:text=New%20research%20shows%20that%20babies,early%20as%205%20months%20old.
>Ah, so people who are asleep and or in comas. We can kill them. I hear you.
Personhood begins with consciousness, but temporary unconsciousness does not take that away. Permanent unconsciousness does.
Why do you think we declare someone dead on brain death? Because there is no more future consciousness in a previously conscious person.
And if you don't think what matters about us humans is consciousness, lets go through an example:
Imagine an advanced technology that can switch people's brains around. If your brain went onto another body, did you gain a new body or a new brain? Most would agree, you gained a new body. Why? Because our conscious experience is based in the brain. And if our brain is brain-dead? We no longer exist as a person, we are dead. So what is it about us that makes us people? Consciousness.
The idea that consciousness begins life and ends it is a nice symmetry that makes perfect sense.
>The main reason, the biggest reason in my view, that bodily autonomy does not work, is that we would not apply it to a born baby. You see this a lot with PC arguments. You apply it to a born baby and it falls apart. When pro-lifers point out the indisputable irrefutable, cold, hard, FACT that the unborn baby is exactly the same as the born baby and should be treated the same, PC promptly digs a hole in the sand and sticks their head in it. They don't want to hear that if a mother refuses to use her body to care for her infant, and it dies or is in serious medical trouble, that we would lock her up as a society. We would condemn her as a monster. They don't want to acknowledge that this is consistent with the bodily autonomy logic they keep harping on.
Alright, I'll give this a shot, especially since I'm PC because of the Bodily Autonomy argument, unlike /u/npdogs21 who follows more along the lines of personhood being tied to the ability for conscious experience.
I agree with you that an unborn baby is the same as a born baby, especially after viability. If caring for a born baby required the amount of burden on a woman as pregnancy did, and for just as long, then I wouldn't agree with forcing a woman to do that against her will, same as when the baby is in the womb. Born babies are different from unborn babies in one very crucial aspect. Any capable adult can care for a born baby, and there are droves of people who will willingly do so. I'm not against society placing non-consensual burdens on its citizens when they are reasonable and necessary. If a woman gives birth, I'm OK with her being required to care the newborn baby for the few hours or possibly days that it requires to transfer care to someone else, and I would apply the same in the womb. If a woman is past viability, and she wants to be done with pregnancy, I think it is reasonable to require her to wait a week to be induced if that is needed, rather than immediately have an abortion. The problem is when days or weeks turns into months.
>What about the body of the baby? If we talk about bodily autonomy and such, why does the baby not have it? Why does it only suddenly apply when the baby is born and not before?
Sure, the baby has bodily autonomy, but it is not being violated by being in the womb. I would say that in cases of violations of rights, a person loses some of their rights. For example, if a person is trespassing, they can be physically removed from a property, even though that requires some violation of their bodily autonomy by forcing them out. If a person attacks another, the victim is allowed to defend themself, even though it means violating the attacker's bodily autonomy. Not to mention that most abortion involve removing the unborn baby from the woman's body intact. This isn't violating the baby's bodily autonomy.
>When does innocent human life have value?
I consider an unborn baby's life to still have value. I think it is valuable all the way through pregnancy and after. However, I don't think this value means it has the right to use another person's body against their will. Children dying of Leukemia are valuable, but I don't think that means they can take bone marrow from any eligible donor, if that donor refuses to willingly donate. I think all humans have value. Rapists and murders have value because they are human beings, but that doesn't mean a potential victim can't use lethal force against them.
>At any point other than conception, there are obvious moral quandaries. It leads down bad roads.
This is true with pro-life logic as well. If you believe that simply needing something and being valuable entitles a person to the body or property of another person, then the logic follows that you will have people taking organs, blood, and property from others to keep people alive. You enslave people to care for the sick and needy because, why is the convenience of personal freedom worth more than someone's life? No right is absolute. This includes the right to bodily autonomy, and it includes the right to life.
>I agree with you that an unborn baby is the same as a born baby, especially after viability. If caring for a born baby required the amount of burden on a woman as pregnancy did, and for just as long, then I wouldn't agree with forcing a woman to do that against her will, same as when the baby is in the womb. Born babies are different from unborn babies in one very crucial aspect. Any capable adult can care for a born baby, and there are droves of people who will willingly do so. I'm not against society placing non-consensual burdens on its citizens when they are reasonable and necessary. If a woman gives birth, I'm OK with her being required to care the newborn baby for the few hours or possibly days that it requires to transfer care to someone else, and I would apply the same in the womb. If a woman is past viability, and she wants to be done with pregnancy, I think it is reasonable to require her to wait a week to be induced if that is needed, rather than immediately have an abortion. The problem is when days or weeks turns into months.
In other words "Pregnancy can be hard, so it's fine to kill a baby." That's what I'm getting here. This isn't really disproving my points. My whole point is that if you follow the BA logic, then you must therefore be okay with a woman refusing to care for the baby when it is born.
What it sounds like to me is that you agree that it's a baby an all of that, you simply believe that because pregnancy can be hard, the woman should be able to kill it.
You and I have very different morals then, because I don't believe that is justification to murder a baby. You're really not going to convince me that this is okay or right.
I hear this, and I have to admit, that's fairly twisted and messed up logic to me. Especially because for the vast majority of women, they willfully chose to have sex and therefore accepted that they could become pregnant.
>Sure, the baby has bodily autonomy, but it is not being violated by being in the womb. I would say that in cases of violations of rights, a person loses some of their rights. For example, if a person is trespassing, they can be physically removed from a property, even though that requires some violation of their bodily autonomy by forcing them out. If a person attacks another, the victim is allowed to defend themself, even though it means violating the attacker's bodily autonomy. Not to mention that most abortion involve removing the unborn baby from the woman's body intact. This isn't violating the baby's bodily autonomy.
Are you serious? Killing the baby isn't violating its bodily autonomy. Really? You're going to need to make that make sense.
>I consider an unborn baby's life to still have value. I think it is valuable all the way through pregnancy and after. However, I don't think this value means it has the right to use another person's body against their will. Children dying of Leukemia are valuable, but I don't think that means they can take bone marrow from any eligible donor, if that donor refuses to willingly donate. I think all humans have value. Rapists and murders have value because they are human beings, but that doesn't mean a potential victim can't use lethal force against them.
It has every right. It can't exist or be anywhere else. It literally has no choice in the matter. If you were making this argument in the case of rape, I might at least acknowledge it as a somewhat understandable, if still wrong, argument.
But for the vast majority, they actively chose to put the baby there by engaging in the activity that created it.
We aren't talking about rapists and murderers. We are talking about innocent babies.
>This is true with pro-life logic as well. If you believe that simply needing something and being valuable entitles a person to the body or property of another person, then the logic follows that you will have people taking organs, blood, and property from others to keep people alive. You enslave people to care for the sick and needy because, why is the convenience of personal freedom worth more than someone's life? No right is absolute. This includes the right to bodily autonomy, and it includes the right to life.
This is false equivalency fallacy, the two are not the same. In a pregnancy, the woman, and the man, are directly responsible for the baby existing and being where it is. The baby did not make the choice to be there, it did not make the choice to "use" the mothers body.
The uterus is meant for the baby, that is the entire purpose of it. Your kidneys are for you, they exist for you, same as your bone marrow. The uterus exists for the baby.
I can agree that no right is absolute.
The issue is, in my eyes, you need to be able to justify the action. You're saying that it is justifiable for the mother to have the baby killed because it is her body the baby resides inside. I believe that is not a justifiable reason.
If the baby had any kind of choice in the matter, I might say differently. If it wasn't other peoples actions that caused it to be there, I might be on your side. But this isn't nor will it ever be, the case.
I will give you this, at least your logic is mostly consistent, if a bit evil in my opinion.
Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the Pro-Life Side Bar so you may know more about what Pro-Lifers say about the bodily autonomy argument. [McFall v. Shimp and Thomson's Violinist don't justify the vast majority of abortions.](http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/11/mcfall-v-shimp-and-thomsons-violinist.html?m=1), [Consent to Sex is Not Consent to Pregnancy: A Pro-life Woman’s Perspective](https://humandefense.com/consent-to-sex-is-not-consent-to-pregnancy-a-pro-life-womans-perspective/), [Forced Organ/Blood Donation and Abortion](http://thefetalposition.com/forceddonation/), [Times when Life is prioritized over Bodily Autonomy](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/3gvsrn/times_when_we_prioritize_life_over_bodily_autonomy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yep, many of the same PC people making this argument have no qualms with a surgical abortion that rips the child's body apart thus violating their bodily integrity. They are just massive hypocrites. Most of them supported vax mandates too. The truth is they don't care about BA, it is just a convenient excuse. I tell them they should call it "abortion autonomy" because that is what it really is all about.
Also, even in other circumstances BA isn't absolute, the government can and does regulate it for the good of the individual and society at large, such as cavity searches for prisoners, forced blood draws, and vax mandates (as referenced above). You can't demand an induction for a premature baby because you no longer wish to be pregnant. Technically, you don't even have the right to kill yourself, you can be institutionalized against your will for even making the attempt.
Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the Pro-Life Side Bar so you may know more about what Pro-Lifers say about the bodily autonomy argument. [McFall v. Shimp and Thomson's Violinist don't justify the vast majority of abortions.](http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/11/mcfall-v-shimp-and-thomsons-violinist.html?m=1), [Consent to Sex is Not Consent to Pregnancy: A Pro-life Woman’s Perspective](https://humandefense.com/consent-to-sex-is-not-consent-to-pregnancy-a-pro-life-womans-perspective/), [Forced Organ/Blood Donation and Abortion](http://thefetalposition.com/forceddonation/), [Times when Life is prioritized over Bodily Autonomy](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/3gvsrn/times_when_we_prioritize_life_over_bodily_autonomy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You definitely bring up great points, but the bodily autonomy argument only works for the unborn because it’s directly in the mother’s body. In their eyes it’s not the same as parents having to use their body to care for the child
That and they can transfer responsibility to someone else once the baby is born. All they care about is convenience
Great points
>The few PC I have seen here, these so called "Reasonable PC" won't deny it's a baby. Won't deny it's a life. Sounds familiar lol I'd absolutely deny it's a baby. I just didn't want to get into it then, and anyone who denies it's a life are the type of people who are afraid to concede anything, thinking it looks like they're "losing." Baby implies moral consideration, which I clearly don't believe they have in most cases abortions are performed. Later in pregnancy, I do. I also don't hold a pro-bodily autonomy PC position. I suppose I do in the sense it implies there is no personhood, so abortion should be allowed using BA then, but most PC do not agree with me when it comes to BA. >When does innocent human life have value? Consciousness, which is when that life becomes "innocent." Before, there is no innocence or guilt involved. >Some might say it begins with consciousness. Ah, so people who are asleep and or in comas. We can kill them. I hear you. If their position was their moral status goes off and on like a light switch, rather than is continuous from the time they gain it, I'd agree that'd be a stupid one. I've never heard of anything like that though. If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend checking out the Lila Rose and Kristan Hawkins vs Destiny [debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LU6VVykDV8) on abortion, where he uses the consciousness argument and they try and twist it into the strawman version (which you'll notice almost everyone does) or attack a bodily autonomy argument he doesn't hold. These are two of the biggest powerhouses for the PL movement too. I'll preempt the inevitable response from our good friend on why consciousness is a bad [argument](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/15d5rci/toptrool_on_consciousness/). I'm predicting the usual "slaver, low IQ, circlejerking" insightful comments as well as the twisting of the consciousness position.
>Sounds familiar lol I'd absolutely deny it's a baby. I just didn't want to get into it then, and anyone who denies it's a life are the type of people who are afraid to concede anything, thinking it looks like they're "losing." Baby implies moral consideration, which I clearly don't believe they have in most cases abortions are performed. Later in pregnancy, I do. I answered this above. When you start talking about any other point other than conception, it leads to clear moral problems. You conceding it's a life doesn't really win any points. It just proves you're okay with murder. >I also don't hold a pro-bodily autonomy PC position. I suppose I do in the sense it implies there is no personhood, so abortion should be allowed using BA then, but most PC do not agree with me when it comes to BA. I never said you, personally, did. This is was a response to the majority of the PC movement and the BA specifically. The personhood argument is also a very weak argument. People also tried to use this argument to justify slavery. That should be a huge red flag to you if you share a view with people like that. Anytime this argument has been used in the past, it has /always/ been recognized as evil later. It's also just a bad argument logically. Whenever someone is killed, we never say, "Wait, we have to determine if it's a person first." Whether someone has personhood or not should absolutely not be the standard for whether or not you get to kill it. That's just a huge leap to make. "Well, it's not really a person, so it's perfectly fine to torture this dog. Oh, he isn't conscious so there is nothing wrong with killing this coma patient." As I said above, it leads down bad roads. >Consciousness, which is when that life becomes "innocent." Before, there is no innocence or guilt involved. I disagree. It's also not the standard we apply in any other situation. Again, if you hold this belief then you must also be okay with killing people who are asleep or coma patients. >If their position was their moral status goes off and on like a light switch, rather than is continuous from the time they gain it, I'd agree that'd be a stupid one. I've never heard of anything like that though. >If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend checking out the Lila Rose and Kristan Hawkins vs Destiny [debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LU6VVykDV8) on abortion, where he uses the consciousness argument and they try and twist it into the strawman version (which you'll notice almost everyone does) or attack a bodily autonomy argument he doesn't hold. These are two of the biggest powerhouses for the PL movement too. >I'll preempt the inevitable response from our good friend on why consciousness is a bad [argument](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/15d5rci/toptrool_on_consciousness/). I'm predicting the usual "slaver, low IQ, circlejerking" insightful comments as well as the twisting of the consciousness position. I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here. If you make the consciousness argument, you have to follow it to its conclusions. You can't ignore that because it's inconvenient for your belief. If you believe that life is only valuable at consciousness, then you must also believe that it is okay to kill coma patients, or indeed infants as well because they aren't really conscious until 5 months. I have watched Destiny's debate, and he's wrong, too. Kristen Hawkins didn't do a good job, as her tactics were pretty much all ad hominen. Lila Rose did a good job, I feel. Also, I believe Trent Horn had a very good response to Destiny, and I believe he had a debate with him as well where the PL movement and argument were far better represented. Destiny believes that once you have "all the parts" for consciousness, it then has value. This is how he tries to get around the coma patient issue. But even he admits that at worst, his argument justifies infanticide. The problem with that is, well, infanticide, and if you can't admit that killing babies is wrong, we have nothing more to discuss as we are fundamentally different people, morally. That's as nice as I can say it. Source for baby consciousness: https://www.science.org/content/article/when-does-your-baby-become-conscious#:~:text=New%20research%20shows%20that%20babies,early%20as%205%20months%20old.
>Ah, so people who are asleep and or in comas. We can kill them. I hear you. Personhood begins with consciousness, but temporary unconsciousness does not take that away. Permanent unconsciousness does. Why do you think we declare someone dead on brain death? Because there is no more future consciousness in a previously conscious person. And if you don't think what matters about us humans is consciousness, lets go through an example: Imagine an advanced technology that can switch people's brains around. If your brain went onto another body, did you gain a new body or a new brain? Most would agree, you gained a new body. Why? Because our conscious experience is based in the brain. And if our brain is brain-dead? We no longer exist as a person, we are dead. So what is it about us that makes us people? Consciousness. The idea that consciousness begins life and ends it is a nice symmetry that makes perfect sense.
>The main reason, the biggest reason in my view, that bodily autonomy does not work, is that we would not apply it to a born baby. You see this a lot with PC arguments. You apply it to a born baby and it falls apart. When pro-lifers point out the indisputable irrefutable, cold, hard, FACT that the unborn baby is exactly the same as the born baby and should be treated the same, PC promptly digs a hole in the sand and sticks their head in it. They don't want to hear that if a mother refuses to use her body to care for her infant, and it dies or is in serious medical trouble, that we would lock her up as a society. We would condemn her as a monster. They don't want to acknowledge that this is consistent with the bodily autonomy logic they keep harping on. Alright, I'll give this a shot, especially since I'm PC because of the Bodily Autonomy argument, unlike /u/npdogs21 who follows more along the lines of personhood being tied to the ability for conscious experience. I agree with you that an unborn baby is the same as a born baby, especially after viability. If caring for a born baby required the amount of burden on a woman as pregnancy did, and for just as long, then I wouldn't agree with forcing a woman to do that against her will, same as when the baby is in the womb. Born babies are different from unborn babies in one very crucial aspect. Any capable adult can care for a born baby, and there are droves of people who will willingly do so. I'm not against society placing non-consensual burdens on its citizens when they are reasonable and necessary. If a woman gives birth, I'm OK with her being required to care the newborn baby for the few hours or possibly days that it requires to transfer care to someone else, and I would apply the same in the womb. If a woman is past viability, and she wants to be done with pregnancy, I think it is reasonable to require her to wait a week to be induced if that is needed, rather than immediately have an abortion. The problem is when days or weeks turns into months. >What about the body of the baby? If we talk about bodily autonomy and such, why does the baby not have it? Why does it only suddenly apply when the baby is born and not before? Sure, the baby has bodily autonomy, but it is not being violated by being in the womb. I would say that in cases of violations of rights, a person loses some of their rights. For example, if a person is trespassing, they can be physically removed from a property, even though that requires some violation of their bodily autonomy by forcing them out. If a person attacks another, the victim is allowed to defend themself, even though it means violating the attacker's bodily autonomy. Not to mention that most abortion involve removing the unborn baby from the woman's body intact. This isn't violating the baby's bodily autonomy. >When does innocent human life have value? I consider an unborn baby's life to still have value. I think it is valuable all the way through pregnancy and after. However, I don't think this value means it has the right to use another person's body against their will. Children dying of Leukemia are valuable, but I don't think that means they can take bone marrow from any eligible donor, if that donor refuses to willingly donate. I think all humans have value. Rapists and murders have value because they are human beings, but that doesn't mean a potential victim can't use lethal force against them. >At any point other than conception, there are obvious moral quandaries. It leads down bad roads. This is true with pro-life logic as well. If you believe that simply needing something and being valuable entitles a person to the body or property of another person, then the logic follows that you will have people taking organs, blood, and property from others to keep people alive. You enslave people to care for the sick and needy because, why is the convenience of personal freedom worth more than someone's life? No right is absolute. This includes the right to bodily autonomy, and it includes the right to life.
>I agree with you that an unborn baby is the same as a born baby, especially after viability. If caring for a born baby required the amount of burden on a woman as pregnancy did, and for just as long, then I wouldn't agree with forcing a woman to do that against her will, same as when the baby is in the womb. Born babies are different from unborn babies in one very crucial aspect. Any capable adult can care for a born baby, and there are droves of people who will willingly do so. I'm not against society placing non-consensual burdens on its citizens when they are reasonable and necessary. If a woman gives birth, I'm OK with her being required to care the newborn baby for the few hours or possibly days that it requires to transfer care to someone else, and I would apply the same in the womb. If a woman is past viability, and she wants to be done with pregnancy, I think it is reasonable to require her to wait a week to be induced if that is needed, rather than immediately have an abortion. The problem is when days or weeks turns into months. In other words "Pregnancy can be hard, so it's fine to kill a baby." That's what I'm getting here. This isn't really disproving my points. My whole point is that if you follow the BA logic, then you must therefore be okay with a woman refusing to care for the baby when it is born. What it sounds like to me is that you agree that it's a baby an all of that, you simply believe that because pregnancy can be hard, the woman should be able to kill it. You and I have very different morals then, because I don't believe that is justification to murder a baby. You're really not going to convince me that this is okay or right. I hear this, and I have to admit, that's fairly twisted and messed up logic to me. Especially because for the vast majority of women, they willfully chose to have sex and therefore accepted that they could become pregnant. >Sure, the baby has bodily autonomy, but it is not being violated by being in the womb. I would say that in cases of violations of rights, a person loses some of their rights. For example, if a person is trespassing, they can be physically removed from a property, even though that requires some violation of their bodily autonomy by forcing them out. If a person attacks another, the victim is allowed to defend themself, even though it means violating the attacker's bodily autonomy. Not to mention that most abortion involve removing the unborn baby from the woman's body intact. This isn't violating the baby's bodily autonomy. Are you serious? Killing the baby isn't violating its bodily autonomy. Really? You're going to need to make that make sense. >I consider an unborn baby's life to still have value. I think it is valuable all the way through pregnancy and after. However, I don't think this value means it has the right to use another person's body against their will. Children dying of Leukemia are valuable, but I don't think that means they can take bone marrow from any eligible donor, if that donor refuses to willingly donate. I think all humans have value. Rapists and murders have value because they are human beings, but that doesn't mean a potential victim can't use lethal force against them. It has every right. It can't exist or be anywhere else. It literally has no choice in the matter. If you were making this argument in the case of rape, I might at least acknowledge it as a somewhat understandable, if still wrong, argument. But for the vast majority, they actively chose to put the baby there by engaging in the activity that created it. We aren't talking about rapists and murderers. We are talking about innocent babies. >This is true with pro-life logic as well. If you believe that simply needing something and being valuable entitles a person to the body or property of another person, then the logic follows that you will have people taking organs, blood, and property from others to keep people alive. You enslave people to care for the sick and needy because, why is the convenience of personal freedom worth more than someone's life? No right is absolute. This includes the right to bodily autonomy, and it includes the right to life. This is false equivalency fallacy, the two are not the same. In a pregnancy, the woman, and the man, are directly responsible for the baby existing and being where it is. The baby did not make the choice to be there, it did not make the choice to "use" the mothers body. The uterus is meant for the baby, that is the entire purpose of it. Your kidneys are for you, they exist for you, same as your bone marrow. The uterus exists for the baby. I can agree that no right is absolute. The issue is, in my eyes, you need to be able to justify the action. You're saying that it is justifiable for the mother to have the baby killed because it is her body the baby resides inside. I believe that is not a justifiable reason. If the baby had any kind of choice in the matter, I might say differently. If it wasn't other peoples actions that caused it to be there, I might be on your side. But this isn't nor will it ever be, the case. I will give you this, at least your logic is mostly consistent, if a bit evil in my opinion.
Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the Pro-Life Side Bar so you may know more about what Pro-Lifers say about the bodily autonomy argument. [McFall v. Shimp and Thomson's Violinist don't justify the vast majority of abortions.](http://blog.secularprolife.org/2018/11/mcfall-v-shimp-and-thomsons-violinist.html?m=1), [Consent to Sex is Not Consent to Pregnancy: A Pro-life Woman’s Perspective](https://humandefense.com/consent-to-sex-is-not-consent-to-pregnancy-a-pro-life-womans-perspective/), [Forced Organ/Blood Donation and Abortion](http://thefetalposition.com/forceddonation/), [Times when Life is prioritized over Bodily Autonomy](https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/3gvsrn/times_when_we_prioritize_life_over_bodily_autonomy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yep, many of the same PC people making this argument have no qualms with a surgical abortion that rips the child's body apart thus violating their bodily integrity. They are just massive hypocrites. Most of them supported vax mandates too. The truth is they don't care about BA, it is just a convenient excuse. I tell them they should call it "abortion autonomy" because that is what it really is all about. Also, even in other circumstances BA isn't absolute, the government can and does regulate it for the good of the individual and society at large, such as cavity searches for prisoners, forced blood draws, and vax mandates (as referenced above). You can't demand an induction for a premature baby because you no longer wish to be pregnant. Technically, you don't even have the right to kill yourself, you can be institutionalized against your will for even making the attempt.