You can't force someone to donate an organ to save someone's life, even one they could do without...

>You can't force someone to donate an organ to save someone's life, even one they could do without. To do so would be an abominable invasion of privacy by the government. Even the most heinous of condemned prisoners cannot be made to give up a kidney if they don't want to do it. The cost of an innocent life is no justification for what most reasonable Americans would view as a horrible human rights violation.

>But the government should force women to carry a fetus they don't want to term because THINK OF THE CHILDREN

explain this

I guess the debate boils down to whether or not fetuses are people or things that become people. And if they are people, is it murder to prevent someone from existing. Do would-be humans have any bodily autonomy.

why can't she just keep her legs closed

it isn't that difficult to avoid sex

>is it murder to prevent someone from existing

The only part of this argument (in my opinion) that holds up to scrutiny is the one that argues they are already a human in every way, and should therefore be protected. The reason being, there are so many ways to determine a situation that could result in human life, outside of fetal development. For example, if two people decide to not have sex, and for whatever reason a human life is therefore prevented from existing, that ain't murder. So, the idea that because something could become a person, it should be unlawful to prevent it from becoming a person, doesn't really seem to be a solution. Likewise, the idea that once somebody is pregnant they should be obligated to see it through seems like an arbitrary line to draw.

Really, the only thing that makes sense to me to whether the fetus could live outside the womb. If the fetus couldn't live outside the womb, it could equally be viewed as a parasite as much as it could be an eventual human.

>Likewise, the idea that once somebody is pregnant they should be obligated to see it through seems like an arbitrary line to draw.
All lines are arbitrary. It's arbitrary whether we drive on the left or right side of the road, but so what? Once we've decided, that's it. Meters are arbitrary, but we've picked one of a zillion arbitrary possibilities and that's it.

Arbitrariness carries no ethical baggage and also frees one from no ethical obligations.

It's often said that you judge a society based on how it treats its most vulnerable members, like the homeless, people in prison, etc. I can think of nothing more vulnerable than a human incapable of living outside of the womb of another. YMMV.

Well, the problem is that laws already count unborn children who are killed in their mothers' womb, to have been people and to count as murder.

So if you spike a pregnant woman's drink with contraceptive abortion pills, you go to jail for murder.

But if she goes to an abortion clinic and has THEM get rid of the baby, it's 100% legal and isn't murder.

I wouldn't take a kidney from a nigger if i could help it.

Only one is murder

I honestly believe there is nothing wrong with abortion, its a known fact only worthless scum gets it. My only suggestion is brand whoever gets one so males can avoid the used goods like the plague.

except rape induced preganancies.

This is just retarded, if you get a baby through rape/condom broke, ect, you should just be able to cut it off

>force women to carry a fetus they don't want
>they don't want

Then why the fuck do they let a penis squirt sperm inside them!!

Condoms and birth control pills are a thing that exist!!

They do not want kids so they want to be able to make one and then have a doctor kill it instead of simply not getting pregnant to begin with!!

Woman stupidity has no bounds.

How about this.
make it legal for them to kill the baby with there bare hands after they give birth to it. have them do it in front of witnesses. have them dirty there hands with blood instead of having a doctor do it at tax payers expense.

see how proud they feel afterwards.

>I can think of nothing more vulnerable than a human incapable of living outside of the womb of another

I might argue that somebody that's brain dead or in a coma or something surviving off machines is probably both more human and more vulerable, and people don't always bother with the "is it murder?" argument, and I would probably say rightfully so.

Also, there's a difference in the "vulnerable members" argument between a pre-viable fetus and a homeless person in that the former necessitates cooperation of another person. You are infringing upon the rights of the mother in exchange for an organism which arguably shouldn't have any rights at all.

Again, I think both of these come down to whether the mother, or "host" views the fetus as their child, or a parasite. If it is unwanted, it is a parasite, and therefore the abortion should be legal. If it is wanted, it is not a parasite, and therefore somebody else doing something that kills it could be considered murder.

That said, maybe you're right and "murder" isn't the correct definition. What would it be called? Probably something awkward sounding like pre-viability unlawful fetal termination.

There is a famous composer who needs to be hooked up to another person for a life saving procedure for 9 months or he'll die. A woman goes out to a party and gets smashed drunk. During the party, she agrees to be hooked up to the composer. She wakes up in the morning attached to the composer via IVs and has a change of heart. Should she be allowed to unhook herself, killing the composer?

>You are infringing upon the rights of the mother
I am not.

She was always free to not have sex in the first place. She engaged in an action with well-known possible consequences and now wants some way to skirt responsibility. To appease women we literally argue about killing our own spawn.

Society has fucked with your mind so much you mistake the woman as important and the spawn as expendable. I feel for you, I was there until a few years ago.

A woman can literally just not have sex. Even a modestly attractive woman denies the advances of many men without making a big deal out of it.

>or a parasite

And people wonder why I'm a misogynist. Women will honestly defend the notion that a human being that is growing in them through a natural process they instigated by fucking some chad (providing they didn't get raped) is a parasite that must be eradicated because god forbid they have to take responsibility for their actions.

People that want abortions to be a thing in cases beyond the extreme ought to be allowed to have them, but they ought to be sterilized after they get them. People that view the unborn as parasites have no right to be parents.

FETUSES.
ARE.
NOT.
PEOPLE.
I'm so sick of this stupid argument that never ends, all these faggots whining and crying about "THINK OF CHILDREN'S LIVES" FUCK THEM. FUCK CHILDREN'S LIVES. I DON'T CARE. There 7 billion people are millions more are born EVERY DAY. WHO THE FUCK FUCKING GIVES A FUCK IF WE MURDER A FETUS. WHY DO THEY DESERVE TO LIVE.
GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON.

>Implying they aren't parasites
Why exactly do you think they aren't?

The problem I have with the bodily autonomy argument, is that it falls apart under a siamese twins situation. Two living people who are through no fault of their own attached. Under bodily autonomy, either one should be allowed to kill the other. But we don't allow that. Now assume one is only a head and neck that couldn't survive on it's own. Imagine further if the one wasn't able to speak. We wouldn't allow one to kill the other, even though it couldn't survive on it's own. So why would we allow it to happen with the fetus?

replace the word Fetus with nigger, kebab or kike,

>millions born every day
Wrong.

>MUH OVERPOPULATION
Get your head out of your ass and stop thinking Asia and Africa are the center of the world.

>WHY DO THEY DESERVE TO LIVE
They were given life by the fact that their mother and father were irresponsible and hedonistic, this may be true, but they have life nonetheless. They are not full-grown adults, but this doesn't make them any less of people. If anything, it makes them people with high potential -- both for great deeds and horrible deeds alike. Only they can decide for sure if their life is not worth having, not the people their unwitting creators. I'm fine with euthanasia and suicide being legal, but abortion needs regulation to high hell.

The argument that fetuses are not people is one of sheer ignorance. Anyone that has spent lengthy periods of time with someone pregnant will start to notice that the unborn child -- by a certain point, often assumed to be the second trimester, already demonstrates personality, memory, and thought -- no matter how primitive. If they are sentient creatures, are they not people? And what of their potential in comparison to the useless masses we refer to as "people" today?

Because they're a natural product of creation seen in all sexually reproducing creatures. They are developing life that requires temporary sustenance, and need their caretaker's eternal presence to support them. By this notion, very young children are also parasites. Also, do you see people that have tapeworms eradicated from their bodies become remorseful over it, some diehard athiests start going to church because of it, or start actively protesting the eradication of tapeworms after seeing the process to do it? No. That's because we recognize the difference between the unborn and parasites, and no amount of propaganda, sophistry, and brainwashing will change that.

>we literally argue about killing our own spawn

Out of curiosity, where do you, or do you even, draw the line at which point abortion is (or is no longer) legal?

Iam pro abortion in most cases, but its still not fucking her body.
She is killing an seperate human beeing, who was even forced into this world as consequence of her whoring around.

Abortion because she got raped would be ok.
Abortion because she is a dumb whore that fucks stupid idiots is murder.
Prevent pregnancy you fucking whores.

necessary evil

any woman who considers getting an abortion is a terrible human and would make an even worse mother, removing her from the gene pool is vital

If you cannot feed, raise AND take care of a child, you dont deserve a child.

Sperm are people too. Every time you masturbate, you kill 40 - 600 million people. Men should be held accountable for these murders.

Women are quick to tell men that they consented to the possibility of fatherhood the moment they have sex, but when you suggest the same is true for women they are quick to anger. Apparently it's only men who should have to face the consequences of their actions.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if women want to kill their own unborn children. Especially if it's a single mother who'll only raise the next generation of thugs and single mothers. What I dislike is the hypocrisy. A careless woman wants to get out of motherhood? She can just drop the little bastard at the doorstop of a firehouse or hospital, no questions asked. It's society's problem now. A careless man wants to get out of fatherhood? Tough shit, should have kept it in your pants; either pay or be jailed.

Only if women are held accountable for menstruation. Them being insufferable cunts is awful enough, but the murders just need to stop!

They're not sapient so it's okay to kill them

Truthfully, I agree with this.

And this as well.

But this is a gay argument. Sperm is not growing and developing human beings, it is a partial component in creating life, next to the eggs of the woman. Considering the brief window of time there is for a woman to become impregnated from sex, and the fact that usually only one gets into the egg compared to all the others in the ejaculation, you can argue that insemination -- even successful -- is murder because you're talking about a physical component of creation, rather than a developing life.

"This stray cat is sentient -- BUT! -- isn't sapient, so it's perfectly fine for me to take it to my woodshed and torture it for the next week before I twist its head off.

You're thinking of it all backwards. If a woman is pregnant and considering abortion, she is obviously not married. This means she is a fornicator, and should be exiled or executed. You don't keep an ass backward practice of killing the innocent and allowing the guilty to live.

>Tfw doctors "were literally begging" my parents to abort me as recounted by my grandma
>They said I'd be a potato
>Ended up normal
Dodged a bullet lads

Perhaps I phrased that poorly. My point is that fetuses aren't really people, so it's okay to kill them humanely if they're an inconvenience, just like we do with stray animals. It's better to have somebody take care of them but that isn't always an option.

Would it be ok to rape a woman while she is unconscious?

Would it be ok to kill her while she is unconscious?

Why is it ok to abort a human while its just in another state?