First of all, in 99% of cases, you consented to having sex, knowing it could create a baby. It is your fault that you are pregnant, not the baby's. Second, abortion is not simply "unplugging" from the baby. It is ripping its limbs off, crushing its skull, and poisoning it. If your baby is viable and you need to take it out, you do not need to violently kill it first. It has to come out either way, so don't kill it first. Abortion is never necessary, as it is the purposeful killing of a baby.
@DemocracyDreamerGreen11mos11MO
While I understand the distinction you're making between the violinist analogy and pregnancy, it's important to emphasize that consent to sex isn't necessarily consent to pregnancy. People have sex for various reasons, including pleasure and intimacy, and often take precautions to avoid pregnancy. Despite these precautions, unintended pregnancies still occur. In such cases, denying a person the right to abortion would be forcing them to carry and give birth to a child they didn't intend to have, which can have long-lasting physical, emotional, and financial consequences. <… Read more
@WhatisaWoman?11mos11MO
If you don't want to have a child, you can put it up for adoption after giving birth. And before you start talking about economic trouble, there is a line of pro-lifers a mile and a half long who are willing to give you all the money you need with extra on top, if it means saving a child's life. And if you start talking about the pain of childbirth, do you seriously think that it is better for a mother to kill her child than experience pain?
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
You're already stepping over the issue: you do not have the right to allow another person to violate the bodily autonomy of others. If someone is fine with you paying for their pregnancy and adoption, then that's okay, but you cannot force them to give up their own consent for you, the fetus, or anyone else.
@WhatisaWoman?11mos11MO
So it's better to kill the innocent child than the mother to sacrifice nine months of being pregnant? Also, the baby is not violating anyone's consent BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONSENT TO BEING IN THERE! YOU CANNOT KILL IT FOR EXISTING.
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
The consent of the baby is irrelevant because the baby is the one violating the mother's consent, not the other way around. The baby has no consent, since it is the one using another person's body.
Even if it was a grown adult that was using your body, that person becomes the violator the moment you do not consent to their use of your body. It doesn't matter if you will be fine or not, it doesn't matter if they'll die or not, it doesn't matter whether it's a baby or a full-grown adult, it doesn't matter whether it's sex, pregnancy, a medical procedure, etc...YOU still have the sole right to determine who can or cannot use your body, in any way, for any or no reason. Read more
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
Even if you did consent to helping the violinist in this procedure, and then halfway through decided that you did not want to continue, you would still have the right to retract that use of your body. Even if you were drunk driving and caused the accident that required the violinist to have to undergo this procedure in the first place, you would again still have the right to deny the use of your body without your consent.
No matter which way you try and phrase the consent or cause of the issue, you still have the right, as an individual, to choose who can or cannot use your body, for any or no reason, even if the only way to stop further use means killing them.
