Anonymous #2 4w

Whatever the reason, it’s good that women have the choice of what to do with their bodies.

14

Idk how to tell you this, but it’s not a child before it’s born.

12

BEHOLD A MAN

11

So, I have a couple of notes 1) this is an appeal to authority fallacy, but I get where you’re coming from with that. 2) that statistic doesn’t come from a scientific journal, but rather a law journal. So the publishing incentives are questionable. 3) there are many requirements an organism must meet in order to be considered “alive” and a fetus doesn’t meet them. Most notably, a fetus can’t self-regulate its biological functions, and doesn’t perform homeostasis.

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

I retract my second point, that journal is meant for both lawyers and medical practitioners. I had not read into them fully.

3

Thank you for providing evidence for your claims, even if I disagree with your stance. My main issue on the subject is to do with consent. If a woman does not consent to having her health decline due to a pregnancy, I don’t see it as moral for her to continue the pregnancy. The same way that, if someone needs an organ transplant only YOU could provide them, even non lethally, it’d be immoral to force you to undergo that surgery.

3

Convenience is a great word to use when you wanna demonize someone for not wanting to go into crippling debt or worse.

3

I also feel like you didn’t understand my point from earlier regarding transplants. You didn’t really acknowledge it.

2

You can’t legally make people transplant their organs against their consent, right? I’m a similar vein, a woman doesn’t consent to giving their body’s resources to the fetus.

2

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

then make sure you get your tubes tied if you feel that way

0

Anonymous #2 4w

I’m a guy. You really shouldn’t assume people’s gender and/or sex. It’s a bad look.

3

Please look at who I replied to.

2

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

well if you would have stated that you were a guy i wouldn’t have had to assume. hope this helps

0

Anonymous #2 4w

It wasn’t relevant to the subject…

3

No need for apologies.

3

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 4w

i mean really and truly abortion is a women’s subject, so since you stated your opinion on this that made me assume that you were a female

3

In my view, it’s an entirely similar vain A person does not consent to have your organs taken to save a life, and their organs are taken anyway. A woman doesn’t consent to having her organs used to “save a life” and yet they’re used anyway.

3

Anonymous #2 4w

I agree that it’s a woman’s subject. I just wanted to share my own opinion. I believe that all women should have the choice of what to do with their bodies.

5

1) there are absolutely people ignorant enough to believe that contraceptives are 100% safe. (There are also people that use them incorrectly and that lowers the success rate dramatically). 2) I still don’t agree with the wording of equating a fetus to a baby. Genuinely, if you put a fertilized fetus on a Petri dish next to a clump of moss, the moss would fit more criteria of an alive creature than the fetus.

2

1) if it literally needs to be attached to a distinct living person in order to survive, it doesn’t qualify as a distinct living organism. Having the potential to become a distinct person doesn’t inherently make one distinct. 2) you’re missing the point by a mile. I meant that, even in the MOST rudimentary forms of life, we find organisms that display more categories of life than fetuses. Which calls into question whether fetuses are alive to begin with.

0

Anonymous #7 4w

Truly.

1