[mjn.mixael]

@mixael- I never ceded nothing. I only ever entertain discussion about other dividing lines in order to understand the point of view of the person I'm arguing against.

You are not the defining factor of the pro-choice group, perhaps regardless of how much you'd like to be. In fact many who seem to be pro-choice in this thread have already said that an abortion in the last third of pregnancy might be morally reprehensible. That is exactly what opens the door to further discussion, debate, and more complications.

[Bobboau]

think of what I said as more calling out those others for having done that if they did and you are not merely misinterpreting.

[jr2]

Let me ask you this, let's suppose that the bible said the soul enters the body only at birth and that before that the embryo was no more a person than an unmixed sample of sperm and an egg. I know it doesn't say that, but let's suppose it did. The bible does not say that sperm is alive just because it might one day become a human being. It's just something that might possibly one day have a soul and become a human. Let's say the bible flat out says that an unborn child is the same. Would you still have a problem with abortion then?

No.

However, in that case, if the body still counts as a being capable of experiencing suffering (like an animal, say), then care should be taken when euthanizing.

[Bobboau]

I think I know where he's going with this...

[jr2]

I should say, if you don't believe in souls, then you need to find what makes a human human (some said pain response, in which case we are looking at 20-24 weeks) and draw your line there I would think.

[Ghostavo]

I for one think 979 weeks is the ideal line.

[Bobboau]

consciousness, perception, awareness, personality. give birth as the early cutoff to err on the safe side and because at that point parental instincts really aught to be kicking in.

[jr2]

So you have no problems euthanizing severely mentally disabled people who were born that way, or were in a severe accident / debilitating disease?

[Scotty]

I get the issue with body integrity, check.

I have my doubts.

I get that the woman cannot be forced to donate her organs for their use in keeping an unborn alive, check.

Good.

I don't get that you don't get that you are inversely donating the entirety of another human's life (totality of all body organs) for 70 years.

Please do elaborate. 

What sort of horse**** is "inversely donating"?  I get what you're trying to say, and I reject it completely.  A woman (or anyone else) should not be required to unwillingly donate parts of their body to ensure the survival of someone else.  This is inviolable, as far as I'm concerned.

InsaneBaron: even after explaining it a couple times I can see you don't understand what bodily integrity means.  It does not actually mean the physical integrity of a body.  Unless the fetus's organs are being donated against its will to something, its bodily integrity is intact whether its body is or not.  I can't explain it any clearer than that.  If you disagree with it, fine, but stop trying to say it's something that it isn't because it fits your narrative better.

[Bobboau]

every month a woman remains un-pregnant after puberty is a life inversely donated by her hypo-child!
I hope I don't have to declare sarcasm here

[karajorma]

I should say, if you don't believe in souls, then you need to find what makes a human human (some said pain response, in which case we are looking at 20-24 weeks) and draw your line there I would think.

Good. You've basically arrived at the pro-choice position. Pro-life believe that what makes human a human is conception or that since there is no way to know, it's safest to treat that point as conception. Pro-choice believe that it's the things that set us apart from animals that makes a human a human and that there are certain concrete indicators to guess the time frame around which that will happen. Now obviously those two points of view can't be reconciled which basically is what causes the whole argument.

[InsaneBaron]

InsaneBaron: even after explaining it a couple times I can see you don't understand what bodily integrity means.  It does not actually mean the physical integrity of a body.  Unless the fetus's organs are being donated against its will to something, its bodily integrity is intact whether its body is or not.  I can't explain it any clearer than that.  If you disagree with it, fine, but stop trying to say it's something that it isn't because it fits your narrative better.

Okay, if destroying a person's body without their consent is not a violation of bodily integrity, then what on earth is that term supposed to mean? However bodily integrity is defined, destroying a person's body is clearly a violation of their right to live- and by extension, of pretty much all their rights, since a dead person can't enjoy rights like property, conscience, et cetera.

Based on the italicised part, can I assume you disapprove of selling baby parts?

[Scotty]

InsaneBaron: even after explaining it a couple times I can see you don't understand what bodily integrity means.  It does not actually mean the physical integrity of a body.  Unless the fetus's organs are being donated against its will to something, its bodily integrity is intact whether its body is or not.  I can't explain it any clearer than that.  If you disagree with it, fine, but stop trying to say it's something that it isn't because it fits your narrative better.

Okay, if destroying a person's body without their consent is not a violation of bodily integrity, then what on earth is that term supposed to mean? However bodily integrity is defined, destroying a person's body is clearly a violation of their right to live- and by extension, of pretty much all their rights, since a dead person can't enjoy rights like property, conscience, et cetera.

Based on the italicised part, can I assume you disapprove of selling baby parts?

I have now linked this twice, and explained it four times.  It is, in basest form, the inviolability of the concept of bodily self-determination.  This is the basis for the statutes in the United States (and nearly all other functioning, civilized states) that require informed consent regarding organ donation.  The government cannot force anyone to donate an organ to someone else, period, no two ways about it, even if that donation would save the other person's life.

This is equivalent (unlike literally every other example presented in this thread).  If a person cannot be forced to offer up the use of a kidney to save a life, a person cannot be forced to offer up the use of a uterus to save a life.  It is a personal choice, made with sound mind and body, whether to effect an organ donation.  This is true even in death.  To suggest that a woman must carry a pregnancy to term is to grant more personal freedoms to dead bodies than to women.

The amount of time is irrelevant.  The fact that it would save a life is entirely irrelevant.  This is self-determination in the most basic, most intrinsic sense.

Now, all of that said: it is morally reprehensible to wait to get an abortion until the fetus can feel pain, especially when the capability for the operation and the decision existed beforehand.  I further absolutely do not agree with the utilization of aborted fetuses, sold or not.

[Grizzly]

Based on the italicised part, can I assume you disapprove of selling baby parts?

It should be noted that the 'selling baby parts' controversy of Planned Parenthood was entirely fabricated. The real controversy here is that a health clinic was attacked with that fabrication as a pretext.

[zookeeper]

InsaneBaron: even after explaining it a couple times I can see you don't understand what bodily integrity means.  It does not actually mean the physical integrity of a body.  Unless the fetus's organs are being donated against its will to something, its bodily integrity is intact whether its body is or not.
[...]

Okay, if destroying a person's body without their consent is not a violation of bodily integrity, then what on earth is that term supposed to mean?
[...]

I have now linked this twice, and explained it four times.  It is, in basest form, the inviolability of the concept of bodily self-determination.

[...]

You do realize that you're giving the impression that you really think that destroying someone's body is not a violation of their bodily integrity, but taking their kidney or not letting them have an abortion is?

I mean, for some reason you clearly are avoiding saying that the concept of bodily integrity doesn't apply to a fetus because it's not a person. Instead, you are simply saying that killing the fetus is not a violation of its bodily integrity because, like, bodily integrity doesn't mean physical integrity of a body.

Of course that would sound very nutty to most people so I'll assume it's not what you actually mean, but surely you can see how that's what your point very much looks like, so I'd really suggest clarifying. Describing this part of your position could be easily and effortlessly done with just a few checkboxes:

[ ] The mother is a person
  [ ] Preventing the mother from having an abortion violates their bodily integrity
  [ ] Killing the mother violates their bodily integrity

[ ] The fetus is a person
  [ ] An abortion where the fetus is actively killed violates their bodily integrity
  [ ] An abortion where the fetus is expelled but not actively killed violates their bodily integrity

[The E]

Okay. Since this topic has now officially degraded into "Interrogate the unbeliever about the extent of his heresy", I'm closing it.

Learn how to discuss philosophy and morality while accepting that there are far too many nuances and gray areas for any quick-and-simple rule to work everywhere, please. That goes for all of you.