We're not talking about babies. Babies are born.
Nonetheless, any organism unconsensually occupying the body of a person, forcibly respirating and metaboizing from that person's bloodstream and injecting that person with hormones and waste does not and should not have a say in whether or not it can continue to violate that person in such a manner.
OK. They should not because you say they should not?
How's this?
We're not talking about babies. Babies are born.
Nonetheless, any organism unconsensually [encapsulating] the body of a person, forcibly respirating and metabo[l]izing [for] that person's bloodstream and injecting that person with hormones and [stealing] waste does not and should not have a say in whether or not it can continue to violate that person in such a manner.
They should not be able to violate the fetus because I said they should not!
And don't try to argue word choice ("but it's not a person!") because that is circular reasoning when the opposition is trying to convince you that it is.
What about babies that are delivered via cesarean section?
What about them? Are they not born?
In one piece. I guess it isn't birth if they were extracted in multiple pieces but is if they are not. Even by your logic, natural timing and expulsion has nothing to do with "birth." And yet you are the one saying it's not arbitrary! *rolls eyes*
Lol at people getting touchy because of this... People should abort for whatever damn reason they want to, who cares?
Imagine my parents wanted a girl and decided to abort me, it just means I wouldnt be here right now, and I wouldnt even know about it because I was never born in the first place, big deal!
[Surviving] People harmed? Zero
FTFY
Minor detail missing there.
Translation:
You want to argue based on something that can never be settled.
Got it!
NEWS FLASH: I'm arguing a different point. Don't like it? "TOUGH SHIT!" (as you like to say)
You'll never satisfy everyone by saying that "it's a human after [x] trimester." Again, if the government is allowed to decide which trimester, then it's deciding when I'm entitled to my basic human rights. If we allow government to decide such a thing as which trimester grants human rights, then gov't can revise that decision at some point. It could say just as easily say that birth is the point where I gain rights. Then it could redefine birth to mean only a "natural" birth.
Hope you weren't delivered by cesarean section. The government might one day define that it's not technically "birth" and you don't have basic human rights.
Even that assumes that it would be left at "birth." Why not when they are capable of seeing, hearing, and forming lasting memories? Why not when they reach a certain level of motor development? Why not the moment they can understand speech or the moment they can actually speak (whole new level of significance to the first words)? How about the moment they become legal adults? How about the moment they can drink alcohol legally? "Nope. Sorry. Born or not, you aren't a protected human being until you reach 21 years old and gain full rights in the eyes of the government. Good day, si- err, I mean, parasite."
So? Rubbers break, too.
Nonsense. This is simply a factual error on your part. Consent to sex is not tantamount to consent to become and remain pregnant. Like I noted earlier, any waiver to the bodily rights violated in pregnancy must be explicit.
"Feeling good" isn't the purpose of sex. If you get pregnant or make someone pregnant in pursuit of that: Congratulations! You just found out why it feels good.
You seem to think that feeling good without pregnancy is a "bodily right" even without taking precautions against pregnancy and that this entitles you to do whatever you want to the fetus until it exits your body alive. The primary function of it feeling good is to promote sex. The primary function of sex is to procreate. To say that it's your right to divorce one from the other is fine. That's what contraception does. To say that it gives you the right to do anything you want to what is conceived without contraception is ludicrous. More specificly, how does that right transfer to unborn vs. born offspring? That argument is independant of the reasonings for having sex, so your whole point is irrelevant.
The whole argument is around when that offspring gains unalilenable rights (debatable) so that we can set legally protected rights (firmly defined as birth here in the US). Trying to argue about the mother's rights based on her intentions does not answer when the offspring is entitled to its own inalienable rights. And let's not use circular reasoning: "Because it's my right!" is just a legal right affirmed by Roe v. Wade, which is exactly what is being disputed. It's basically saying "Abortion is OK and should remain legal because it is legal and I think it's OK!"