I'm a strong proponent of contraception and will tout its efficacy all day long if provoked, but I'd like to hear about your magical contraception method that is 100% effective, easily accessible to all socioeconomic backgrounds, and effectively ends any need for an abortion. Two quick points:
- That's not going to happen, as a world with such a method of contraception still doesn't account for cases of pregnancy that were initially intended, becoming pregnant during a sexual encounter against one's will, etc.
- If abstinence is your magical contraception method, you're mistaken. It might work for some people, and it's a perfectly fine thing to choose for oneself, but as far as its efficacy on society, it's one of the worst forms of birth control. It was also never widely practiced.
There is another option, but it would violate the bodily autonomy that you have been preaching.
Ignoring for a second that the time personhood begins is irrelevant because one's right to bodily autonomy still exists, I have a couple points to make:
- We don't make policy based on imaginary things that might or might not exist.
- If you can't answer the question about when something becomes a child, then you probably shouldn't advocate for policy that's contingent upon such a definition. If you're going to impose restrictions on reproductive rights, such a classification needs to be defined. Depending on how you answer the question, pulling out could be illegal.
- We also don't make policy based on the unknown either.
- The same could be said about you, you shouldn't promote, see two can play this game, it goes both ways. Because I doubt you know either.
Are you saying now that it's not a child before 22-24 weeks of pregnancy? I'm confused where you stand.
Who me? Of course not. The law did or whom ever wrote the law. I didn't create the law, I don't know why you thought I did. Like I have stated before, a law is better then no law, making compromises here I guess.
You seem to have misunderstood the comparison. The organ donor is analogous to the pregnant woman, not the fetus. The person who needs the organ transplant to live is analogous to the fetus.
That true, but in this case it doesn't help both parties here, the fetus has to die. In organ donation, the organ(s) are not wasted and put to use, by another person needing the said transplant. But if you put it that way, I guess there isn't much of a difference.
As I said above, abstinence is a perfectly fine choice to make. However, we've evolved to have sex, and it's a good thing one shouldn't deprive oneself of if he or she wants to have it. Considering the biological drive that exists to have sex, it's unrealistic to say the existence of abstinence as a choice is reason enough not to have legal abortion. It works for some individuals, but abstinence is a failure globally.
You're pro abortion, good for you. More power to you I guess.
You skipped a lot of my questions about when something becomes a child, rationalizing a worldview that forbids abortion but allows for voluntary organ donation, etc.
Well, we sure have come to a complete circle. Yes, I have answered these questions, you're simply refusing to acknowledge it or just don't like the answer.
Good day sir.
You... Actually think there was a time when abstinence was actually practiced?...
Okay, after re-reading my post, I realized I didn't word it very well.
But yes, perhaps back in ancient times and mostly for religious belief.
