You are all making dumb arguments to justify an abortion ban...

>its my body, so i demand you cut her out of me right this moment.

Attached: 25618E60-D984-4EAE-9D5D-E2BAB66FA9D3.jpg (542x404, 28K)

Your bodily autonomy does not let you override the bodily autonomy of another.

You already know this, make better arguments.

Abortion doesn't simply induce birth to "evict" the fetus and allow it to survive on its own (or on life support as the hospital would then be obliged to try). Abortionists take active measures to kill it.

>Body autonomy

Attached: your-body-your-body-does-not-have-2-heads-4-13104529.png (500x522, 110K)

Two points.
1. The child has bodily autonomy.
2. We simply don't like mothers who kill children. We don't think that's okay regardless of the law.

This is not an argument. When your post is broken down its nothing more then "I disagree" with no reason given.

A baby has no autonomy either you gigantic shit for brains homosexual. Should we start going around killing babies too? How about you kill yourself first you disgusting tranny

Attached: 1554989815596.jpg (635x483, 57K)

Bodily autonomy doesn't apply to pregnancy because you are responsible for getting pregnant in the first place and creating a human life, and thus you have an obligation to protect that human life's right to live.

>If you invite someone into your house, you can't later shoot them for trespassing.

Correct, but you can ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave, then you can begin using force.

You friends don't own your house because you invited them over for dinner.

right, so the mother can't override the fetus' bodily autonomy with her own and get an abortion.

So once the child can live outside the womb it has bodily autonomy.

At about 22 weeks instead of abortions let the woman have the kid and pay child support for the next 18 years.

If you are an organ donor, then you consented to have your organs removed and given to another person. After that point it is no longer your organ, thus you have lost bodily autonomy of it. You are on the right track, follow this line of thinking. Make a good argument.

but what if it's a child?

faggot OP ignoring counter-point of conjoined twins. BTFO.

bahahahaha

Attached: C317FC8F-54CB-44D0-A06A-555DD81387F1.jpg (1242x1365, 928K)

Psalm 139:14-16
14 I will praise You, for [a]I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My [b]frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

A woman consents to pregnancy as well you dimwit by having sex

Attaching yourself to someone is not an expression of bodily autonomy. Im not sure what part of this your not understanding.

Abortion should be legal.
Making me pay for it unless it's my kid, however, should not.

12,500 murders per year in the USA
1,100,000 abortions per year in the USA
Which gender is the barbaric one again?

Bodily autonomy is the stupidest idea i have ever heard

>bodily autonomy
This does not exist for women. Reproduction is a public good, the most critical public good. Seizing the means of reproduction is necessary for a social society to maintain itself.
Individual women don't get to decide that society's means of production belong to individual women.

If Marxism is valid to leftists, then I would encourage everyone to use Marxist logic to beat leftists into total submission.
>the proletariat of Alabama has seized the means of reproduction--and this is a GOOD thing

Attached: my_body_my_choice.jpg (270x417, 30K)

Both twins have the right to be separated, sometimes they use that right. Sometimes they decided not too because they understand the risks to themselves and their conjoined twin.

Some mothers choose not to get an abortion.

Artificial wombs will make this not even an issue anymore. However roasties are gonna be super pissed when they have to start paying child support for the kid they don't want.

BTFO

I don't see a good reason that women should have bodily autonomy. What is the reason? Equality? That old saw, really? Let's pretend equality isn't an idiot's pursuit, what about the counterveiling prize of who controls the reproductive process? Does that not outweigh in importance a commitment to equality? Is that not a power worth holding? 99% of your male ancestors had more of that power than you ever had. Were they all wrong, and you're right, because you know how to say "equality"? This is just plain old gynocentrism. It's not natural to the masculine outlook, it's learned through cultural conditioning. Do yourself a favor and throw it off.

Attached: 1535937630482.jpg (1131x652, 486K)

for one fetus' don't consciously choose to exist, the parent does that by fucking recklessly.
secondly if being dependent on another life means you have no say in the termination of your life, then what does that do for the bodily autonomy for infants/children/elderly/mentally handicapped/physically handicapped?

Bodily autonomy is a myth, get arrested and find out.

Imagine u are holding someones hand dangling over a cliff.
The person cant say: well this is my hand and im going to let go, see ya.

Thats murder

Women don't have bodily autonomy, because women are property.

no, some have absolutely no choice because the doctors know doing so would amount to murder of at least one of the conjoined twins.

>I wouldn't be upset if my mom aborted me
>mom why did you circumcise me!

Attached: YoskKbeNUlXxpr4UWlvc3l8hMTKYeE2ZUJi0Jlr3su0.png (928x336, 109K)

the analogy is you agree to having a room mate, and when you ask them to leave you have to give ample time to leave.

If you say leave now, you dont get to kill them you get to call the cops and the cops say well they have established residence you need to give them 30 days to leave, or ya know 7.5 month months.

You baby killing freak.

“Bodily autonomy” is a social construct

agreed, body autonomy is important, that's why a Mother is morally and ethically obligated to protect the bodily autonomy of her children

Sex is no more consenting to pregnancy than driving is consenting to crashing.

Consent to pregnancy is consent to pregnancy.

This opinion can only come from baby hating feminists. No sane person can think like this about their own baby

Bodily autonomy is suspended for the duration of the pregnancy as the body itself, without woman's conscious mind, is accommodating and sustaining the growth of a new being inside of it. It is an involuntary biological process, not a conscious process requiring continuous consent and without external medical intervention, is not something that a woman can consciously stop without harming herself.
The process is triggered whenever she accepts sperm into her body and thus she should be aware of the processes that are happening and the fact that women are not the same as men in their biological regard and thus such exceptions must be considered.

Reproductive health and biology rests upon the foundation of a voluntary surrender to the processes that occur without your input once you set them off and thus the entire process, from insemination to birth, should be treated as one sequence, one you agree to when you have unprotected sex voluntarily. Planning and ability to raise children should be considered before having sex, not after and separation of sex from childbearing in itself is an error in judgement as risk of pregnancy can never be wholly eliminated.

As every act of sexual intercourse can be counted as consent to procreate (which the body interprets as just that every time it is inseminated) legal status of the female bodily autonomy must be reclassified, in that she accepts male DNA and allows herself to be fertilized, thus giving up the autonomy to the process that has a chance of occurring if the sperm meets her eggs.

As such, the autonomy and decision making on woman's part begin and end when she invites a man into her bed - beyond that point, she surrenders to her biology that should only be altered if she was made pregnant as a result of actual rape or if the pregnancy poses a medical risk to the woman.

Except it is consenting to it because biological sex is for procreation your making the wrong analogy a wreck is a accident not meant to happen

Let's say you run a hospital. A patient enters your facility with the agreement you will care for them. You put the patient into a medically induced coma for reasons. Shortly thereafter you decide you don't want this patient so you cease life sustaining activities and dump them in an alley, still unconscious. They die. Is that wrong?

The only justifiable "bodily autonomy" argument that makes any semblance of logic is if the unborn is causing risk of death or debilitating injury to the mother. In other words, if the hospital patient attacks the nurse, they are rightfully expelled.

These are weak mothers we're talking about. Women without strength or instinct to protect the life they created do not belong in my life. I pity the gelded men who would marry them.

Bodily autonomy can be waived, as in cases such as being arrested; you're restrained without your consent.
Bodily autonomy is a far-reaching privelege, but not an absolute right.

As a further example; if you're helping someone up a cliff, and you're the only thing keeping them from plummeting to their demise, and you suddenly retract consent and tell them to let go, you will rightly be considered a murderer.

> then what does that do for the bodily autonomy for infants/children/elderly/mentally handicapped/physically handicapped?
You are not required to care of any of those people, no matter the relation. This is how our current system works.

Bodily autonomy does not grant the right to take what you want from others, I don't understand how to be more clear with this.

Copypasta

Attached: xmu0178tptl21.jpg (960x960, 148K)

There is no logic with illogical concepts. In this case, it’s religious people deciding they are going to define human life based on their feelings and then use that definition to attack the freedom of a population they feel needs to be restricted. It’s just a western version of the Islamist garbage. If you removed the language barrier. They’d get along like a library on fire. Point is they don’t care because what they want is conflated in their thought process for the will of their deity.

>argue about abortion
>circular argument that gets no where and convinces no one

>tell women to leave red states and move en masse to blue states
>everybody wins

>muh autonomy
>STICK YOUR KIDS WITH 60 VACCINATIONS IN THE FIRST 6 MONTHS OF HIS LIFE, BIGOT!!!

Attached: 1557578047794.jpg (306x306, 20K)

Except they can. You don't have the obligation to save someone dangling over a cliff.

If you start trying to save that person, you are under no obligation to continue to try and save that person. This is how our current system works.

> Mr. Judge, I tried everything I could to get him to stop hugging me but he kept hugging me so I killed him

Correct, circumcision is a violation of bodily autonomy.

But I thought a fetus was a body part. Therefore, if the fetus is a someone, you are not permitted to kill them for that would also be against the law (and abortion AKA murder is not an apt punishment for a supposed violation of bodily autonomy). The natural human urge to pass on ones genes via offspring Trump's all shallow man-made "laws."

>implying all pro-life advocates are religious

kys

Prove it you dolt, I just wrote that.

Ops argument would mean a women can chose to abort the day of birth while the umbilical cord is still attached

My son is due to be born in 4 weeks. Fuck abortions. These women are disgusting murderous fucks.

Attached: 6ebfdeaf4e6f33af0067b73520f112f2f291a1896aaf82ff1690897fe8b7837e.jpg (311x311, 40K)

>Except they can. You don't have the obligation to save someone dangling over a cliff.
Except you do, because unless you are in immediate mortal danger from trying to save them, forcing them to let go is murder.

>this is how our current system works
No it doesn't you doublenigger

God says it's an abomination.
Full stop.
Debate over.

Attached: image.jpg (1583x2048, 445K)

Except we are talking about a situation where you have their hand and chose to let him go

Remember this is all supposed to be legal in your argument

Consent to pregnancy is consent to pregnancy.
Sex is not consent to pregnancy.

If you would like the abortion ban to be only for women who consented to be pregnant, then maybe we have an argument finally.

Attached: prochoice-1.jpg (1000x667, 116K)

Rights sometimes infringe on other rights. The bodily autonomy argument only works when you ignore the fact that abortion is murder. Murder also happens to be illegal. An unborn fetus doesn't count? Look into criminal penalties for when a fetus is killed due to the violent act of another. Only matters if the fetus is wanted? Yeah, google that, too.

holy fuck you're a retard

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

>A mother is morally and ethically obligated to protect the bodily autonomy of her children

Again sex is supposed to end in pregnancy it is consent to that possibility

Your car analogy was wrong your not supposed to wreck but sex is supposed to be for procreation

>until the mothers life is in danger, no abortion

Anti abortion social control movements are almost exclusively centered around religious groups seeking to enforce their theocratic world view on others. They do this to other groups, but women are a major target.

There’s a concept called murder
If you are holding say a child’s hand and that child is leaning over a ledge above a 60 foot fall you can’t say
>MY HAND MY CHOICE PATRIARCHY
and drop the child.
That’s what we call MURDER.
And today you’ve learned something special - I am better than you.

Attached: 18B75AC8-9FA1-4806-80FB-6B5F34536948.png (600x684, 557K)

killing unborn children is bad, i don't need an argument

You can make the argument that a living child falls in this category, as they need your body for labor to sustain it from living. An infant needs to be fed every two hours for the first two months of living, and your bodily labor is controlled by that infant in order to survive even though it means you lose the convenience of more than 2 hours of sleep. So are you saying we can kill infants user?

Attached: E164E1A9-7058-4DBC-AF88-83312175B4B6.jpg (1125x1896, 1M)

A broken condom is an accident.

Also, there are approximately zero women who set out to become pregnant, with the express goal of heading to an abortion clinic.

Almost all abortions are because of accidents.

Congrats user
a son is a real blessing, i hope everything goes smooth :)

>Sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Except when it is every time since your uglies can't tell the difference and make pregnancy happen if the conditions are met.

>from living
For living

This means a woman cannot be forced to abort.

It does not mean she has a right to abort.

Go back to school so you can understand arguments better,

But we're talking about actively terminating the life, not leaving it alone.
Leaving a disabled person to fend for themselves rather than caring for them is essentially "letting nature take it's course", the equivalent of that is not getting an abortion, it's just letting the pregnancy run it's course and then putting it up for adoption when it's born.
>Bodily autonomy does not grant the right to take what you want from others
Right, so it doesn't grant the right for a woman to terminate a fetus just because she wants to take more dick.

>Well that makes sense because no one else has the right to your body and this is how our system works.
>Your free to go!

A condom is not the act again it says on the box it’s not 100% you are consenting to a act that produces a child it’s simple

Where's your proof, tranny?

Actually you are, by all western laws, required to care for infants...if you stop taking care of your infant you’re charged with murder

Ill just quote myself
>circumcision is a violation of bodily autonomy

I think I nailed it and this conversation is done.
They have nothing.
Which basically you’d expect from people stupid enough to want to get pregnant and kill their own babies.

A women implicitly consents to potentially assume all of the responsibilities attending motherhood once she decides to have sex. Also fetuses aren't property like a conventional possession you might own like a piece of land or a gun. When you refer to it as a woman's property you're reducing and atomizing it to the status of a commodity which it obviously isn't remotely comparable to in this context. I thought the notion that lives can be property was characteristic of the slavery paradigm? Lives cannot equate to property and this is antithetical to the constitution. Roasties and hoes just want to nullify accountability for their actions.

They think a wad of cells with no frontal lobe is a person. They think if they just force women to breed, those women will need them again. They form insane conspiracies about people eating the fetuses, or using them to summon demons, or empower other mythological entities. You’re never going to win the abortion debate without fixing the anti abortionists. Sadly magical thinking feels good. So good luck.

Your shit arguments are shit

Attached: 1558213355799.png (785x765, 800K)

it makes sense because if i have a child that is dependent on me the child is using my resources by my permission and not by right. at any time i have the right to kick the child out of my home

Attached: 1553553111655.jpg (2541x3276, 2.55M)

You do know there are literal abortions being done so late the baby comes out alive and viable

Retarded non-arguments. No one is forcing women to breed your fucking retard. Just because you don't want to be responsible for the life of a child does not give you the right to kill a baby.

You just changed the scenario. Don't cheat to try and win debates, it makes you a weaker debater and you will get called out.

Your original scenario
>Imagine u are holding someones hand dangling over a cliff.

What you changed it to
>forcing them to let go