Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have heard only four arguments that explain why pregnant women don't have the rights to BD, all flawed.

Active killing vs. Passive killing.
This argument says that because abortion is a form of active killing, it is not the same as refusing to give bone marrow (passive killing) and should therefore be outlawed. I already argued against this here: http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewtopic.php?t=3706769

You consented to pregnancy when you consented to sex.
Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy anymore than consent to getting in a car is consent to getting hurt/killed in a crash. What part of a birth control pill, condoms, spermicide, and/or the Plan B pill was a woman consenting to pregnancy anyway?

And even if consent was given, it can be withdrawn at any time just like during sex.
Woman: I don't want to have sex with you anymore!
Man: Yes you do!

In this case, the man would have committed a crime called rape.

Woman: I don't want to be pregnant anymore!
You: Yes you do!

I fail to see the difference, except for the name given to the action. What, should we deny treatment to STD-ridden women as well, because they consented to being infected when they consented to sex? Again, you'd be giving a fetus rights that born people don't have and never will have.

Pregnancy is a natural biological function.
Sex is also a natural biological function by that argument. During sex, that part of your body is being used for its natural intention, whether it was wanted or not. However, rape is currently a crime (at least, it is in my neck of the woods). By your logic, a man should be able to rape a woman whenever he wants, because it’s a natural part of reproduction just like pregnancy. However, your side often discourages sex. Irony?

Abortion is like neglect, not bodily domain.
(I admit, this one was unexpected. I don't see how this wouldn't be a BD issue at all. I also admit that my defense is fairly weak. If anyone can help strengthen this, feel free.)

Parental neglect is defined as “a crime consisting of acts that endanger the health or life of a child or fails to take steps necessary to raise a child.” Abortion fails this for two reasons. First of all, there is a fetus involved in abortion, not a technical child. Second, the fetus does not qualify as a person under the law. Third, the action cannot possibly be closer to neglect, as this crime has born children as victims. A fetus is directly feeding off of the mother. A born child does not do this directly, but indirectly through time and money. Therefore, the cases are different.

(If you have heard any other defenses and can refute them, feel free to post them)

The fetus has BD too!

In the case of a bodily domain violation, the person who was violated first would be the one able to exercise her rights, even use lethal force to stop the other. Think of it like a rape incident: The victim could kill her rapist in self-defense, despite the fact that the rapist had rights to BD.

Of course, this only applies if both parties have legal status and the rights that come with it. A fetus has no rights.

OooOoo! *jumps up and down* let me take a shot at it.

The neglect one that is.

See the cells at the point of most abortions are really just that, cells, they are convulging in a single area to form a single entity true, but those cells are by all means of logic, part of the mothers body.

I don't think you can neglect yourself by killing cells. Last I checked each human being kills a great deal of their cells daily as a natural bodily function, for health purposes. These cells refresh themselves because they have a use at some point, but when they are able to hurt our body, our body desposes of them.

Example: Our skin cells. Alive they are formed benieth what most people commonly refer to as skin. They DIE and flake off our body on the surface to allow for new, healthier, skin to come to the surface. This is also one of the MAIN defenses our body has against basic infection, and it works primarily by this new cell/dead cell/flake off process. {I can't find a book in my immediate possesion, so I point you all to the episode of Magic School Bus where Arnold is Orange, and their sources.}

In the period of 7 years our body has killed off nearly all cells and has replaced them ALL. (talk about repair! The exceptions would be areas of your brain and your eyes.) [Source ]

The thing is that despite the harm a fetus/potential birth might have on the mother, our bodys often don't involuntarily reject it. (Mis carriage at times is a body involuntarily rejecting a fetus for the safty of the mother, it can also be many other things, but this is included) Science today has allowed us to be able to reconize health problems that come with birth, and science has also given us the ability to remove the cause of harm before it can cause much if any harm.

There are many social reasons for voluntarily rejecting these cells, among them rape and financial problems, but we can voluntarily do this, and just like our body rejects other cells for its basic health, woman should have the choice to be able to reject the cells of a potential fetus/fetus should she feel threatened in any way by those cells.

{Note: Involuntary reactions are bodily functions that your body does on its own without consulting your consious. These are functions your body does on its own because it needs to. Your heart pumping is an involuntary reaction.

Voluntary reactions are bodily functions you have a measure of choice over. You don't have to do these actions, while often its for the best if you do. Movement is a voluntary reaction.

To sum up: Eating is voluntary, while Digesting is involuntary

We all understand?}

[I still need to grab the sources for my claims, and put them in here, they do exist, But I figured I'd put a minor warning for now that this has few sources with it, feel free to add sources to help me out! Yes I do believe all of my facts are stright, but I am human, feel free to correct.]