Abortion is not wrong because a fetus is not a person and a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps any obligation to a fetus.
Change my mind.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Fetus literally means unborn baby.
"Abortion is not wrong because an unborn baby is not a person and a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps any obligation to an unborn baby."
Dehumanisation of the human subject is the first step to the dehumanisation of the observer. We can justify any atrocity if we strip others of their humanity. To a degree, in relation to babies, the point at which we do this is arbitrary. It was common in rural China to put newborn baby girls upside down in a bucket of water. Less cruel perhaps than the methods used to kill late term babies where the act of killing is hidden behind a flesh curtain.
I wondern why a modern version of "the scream" has never been released...
"Abortion is not wrong because an unborn baby is not a person and a woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps any obligation to an unborn baby."
Dehumanisation of the human subject is the first step to the dehumanisation of the observer. We can justify any atrocity if we strip others of their humanity. To a degree, in relation to babies, the point at which we do this is arbitrary. It was common in rural China to put newborn baby girls upside down in a bucket of water. Less cruel perhaps than the methods used to kill late term babies where the act of killing is hidden behind a flesh curtain.
I wondern why a modern version of "the scream" has never been released...
LeopoldBloom · M
@PlatonicSquirelFriends Fetuses are not legal persons.
@PlatonicSquirelFriends
I mean..i guess it is arbitrary but it's also erring on the side of caution. The latest a fetus can be aborted for non medical reasons is before the brain develops sufficiently to be conscious.
I'm not saying fetus as an attempt to dehumanize anything. The fact is that a fetus below a certain level of development, while genetically human, possesses no qualities that one could meaningfully point to as representative of personhood.
I mean..i guess it is arbitrary but it's also erring on the side of caution. The latest a fetus can be aborted for non medical reasons is before the brain develops sufficiently to be conscious.
I'm not saying fetus as an attempt to dehumanize anything. The fact is that a fetus below a certain level of development, while genetically human, possesses no qualities that one could meaningfully point to as representative of personhood.
A fetus need not be a full “person” to have morally serious claims. We often think beings can matter morally before they possess rationality, autonomy, self-awareness, or social participation. Newborns, severely cognitively disabled humans, unconscious patients, and people in reversible comas may lack many personhood capacities, yet we do not treat them as disposable. So the anti-abortion argument can say: once there is a living human organism on a continuous developmental path, it has at least enough moral status that killing it requires more than “not a person.”
The second counterargument is that bodily autonomy, though profound, is not unlimited. Parenthood already creates special obligations that ordinary strangers do not have. A parent may not be required to donate a kidney to a child, but they are required to provide food, shelter, and care. Pregnancy is unique because the care is bodily rather than external, but the anti-abortion view says the uniqueness of the dependency does not erase the obligation.
The second counterargument is that bodily autonomy, though profound, is not unlimited. Parenthood already creates special obligations that ordinary strangers do not have. A parent may not be required to donate a kidney to a child, but they are required to provide food, shelter, and care. Pregnancy is unique because the care is bodily rather than external, but the anti-abortion view says the uniqueness of the dependency does not erase the obligation.
@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays
I mention that a fetus is not a person because a non-person does not have the rights of a person.
That said, even if a fetus does get the same rights as any other person, no person has the right to make use of another person's body against their will. At a certain point the pro lifer must start arguing for additional rights not afforded to any born person.
I don't think i've ever seen an argument that succeeds in justifying such rights.
I mention that a fetus is not a person because a non-person does not have the rights of a person.
That said, even if a fetus does get the same rights as any other person, no person has the right to make use of another person's body against their will. At a certain point the pro lifer must start arguing for additional rights not afforded to any born person.
I don't think i've ever seen an argument that succeeds in justifying such rights.
Magicianzini · M
When to you, does a fetus turn into a person?
@Magicianzini
I don't know but i'm happy with a nice early cut off around 24 weeks or whatever when it might be that the brain starts approaching what we could consider consciousness.
Ain't no personhood without consciousness.
I don't know but i'm happy with a nice early cut off around 24 weeks or whatever when it might be that the brain starts approaching what we could consider consciousness.
Ain't no personhood without consciousness.
AbstractWave · 61-69, M
SinlessOnslaught · M
@SinlessOnslaught
Well you're killing what could become a baby.
If you had the power to force a woman who had been raped to carry her pregnancy to term, would you do it?
Well you're killing what could become a baby.
If you had the power to force a woman who had been raped to carry her pregnancy to term, would you do it?
SinlessOnslaught · M
@Pikachu I did say I wouldn't take away a woman's right to abortion, and I wouldn't rub it in her face that a baby's life is being taken away. Doesn't that answer your question?
I would not force her to.
I would not force her to.
@SinlessOnslaught
I totally appreciate that but the reason you gave was that it wouldn't stop the problem, just make it worse.
That makes good sense from a practical and legislative position.
But if the power was yours to save what you believe to be a baby's life...why wouldn't you?
Is it because forcing a woman who was violated to relive that every day for nine months seems monstrous?
Is her pain more important than the life of the baby?
I totally appreciate that but the reason you gave was that it wouldn't stop the problem, just make it worse.
That makes good sense from a practical and legislative position.
But if the power was yours to save what you believe to be a baby's life...why wouldn't you?
Is it because forcing a woman who was violated to relive that every day for nine months seems monstrous?
Is her pain more important than the life of the baby?
@Gibbon
Ah yes, asking people to examine how deeply they actually hold a belief is just me " being obnoxious to stir up shit".
lol you don't strike me as a thoughtful person.
You seem more interested in hurling down judgement from up there on your high, high horse than in engaging thoughtfully.
Oh well. I'll get over it.
Ah yes, asking people to examine how deeply they actually hold a belief is just me " being obnoxious to stir up shit".
lol you don't strike me as a thoughtful person.
You seem more interested in hurling down judgement from up there on your high, high horse than in engaging thoughtfully.
Oh well. I'll get over it.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
Only to the extenty that it is none of any mans business except the father. And he only gets a vote if he is prepared to sign up for the long haul of raising the child to adulthood. Otherwise its a deeply private matter for the woman to decide...😷
LeopoldBloom · M
@whowasthatmaskedman Since it's inside the woman's body, the father only has a say if the woman wants him to. The father has no right to force the woman to either give birth or have an abortion against her will.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@LeopoldBloom Thats my persdonal view. However, if the male is prepared to take custody at birth and accept total resposibility, I think an argument can be made at that point..😷