There is no threshold for consciousness. In fact, a fully-grown cow is more conscious than a 2-year old human. So either you support infanticide, are a vegan, or are not making a logical argument.
2. It's not the woman's DNA, so it's not the woman's body that is being killed.
3. Imagine if every aborted baby was still alive, and how much good they could do for the world.
4. It lowers minority population. There are more African-American babies in New York being aborted than born.
5. Adoption is a possibility, and I think the baby would prefer that to death.
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
1) The consciousness is irrelevant. If a fully grown and conscious adult was attached to your body to live, begging you to let them keep using your body, you would still have every right to sever that connection and stop them form continuing to use your body, even if it means they die.
2) Of course, but it's the woman's body that is being used, without her consent, which is why she has the right to stop it from continuing.
3) There are billions of people worldwide who are currently suffering from man-made poverty under capitalism just to survive.
4) Do you think the disproportionate number of marginalized people in poverty might have something to do with that? Can't have kids if you're just too poor...
5) What the fetus/baby wants is also irrelevant. If the mother doesn't want to be pregnant anymore then that's it.
Societies have often placed limits on individual autonomy when it's seen as harmful to others. For example, we have laws against drunk driving to protect other road users. In the same vein, some argue that a fetus, as a potential life, should be afforded some level of protection.
Further, you've mentioned poverty as a significant factor in the decision to have an abortion. While it's undeniable that socio-economic factors play a significant role, perhaps the broader question we should be addressing is how can society better support individuals and families in these circumstanc… Read more
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
Placing laws on public spaces, such as roads, for the sake of public health, like preventing motor accidents, is not only a perfectly justifiable action but also isn't infringing on any rights to begin with. Driving isn't a right, nor is drinking alcohol, and doing both is definitely not a right; furthermore, you are perfectly free to drink and drive on your own property, it is only illegal to do so on public roads, since it is the public space is what is being regulated, not you yourself.
Bodily autonomy does not fall under this same vein because your own body is not for public use.… Read more
I would argue that the comparison to public spaces like roads may not be as distinct as you presented. Consider this: laws on public spaces like roads are there not only to protect individuals but also others who may be affected by one's actions. Similarly, the pro-life argument is that laws around abortion are there to protect not only the mother but also the potential life of the fetus.
Also, I would like to challenge the idea that the life of the fetus is completely irrelevant. For some, the fetus represents a potential life that has inherent value, regardless of its dependency or… Read more
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
The only thing that anti-abortion laws protect is the right for another person, the fetus, to use the mother's body without her consent, which not only completely violates the bodily autonomy of the mother, but also protects a right that the fetus simply does not have to begin with. No one, not even a baby, has the right to use another person's body without their consent; as such, there is no right that the fetus has to protect in the first place. The fetus does not have the right to use the mother's body, even if it will die without her, so protecting a right that does not eve… Read more
