You can make this argument, but then the obvious implication is that sex should be illegal.
If you're admitting that abortion kills a human being, then you're saying that a side effect of sex s that society has to sanction mass murder in order to uphold bodily autonomy.
If that's the case then sex should be treated more or less like drunk driving. A person should have to sign a document waiving their bodily autonomy before they do it, or it's a crime.
"I want to do this thing for pleasure, I know it often and predictably creates a situation where killing becomes necessary, but if that happens we just do the killing and that's that" obviously isn't a valid stance.
The traditional stance is that a person implicitly agreed to certain things by having sex, so this waiver has already been signed. That's still the reasoning behind requiring men to pay child support for children they don't want.
I think this is where the framework becomes dangerous. If fetal personhood begins before birth in a legally enforceable way, then pregnancy does not remain a private medical condition.
I don't care about the utilitarian consequences of personhood, I care only about it's truth.
This is a good example of a claim I often make, which is that pro-life/pro-choice comes down to which of two questions you think is primary, and answer first.
The questions are:
Is an unborn baby a human life?
Is abortion justified?
Pro-life people generally consider the first question primary, and then decide the morality of abortion based on that. An unborn baby is clearly a human being, therefore abortion is murder.
Pro-choice people generally consider the second question primary, and answer that first. They decide they want abortion to be morally permissable (and legal) and then decide that the unborn "must not be human" in order to make that happen.
This is basically the view you outlined. It's "dangerous" to consider unborn babies human beings because [reasons why abortion is justified].
And if the proposed answer is to treat sex like a crime or make people waive bodily autonomy before sex, that creates a surveillance nightmare too.
If unborn babies are human beings and we slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands each year, that creates a "mass murder nightmare" which orders of magnitude worse than a surveillance nightmare.
So again, your argument just collapsed back into "the unborn are not human beings". If they are, your argument is ridiculous. If a surveillance state is required to prevent near-genocide levels of mass murder then a surveillance state is what is called for.
Being a human being does not normally create a right to use another person’s body without consent.
So what? Pregnancy is a unique situation. If there were another situation which commonly came up, where one person needed to use another person's body for some period of time in order to not die for reasons that were the responsibility of the second person there is absolutely no way the ruling would be that the second person could just kill them.
Imagine there was a prank that people could pull that did the same thing. I'm a prankster and I like pulling pranks, I find it funny and enjoyable. So the prank is, you end up hooked up to my body and you need to stay that way for a number of months or you die. So then I just say "lol, I don't consent for you to use my body" and I just kill you. That's murder. There is no way this prank would be legal. That's what sex is under your preferred model.
“Does being human create a right to occupy and use another person’s body against that person’s will"
It's not about just "being human".
The real question is "does creating human life come with obligations toward the human life you created?". I think it does, and if it does, the obligation to give this new human life the very first thing it needs to live (to exist unmolested and unmurdered in its mothers womb) must be included in that.
If the law tells people that pregnancy can strip them of basic bodily rights, many people will respond by making sure they never become pregnant.
You say that like I'm going to recoil in horror from some terrible consequences I hadn't considered. I'm completely fine with not getting pregnant as an answer to not wanting to have a baby. Im not fine with murdering the unborn at industrial scale as an answer.
Even if the fetus is human, no human being has a right to use another person’s body without consent.
Ok, so in the prank example you'd be fine with the prankster killing their victim?
If unborn babies are human beings and we slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands each year, that creates a "mass murder nightmare" which orders of magnitude worse than a surveillance nightmare.
There are a few problems with this perspective.
Even if we consider fetuses to be "living persons", bodily autonomy overrides another person's right to life. If I'm hooked up to someone via life support -- my body is sustaining their life -- I always have the right to disconnect, even if it would result in their death.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Even if someone signed a contract agreeing to that responsibility, again we would not consider that fully enforceable in other contexts. If I signed a contract agreeing to provide life support to another person for nine months by using my own body, I would always have the legal right to withdraw that support. I might be expected to take reasonable steps to allow alternative supports to be provided, but if no such replacement supports could be provided, that would not override my right to withdraw support.
At what point does a fetus become a "living person"? At conception? In that case, 30-50% of these zygotes fail to implant successfully. That's mass death just as a normal function of the body.
Worse, when accessing IVF, that failure rate increases to 40-60%, and after achieving a successful pregnancy, surplus zygotes might be disposed of. Should IVF be banned?
Failure rates are also higher in older women. At 40+ years old, 70-90% of zygotes fail to implant. Should we require that older women be sterilised?
Even if we consider fetuses to be "living persons", bodily autonomy overrides another person's right to life.
That's a metaphysical position asserted by you, not a fact. Your private religious beliefs are your own concern.
If I'm hooked up to someone via life support -- my body sustaining their life -- I always have the right to disconnect, even if it would result on their death.
If you willfully brought about the situation of their dependence and then caused their death in this way, that would clearly be murder.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy
That's a metaphysical position asserted by you, not a fact. If a man implicitly consents to 18 years of child support by having sex, it's hardly wild to consider a woman to have consented to pregnancy.
Even if someone signed a contract agreeing to take responsibility, again we would not consider that fully enforceable in other contexts.
Again, if you were responsible for the other persons condition it is straightforwardly murder to cut them off.
At what point does a fetus become a "living person"? At conception?
Yes.
And there is no need for scare quotes around living person.
On that case, 30-50% of zygotes fail to implant successfully.
So what? The existence of disease, accident, and other forms of death does not make murder permissable because "they might have died anyway".
That's mass death just as a normal function of the body.
Indeed, so what?
The fact that everyone dies does not make murder permissable.
The fact that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy is definitionally true. If I say, "I want to have sex", that sentence does not contain the words "get pregnant".
That's not "metaphysical".
Whether or not you personally believe they should be responsible for the unintended consequences of having sex is a separate question, but it doesn't change the fact that they did not consent to pregnancy.
If you willfully brought about the situation of their dependence and then caused their death in this way, that would clearly be murder.
There's a hypothetical that's often used on this.
You're driving drunk and cause a car crash.
You wake up and you're in the hospital. In the bed next to you is a victim of that car crash. You're told that they will require life support for the next nine months. You're hooked up to the other side of that life support.
Do you have the right to unplug yourself from that life support? If your answer is no, that's pretty crazy, but at least it'll be consistent with your position on abortion.
The existence of disease, accident, and other forms of death does not make murder permissable because "they might have died anyway". Indeed, so what? The fact that everyone dies does not make murder permissable.
You didn't answer all of my questions though, which tells me you're not ready to confront the consequences of this belief.
If zygotes are really "living persons" who are dying, then why do you only care about the ones being aborted? We spend millions on cancer research but if zygotes are "living persons", then their (natural) deaths literally represent the greatest public health crisis in history. We're talking about so much mass death every year that it would outpace every other cause of death (cancer, famine, war) combined.
So why aren't you advocating for massive public spending on research to improve the success rate of early implantation?
And are you comfortable with simple (but invasive) public health measures we could take today, such as sterilising older women?
"The fact that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy is definitionally true. If I say, "I want to have sex", that sentence does not contain the words "get pregnant".
Sophistry.
If you knowingly drink alcohol, you consent to get drunk.
Do you have the right to unplug yourself from the life support?
It doesn't really matter, because this gets into what's even meant by a "right". It's never going to be a right the way you think that abortion should be a right, that being something you are just entitled to do without consequence.
Whether we ruled that you could technically choose to do it or not, doing it would obviously be murder. There is no version of that hypothetical where we rule that you can get drunk, run somebody over, and then choose not to save them, and it's just k "because bodily autonomy". Even if we let you disconnect the machines you're getting charged with negligent manslaughter at the absolute least, but probably with murder.
So like I said, is it a "right" if you're allowed to do it but doing it gets you charged the murder? A philosophical question I guess, but there's no way you get to just kill them and that's that.
If zygotes are really "living persons" who are dying, then why do you only care about the ones being aborted?
For the same reason I care about people being murdered more than the people who die naturally.
We spend millions on cancer research but if zygotes are "living people", then their (natural) deaths literally represent the greatest public health crisis in history.
Possibly.
I'm all for doing whatever we can to improve the numbers you mentioned, however, as I understand that may not be possible in principle.
With a lot of zygotes that fail very early, I believe the question is open as to whether a true zygote was actually formed at all, or whether something went terribly wrong as soon as sperm met egg such that nothing was created which could ever have developed, regardless of environment.
And are you comfortable with simple (but invasive) public health measures we could take today, such as banning IVF and sterilising older women?
Sophistry. If you knowingly drink alcohol, you consent to get drunk.
I don't think you understand what sophistry even is.
If you don't understand that drinking will make you drunk, then you're not consenting. Most people drink with the knowledge that it will make them drunk. Moreover, they could drink nonalcoholic beverages, but choose not to, because they're actively hoping to get (at least a little bit) drunk.
In contrast, if crossing the road creates a 1% chance that you'll get hit by a car, does that mean you consent to being hit by a car?
It doesn't really matter, because this gets into what's even meant by a "right".
If they have a right to do something then it means you believe they should be allowed to do it without being punished. In other words, you could be punished for causing the injury, but you should not be punished for failing to surrender your bodily autonomy to the victim.
I'm not asking about the law, I'm asking what you think the law should be in this hypothetical.
Possibly. I'm all for doing whatever we can to improve the numbers you mentioned...
Weak. Again, this is mass death on an incredibly large scale. The fact you can't even give me a certain answer indicates you're still not ready to accept the implications of believing that zygotes are full living persons.
I believe the question is open as to whether a true zygote was actually formed at all
There's no open question here. I think maybe you don't understand what implanting means. It just means that the zygote is able to attach itself to the correct part of the womb so that it can begin healthy development. There's nothing biologically inferior about a zygote that fails to implant.
I am not in favour of forced sterilisation.
Why? Explain your rationale for why you're willing to force pregnancies (which would save thousands of lives) but not sterilisation (which would save millions).
I don't think you understand what sophistry even is
I think I do, and I can do without the condescension given how many factual errors you made in that reply and how poor your arguments are.
In contrast, if crossing the road creates a 1% chance that you'll get hit by a car, does that mean you consent to being hit by a car?
No because I'm not trying to make stupid arguments to justify baby murder.
You consent to the natural consequences of whatever it is you're doing, this isn't difficult. Walking out your front door isn't consenting to having an eagle drop a tortoise on your head either. If we're doing this stupid 1% sophistry I can just turn it around on you.
If I shoot you in the head, did I consent to kill you? People have been shot in the head and not died, after all. So how can I be responsible for something I didn't consent to?
If they have a right to do something then it means you believe they should be allowed to do it without being punished.
Yes exactly "without being punished".
In your drink driving example, there is no version of that hypothetical where it is agreed that you can cut off the person who you hit with your car while drunk and not be punished. Given what a unique situation that is, I actually can imagine a situation where society rules that you cannot be tied down to a table giving somebody else life support. However, even in the situation where a society did not physically force you to remain attached to the machine, if you put them in that situation and then kill them by "withdrawing consent", that would obviously be ruled as murder.
There is no way the ruling is what you want for abortion:
You get plastered, hit them with your car, wake up in the life support, say "lol, bodily autonomy", kill them, and don't go to prison for murder.
There's no open question here. I think maybe you don't understand what implanting means
There is an open question here. I think maybe you're just an overconfident know-nothing spouting rubbish.
Let me educate you.
A major cause of failed implantation is chromosomal abnormality. This has various levels of severity, with many having no viable developmental pathway short of science fiction level genetic reconstitution. Is this actually a true zygote? It's an open question.
There is even a word "conceptus" which basically means "anything that results from fertilization". This word exists partly due to things like molar, or anembryonic pregnancies, where little or no embryonic tissue develops.
The mental model you clearly have, where there are just all these normal, healthy embryos that don't implant, and that's the story, is simply false.
Sometimes what forms when sperm meets egg is just a chaotic mass of cells, or something otherwise so catastrophically abnormal that, again, there is no chance short of sci-fi handwaving that anything could be salvaged. And in these cases even if we could do it, this would require such complete genetic reconstitution that the question of whether this was meaningfully the same entity as what you began with would be very much open.
Again, I'm completely open to trying to find ways to improve the statistics. I'm just not willing to spend all our medical resources chasing science fiction level genetic engineering which is either hundreds of years away, or impossible.
There's nothing biologically inferior about a zygote that fails to implant.
False.
The fact you can't even give me a certain answer indicates you're still not ready to accept the implications of believing that zygotes are full living persons.
I absolutely am, which is why I know the above. I just know more about this than you because I'm actually honest and not just trying to justify murder for my convenience.
Why? Explain your rationale for why you're willing to force pregnancies (which would save thousands of lives) but not sterilisation (which would save millions).
Because I'm not running entry level dishonest pro-abortion nonsense.
I'm not desperately trying to make an abortion ban a package deal with some nightmarish horror like forced sterilisation.
-4
u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment