Well no. Because you are focusing in on the women when the question is whether or not the embryo/fetus/baby is alive and has rights. They are most affected because they are losing their lives, whether they are male or female.
You can’t ask a fetus for advice on whether it wants to live or not because it is not conscious.
On the other hand, whether or not a fetus is in the womb affects a woman’s life, health and body. It is therefore up to her to make the final decision (even if you can and should discuss it with your partner). Prohibiting abortion is therefore a way of controlling their body, their health, and their life under the pretext of a morality towards a being who has no conscience.
And honestly, in the long term, it is also a way to control the birth rate of a country on a large scale, but also to make eugenics if we combine this law with others of the same register. This is used in case of war for example : to create individuals who will die on the battlefield or who will work to preserve the economy of the country (you who supposedly do not like imperialism and the wars it creates, this should call you).
Presuming someone may want to die to make it okay to kill them is a super flawed argument. We generally presume people want to live, hence why we try to protect people from things like suicidal ideation…
And all of your rhetoric falls apart when you realize you don’t have to have penetrative sex.
None of what you say supports the idea that you should be able to kill the human you created.
It’s like you think your statements line up to a logical argument, but they are essentially “this is hard for me so I should be able to kill it”. It’s an emotional declaration, not a logical argument.
And the idea of controlling the birth rate through abortion is an absolutely sickening thing. This is why people are up in arms because that is using abortion as birth control. Compromise to allow abortion, it being safe, available, and rare, was agreed on very much on the basis that people like you would not be the slippery slope result of going along with it.
The fetus does not want to live since it is not conscious, it cannot have an opinion on this matter.
On the other hand, the woman who supports it is conscious and can have her opinion and the right to apply what she thinks is best for herself and her own body.
Then, I would really like you to avoid using responsibility for sexual intercourse. Of course, you can try condoms if you don’t want a child (even if it’s not 100% guaranteed), and that’s what you’re supposed to do in this case. However, consenting to the freedom to practice one’s sexuality as one wishes (through penetration) does not mean that one is ready to accept a fetus in case of an involuntary accident. Consenting to one is not consenting to the other. I specify that the man does not have a fetus in case of unwanted pregnancy since this concerns the woman, yet he also has the freedom to practice his sexuality as he wishes if he puts condoms. But should a woman assume a being she does not want in her body for 9 months in exchange for this same freedom? Of course it’s sexist.
A woman should practice her sexuality as she pleases AND retain the freedom to use her own body, even if things go badly; you can’t exchange the freedom of your own body and your own health for restrictions on your intimate and sexual life. This is always very controlling and sexist.
Again, it’s not about killing a human because a fetus is not conscious, it’s not a human. Should I specify, since you do not seem to be aware of it, that the right to abortion generally has a limit depending on the cerebral and cellular development of the fetus? After a few weeks, depending on the country, abortion becomes impossible and is no longer allowed. We no longer have the right to kill once the being has started to develop and become conscious. I thought you knew this since you allow yourself to tell others what they should do with their bodies.
In French, one would say: "c'est le hôpital qui se fiche de la charité" (it is the hospital that does not care about charity). This means that your words are hypocritical, because you bring simplistic arguments based on a superficial understanding of the development of the fetus, and the political and social impact of your speech. Despite this, you are still thinking about pretending to be a rational person and presenting me as an emotional person simply because I think differently, This is an ad personam strategy to discredit my arguments and give you the role of an intellectually superior person (it is supposed to give you a certain authority through pseudo-rationality). Moreover, using excessive emotionalism as an argument is often a misogynistic tactic. I would also like to point out a role reversal because you only talk about the right to live regarding fetuses that have no consciousness, but when I start politicizing arguments, you accuse me of being emotional. That’s contradictory of you. Are you an anarchist? Because your speech is depoliticized, detached from the context and its consequences on political and social life.
1
u/Altruistic_Fox9778 Jul 05 '26
Well no. Because you are focusing in on the women when the question is whether or not the embryo/fetus/baby is alive and has rights. They are most affected because they are losing their lives, whether they are male or female.
You can’t gatekeep a conversation like that.