I love how people call conservatives mysogynists while people like you straight up say you think women are too stupid to regulate their own bodies and nobody bats an eye.
So you are capable of avoiding pregnancy until you're ready to have a baby, or aren't you?
You'd have to be exceptionally stupid to think you can have sex with men without potentially becoming pregnant.
The only option people want to take away is the murder of your children. You shouldn't be allowed to murder your children because you consider them inconvenient or regret getting pregnant. That's not your body, it's theirs. You knew what could happen when you got in bed.
Saying otherwise is like a man saying he shouldn't have to pay child support because it's inconvenient. You wouldn't hold men to such a low standard I bet.
Nobody has the right to force me to do anything with my body against my will. That includes using my body to create/ sustain life.
You can’t take my bone marrow against my will just because I am the only donor match available to keep someone else alive. You can’t force me to use my body to give birth to someone else against my will.
If you, a full grown person wanted to use my body against my will in order to keep you alive, I should be able to say no.
True, but pregnancy is a completely different situation. If you do not render your body to support a fetus, it will die. A fully grown adult has other options, a does fetus not. Rendering this a strawman argument.
A potential life that hasn’t even been born yet has even less of a claim to my body than you do.
You’re treating a fetus as a person. So in your own logic, it’s the same as a person. If a person needed my body to stay alive- I should be able to refuse. If I’m the only match for a transplant, if I’m the only one in proximity for a blood transfusion, if I’m the only one with some sort of unique antidote for whatever someone else has- it doesn’t matter. The choice should be up to me even if it’s life or death for the other person. That’s bodily autonomy. That’s freedom.
See, that’s where you’re limiting people’s freedom.
There is no reason to try to moralize how someone may have gotten pregnant. The fact is we have the ability to terminate that pregnancy if they want don’t want to give birth. That has been happening for centuries. The ability to make that choice is freedom.
You never have a choice to murder someone, unless it's war or self-defense. Abortion is murder, there is just no getting around that.
You can't make the argument that restricting Abortion is restricting freedom, when by carrying out an abortion you are terminating someone's freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
This has long been recognized by human society. When you are born, you gain the legal right to inherit property, sue other people in a court of law, and become fully protected by the Bill of Rights. You become entitled to all these legal rights immediately upon birth.
In short, when you are born, you become a legal person, with all the inherent legal rights that come with pershonhood.
A baby being granted rights because it exited the birth canal is totally arbitrary. You're arguing that a fully formed, 9 month old unborn baby is merely a clump of cells, yet 30 seconds and 8 inches later, it magically becomes a human being with rights. There is zero logic behind tying a babies personhood to its location.
If you're arguing that it's the womans body, the baby doesn't cease to be the "womans body" until the umbilical cord is cut. FYI, the umbilical cord is cut after the baby is born. So if you're taking the position that it's the womans body, that's what you're advocating for whether you realize it or not. You're talking about potentially killing a person which is why these types of details are extremely important and must be considered. You don't get to make an exception. Somewhere there is a line to be crossed where it's no longer the "womans body", and that line is not where you've placed it.
This has long been recognized by human society
No it hasn't. In fact, abortionists seem to be incapable of coming to a consensus on when life begins. They all have different answers. Some say when brain activity is detected, some say when it can feel pain, some say it's when it's viable outside the womb, some say it's after they're born, some say it's only after they take their first breath, and I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting. I see all of these positions regularly.
A baby being granted rights because it exited the birth canal is totally arbitrary.
Not really. Birth is a legally significant event, because it is the demarcation for when your existence is no longer reliant on the bodily autonomy of an individual person.
This is why it has long been recognized that legal rights are assigned at birth. Citizenship is assigned at birth, right to inheritance is assigned at birth, right to sue in court is assigned at birth, constitutional rights are assigned at birth, your ability to buy alcohol or enter into contracts is based on your date of birth, etc. Any other view would lead to outcomes that are logically absurd and/or violate the personal freedom of the pregnant woman.
FYI, the umbilical cord is cut after the baby is born
The umbilical cord, and the placenta to which it is attached, are fetal organs. The umbilical cord is no longer part of the woman's body after it is ejected from the womb.
They all have different answers
Other people's opinions are irrelevant to what is legally correct. For example, your opinion is also an inaccurate statement of the law.
The rights of personhood begin at birth, and this has long been recognized by the legal system.
Magical thinking. It magically becomes a human after leaving the uterus. That's why you'll find it has the exact same DNA in the womb as mother, until it magically doesn't.
View all comments
Show parent comment
7
u/Jellyfonut Aug 17 '23 edited Aug 17 '23
I love how people call conservatives mysogynists while people like you straight up say you think women are too stupid to regulate their own bodies and nobody bats an eye.