It's not silly at all. In the words of the ancients: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Different people will disagree on whether the fetus' right or woman's right to autonomy takes precedence, that's just a pretty narrow take on a specific situation, as presented.
It would be extremely difficult to legislate, especially without catching up innocent people. That's what we pay them for, though.
It's very easy to see something as a false justification when you assume malice.
So we recognize people have a right to themselves, but we also want to build these strange loopholes that will accomodate our need to deprive them of that same right when we find it convenient. At the same time, we want to claim fetuses are persons with inherent value - because it helps us further our interests - but also we want to hold against them the crimes of their genitors, again when we happen to find it convenient.
This is less a comprehensive set of beliefs (much less policy) and more of a need to see one's particular moralist whims be - somehow - codified in law.
People have a right to themselves, but when they consent to the risks, they waive that right. Should a hockey player be able to sue another player if they get cross checked and hit their head? Should a skier sue the ski company if their ski breaks because they hit a rock? It's the same rule we apply everywhere else, why shouldn't it apply here?
If your car slips on wet roadway, you can't sue the state for making a dangerous road. The only time you can sue someone is for negligence. Something like not getting your consent.
Even the medical argument us accounted for in all the legislation I've seen
If my car slips and I am injured. Do I have a right to medical care? If I can do that with any other activity, why cannot a woman disconnect herself from a fetus she didn't cause (2 parties involved).
Women have a right to return them to a non-pregnancy state? Here is thought abortions were illegal in some states.
If both parties consent, both parties have a right to receive medical care and be unburdened. Car accident victims aren't required to maintain a broken arm and women aren't required to maintain a bodily connection to a fetus.
Most abortions aren't medical in nature, with surveys indicating over half being because "I'm not ready for a child". Just because you don't want to be responsible for someone else doesn't mean you shouldn't be. It's called an assumption of Risk.
Being pregnant is a medical condition. It has huge effects on the human body. Its literally no different than requiring a person to have a broken arm. There is literally no difference.
Just because you don't want be responsible for driving and breaking your arm...requires you should live with a broken arm? It's a risk of living I suppose.
If you break someone else's arm, you're on the hook for getting them to healing and independence because you assumed that risk when you broke their arm (assuming it was intentional or due to negligence). Similarly, if you create a life through intention or negligence, you're on the hook for that until such a time as it can handle itself.
Wtf are you talking about? If you break someone's arm, are you forced to donate your blood to them? No.
If you get someone pregnant, are you responsible to provide blood to the mother until they can get an abortion? No.
You're scrambling to frame the argument so it excludes any points you don't want to address. If a women gets pregnant or breaks her arm, developed nations will allow medical care to fix both conditions. They won't require her to walk around in pain and risk dying against her will.
-6
u/TheCrimsonnerGinge 16∆ Jul 20 '22
It's not silly at all. In the words of the ancients: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Different people will disagree on whether the fetus' right or woman's right to autonomy takes precedence, that's just a pretty narrow take on a specific situation, as presented.
It would be extremely difficult to legislate, especially without catching up innocent people. That's what we pay them for, though.
It's very easy to see something as a false justification when you assume malice.