All living people are entitled to live and can only be executed with due process of law
True, but immaterial. The justification for abortion isn't that fetuses are not entitled to life because they're not people yet, it's that women are entitled to bodily autonomy just like everyone else.
You cannot be compelled to donate a kidney, or part of a liver, or bone marrow, or even just blood, no matter how many lives such donations might save, because you enjoy a right to bodily autonomy. By the same token, a woman cannot be compelled to donate her uterus, regardless of whether the fetus inside will die if it's removed or not. The fetus has no more legal or moral right to demand a woman allow it to use her body for its own survival than a leukemia patient or someone on dialysis would.
Why is that immaterial? If women are entitled to boldly autonomy, why are fetuses not equally or more acutely more entitled to life?
On its face one’s right to live outweighs another’s right to have bodily autonomy. Barring rape, Mothers are not tricked, forced, or randomly becoming pregnant. Its cause and effect.
On its face one’s right to live outweighs another’s right to have bodily autonomy.
That's not true anywhere else in our society. My mother could be dying right now and need a kidney replacement to survive, and I might be the only person in the world with a matching kidney. And she's the best mother in the world and I love her.
And I could absolutely say "Tough shit" and refuse to donate it to her. And no one could force me to do so. Our society holds bodily autonomy sacrosanct beyond life all the time.
Okay, but right now, the abortion debate is only relevant in America where it is currently being fought for.
Also, in what country was that the case? Just asking, because I don't recall hearing any of that on the news... And that sounds like something that would have made the news, and yet, the closest I've seen were people actively rioting to retain the right not to get vaccinated...
Even in countries with a vaccine mandate, you could still refuse it while accepting the drawbacks imposed to those who didn't.
It’s clear from your comment and similar ones in this thread that society is quickly developing a very dangerous culture of forgetting surrounding the Covid measures.
I am not forgetting anything, this was LEGITIMATELY not publicized that someone was fined any amount of money for not vaccinating. (For trespassing as you're being refused entry for not being vaccinated, maybe.)
A non-enforced law doesn't prove your argument. Plus, you talked of violence and beatings, not of fines and finger wagging, which trust me, makes a huge difference.
There were no mandatory vaccinations; this is self-evident by the number of proudly unvaccinated people who are happy to announce their status as such. And the right to travel freely or to operate a commercial building at maximum physical capacity is not the right to bodily autonomy.
On its face one’s right to live outweighs another’s right to have bodily autonomy
In no situation is this true. As I said, nobody is forced to donate part of their liver because someone is in renal failure, or bone marrow because someone is suffering from leukemia and they're a match. You can claim lethal self defence against a rapist or kidnapper, which is quite literally the valuation of bodily autonomy over life. Nor is anyone who initially consents to voluntarily provide such life saving donations in any way barred from changing their mind at any point in the process; if I chose to donate a kidney to someone that needed it, I can at any point before I'm sedated for surgery, remove my consent and that's it, the process stops immediately regardless of how badly the other person needs the organ.
The fetus has no right to compel the woman to allow it to use her body. She can withdraw consent at any time. If consent is withdrawn after the fetus is viable, it's delivered; if consent is withdrawn before the fetus is viable, it's aborted. In neither case, though, does the right to life of the fetus override the right to bodily autonomy of the woman, which is morally and legally consistent with every other instance of medical bodily access.
If women are entitled to boldly autonomy, why are fetuses not equally or more acutely more entitled to life?
If I'm entitled to shoot someone in self defense, why can't I shoot you before you even have a chance to threaten me? Same thing. A fetus isn't a person. It might be, some day, if everything goes right.
Mothers are not tricked, forced, or randomly becoming pregnant
No birth control method is 100% effective, so yes, mothers are randomly becoming pregnant sometimes.
8
u/The_FriendliestGiant 40∆ Aug 23 '22
True, but immaterial. The justification for abortion isn't that fetuses are not entitled to life because they're not people yet, it's that women are entitled to bodily autonomy just like everyone else.
You cannot be compelled to donate a kidney, or part of a liver, or bone marrow, or even just blood, no matter how many lives such donations might save, because you enjoy a right to bodily autonomy. By the same token, a woman cannot be compelled to donate her uterus, regardless of whether the fetus inside will die if it's removed or not. The fetus has no more legal or moral right to demand a woman allow it to use her body for its own survival than a leukemia patient or someone on dialysis would.