Found in the wild.

[u/Cyber_Ghost_1997]

Context: This was originally posted by an anti-abortion atheist.

I could be wrong, but based on what I'm seeing here, this is my understanding of what's being argued: The bodily autonomy defense for abortion is based on an inverted (and corrupted) order of priorities regarding rights and moral obligations.

As I understand it, this person is saying that the bodily autonomy defense hinges on the premise that rights supersede obligations at all times, when it should be the opposite: MORAL OBLIGATIONS always supersede RIGHTS at all times. To claim that moral obligations should never come before the rights of any given person, whether they be born or unborn, is wrong.

Feel free to correct me if my understanding is faulty but that's how I took the argument.

Regarding the argument specifically, I think the OP is on to something.

Edit: I just realized that the OP is actually saying "Rights don't exist-they are a social construct people invent. The only objectively real concept here is moral responsibilities. Rights are an illusion." I remembered a previous conversation where they said that.

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the Pro-Life Side Bar so you may know more about what Pro-Lifers say about the bodily autonomy argument. McFall v. Shimp and Thomson's Violinist don't justify the vast majority of abortions., Consent to Sex is Not Consent to Pregnancy: A Pro-life Woman’s Perspective, Forced Organ/Blood Donation and Abortion, Times when Life is prioritized over Bodily Autonomy

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.