5 ms·

Even if a fetus were a person, and "murder" could apply, there is no other situation where we require a person to surrender their body—or even a part of it, lik

Even if a fetus were a person, and "murder" could apply, there is no other situation where we require a person to surrender their body—or even a part of it, like a redundant organ, or even just their blood—to save or preserve the life of another human. And I haven't heard anyone advocating for forced blood or organ donations, no matter their political leanings.

anamax 4y ago
> there is no other situation where we require a person to surrender their body—or even a part of it, , like a redundant organ, or even just their blood—to save or preserve the life of another human. Both the draft (or any form of compulsory service) and taxes are counter-examples. You're probably going to object to taxes, but it's reasonably well established that wealth is health. (It's also true that taxes are spent on things that don't save or preserve the life of another human.) More to the point, taxes take my time, which I can't possibly get back. Interesting enough, so does prison.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
blep_ 4y ago
I agree! This is similar to the argument that eventually convinced me, back when I was anti-abortion. But it was still a shaky belief, because "can you kill a person in this situation" is inherently a harder question than "can you kill a non-person". (I've since gone further and no longer believe fetuses are people, no need to convince me here.) Framing this as "privacy" makes no sense. Framing it as "choice" can be coherent if you express it this well, but most people don't. (I think I weakened my own argument here by including that sentence, but too late to edit it now. What I was trying to express is that this isn't actually a sexism thing: I have no trouble imagining these people applying the same standard to men in a world where any human could get pregnant.)

5 ms·

Even if a fetus were a person, and "murder" could apply, there is no other situation where we require a person to surrender their body—or even a part of it, lik

by danaris 4y ago

anamax 4y ago
> there is no other situation where we require a person to surrender their body—or even a part of it, , like a redundant organ, or even just their blood—to save or preserve the life of another human. Both the draft (or any form of compulsory service) and taxes are counter-examples. You're probably going to object to taxes, but it's reasonably well established that wealth is health. (It's also true that taxes are spent on things that don't save or preserve the life of another human.) More to the point, taxes take my time, which I can't possibly get back. Interesting enough, so does prison.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
blep_ 4y ago
I agree! This is similar to the argument that eventually convinced me, back when I was anti-abortion. But it was still a shaky belief, because "can you kill a person in this situation" is inherently a harder question than "can you kill a non-person". (I've since gone further and no longer believe fetuses are people, no need to convince me here.) Framing this as "privacy" makes no sense. Framing it as "choice" can be coherent if you express it this well, but most people don't. (I think I weakened my own argument here by including that sentence, but too late to edit it now. What I was trying to express is that this isn't actually a sexism thing: I have no trouble imagining these people applying the same standard to men in a world where any human could get pregnant.)