4 ms·
1. There are certainly more and less extreme flavors of the pro-life movement. I reject your assertion that the more extreme side is negligible, as there are la
by hackyhacky 4y ago
1. There are certainly more and less extreme flavors of the pro-life movement. I reject your assertion that the more extreme side is negligible, as there are laws on the books, and now enforceable, that prohibit abortion in all cases, such as in Louisiana.
2. Fetuses are not babies. Babies are people, from a legal and ethical perspective; fetuses are not. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, as abortion would already be considered murder. So yes, fetuses are living, but that does not afford them any rights, any more than cows have rights by virtue of being alive, and it certainly doesn't afford them rights that supersede those of an actual person.
In other words: in our society, we give rights to people, not to mere "living things."
- corrral 4y ago> 1. There are certainly more and less extreme flavors of the pro-life movement. I reject your assertion that the more extreme side is negligible, as there are laws on the books, and now enforceable, that prohibit abortion in all cases, such as in Louisiana. It's not that that faction's negligible, it's that the argument isn't helpful for refuting "the mother does have some obligation to a life that was created and became dependent on her through her own actions" because someone who holds that position probably doesn't disagree with you that rape and incest are exceptions. It's a distraction not from the broader debate, but specifically from substantively addressing this particular position. > 2. Fetuses are not babies. Babies are people, from a legal and ethical perspective; fetuses are not. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, as abortion would already be considered murder. So yes, fetuses are living, but that does not afford them any rights, any more than cows have rights by virtue of being alive, and it certainly doesn't afford them rights that supersede those of an actual person. This is precisely the point of contention, and it is far from clear-cut even on the pro-choice side. That's why 3rd trimester abortion rights are far less popular than the rest—even to many pro-choicers, the is-/isn't-a-baby question is settled at some point before birth, but after the 1st trimester.
- hackyhacky 4y agoI think it's extremely relevant to discuss the extreme pro-life position opposing all forms of abortion, because it's the only form that's logically consistent. If one truly believes that abortion is murder, then it doesn't matter how the baby was conceived. On the other hand, what is pro-life's ethical justification for allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest? Are you saying that murder is okay in some cases? In my opinion, it's just another example of the right's crippling hypocrisy. The argument that abortion is tolerable in cases where the women does not choose to have sex shows your hand: the pro-life movement was never about protecting life, it has always been about punishing women. You are okay killing fetuses as long as the woman didn't actually have the temerity to enjoy sex.
- camhart 4y agoYou have #2 backwards. The reason we're even debating this is because we can't agree on when the fetus becomes a person with rights. Pro-lifer's are very much arguing that it is murder. 43ish? states currently prohibit abortion after a certain point in pregnancy prior to birth [0][1] [0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/what-states-allow-late-term-abortion https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/what-states... [1] https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-ro...
- hackyhacky 4y agoPro-lifers may SAY that they think that abortion is murder, but there is no law, even a proposed law, that literally treats it as such.