3 ms·

> You've only taken half of the statement, it was: Because I was only responding to that half of the statement. The argument for banning abortion must stand wi

> You've only taken half of the statement, it was: Because I was only responding to that half of the statement. The argument for banning abortion must stand without it. Your insistence on it was why I chimed in. What you're now alluding to is a different claim than the one I responded to: that a. a fetus is a person (as you both seem to agree, disputable) and that even if we concede that question, the rights of the fetus outweigh those of the woman; taking some of the bills and laws that have passed in the various states, at the extreme, that it's fine to deny to a woman bodily autonomy, even where it will put her through great trauma, up to and including death.

brigandish 4y ago
> What you're now alluding to is a different claim than the one I responded to Yes, because you were only responding to half of the sentence. My advice would be to respond to full sentences even when inconvenient. I'll add, I'm not making a claim about personhood nor citizenship, I'm pointing to where the grey area is. How that becomes an insistence is something you'll only know. Finally, I do not agree that accepting the personhood of a foetus would necessarily outweigh the woman's rights, as again, it would come up against bodily autonomy - another grey area that I hope would be ruled on to be as absolute as possible.