4 ms·
Fine, then the fetus has the right to vacate the womb and gestate in someone willing. The fetus can’t be given rights to the mother’s blood or use of her body,
by nkrisc 4y ago
Fine, then the fetus has the right to vacate the womb and gestate in someone willing.
The fetus can’t be given rights to the mother’s blood or use of her body, otherwise that sets a pretty dangerous precedent. If abortions can be outlawed, why not vasectomies? Or chemotherapy?
My point is it doesn’t matter the status of the fetus. It’s about the right of pregnant women to have autonomy over their body.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoWhat is bodily autonomy? Most crimes are committed with the body in some form or another. What if I stab a knife in the air and somebody happens to be standing there? Thus it seems that the limit of my bodily autonomy ends where another person's rights begin. The thing is that a lot of people think that a fetus is a person with rights. If a fetus is a person with rights then bodily autonomy doesn't quite apply. The bodily autonomy angle seems more of an escape hatch to sidestep the subjective and unsolvable issue of whether or not fetuses are people and have rights. I'm pro-choice btw
- nkrisc 4y agoPut simply: the right to decide what goes into and comes out of your body. Your knife example has nothing to do with your bodily autonomy. It’s why you can’t be forced to donate a kidney or why you can choose to get a vasectomy.