2 ms·

This is a bit disingenuous. "A fetus is a person and the state should force it to be carried to term" is generally not the argument, the argument is "A fetus is

• spondylosaurus 3y ago
  I mean, under current circumstances, "not allowed to terminate the pregnancy" does work out to "be forced to carry the fetus to term," because those are the only two outcomes here. Which is why artificial wombs throw an interesting wrench in things by suggesting the possibility of terminating a pregnancy while maintaining fetal development (and there's still a whole host of questions about whether forced artificial womb transplantation is ethical or ideal).
• olliej 3y ago
  If you can donate a kidney to save someone's life, and you choose not to, you have killed them, by your definition. Alternatively, say you donated blood, and that blood is used to keep someone alive. Then they run out of that blood and need more, and you are the only option, but you've developed anemia or something, so no longer want to donate blood, by your own definition the state can now require you to keep giving blood anyway: This person is only alive now because of your actions, and your attempt to change those conditions would kill them. Also the policy is "you should be forced to carry it to term", because abortion bans also come with a variety of bans on access to emergency contraceptives that would prevent it from even getting to the point of being a fetus in the first place, and the women-aren't-people crowd fight anything and everything else that would prevent many abortions occurring in the first place (access to contraceptives, actual sex ed, etc)