It’s kind of hilarious that amount of excuses and idiotic arguments people will make up to “justify” and continue to the senseless slaughter of unborn children. Like how amoral and depraved do you have to be to think that tearing a pain-capable human being limb from torso is perfectly okay for any reason? You treat “bodily autonomy” like a God damn religion, tbh.
Yeah, I appealed to the unborn baby’s bodily autonomy in hopes that you’d understand a bit more since you’re so hung up on bodily autonomy anyway. So, are you saying that people who are physically dependent don’t have a right to bodily autonomy? Welp, say goodbye to the bodily autonomy of all those people on life-support or anyone who is literal dependent on anything or any person.
Ah yes, the utterly stupid “right to refuse argument” which contends that a woman has a right to refuse to let the unborn child use her body to survive just as a person is not obligated to donate an organ to save the life of someone else.
This argument has enormous problems. Abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not merely the withholding or withdrawing of “life support” from the unborn child — it is the intentional and active killing of that child, often by dismemberment. This killing violates the child’s right to life (the right not to be intentionally killed) and the right to bodily integrity. Indeed, if people have a right to bodily integrity and so do not have a duty to donate a kidney, then people in utero have a right not to have their bodily integrity fatally violated through abortion.
Moreover, even if abortion were not intentional killing (i.e if it were simply a refusal to aid the child by removing her from the womb), abortion would still be wrong because a pregnant woman does have an obligation to allow her baby to live and grow in the womb. Here’s why.
First, the father and mother, except in cases of rape, willingly engaged in an activity that caused (and is biologically ordered to) the creation of a new, dependent human being. So they bear responsibility for the resulting child.
Second, parents have special obligations to their dependent offspring that they do not have to others. Fathers, for example, must pay child support even if they did not intend or desire to become fathers. Parents may not abandon their children or refuse to provide for their needs (though they may relinquish those obligations through adoption).
The parental obligation may not require extraordinary acts (like donating a kidney), but it does require basic, ordinary care, such as the nourishment and shelter provided during pregnancy. If unborn children are valuable members of the human family, like born children, then the same parental duties that apply after birth are present beforehand as well.
Finally, the purpose of the uterus is to gestate the unborn child — it is where that child belongs. All human beings, during their prenatal stages of development, rely on it for care and protection. The uterus exists for the unborn child rather than for the mother. It is reasonable to think that a child has a right to live in her natural environment.
I’d like to break it down a little bit, beginning with the comparison of a mother’s providing for a fetus to someone being “forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs.” There is a huge discrepancy here that isn’t being noted: when you fail to donate blood, tissue, or organs, you are not directly killing a human being. Yes, your lack of donation could lead to the death or ailment of someone. However, with an abortion, a child is being killed, by your own hand, by your own choice. Not simply getting its resources removed. A fetus clearly doesn’t have the ability to speak or to persuade the mother to keep it, either. The parallel cannot be clearly drawn here for that reason.
The difference here is that by a person choosing to not donate organs or blood, they are causing harm through inaction, after death. An abortion is causing harm through action. Someone who was created, most likely, by the pregnant woman’s choice and action. Comparing abortion to a person who has decided not to donate his or her organs is criminalizing to that person and decriminalizing what would be an actual crime if it were done by or to any born being.
pixelskylines
baratheonpilled
blakekathryn
titsay
romaincrisis
snowghoul
