It doesn’t, like, matter? Whether or not we assign a fetus “personhood” doesn’t really change whether or not a pregnant person should be forced to give up their bodily autonomy against their will?
Like, woman can not just STEAL men’s livers in the dead of night, even if they NEED those organs to live? The elderly don’t get to just go around and harvest the kidneys of the young in back alleys? You can’t just, like, kidnap a person and drain all their blood, even if it is used for life saving procedures. Fully grown, autonomous people with rights and consciousness are not allowed to violate the bodily autonomy of others, even in deadly situations.
So…why would we let a fetus do this? Use another PERSON’S blood and uterus and stomach and everything else? For months? Altering their body irreparably? WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT?
No. Abortion is first and foremost an issue of consent and bodily autonomy, and any argument about personhood is a distraction from that.
Lmao a fetus doesn’t sneak around and force him/herself into a woman’s uterus. A fetus has no understanding of the concept of consent the same way an infant or toddler doesn’t understand. Would you support a mother killing her baby then because she no longer consents to nurse him/her with her breasts?
“Of course not!” you say. “She can just switch to formula! Infanticide is wrong no matter what!”
Gee…you mean to say that…there are other…non-violent ways…to handle…”unwanted” situations…that don’t involve murder????
Fetuses are there, in a womb, because of the actions of people outside of their control. They have NO say in the matter. Stop acting like you don’t support outright murder already, thanks.
Also sex leads to pregnancy, like that’s it’s main biological intent. For the majority of abortion cases, where it’s not rape or any extreme and utterly unexpected situation, the woman/mother has consented to sex. If you’re consenting to sex in a hetero relationship you better be prepared for the likely pregnancy that can come as a joint deal. Don’t consent to sex if you’re not prepared to consent to pregnancy. A lack or reduction in sexual activity isn’t going to hurt you in any way, billions upon billions get by just fine without it.
Consent is specific and revocable. Consent to one thing is not irrevocable consent to anything that might follow. Suggesting that it is is highly unethical and opens the door to a LOT of really nasty implications.
(Also, sex has plenty of functions beyond just reproduction. Don’t be absurd)
This isnt’ the 1200s, sex is a lot more than just creating children and children shouldn’t be a punishment.
YOUR CHILD SHOULDN’T BE A PUNISHMENT.
1200? Ha! The Romans once discovered a plant that acted as a contraceptive, and it was so popular they ATE IT TO EXTINCTION While the first evidence of condoms date to 11,000 BC
Sex among humans has NEVER been just for procreation.
I don’t see the point in debating the personhood of a fetus.
Published
Cadet-For-Your-SpaceRescue 