I’ve done some studying and it’s beginning to look more and more to me that fetuses are, in fact, persons.
People don’t get the right to use other people’s bodies to sustain their lives tho?
I’ve said this a few time, but I’d like to invite you, princessfknpeach, to remember that fetuses are not “using other people’s bodies against their will,” as they are not present in the womb by choice.
Would you incriminate someone for trespassing if they’d been locked into private property against their will?
I see you keep using that line of reasoning — that the fetus is trespassing but isn’t there by choice, therefore it has a right to stay there. And I can see how one might think that’s a “gotcha, pro-choicers!” moment. But it’s really not. And here’s why:
Let’s use your analogy: A person is locked into private property against their will. The owner of the property finds them there and wants them to leave, but doesn’t press trespassing charges because they were put there against their will. So the person leaves.
In pregnancy, you cannot ask the fetus to leave. The fetus cannot leave. Imagine finding someone on your private property hooked up to all of your appliances and devices, including ones that keep you alive. They’re using up your resources and eating your food. It physically hurts you to have them there. You cannot get away from them. Strangers make comments to you because they can see the person who’s hooked up.
Being pregnant — having another thing inside of your body, depending on your body for survival — is not the same thing as having, like, a storage locker or vacation house that someone broke into.
Also, by saying the fetus isn’t there by choice but shouldn’t be aborted, you’re saying it still has a right to be there. A right that supersedes the mother’s right to her own organs. Ostensibly, the mother chose to have sex, so since she got to make a choice, she should have to live with the consequences.
You think you’ve found a reason to be pro-life that isn’t shitty, but you’re wrong. You’ve stumbled upon the reason pro-lifers have been using for a really long time: That pregnancy is a fitting punishment for the choice to have sex. You’re punishing women (and other people with uteruses) for having sex. Let me repeat this: You have not found some magical unicorn reason to be pro-choice. You’re shaming women’s sexuality, which is actually the entire basis of the pro-life movement. (Seriously, look it up. It only dates back to the late ’60s. One of the men who started it was Francis Shaeffer, and his son, Frank, has written and spoken at length about how white men started the “pro-life” movement to stem the tide of women’s rights, particularly the birth control pill and access to abortion.)
Congratulations! You’re pro-life for the usual shitty reason.
I’m going to ask you not to words into my mouth, as it tends to slow down the conversation.
No, I do not think that women should be punished for sleeping around. In that respect, I think that women do truly have a choice to do what they please with their bodies. However, when another person’s body gets involved, it gets a bit more complex, doesn’t it?
And I am saying that, yes, the unwanted fetus has a right to remain in the womb because it is a legitimate person with inherent human rights (just as is the mother), including a right to life.
A mother’s control over her body does not extend to the control of another person’s body, nor does her right to act freely overshadow the child’s right to life.
The whole discussion swings on whether or not the fetus possesses legitimate personhood, because if it does not, then abortion is 100% acceptable. However, if the fetus truly does possess legitimate personhood, then it’s wrong to abort it, as the termination of innocent life is ethically unacceptable.
"A mother’s control over her body does not extend to the control of another person’s body, nor does her right to act freely overshadow the child’s right to life."
So a mother doesn’t have a right to control what’s inside of her uterus, but the fetus has the right to use her organs and body against her will? Why does the fetus have that right and the mother doesn’t?
I saw another post you wrote where you said a fetus is a person because it’s just a small human; to use your analogy, Peter Dinklage isn’t less of a person than Shaquille O’Neal. But a fetus isn’t a small person. It’s a developing precursor to a person.
You compared fetuses to disabled people in that same post. Quote:
Does a person’s inability to care for him or herself negate his or her personhood? Is a special needs child less of a person than a mentally healthy child? Is a person with separation anxiety less of a person than one who can function without an emotional attachment to someone? Is a wounded veteran less of a person because of his dependency on his care providers to walk and eat? By no means. In the same way, a fetus is not less of a person than is an infant based solely on its dependency on the body of the mother to live.
First of all, it’s incredibly insulting to disabled people to compare them to a fetus. Acquaint yourself with the concept of ableism. Some disabled people require abortions because of their own conditions. Some would literally die if they carried a pregnancy to term. It’s fucking insulting to imply that a disabled person and a fetus the size of your pinky are the same thing.
Rampant ableism aside, here’s the main difference: Disabled people don’t rely on one specific person’s internal organs to survive. Needing help to get by in life is something we all need in one way or another. Needing to rely on a specific, possibly unwilling set of organs for 9ish months is unique to fetuses. It’s not that fetuses are unable to care for themselves: They are physically unable to survive outside the womb. Instead of abortion, would you support removing the 12-week-old fetus from the womb and sending it on its way? Would it have any chance of living for even one minute outside the womb? No, it wouldn’t. That’s a pretty critical difference between a fetus and a disabled person.
Finally: You say the entire abortion discussion is about personhood. No, it’s not. Abortion still happens in countries where abortion is illegal. (ETA: I’d accidentally written “legal” instead of “illegal.” My bad!) In fact, in many of those countries, the abortion rate is higher than average. Banning abortions doesn’t stop them from happening.
So “personhood” — which is a nebulous, abstract concept, not a legal or biological tenet — actually doesn’t matter at all when we’re talking about abortion. Women and other people with uteruses will still get them regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks a fetus is a person. THAT is what the discussion hinges on. You can come up with whatever reasons you like to justify why you believe what you do. It’s not going to change the fact that people will get abortions.
There are some things that lower abortion rates (not eliminate them completely; there will always be people who are uninterested in becoming mothers): Comprehensive sex education. Access to affordable birth control. Access to low-cost prenatal care. Subsidized childcare. Paid maternity leave (and paternity leave, while we’re at it). Better schools in poor neighborhoods. Do you know how many pro-life politicians have proposed a bill to do these things? None of them. Right-wing “pro life” politicians increase the abortion rate by railing against those things.
Hey, if a fetus has a right to use another person’s organs regardless of that person’s consent, because the fetus is a person, then that means I have a right to rip out this pro-lifer’s pancreas and use it to replace mine (which doesn’t work correctly and thus endangers my life) because I’m a person and therefore have the right to use another person’s organs for my benefit whether that person consents or not.
No no no, you don’t get to say that “but that’s different” because it isn’t. Just like the fetus didn’t choose to begin developing, I didn’t choose to have a defective pancreas. And just like the fetus has a right to use another person’s organs to support itself because it didn’t choose to be unable to survive outside the womb, I have the right to use this pro-lifer’s pancreas to replace mine because I didn’t choose to have a defective one that cannot function outside a routine of rigorous medical care.
If I don’t have the right to use someone else’s pancreas with or without their consent because I’m a person who didn’t choose to have a non-working one, then a fetus doesn’t have the right to use someone else’s organs without that person’s consent either. Because that’s how bodily autonomy works; if a fetus has to have rights to other people’s organs because it’s a person then I have to have the rights to other people’s organs because I am a person. You can’t apply bodily autonomy only to specific people (or brainless clumps of cells you’ve convinced yourself are somehow people).
And the argument of “but it has to have that right because it’ll die otherwise!” doesn’t work either. Hey, did you know that if a child is in a hospital dying from internal bleeding and the only way to save them is with a transfusion from one specific person, the doctors still can’t force that person to donate their blood if they don’t want to. We can’t even take organs from corpses (yes, even dead people who can’t possibly care what happens because they’re fucking dead) to save people if the dead person didn’t give their consent for their bodies to be used like that before they kicked the bucket. So the “but they’ll die otherwise” argument doesn’t hold water at all because we can’t even use that reason for actual living already-born people. Your argument is “a fetus has that right because it’s a person and has to have person-rights.” Well guess what, sonny, that means the fetus has the same rights, not different ultra-special rights that allow it to override the autonomy of other people. You cannot argue “personhood” as a reason for granting a fetus rights that actual people don’t fucking have.
Essentially your argument is that a brainless clump of cells that doesn’t think or feel or even have a functioning nervous system has more rights than any live, thinking, feeling person does (because, as was said, living people don’t have the right to use other peoples’ bodies without consent even if they will die otherwise). Your argument is also that anyone with a womb has fewer rights than a corpse (and if you don’t realize how morally repugnant that is, I can’t fucking help you).
That’s not putting words in your mouth, that is a logical extrapolation on the real-world implications of the words you actually said. See, this shit doesn’t exist in a vacuum, so you can’t expect people to hear your words and only those exact words, because your words are being said in a world that works a certain way, which means your words logically have to pan out in this fashion because that’s how the world fucking works.
So yes, your reason is still shitty.
Whether you realize it or not, whether you will admit it or not, your reason is shitty.
You are arguing giving a non-living clump of biological matter legal rights that no actual person has and the only possible result of this (since it’s been stated that making abortion illegal doesn’t stop people from doing it) is the endangerment, harm, and control of anyone with a uterus. Whether you intend that is fucking irrelevant, that’s just what will happen, that’s just how those things function in the real world.
You may fire a gun without intending to injure someone but your intent won’t stop the bullet from ripping through their flesh.