[[ My body, my choice. The government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. That violates the woman's right to bodily soveriegnty. ]]
Absolutely true -- but abortion violates the embryo's right to bodily soveriegnty. More than one person's rights are involved in a pregnancy, and those rights must be balanced. If a woman becomes pregnant against her will, her rights have been violated. Clearly, she has a right to decide who may and may not make use of her uterus. However, the embryo also has the right to control of his or her body. The embryo has a right not to be killed. There is no easy, nice solution. In an unwanted pregnancy, someone's rights are going to be trampled. But the severity of that violation of rights must be taken into account. Which is a greater violation of rights -- forced pregnancy and childbirth, or violent death?
21 comments
I'd say forced pregnancy and childbirth for a sentient, self-aware woman is worse than the death of a non-sentient, non-self-aware tiny lump of cells.
If you have slugs eating your plants, where do you stand on the rights for the slugs vs the plants? The slug is more "alive" and sentient than an embryo.
Abortion is not violent, and in many, many cases it is preferable to forced pregnancy. Just ask Savita Halappanavar. Except you can't. Because she's dead. Because she was not allowed by the Irish government to get an abortion that would have saved her life. And her foetus died with her. You're not pro-foetus, just anti-woman.
"...but abortion violates the embryo's right to bodily soveriegnty."
No, it does not.
Abortion does not force the embryo to give up the use of its bodily resources - of which it has few, since it's an ambiguous clump of cells at that point.
An embryo does not have personhood, so does not have the same rights as a person. Without a brain, nervous system, or even heart & lungs, it is as much a living & breathing human as individual sperm. Please stop trying to equate undeveloped embryos with fully-formed individuals.
It's no more a "violent death" than having a tumour removed, so your attempt at shock & emotional appeal falls flat.
"However, the embryo also has the right to control of his or her body."
Except they don't; throughout the pregnancy, the embryo is completely dependent on the mother for food, oxygen etc. , and during the time period where most abortions occur it hasn't formed the organs typically associated with humans, it has no muscles, it has no conscience.
"Which is a greater violation of rights -- forced pregnancy and childbirth, or violent death?"
Why should I answer a misleading and loaded question? Abortion isn't a violent death, as the fetus is not considered to be alive at this point.
But the severity of that violation of rights must be taken into account.
But when it's a question of the violent death of the woman, fuck her.
but abortion violates the embryo's right to bodily soveriegnty.
Oh, I'd like to see how you figure that one.
If you're going to argue that it has the right to life, fine... but it does NOT have the right to co-opt the body of another to do so. Not even if being denied that ability would lead to a death... no-one ever has that right.
So, wilfully violating someone's rights to avoid violating a non-existent right? Yeah, which do you think is the greater violation?
Some people have more rights than others. That isn't an Animal Farm thing, it's true, just ask someone serving time in jail. In this case, a non-sentient fetus or embryo has less rights than a full-grown (or not in some cases) sentient woman.
Forced pregnancy, AKA the one that actually happens.
I wonder. If I used this same stupid-ass argument after being caught stealing from Slv80, would they still accept it? "It's your money, yes, but your rights & needs must be balanced with mine and I need to pay my rent".
"However, the embryo also has the right to control of his or her body."
So take it out of the female body, give it an ID card and let it find a job. If it dies it was clealy gods plan.
But then, an embryo violates the woman's right to bodily sovereignty by squatting where it's not wanted and leeching nutrients from the woman's body. Not to mention that an embryo doesn't have a body in the first place. Further proof that the pro-life crowd thinks an embryo is the same as a fully-formed and sentient baby.
@ OHP
I wonder. If I used this same stupid-ass argument after being caught stealing from Slv80, would they still accept it? "It's your money, yes, but your rights & needs must be balanced with mine and I need to pay my rent".
I was thinking close to the same thing, only that how many of these conservative pro-lifers would still be pro-life if they saw the fetus leaching nutrients from the host mother the same as welfare recipients getting money from the government? And how many would remain pro-life if they realized that a lot of aborted babies would grow up to commit crimes or be on welfare, since the majority of women receiving abortions are poor?
“and those rights must be balanced.”
Those are the right words,but in the end you don’t want any balance. You want the fetus to have all the rights.
But pregnancy can cause a woman’s death, or serious bodily harm at the least. If a mugger threatens a woman’s life and she shoots him, no one cries about the mugger’s right to bodily autonomy or even survival.
Forcing a person to sit through an armed robbery and hope,just hope that God doesn’t take their life is not ever an argument.
And all you people arguing the baby’s right to life are going to turn your back and deny mother/child basic life-supporting policies and ‘handouts’ because you don’t fucking care about the child’s life post partum.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.