• Kereru [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Do people make this argument while accepting the fetus as a person/has bodily autonomy? I thought the argument was implicitly based on the obvious knowledge that a fetus wasn't developed enough to be considered a person?

    If you accept that a fetus is a person then it comes way too close to a mother choosing to kill their kid but being ok with it for ethical "bodily autonomy". But that's arguing against chuds within their own mental gymnastics gym.

    • SerLava [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      In my experience, pro-choice arguers don't address fetal personhood at all, and simply respond to the cries of "but you're killing BAYBIES" with "a woman has a right to choose"

      Which is just saying they can kill "babies" which is incredibly unconvincing... like, that's what murder is. It's choosing to kill a person

      • Kereru [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Ah right, yea I haven't really ever met a "pro-life" person tbf. But agreed, that's an unconvincing line of argument given you're basically accepting their premise.

        Interesting how this ties into vaccine mandates. People that are anti-abortion are almost certainly anti-mandate, because it violates their autonomy, even though it saves the lives of others around them and themselves. Kind of the opposite of their notion of abortion, but I suppose pointing out the hypocrisy of reactionaries is just wasted breath.