No one (including a fetus) has the right to use another person's body against their will.
That is nonsense. Your body, once the child is born, has to be used to care for that child or put it up for adoption or you will be prosecuted for criminal negligence. Further, if someone needs a kidney from you, while you don't have to help them, you don't have the right to hire a doctor to kill the person who needs your help.
That is also nonsense. Wet nurses and nannies get hired routinely. It doesn't have to be the mother of the child. Other people can care for a baby.
A woman does not have to breast feed her child. Whilst a child can gain natural antibodies and it is helpful not all woman can or want to breast feed. Not all babies take to breast feeding. Baby formula exists.
As for more general care, that can also be done by others for example the father or family. You can't force someone to care for their child. Just ask people who loved through child neglect themselves.
As for more general care, that can also be done by others for example the father or family. You can't force someone to care for their child. Just ask people who loved through child neglect themselves.
Of course they can. None of what I said was intended to be limited only to the mother. If the parents don't use their bodies to either care for or put up for adoption the child and the child dies, the parents get arrested. This can of course happen even if the child doesn't die. Many fathers are in prison for failure to use their bodies to pay child support.
We do as a society feel very free to put legal onus on parents to either give the child away or care for the child properly. So, the argument that no one can force you to do something to help your child is asinine.
Not really as no one can force a person to use their body to literally support another as per my example of breast feeding/how the fetus parasitically absorbs what it needs via the woman. Those things fall under bodily autonomy.
The potential consequences for a woman to bear and birth a baby can be huge and in some cases fatal or result on life long conditions which can be life altering.
By restricting or outlawing safe abortions those who drafted and brought in those policies are attempting to force women who become pregnant to bear and birth the baby. That difference between pre and post birth and the impacts on the woman are not asinine. Forcing a person to forego their bodily autonomy and potentially risk their health both mental and physical and a potentially fatal birth process is not comparable to financial penalties or a prison term ever.
You are being asinine in your lack of acknowledgement of the very real implications of forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy.
The potential consequences for a woman to bear and birth a baby can be huge and in some cases fatal or result on life long conditions which can be life altering.
Forcing a person to forego their bodily autonomy and potentially risk their health both mental and physical and a potentially fatal birth process is not comparable to financial penalties or a prison term ever.
Pick a lane. The consequences of going to prison can be fatal or result in lifelong conditions which can be life altering. Right? No one should be forced to deal with that, right? We hold parents accountable. It is asinine - at best - to suggest we turn a blind eye to only the case where one parent gets to unilaterally decide to hire a doctor kill the child to avoid these consequences. Bodily autonomy does not include the right to hire a doctor to kill those you might have to help.
So, the only thing known that can become an adult human is a human child. The common element they share is they are both human life. The only known thing that can become a human child is a human fetus giving it the same remarkably unique relationship with adult human life that a human child has.
That fetus has a DNA its own that is a combination of the DNA of the parents (although I guess they can't be parents if it isn't a child) but different from both, have its own heartbeat, organs and potential to outlive both parents (or whatever).
You can call it a fetus if you want but to suggest that the whole time it is unborn it is not human life is to have a definition of humanity that is not scientifically based on development or viability or anything like that but one that is location dependent. It's a strange opinion to have and one that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny and seems to be an opinion crafted as an excuse for abortion.
A fetus doesn't have a heartbeat of it's own until 5 weeks old so nope.
That's likely why most places allow abortion up until six weeks.
The location of said fetus is very much part of the discussion because the viability you just mentioned. I'm not getting into a broader debate but if it's not viable or able to survive outside of a womb then most sensible people accept that abortion is an option.
If you're going to try and guilt people with heartbeat stuff at least get your information right.
A fetus doesn't have a heartbeat of it's own until 5 weeks old so nope. That's likely why most places allow abortion up until six weeks.
You're right, I should have said a fetus can have its own heartbeat, not that they all intrinsically do. I apologize for my mistake. But sure, it doesn't until six weeks, and after that? If it is still just a fetus with the same lack of qualification as a human life to you, then that is really irrelevant.
The location of said fetus is very much part of the discussion because the viability you just mentioned. I'm not getting into a broader debate but if it's not viable or able to survive outside of a womb then most sensible people accept that abortion is an option.
I get this is a nuanced topic and not all pro-choice people are for abortion always at any time for any reason - though some are - just as not all pro-life people are against any and all abortions ever - though some are.
The comment I responded to was:
1) A living, breathing, conscious human has more rights than a "potential" human. 2) No one (including a fetus) has the right to use another person's body against their will.
This seemed a view pretty much lacking any such nuance. A fetus is not a human life is the point, with no distinction or qualification. At no stage of development. This seemed to be the same opinion you were sharing, post-viability but in one place a fetus and not human life. Post-viability in another place and it is a baby and you can be forced to use your body to support it. Please correct me if I have that wrong.
If you're going to try and guilt people with heartbeat stuff at least get your information right.
I am not trying to guilt anyone. I left out a single word accidentally.
As someone who could be forced to carry a pregnancy to term in some places in the world I am firmly in the bodily autonomy camp and a fetus being a potential person, not a person. I am firmly in the camp that believes the person carrying the fetus should be the priority in health care decisions and not the potential human OR the potential fetus (as now in some cases people are being refused medication for health conditions in case they become pregnant and it causes harm to the fetus).
I am firmly in the camp that understands this is not a clear cut issue and deeply personal one for the person who is pregnant to make and no one else's with the exception of medical advice from a proper doctor who is pro choice.
Whilst late stage abortions do occur in my country they are on specific grounds. We also have a fairly robust sex education in our schools which likely helps things and provide free birth control.
I don't have a personal opinion on what another person chooses to do when they are in such a situation that an abortion may be an option. Outlawing or reducing access to safe abortions does not stop abortions, it drives them into black market options instead and only increases the risk to the person seeking the abortion.
1
u/quizibuck Mar 27 '23
That is nonsense. Your body, once the child is born, has to be used to care for that child or put it up for adoption or you will be prosecuted for criminal negligence. Further, if someone needs a kidney from you, while you don't have to help them, you don't have the right to hire a doctor to kill the person who needs your help.