Quote:
Originally Posted by Peanut
I’m sorry, how is it a stupid thing to say? You think, as a 37 year old educated woman who leans feminist, that I haven’t “put any thought” into abortion and bodily autonomy?
|
Apparently not, based on what you've posted here. Your last post was embarrassing.
Quote:
|
You can debate when life starts for a fetus. But you can’t debate that the person gestating the fetus is unquestionably alive and has (or is supposed to have) bodily autonomy.
|
Yes, a woman unquestionably has the right to bodily autonomy. What is questionable in the context of this debate is whether there is another moral person involved, and if so when that other moral person comes into being, and concomitantly, whether (and if so, when) the woman's right to bodily autonomy infringes on that other moral person's right to live (or have a chance to live), and if so, whether it's okay that it does infringe on those rights, and to what extent.
Quote:
|
“If you don’t like murder, don’t murder someone” is not equivalent.
|
Only if you take it as read that eliminating a foetus is not murder. If you instead take it as read that moral personhood begins at some point before birth, it's exactly equivalent. There is no apparent morally relevant factor that would suggest drawing the line at one place or the other. Accordingly, other than as a matter of pragmatism, there is no reason to prefer "birth" to "brain activity" to "ability to feel pain", and so on.
In essence, you can draw any number of distinctions you like - the child's ability to survive on its own, its ability to form thought, its ability to feel pain, but unless you have some bedrock moral justification for why that is the thing that makes the difference, why
that's the key factor, you're just back to arbitrary intuition.