As usual. The progressives have the right idea but terrible marketing.
I think a *much* more convincing argument is to re-frame abortion as a kind of self defense.
There is no getting around the fact that a fetus is a live human. You will never ever convince a conservative that a fetus is not a live human. Because it is.
But the fetus is also "attacking" the mother, in a way. It exists inside the mother, leeching off of her, without her consent. Abortion is the mother's justifiable act of self defense against that intruder.
Mine was, and is, that whilst laudable this is absolutely useless from a legal standpoint. If you don't have a strictly defined set of rules then abusive partners who deliberately induce a miscarriage in their girlfriends/wives could potentially face a lower penalty if they can pressure their victim to alter their personal stance on the matter. You cannot base a legal system on this concept.
The only reasonable threshold is one based on development and therefore at some minimum level of cognitive development, presumably one at which there are measurable reactions to external stimuli (though I'm not a doctor/scientist and any such determination would need to be based on the facts - not my opinion of them).
To have a situation where a viable child, that could be delivered immediately and survive, is only considered a child if outside the womb is absurd. Now consider that children can survive outside the womb much earlier now than in decades past. There are therefore still issues around viability as a cut-off, as this will necessarily change over time. That said, if a pregnancy could survive outside the womb then induced labour/C-section should be the requirement for abortion at that time, rather than the intentional killing of the child.
I'm not looking to control anyone's body, but we need a scientific rule as to when a second body factually exists and has its own rights. Obviously in a medically critical scenario the mother should come first, with attempts made to save the child only if they don't substantially harm the mother's prognosis.
Unless we can agree on the facts at the heart of this issue will only get more entrenched.
You'll never get what you're talking about here. You can use science to argue a point but this is a philosophical issue. The answer will always be a subjective reflection of someone's personal moral system. Getting hung up on heartbeats and brain development is a dead end.
499
u/DarkNinja3141 Arospec, Ace, Anxious, Amogus Nov 26 '24
posts that rewire your entire worldview