- Aug 15, 2018
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
100% Correct. And I especially agree with the bolded. The federal government doesn't take the position that the right to life of the unborn supersede the right of the mother to privacy and bodily autonomy. Nor should it. No one should have the right to deny a woman this choice.What is the point trying to be made in this conversation? By you, @quip, @choiceone, etc?
Any individual woman is at significant risk...it cant always be predicted or prevented. You also arent including the other 86,000 that suffer extreme harm, even permanent disability...Is that considfered "OK since they're alive?" Things like stroke, kidney failure, aneurysm, pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, etc. This impacts the rest of their lives and ability to work, care for a family, everything.
So ALL women are at risk for every pregnancy. The only reason the numbers matter is if someone values the unborn more than the women, believing that they are entitled to demand women take that risk. The federal govt does not take that position...and it doesnt in any other circumstances either, except the draft. (Demand someone risk their life without their consent.)
If it's still about self-defense, it's not "IMO." It's about bodily autonomy and having your body used without your consent, about sacrificing your right to self-determination in order to give it to someone else without your consent. Since there is a safer medical procedure available, the govt nor strangers should have the right to deny a woman that procedure.
But some state governments are starting to take that position. My argument starts from this premise in order to show that you can't believe this and still believe that there should be exceptions for rape victims under the doctrine of self-defense. It doesn't work. If we start from this assumption, (that the right of the unborn to life outweighs the right of the woman to privacy and bodily autonomy, and the only legal justification to take the life of the unborn, like any other human, is in self-defense,) then there should be no exceptions that allow abortion under this doctrine outside of the emergency room scenario.
I don't agree with the above conclusion because I don't agree with the premise. Any rights we apply to the unborn should be subordinate to the rights of the mother, including the right to life. Or we could simply assume that there are no rights that apply to the unborn. But for those that do agree with the above pro-life premise that the unborn have an equal right to life to any other human, I don't see how they can logically allow for exceptions for rape victims, or pregnant children. If your premise is that the unborn have equal right to life as any other human, then abortion can never be allowed outside of the emergency room where it is reasonable to assume that the mother's life is in peril.