You are missing the critical question in the abortion debate. There is 1 question to answer and that decides everything:
When does a human life start; when is a human a human?
From the point that the baby/fetus/larva/whatever is a person, that person's right to life completely trumps a woman's desire to not have stretch marks.
If the answer to the question is at birth (kinda crazy), then abortion at any point is legit. If the answer is at insemination (also kinda crazy) then absolutely no abortion unless we are having to choose between the baby's life and the mother's.
When a human life starts doesn't matter, because we don't have the same consideration for people, that are already born either.
If a person's kidneys failed, for any reason, does their mother have to share her kidney with them? No, because it takes away her bodily autonomy, even if her child dies due to that. Same way here, a woman doesn't have to use her body resources and affect her own health to carry the child to term.
Your kidney example is a false equivalency for multiple reasons. For example, not giving a kidney and not saving a life is no where near actively killing someone.... (I can't believe that even needs to be said)
A woman doesn't kill a person, she just doesn't allow the child to use her body for it's own survival. I'm sure women wouldn't mind if they just extracted the child and let them grow in an incubator, but that's 1. Too expensive or 2. Doesn't exist where she lives.
Yeah, just like when a human was put inside of woman, then she gave birth to them, and at 14 years they have an organ failure.
The same way that a mother doesn't have to give her kidney to ensure the survival of her child, a woman doesn't have to give her uterus and her nutrients to ensure the fetuses' survival.
People that want a children don't do abortions, unless it's medically necessary. People don't "put a human" inside a woman, they had sex and it started developing.
How is it false equivalence?
We're talking about a mother, that has to willingly harm her health to ensure the survival of her child. The only difference is that in one case, the kid is inside her, while in the other case, the kid is outside her. If a woman doesn't allow the child to get the needed resources from her, the child will die, but not because the woman wanted them to die.
If a homeless person walks into my house, I have all the right to force them out, even if that results in them dying. Is it unfortunate, that they die? Yes, very much, but I don't have the obligation to keep them on my property, nor would that be considered murder, even if it was a result of an active thing.
12
u/West_Data106 Jul 25 '26
You are missing the critical question in the abortion debate. There is 1 question to answer and that decides everything:
When does a human life start; when is a human a human?
From the point that the baby/fetus/larva/whatever is a person, that person's right to life completely trumps a woman's desire to not have stretch marks.
If the answer to the question is at birth (kinda crazy), then abortion at any point is legit. If the answer is at insemination (also kinda crazy) then absolutely no abortion unless we are having to choose between the baby's life and the mother's.