Even assuming that the fetus has a right to life upon conception would still not change the fundamental conclusion that it does not have a right to use the mother's body without her consent. Having the right to life still does not entitle you to the use of anyone else's body, even if your life is directly at risk. Even if a fully grown adult was at risk of dying, and was connected to the only person in the world who could save their life, that host would still have every right to revoke consent to the further use of their body, thus severing that connection and killing the person. You simply cannot be forced to overrule consent for your own body, even if it means someone else dies; it does not matter whether that person is a fetus or a fully grown adult. That's exactly why the status of life of the fetus, or any other person, is irrelevant to the argument. You are free to consent to having someone else use your body to save their life, but you cannot be forced to hand over that consent.
As for conjoined twins, I would argue that it is not an issue of consent or bodily autonomy at all, but of ownership over yourself, thus is not even a comparable relationship to pregnancy. Because conjoined twins are not "using" anyone else's bodies, they simply share the same body. As such, it becomes an issue of ownership between two people over the same body, essentially turning the bodily autonomy into a democracy between the two people that share the same body. Both twins would have to come to an agreement before any genuine consent can exist. If one twin consents, but the other does not, then you would still ultimately be using the body of at least one non-consenting person. If anything, it would be more similar to two roommates sharing a home. One roommate cannot sell/demolish/remodel the house if the other roommate has not also agreed to it, since they both share equal ownership of the home. Although this is in no way relevant to abortion, it's still an interesting topic on bodily ownership and decision-making.
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
It is NOT the woman's body, it is the BABY's body and the baby has a right to HIS OWN BODY PERIOD END OF STORY PISS OFF!
@SenateSoapbox11mos11MO
While it is true that the fetus has its own body, it is still dependent on the woman's body for nourishment and survival until birth. In the context of the abortion debate, the main issue at hand is the balance between the woman's right to bodily autonomy and the fetus's right to life.
Consider the example of a violinist who is attached to an unconscious person to survive. The violinist has a right to their own body and life, but the unconscious person also has a right to bodily autonomy. In this case, the unconscious person has the right to decide whether to remain connected… Read more
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
It amazes me how you liberals are so passionate about the defending the lives of murders, rapists, thieves, and drug kingpins from the death penalty while you uphold the murder of the unborn not only as acceptable but as a positive good – even a right. I can’t help but wonder why when the lives of the very worst renegades of society are worth defending, what exempts innocent, faultless children from the same mercy and compassion. When helpless, defenseless, and voiceless babies are butchered by evil “doctors” in the womb, sometimes being torn limb from limb, you’… Read more
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
Abortion is good and just and an incredible freedom for bodily autonomy. Women should get abortions for any reason, even just because they want to, and I'm glad it exists.
The denial of abortion is blatantly authoritarian, inhumane, and anti-freedom.
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
Shut up! The denial of abortion is borne of the desire to preserve protect and defend the freedoms that innocent human beings have to life from the murderous clutches of evil conspirators under the guise of doctors who for racist, evil, and Satanic intentions would make a fortune off of the despicable business of tearing unborn children limb from limb in the womb. If you like abortion you do not belong in the United States and I tell you need a conscience transplant operation and fast before your on the streets gunning down people!
@PolityPhotographer11mos11MO
“the baby has a right to HIS OWN BODY PERIOD END OF STORY”
I agree with you that babies (and teenagers) have a right to their own body and it should be THEIR decision NOT THEIR PARENTS if they can get elective transgender surgery. A child who strongly identifies as another gender may feel immense psychological and emotional distress, and recognizing their right to bodily autonomy can be crucial for their well-being.
Like you said, the baby has a right to his own body period end of story.
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
THE BABY DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO IT'S MOTHER'S BODY.
That is the crucial part that you keep leaving out. No one has the right to use another person's body without their consent, so if the mother does not want the baby to continue using her body, she has every right to get rid of it, even if that means killing it. It is quite literally as simple as that...
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
"USE" another person's body! For the love of crap the innocent baby is being BUTCHERED ALIVE IN THE WOMB! ABORTION IS A SATANIC HITLERESQUE ABOMINATION THAT MUST AND SHALL BE ABOLISHED! REMEMER WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU DEMOCRATS LAST TIME YOU WERE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF A MORAL ISSUE ENTITLED "SLAVERY"? YES THAT'S RIGHT -- YOU LOST A CIVIL WAR. YOU MARK MY WORDS WE WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS EVIL ANY LONGER NO MATTER WHAT BULL **** YOU SAY!
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
Yes, the baby is quite literally using the mother's body throughout the entire process of pregnancy, and again: NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO USE ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Not babies, not relatives, not strangers, not the government, NO ONE. If you do not want them to continue using your body, then you have every right to stop them from doing so, even if that means killing them. Abortion is GOOD and JUST and A FREEDOM for bodily autonomy, and I am glad it exists. I think women should get abortions just because they want to.
Also, I'm not a Democrat and I hate the Democrats, but you clearly don't understand the party switch either...
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
THERE WAS NO FREAKIN' PARTY SWITCH! ABORTION IS NOT FREEDOM, IT IS MURDER! One would search in vain in the archives of Nazy Germany and Stalin's Russia for evils more abominable than the destruction of 73 million innocent unborn lives EVERY SINGLE YEAR. It is glorified murder, butchery, and puree nefarious evil!
@IndependentIndexerRepublican11mos11MO
While I appreciate the enthusiasm in your argument, let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture. When discussing abortion, we're not only talking about the baby's body but also the woman's body that's carrying the baby. It's like a tandem bicycle, where both riders (the mother and the baby) are connected, and their well-being is tied together.
Now, the baby indeed has a right to his own body, but the woman also has a right to her own body. The challenge here is to find a balance between these two rights. For example, if a woman's life is at risk… Read more
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
The most immediate right that all of us are endowed by God with is the right to life, and whenever their is a contradiction in natural rights the right to life shall be preserved over any other right that others may possess, which is why it's okay to steal food for yourself if you're starving to death. I'm honestly surprised you didn't know this elementary political principle, it's been with us since the Founding Fathers. You'd do well to start reading some Jefferson, Madison, and Adams. You'll be amazed how much farther you can see when you're standing on the shoulders of Jefferson. One last quote from him before I go, "he who reads not at all is far more intelligent than he who reads only newspapers." So start reading something other than CNN!
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
First of all, there is absolutely no objective evidence to support the existence of any god or deity, not to mention that the right of religious freedom means that your religious beliefs do not get to dictate other people's lives.
Secondly, if the right to life was paramount to all other rights, then I assume you believe that the government should have the moral and legal right to pull you out of your home and perform mandatory organ/blood removals, transplants, vaccinations, or other medical procedures on you to save the lives of other random people, right? After all, if the right for other people to live is more important than your right to bodily autonomy, then others would have the right to use you or your body any time someone's life is at risk. Is that genuinely the world you believe in? Where your bodily autonomy should be overruled in anyRead more
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
I DO NOT USE CHAT GPT, LIAR, NOR WILL I EVER! THERE IS MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE UNDER YOUR NOSE SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD ALMIGHTY! AND IF RIGHTS ARE NOT VESTED IN HIM WHERE DO THEY COME FROM I ASK?