Quote (dro94 @ Jan 29 2021 04:10pm)
Expel something? You make it sound like having a shite
Why shouldn't the foetus have a right to life unless there is a really good reason to deny it, like endangering the health of the mother
What is a morally acceptable reason to abort a foetus by saying it's part of you instead of an independent being - literally anything because it's inside you?
I mean, it's 9 months at the end of the day. You can give birth to the baby and never see it again if you don't want to. There are millions of people desperate for kids and the taxpayer would gladly subsidise the raising of children if some parents didn't want them
As I said before, even if we establish the fetus is a person with a right to life, that doesn't mean it automatically takes precedent over the mother's right to do what she wants with her body. When rights conflict it's often a messy matter to figure out which right wins.
Also, birth comes with the potential for serious medical complications. "You can give birth to the baby and never see it again" ignores this factor.
So anyway, my stance is that prior to ~23 weeks the fetus is not a person since it has never had a brain and therefore there can not be a conflict of rights that overrides the bodily autonomy of the mother.
After 23 weeks its about who wins the conflict between the fetus "right to life" and the mother's right to do what she wants with her body. I'm not convinced one way or the other on this question.