‘Rape Culture’ Is A MYTH | Change My Mind

[setsunatenshi]

Qwark said:

setsunatenshi said:

I agree same rights should be given to all humans. So if you take it to the logical conclusion, the woman is able to sustain her life without sucking it out of the potential child. The potential child, on the other hand, is not able to sustain itself without literally leaching life out of the woman that carries it, therefore the right of the woman to self determine what sucks the life out of her body is 100 times out of 100 the most important right to uphold. You literally can't force someone to hurt their own body to sustain another. If that was the case you would make it that a court could order you to donate a kidney if that could save another human's life. No one makes that argument because it's obviously absurd, so how can it be valid for the anti choice crowd? 

 

We don't even need to get to the point that 1 of those beings is actually conscient, thinking and able to make decisions, while the other is literally not existing as a person yet. 

Not voluntarily giving up a kidney and willingly killing a consious human being because its inconvenient are not even remotely the same. As for leaching the life out of someone. You do realise the female body is biologically designed to carry a child. It normally doesn't cause inreparable medical damage to a woman. Unlike abortion which is definitive.

You can't give someone the right to kill another human being once its consious. Unless said person chooses so. If you don't want to raise a child totally fine, plenty of people who. would want to adopt a child. Luckily where I live abortion after 22 weeks is actually forbidden by law. Since even if the woman wants to get rid of it the medical procedure is forbidden to execute by a doctor, unless there are very compelling nefical reasons. Although I guess you could cut it out after that periode and lay it in a couveuse. 

A foetus is an exsisting person just because it is in a womb and you can not see it doesn't mean it is non existant. A consious foetus is a lot more than just a bunch of cell that are building a person. A featus is in fact a developing human being and that person has the right not to be killed. The fact that you would regard a consious festus as a parasite and something that has no value at all, is pretty disturbing if you ask me. 

 

You're somehow missing the main point here. It's absolutely irrelevant what potential human will come out of that bunch of cells. You can't force another person to sustain that bunch of cells and carry them inside their own body, literally feeding of their body, just because you want to preserve it until birth.

 

You are trying to impose your will on another person's body and you do not have that right. 

 

I'll give you an even less intrusive example than the kidney one. 

 

If someone is about to die unless you donate blood, no one can force you to donate blood to save that person's life. 

 

Think about that for a second. We recognize that the right of self determination trumps the duty of saving another's life. This is the exact same right you're trying to subvert by creating a special exception that the woman's rights to her own body autonomy is lower than the rights you want to give a potential human.

 

If the fetus is viable outside the womb, feel free to take care of it yourself, just don't try to impose your will on others. 

 

I'll disregard your disturbed feelings, about what I consider the fetus to be, as irrelevant to the discussion.