> Seems like a side issue to me. If I forcibly put someone under my control, it should be my responsibility not to kill them.
That's the trouble though - unwanted pregnancies are either accidental, forced on the mother (in cases of rape), or too dangerous to continue due to unforeseen complications. That's more like waking up and finding you're medically tethered to a person that now depends on your body for survival and less like the pilot example.
What's really damning of the "pro-life" movement here is their general opposition to contraceptives - sometimes including condoms. It's pretty clear that the main goal is to control sex, not preserve life.
Apart from rape, pregnancy is never forced on anyone.
In the case of the trolly problem, the law has always favored self preservation. It’s a non issue.
For accidental pregnancy, It’s widely accepted that the other party (males) can only reliably choose whether or not to have sex. They have no choice in the matter post-pregnancy.
I see no reason women can’t be held to that same standard.
I say this all as someone that is pro-choice. But I always prefer to be principaled in my reasoning.
The problem with this is that now the burden to prove rape is on the mother. Before she could just get the abortion, no matter the reason. What a women considers rape and what the government considers provable rape is vastly different, to the point where proving rape in court is neigh impossible (I’ve seen the process up close) unless there is damning evidence like video and a confession.
So relying on rape as some sort of exception really means that women who were raped will never be able to prove to the government’s satisfaction to that fact, and will be forced to carry their rapists baby to term. He said she said doesn’t rise to a preponderance of the evidence, let alone “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
I guess we should thank the GOP for just sidestepping that issue and going straight for the most extreme position possible of banning abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. Makes these questions a little more straightforward.
A person that firmly believes that personhood starts at conception, would not want a rape exception for abortion. Carrying an unwanted child to term is the far lesser evil of murder. There’s no ambiguity there.
That said, my position is more nuanced. Personhood starts handful of months after conception as far as I’m concerned.
Carrying an unwanted child to term sounds a lot like slavery, which sounds like the opposite of personhood. But I guess you’ve built a straw man you don’t believe in so it doesn’t make sense for me to push too much against that.
I guess what I would say in general is that we’re talking a lot about when personhood begins, but I don’t think we’re talking enough about when personhood ends. To me, personhood ends when the government forces you to do something with your body that you don’t want to do. In that moment you are not a person but in fact owned by the government.
IMO: There's a discussion to be had about rape, you didn't consent to pregnancy by having sex then and the child is effectively an intruder. Whether or not you're justified in killing the child is complicated there and I don't have the answer.
That's the trouble though - unwanted pregnancies are either accidental, forced on the mother (in cases of rape), or too dangerous to continue due to unforeseen complications. That's more like waking up and finding you're medically tethered to a person that now depends on your body for survival and less like the pilot example.
What's really damning of the "pro-life" movement here is their general opposition to contraceptives - sometimes including condoms. It's pretty clear that the main goal is to control sex, not preserve life.