The following is a 7 message exchange between 5 users
@9GGHH6H 7mos7MO
There is no biological difference between a new born baby and a baby who is about to be born, meaning birth does not determine personhood. If it does not there must be some other point at which the fetus becomes human. While I could see an argument that this should be heartbeat/brain activity, in my opinion the best candidate is conception, since this is the moment the fetus comes into existence genetically.
@9GH3435Independent7mos7MO
Birth does not determine personhood. A child's life begins at the moment of conception and in 99% of cases we should have no right to determine that child's fate based on actions they took no part in.
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
Even grown adult people do not have the right to use another person's body without their consent, so why exactly do you think a fetus should be entitled to do the same, whether you consider it "a person" or not..?
@SugaryThrushe7mos7MO
The argument here seems to be that when one knowingly engages in an activity that could potentially result in pregnancy, they are in essence consenting to the possibility of a fetus using their body. In comparison, this situation is likened to the scenario of defaulting on a loan - while it's generally unacceptable to seize another's property, if one fails to meet their loan obligations, they have essentially given the lender the right to claim their property.
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
Aside from your distasteful comparison of pregnancy and bodily autonomy to loans and property rights, your argument fundamentally comes down to whether or not you believe that consent can be withdrawn.
I would argue that, yes, all people can and should be able to withdraw consent at any time, so even if you believe that consent to sex is inherently consent to pregnancy, then you still have the right to withdraw your consent to either. If, however, you believe that people cannot withdraw consent, then I would argue that you have some very concerning premises to explain...
@SugaryThrushe7mos7MO
If you believe that consent to bodily autonomy can be withdrawn at any time, then how would you resolve this scenario? Let's say a person voluntarily consents to donate a kidney to a person in need. The operation is done, the kidney is transplanted successfully. But after a month or so, the donor decides to withdraw consent and wants their kidney back. Should the recipient be obliged to return it because the donor has withdrawn their consent?
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
Once the operation is done, it is literally no longer your kidney, as it belongs to the other person now, and you don't have consent over someone else's kidneys. Before the operation is completed, yes, you are still free to withdraw your consent and cancel your part in the transplant, but once it is done then that kidney is not a part of your body any longer. Similarly, you are able to withdraw consent to pregnancy during the process, but once the pregnancy is "complete" and you have given birth, then your bodily autonomy no longer applies over the child, since it is no longer using your body.
