If amendment 62 is passed, we will still have a case of the inalienable rights of a woman versus the inalienable rights of the fetus.
Abortion is not an inalienable right. There is no such thing as an inalienable right to kill.
There is, however, a right to life.
And there is responsibility.
The responsibility not to kill, especially not to kill one's offspring.
And since it’s the fetus that requires the use of the woman’s body to live, the woman should have the right to maintain her bodily autonomy.
Let's see now.
If the woman does not exercise her "bodily autonomy", her pregnancy will be over in nine months.
If the fetus does not have the right to life, he will be dead forever.
I think it's a no-brainer.
Not to mention that the woman is responsible for the life of her offspring.
RESPONSIBILITY?
"UNFAIR! SLAVERY! OPPRESSION!" Cry feminists.
What-- being responsible for protecting life is oppression.
Give me a darn break.
A responsibility is not oppression.
What responsibility does it entail. Get ready for it:
Do nothing.
That's right! Just stay pregnant for nine months and do nothing.
When the baby comes, if you still don't want to be a mom, you can place the baby for adoption.
Now, some feminists would counter that that's forced pregnancy. Forcing a woman to be a carrier, an incubator, a passive agent.
Well, here's some news to you feminists: when you're a moral agent, that not only entails moral rights, but moral responsibilities.
There is such a thing as a moral responsibility to the fetus.
The other reality is that when you choose the actions, you choose the consequences that are intrinsic to that action.
Nobody chooses an accident. That's what that is: an unexpected consequence to your action. Like if you walk outside and get hit, that was unforeseeable. Nobody asks to get hit by a car when they're strolling around.
But, if you start jaywalking on the highway, where cars are moving fast, a foreseeable consequence is getting hit.
That's what is meant by: you choose the action, you choose the consequences.
The fact that anti-choicers aren’t fighting the rights of parents to refuse to give blood, bone marrow, organs, etc to save the life of their child once it’s born, is a strong indicator that it’s really not about the life of the child for them, but rather punishing women for being sexually active.
Did you ever notice that poor-choicers ALWAYS question motives based on nothing more than a false conclusion derived from pro-life behaviour.
Like, if pro-lifers support war, the death penalty or oppose organ donation, it's because they're not really sincere about their values.
Never mind that these issues involve different acts and therefore different factors.
If your country is invaded, will you fight the invader? Well of course!
If your country's ally is invaded, aren't you going to support armed intervention? Well of course!
This is a different question that the issue of whether a fetus has the right to life.
Nobody denies human beings have the right to life.
The issue is when can a human being deliberately kill?
When it comes to innocent life, pro-lifers are categorical: never.
So when it comes to shooting enemy non-combatants or executing convicted murderers, no problem.
But it's too hard to stop and think about whether what one is saying is logically consistent. It's just easier to engage in superficial rhetoric. If you support killing of the guilty, well, that means you MUST support the killing of the innocent-- otherwise you're a hypocrite, right?
That's how the left thinks.
It's just easier to engage in this intellectual shortcuts and smear the opposition.
