159
submitted 2 years ago by filoria@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I believe that the fetus’s right to live doesn’t supersede a person’s right to not be pregnant. That is a logical and consistent stance.

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

Thats not a logical stance if you dont have a logical point at which the fetus gets rights.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

At no point is any person ever required to maintain using their body to keep someone else alive. If it’s your job and you don’t do it you may need professional consequences but never jail.

The fetus has rights but they all fall below that right of bodily autonomy.

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

That is what makes pregnancy a unique situation, another person is required to keep a fetus alive. If the fetus has the right of bodily autonomy, then the consensual act of making it was the consent to carry the fetus 9 months.

this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
159 points (94.4% liked)

World News

38454 readers
295 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS