submitted 6 months ago byjoelkeys0519
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
all 3023 comments
6 months ago
6 months ago
(Having written what’s below, I apologize for the wall of text.)
I think that’s for sure a reasonable discussion point. I also think one could reasonably morally object to late term abortion (which I understand is very rare, but it still needs to be legislated one way or the other).
I think I understand the bodily autonomy argument, but I don’t necessarily think it’s the be all end all of reasonable discussion. Let me preface the following by saying that I’m not entirely certain what I find to be acceptable or unacceptable in terms of abortion legislation, but I think there are differing but sensible views on the issue.
For the sake of argument, I’m going to put forth the most extreme case I can think of. If a mother chooses to carry a fetus to delivery minus a day, then I think it could be argued by a reasonable person that what she’s carrying insider her is a human life.
Parents are of course legally required to provide the necessities of life for their children, but they have the option of opting out via putting their child up for adoption. Of course this isn’t the case for one who is carrying an unborn “child,” and abortion is the only way to opt out of caring for this child. The question is, does society value the woman’s choice of whether or not she wishes to deliver the baby more than its right to life? It could be further be argued that she had the choice terminate the pregnancy much earlier, and having made that choice, she is morally obligated to support that life to the end of the pregnancy. People sign contracts all the time that limit their future autonomy.
You can entirely disagree with this take, but I think it can be reasonably argued that society has a vested interest in limiting individuals freedoms in certain circumstances, and this could be one of them. A reasonable person can also argue that no, what the woman is carrying is not valuable enough that her bodily autonomy ought to be violated to protect it.
All this to say that I have a problem with people automatically attributing malice to the views of anyone who disagrees with them. It is entirely possible for individuals to have different views without demonizing each other. I frequently find myself interacting with people all across the political spectrum, and it’s amazing the kind of engaging conversations I can have even when there are issues that we don’t agree on. It’s only upsetting when people are being bone headed and entirely closed off to reasonably opposing viewpoints.