I followed the thread and saw where you are coming from.
People disagreeing with you are pointing out that you’re comparing the rights of actual living people to the rights of ‘potential people’.
And your hypothetical uses right wing talking points to justify your position, and turns carrying a child to term into a moral obligation in the process.
And your hypothetical uses right wing talking points to justify your position, and turns carrying a child to term into a moral obligation in the process.
Can you do me a solid and quote the exact place where I did this? It wasn’t my intent and I want to take care not to make the same error in the future.
People disagreeing with you are pointing out that you’re comparing the rights of actual living people to the rights of ‘potential people’.
Yes, I am saying that you can still be pro-choice while believing that a zygote has rights.
I’m not sure how there’s a discussion when you’re pitting a real-life person against a hypothetical future person. Your other examples (eg climate change) affect society as a whole. There is no hypothetical about it.
You replied to this with a hypothetical about landmines while ignoring that this comment is talking about the right of the mother to bodily autonomy vs. the rights of a potential person to life. Your hypothetical doesn’t address this because not leaving dangerous things around for others to find is a responsibility, not a right. In other words, you pitted your responsibilities vs. a future person’s right to live and that’s a much different debate than pitting rights against one another.
As to your last comment, you’re basically saying you’re not pro-choice if you believe a zygote has the same right to life that a mother has to her bodily autonomy. Because this is the exact argument pro-birthers are using to justify incest and rape births.
You replied to this with a hypothetical about landmines while ignoring that this comment is talking about the right of the mother to bodily autonomy vs. the rights of a potential person to life.
That hypothetical was to show that we do concern ourselves with the consequences of our actions, even if those consequences affect people who have not yet been born. And it’s true. We do this. So saying “the zygote hasn’t been born-- it doesn’t matter what happens to it” (paraphrasing) is not a given statement-- it must be shown why we shouldn’t care about what happens to it, when we do care about unborn or future people in other instances.
you’re basically saying you’re not pro-choice if you believe a zygote has the same right to life that a mother has to bodily autonomy.
This can’t be further from the truth. We make nuanced decisions about this all the time-- you’re not allowed to kill someone, but if they’re trying to kill you, you are then allowed to kill them to defend yourself. A person that punches a pregnant person in the stomach and causes them to miscarry can be charged with murder. It doesn’t matter if the pregnant person was punched on the way to an abortion. The question isn’t really (and never should have been) whether a zygote has rights. The question is defending why a pregnant person’s rights should supersede the rights of the zygote.
