Why do they always seem to pretend the debate is a simple issue of whether or not a fetus/baby is alive?
"HAH, THE FETUS TWITCHED THEREFORE ABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL"
And of the woman? Should she be forced to give birth against her will?
"..."
We never seem to hear this argument when discussing other things like self-defense when someone defends them-self against an attacker and injures/kills them.
The issue of abortion is about conflicting rights (which is admittedly easier when talking about a fetus vs a baby). Why should a woman's right to control what happens to her body be trumped by a baby's right to life?
Unless a woman was raped, she already chose what would happen, so the "right to control" argument doesn't work all that well if one considers the unborn fetus to already be a human life instead of merely a bit of tissue that could someday become a life.
You could argue it also comes into play for unintended pregnancies as well but that's just for the people who think abortion should be illegal in any case with no exceptions.
Outside of those exceptions I'd still say the right to choose has precedence because it requires continuous active consent of the use of your body. Maybe if we were talking about babies growing up independently of the mother via eggs or something it would be different, but in this case it's something that has to live and grow inside your body for 9 months.
Poll
