|
|
|
|
|
|
by trs8080
1493 days ago
|
|
|
> That said, framing the debate around abortion purely as a question of bodily autonomy always seemed to be a very dishonest way of engaging with the debate. Maybe /you/ think it's a dishonest way of engaging with the debate. Most people who are pro-choice consider framing the issue as murder as dishonest. > Then, should we be allowed to kill braindead and comatose people arbitrarily? > Or maybe, they just don't look like people, so we don't have to treat them that way? Well, that opens up a pretty ugly can of worms. These questions are not part of any rational debate. |
|
|
I don't think OP was saying it is murder but that it's helpful to have some argument why it's not murder (since there are some that claim that it is). If someone says "Meat is murder" and I say "I have the right to eat what I want" then I've not really responded to their argument and to some it might even sound like I'm implicitly accepting their premise.
I am obviously pro-choice and I do understand the people arguing against abortion rights are doing so in bad faith in most cases but I am still not sure why there is such reluctance (in debates I've seen) to not demolish the "fetus=human being" argument which is put forward as the primary reason to ban abortion.