[throwaway744678]

> Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue.

Yes, the core issue is here. Though no-one seriously argues that a foetus is not human, nor alive: the issue is "is it a person (yet)?". Is it something, or someone? Answering that question - not an easy one - makes one swing one way or another of the issue.

[diordiderot]

The core issue is 'Is a human obligated to use their body to keep another human alive'

A thought experiment.

You get too drunk and pass out in a bar.

I take you home a f hook you up to a person with failing kidneys so that you filter their blood.

If you unhook yourself they will die.

Should you go to prison for unhooking yourself?

[HumanReadable]

That really doesn't seem like the core issue to me. Once child is born parents have tons of obligations towards them, and severe neglect can cause a prison sentence.

I'm not American, so forgive me for barging in, but it seems to me you have two core issues:

First there is the debate over when a Fetus should be considered a person and receive the rights that come with it.

Secondly there is a debate over states rights and what topics the federal government should get a say in.

[diordiderot]

I don't believe it matters if the fetus is a person or not.

Should any random person A be forced to lose their bodily autonomy to keep random person B alive?

I think no. I shouldn't have to give you my kidney. Even if I can have it back in 9 months.

[edanm]

I understand your point and it's a valid one, but you're not actually engaging with (part of) parent's argument.

If I'm a parent of a small child, and I decide to completely stop feeding it, and they die, did I do something morally and/or legally wrong? I think most would answer yes on both fronts. So the question is, is there an inherent difference between these two situation?

[yucky]

How does a 39 week old fetus differ from a newborn? I think the point of contention for most people is on why a mother should be able to end the life of one and not the other.

The majority of Americans do not support elective abortion at 39 weeks, so that means by definition they support some regulations. In other words, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is, where?

[feet]

In the US humans have rights on a sliding scale, a child does not have the same rights as an 18 year old

I don't think its unreasonable that a fetus, being a clump of cells that cannot survive and is not independently living, has less rights to life than a minor child

The mother is the fully independently living human in this case with full rights, those should not be overridden by a clump of cells with potential

If we judge everything by it's "potential" then we need to start charging men for masturbating and not saving their ejaculate and charging women for having menstrual cycles

[yucky]

Is a 39 week old fetus a "clump of cells that cannot survive" (any different than a newborn)? I think the real issue is that abortion support isn't as binary as some people make it out to be. I've met very few pro-choice people who support elective abortions at 39 weeks, which means even the pro-choice crowd thinks there needs to be regulations.

[feet]

At 39 weeks the woman has known she has been pregnant for some time and intends to keep the baby. If an abortion happens at this point, it's an incredibly traumatic experience because something with the pregnancy has gone extremely wrong. You present a useless hypothetical that does nothing to advance the conversation. You're repeating a useless point that does nothing besides distract from the issues of the bodily autonomy of women, its disingenuous

[yucky]

Well, where would you draw the line? You can't just pretend it never happens since we know it does. And even if you want to pretend it would never happen, then there is no reason not to draw the line.

So at what point should abortions be regulated? 39 weeks? 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Something else?