Michigan Anti-Abortion Bill, 'Most Extreme' In The Country

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

That whole virgin/whore concept would be highly insulting if you were applying it to me just because I believe abortion should be restricted because I believe the fetus is a life that needs to be protected.

I wasn't referring to you at all. I was talking about a rearising cultural attitude, one which underlies a considerable amount of misogyny.

I will ask you one question as regards your view of sexual responsibility. You seem to be stating outright that a woman having sex means that one bears 100% responsibility for whatever comes of it and that the very act of having sex means that the woman loses all human rights, even the basic right of bodily autonomy.

So two questions.
1. Should not the father also lose all such rights? Should fatherhood create an enslaved state wherein the father, since he cannot carry the child, must give up everything in life to care for the mother and the child?

2. Can you name any other action that should cause this giving up of bodily autonomy? So far the only things I can think of are capital offenses. But even those have limits. We do not, for example, allow capital prisoners to be used involuntarily for medical experiments which could save thousands of lives.

Why is sex so different from all other human actions that it takes away all human autonomy, from one and only one of its participants?

[Romantic Heretic]

A good documentary about When Abortion Was Illegal.

Enjoy.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle

I wasn't referring to you at all. I was talking about a rearising cultural attitude, one which underlies a considerable amount of misogyny.

I will ask you one question as regards your view of sexual responsibility. You seem to be stating outright that a woman having sex means that one bears 100% responsibility for whatever comes of it and that the very act of having sex means that the woman loses all human rights, even the basic right of bodily autonomy.

No, she does not lose all human rights. And I've already given my view as regards bodily automony. Post #192. It's the best I can do.

So two questions.
1. Should not the father also lose all such rights? Should fatherhood create an enslaved state wherein the father, since he cannot carry the child, must give up everything in life to care for the mother and the child?

The father should be 100% responsible financially. Would that he would have to go through the pregnancy, but since that's not scientifically possible....

2. Can you name any other action that should cause this giving up of bodily autonomy? So far the only things I can think of are capital offenses. But even those have limits. We do not, for example, allow capital prisoners to be used involuntarily for medical experiments which could save thousands of lives.

No, and again, I tried to address that in #196. There is nothing that compares to pregnancy that is legal.

The best analogy I can come up with is that if a parent is caring for, let's say, an infant (since they are the most physically demanding), and becomes unable or unwilling to continue to do so, that parent cannot stuff the infant into a closet or a garbage can or an abandoned building. That parent must continue to care for the infant until such time as the parent can find alternative care. If the parent cannot not find alternative care immediately, there would be a period of time in which the parent would be required to feed, clothe, shelter and carry around that infant. If not, the parent would be accused of child abandonment, endangerment, and--if the infant died--some form of murder/manslaughter.

Why is sex so different from all other human actions that it takes away all human autonomy, from one and only one of its participants?

Are you asking me why we procreate the way we do? Because I have no idea. That's just the way it is.

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

It's not about making "your own" decisions in this case, IMO, because there is another life involved.

Analogy: Two people are in a relationship. We need to recognize that they are intelligent and capable of making their own decisions. So, if one of those people physically abuses his/her partner, we need to trust that there's a good reason for it, and not get the law involved.

Obviously you are not saying this. Obviously abuse is wrong/illegal. But obviously, people don't always do the right thing by others. Others in this case being the fetus.

Chrissy, you have said in other threads you want the government to butt out of your private life, that you just want to be left alone, that a minimalist, unintervening government is best.

You cannot have it both ways.

[missesdash]

I agree that the exception for rape and incest has more to do with how socially repugnant the acts are. Because it is possible for a woman to be raped without falling into depression or becoming that emotionally unstable, perpetually terrified stereoype that we always see on television and in movies. Likewise, it is possible to be in a consensual incestuous relationship.

So when we make exceptions for rape and incest, but not birth defects or mental health issues, we're saying that neither of the latter two are the reason we are okay with aborting a rape or incest baby.

It is remarkable how easy it is to no longer see the fetus as "a life" if they are a product of something we find really distasteful. Even Chrissy's example of leaving the baby on the doorstep--if pro-lifers believe abortion is murder, are they now advocating the murder of a child left on their doorstep? Of course not.

Because if you make an exception for anything other than the life of the mother, abortion is only murder 'sometimes.' The rape and incest exceptions will always be inconsistent. Any explanations of why they 'make sense' as the only two non-life threatening exceptions will always be flimsy. It doesn't make sense.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by Romantic Heretic

A good documentary about When Abortion Was Illegal.

Enjoy.

Ha, not enjoyable at all, but very, very touching. (I balled my eyes out when the lady talked about giving up her baby for adoption.)

This didn't make me feel, though, that abortion should be legal in all cases. When the one woman's life was at risk--obviously. What it made me feel was this: what a horrible time for women to live, dependent on men, with the shame of unwed pregnancy, and without education of or easy access to birth control.

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

Chrissy, you have said in other threads you want the government to butt out of your private life, that you just want to be left alone, that a minimalist, unintervening government is best.

You cannot have it both ways.

I don't think it's trying to have it both ways, Alessandra. My freedom to do whatever I want ends at the point when I harm someone else. That's the way I look at it, and I don't see it as contradictory.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by missesdash

Because if you make an exception for anything other than the life of the mother, abortion is only murder 'sometimes.' The rape and incest exceptions will always be inconsistent. Any explanations of why they 'make sense' as the only two non-life threatening exceptions will always be flimsy. It doesn't make sense.

You're right, it doesn't. Your argument compels me to doubt my stance of rape as a legitimate reason for abortion. If someone harms me, am I then justified in harming someone else who had nothing to do with it?

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

You're right, it doesn't. Your argument compels me to doubt my stance of rape as a legitimate reason for abortion. If someone harms me, am I then justified in harming someone else who had nothing to do with it?

The fetus has something to do with it, though. It's the result.

[Alessandra Kelley]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

I don't think it's trying to have it both ways, Alessandra. My freedom to do whatever I want ends at the point when I harm someone else. That's the way I look at it, and I don't see it as contradictory.

But you are waving aside all consideration of harm to the woman. These laws that these legislations are passing hurt women in every possible way, in their health, in their lives, in their autonomy, in their dignity. They are designed to shame, humiliate, intimidate, and punish women who need abortions.

The only person you seem to acknowledge in this is the fetus.

[icerose]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

Ha, not enjoyable at all, but very, very touching. (I balled my eyes out when the lady talked about giving up her baby for adoption.)

This didn't make me feel, though, that abortion should be legal in all cases. When the one woman's life was at risk--obviously. What it made me feel was this: what a horrible time for women to live, dependent on men, with the shame of unwed pregnancy, and without education of or easy access to birth control.


I don't think it's trying to have it both ways, Alessandra. My freedom to do whatever I want ends at the point when I harm someone else. That's the way I look at it, and I don't see it as contradictory.

I would think that taking away women's autonomy is harming someone else and it does make women dependant on men.

It's been proven time and again that women do not generally abort late term unless there is a big important reason. All these anti-choice laws are about controlling the woman and stripping her rights.

Most abortions are done before the zygote even becomes a fetus. It has no ability to live on its own. Why then should the rights of potential but not yet viable life overtake that of a living breathing free thinking woman?

I still will never get the logic that says "Yep, that potential life is more important than your existing life."

[thebloodfiend]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

You're right, it doesn't. Your argument compels me to doubt my stance of rape as a legitimate reason for abortion. If someone harms me, am I then justified in harming someone else who had nothing to do with it?

Originally Posted by Chrissy

My freedom to do whatever I want ends at the point when I harm someone else. That's the way I look at it, and I don't see it as contradictory.

I think the problem, Chrissy, is that you are unable to see the fetus as capable of harming the woman. Its freedom ends when it harms someone else, even if its mere presence is harmful. Using your argument, abortion should be legal in all cases as a woman can simply claim that the fetus, or its presence, is effecting her mental health, her job performance, or her emotional stability, which is lowering her quality of life. I mean, you may not like it from an emotional standpoint, but logically, what you're saying goes both ways. This might sound cold, but if your life depends solely on me and you're harming me, I have no obligation to support you or keep you alive.

[Roger J Carlson]

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

But you are waving aside all consideration of harm to the woman. These laws that these legislations are passing hurt women in every possible way, in their health, in their lives, in their autonomy, in their dignity. They are designed to shame, humiliate, intimidate, and punish women who need abortions.

The only person you seem to acknowledge in this is the fetus.

And yet, the only person you seem to acknowledge is the mother. In my opinion, that's just as bad. This is, of course, the only way to make it cut and dried, but very few things in life are.

I see abortion as a matter of conflicting rights, not that one party has rights while the other does not. The law is often about conflicting rights. I have the right to life, but I don't have the right to steal from another to sustain that life.

[missesdash]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

The fetus has something to do with it, though. It's the result.

I'm assuming she meant "someone who isn't at fault." It's not as if the fetus decides to be the result of a horrible act.

And @Chrissy I actually have issues with pro-choice advocates constantly bringing up the "what if she was raped" scenario because it really is an emotional appeal. Regardless of how the woman became pregant, for a lot of pro-lifers, the question will always be "but is it worth murder" and with most scenarios outside of a threat to the mother's life, the reasonable answer is 'no'.

Asking a politician if they'd suddenly become pro-choice is their daughter was raped is the pro-choice equivalent of waving around those posters of mangled sixth month old babies.

[Chrissy]

Good points, all. I want to respond, and I will continue to meditate. I have to go to see a client, waaaah, so I can't play hookey today.

[Opty]

Originally Posted by Roger J Carlson

And yet, the only person you seem to acknowledge is the mother.

A fetus is not a "person."

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Roger J Carlson

And yet, the only person you seem to acknowledge is the mother. In my opinion, that's just as bad. This is, of course, the only way to make it cut and dried, but very few things in life are.

I see abortion as a matter of conflicting rights, not that one party has rights while the other does not. The law is often about conflicting rights. I have the right to life, but I don't have the right to steal from another to sustain that life.

And that conflict of rights is precisely what Roe V. Wade addresses. It gives full rights to the mother in the first trimester and increasing rights to the fetus as it grows toward and past viability.

Laws like the current one remove all rights from the mother past 20 weeks regardless of viability or any other consideration. It is precisely the lack of conflict of rights that makes this law and the standard pro-life position egregious.

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

No, she does not lose all human rights. And I've already given my view as regards bodily automony. Post #192. It's the best I can do.


The father should be 100% responsible financially. Would that he would have to go through the pregnancy, but since that's not scientifically possible....


No, and again, I tried to address that in #196. There is nothing that compares to pregnancy that is legal.

The best analogy I can come up with is that if a parent is caring for, let's say, an infant (since they are the most physically demanding), and becomes unable or unwilling to continue to do so, that parent cannot stuff the infant into a closet or a garbage can or an abandoned building. That parent must continue to care for the infant until such time as the parent can find alternative care. If the parent cannot not find alternative care immediately, there would be a period of time in which the parent would be required to feed, clothe, shelter and carry around that infant. If not, the parent would be accused of child abandonment, endangerment, and--if the infant died--some form of murder/manslaughter.



Are you asking me why we procreate the way we do? Because I have no idea. That's just the way it is.

You assert that in pregnancy the mother having implicitly taken on all responsibility for the consequences of having sex. That taking on that responsibility means that the person must sacrifice their health and bodily integrity for the good of another.

I brought in a circumstance where another act (murder) requires that a person take on full responsibility. So I asked an analogous question, should a person who has committed murder give up their rights to health and bodily integrity for the good of others. For example, can they be used in medical experiments or as involuntary organ donation.

Sex is unique in that it leads to procreation, but it is not unique in giving responsibility for the lives of others.

I ask again, should someone who performs another act that takes on such a responsibility have to surrender their health and bodily integrity?

[RichardGarfinkle]

Closer to the OP (but across the pond), here's an article from a doctor in the UK who performs abortions talking about the circumstances under which people seek them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/a-bp...?utm_hp_ref=uk

[gypsyscarlett]

Originally Posted by missesdash

I agree that the exception for rape and incest has more to do with how socially repugnant the acts are. Because it is possible for a woman to be raped without falling into depression or becoming that emotionally unstable, perpetually terrified stereoype that we always see on television and in movies. Likewise, it is possible to be in a consensual incestuous relationship.

So when we make exceptions for rape and incest, but not birth defects or mental health issues, we're saying that neither of the latter two are the reason we are okay with aborting a rape or incest baby.

It is remarkable how easy it is to no longer see the fetus as "a life" if they are a product of something we find really distasteful. Even Chrissy's example of leaving the baby on the doorstep--if pro-lifers believe abortion is murder, are they now advocating the murder of a child left on their doorstep? Of course not.

Because if you make an exception for anything other than the life of the mother, abortion is only murder 'sometimes.' The rape and incest exceptions will always be inconsistent. Any explanations of why they 'make sense' as the only two non-life threatening exceptions will always be flimsy. It doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Chrissy

You're right, it doesn't. Your argument compels me to doubt my stance of rape as a legitimate reason for abortion. If someone harms me, am I then justified in harming someone else who had nothing to do with it?

I've been thinking about this, and what others have posted regarding why many anti-choicers will still make exceptions in case of rape. Obviously I can't speak for them.

But I was wondering why I, as a staunch pro-choicer, get extra upset at the idea that some want to make it illegal even in cases of rape. And I think it comes down to the fact that I'm so upset about how rape victims are treated to begin with. MissesDash is right, of course. Not all victims are traumatized or fall into depression. Everyone is an individual and reacts differently.

But, regardless of how the rape may or may not affect the victim, doesn't negate the fact that someone, or some people, held the victim down and forced themselves inside of her. Saying, "We don't care about your screams and cries. You don't matter."

So I just get really upset with the thought of thereafter, more strangers saying to that woman, "We don't care what you want to do. We're going to tell you. In fact, we're going to force you. (yet again)"

Not to mention the stress of going through a rape trial while pregnant.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by Alessandra Kelley

But you are waving aside all consideration of harm to the woman. These laws that these legislations are passing hurt women in every possible way, in their health, in their lives, in their autonomy, in their dignity. They are designed to shame, humiliate, intimidate, and punish women who need abortions.

The only person you seem to acknowledge in this is the fetus.

First, I don't see myself as "waving aside all consideration of harm to the woman." I think that's a bit of a hyperbole. I've already given you my thoughts about life-threatening harm to the woman. And I have been thinking very seriously about the type of harm that can result from non-life threatening situations, as in kidney or liver failure. I don't have an answer, because so far, I can neither reconcile it to my anti-abortion position nor decisively say that it is cause to end the life of the child. If the life of the child is at least as important as the health of the woman, then it's akin to picking the lesser of two evils. This is where people can get outraged that I think a woman should carry a child at the expense of her liver or her kidney. (I don't conclusively think that. Believe me, I am thinking. I am struggling with the concept. That's all I can say at this point.)

As far as "only acknowledging the fetus", hopefully the above paragraph proves that is not so. Plus, I have fully acknowledged risks to the mother's life as taking precedence.

However, considering the current pro-abortion laws and my view of the fetus, my response to the idea that I champion the fetus is, someone has to. My whole life I have rooted for the underdog. The fetus is the underdog under current law.

Originally Posted by icerose

I would think that taking away women's autonomy is harming someone else and it does make women dependant on men.

I disagree that a temporary loss of automony is a legitimate cause to end a life.

It's been proven time and again that women do not generally abort late term unless there is a big important reason. All these anti-choice laws are about controlling the woman and stripping her rights.

I don't know what these current state legislation attempts are about. Honestly, I don't tend to quickly grasp evil intent, because I tend to think the best of people. But, as I've already said, this Michigan bill is insane.

And as I've said before, I'm very comforted by the fact that late term abortions are relatively rare.

Most abortions are done before the zygote even becomes a fetus. It has no ability to live on its own. Why then should the rights of potential but not yet viable life overtake that of a living breathing free thinking woman?

I still will never get the logic that says "Yep, that potential life is more important than your existing life."

Since when did the ability of a person to live on his or her own give value to that person? We support the poor, the weak, the disabled. The living breathing free thinking woman, as you say, has the advantage over the weak, the creature who is 100% dependent on its mother's mercy for its continued existence and journey to independence.

Originally Posted by thebloodfiend

I think the problem, Chrissy, is that you are unable to see the fetus as capable of harming the woman. Its freedom ends when it harms someone else, even if its mere presence is harmful. Using your argument, abortion should be legal in all cases as a woman can simply claim that the fetus, or its presence, is effecting her mental health, her job performance, or her emotional stability, which is lowering her quality of life. I mean, you may not like it from an emotional standpoint, but logically, what you're saying goes both ways. This might sound cold, but if your life depends solely on me and you're harming me, I have no obligation to support you or keep you alive.

You're using the bodily automony argument at the end, which I've already tried to address. The point is that the fetus is dependent on the woman. It is the equivalent (in my mind) of a child with no alternative for care. There is a fiduciary duty. Starting at that point, if I can then address your first point about harm: those types of harms you mention (financial, emotional, decrease in quality of life--and don't forget, this is all temporary) are not sufficient justification to end the life of the child.

Originally Posted by missesdash

I'm assuming she meant "someone who isn't at fault." It's not as if the fetus decides to be the result of a horrible act.

And @Chrissy I actually have issues with pro-choice advocates constantly bringing up the "what if she was raped" scenario because it really is an emotional appeal. Regardless of how the woman became pregant, for a lot of pro-lifers, the question will always be "but is it worth murder" and with most scenarios outside of a threat to the mother's life, the reasonable answer is 'no'.

Asking a politician if they'd suddenly become pro-choice is their daughter was raped is the pro-choice equivalent of waving around those posters of mangled sixth month old babies.

Agreed. The emotions that crop up when working through this issue have a polarizing effect and nothing ever gets done, outside of ridiculum like the MI bill. Although, I am also guilting of emoting.

Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle

You assert that in pregnancy the mother having implicitly taken on all responsibility for the consequences of having sex. That taking on that responsibility means that the person must sacrifice their health and bodily integrity for the good of another.

I brought in a circumstance where another act (murder) requires that a person take on full responsibility. So I asked an analogous question, should a person who has committed murder give up their rights to health and bodily integrity for the good of others. For example, can they be used in medical experiments or as involuntary organ donation.

Sex is unique in that it leads to procreation, but it is not unique in giving responsibility for the lives of others.

I ask again, should someone who performs another act that takes on such a responsibility have to surrender their health and bodily integrity?

I think this whole line of reasoning is absurd. A murderer can not in any way be compared to a pregnant woman, or a woman who has had sex. Sex is NOT a crime. Pregnancy is NOT a punishment. It's just a fact of life, and it should only be terminated for serious and compelling reasons, which, I believe, we're discussing, and I'm seriously thinking about, based on all of the excellent posts I've read.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

However, considering the current pro-abortion laws and my view of the fetus, my response to the idea that I champion the fetus is, someone has to. My whole life I have rooted for the underdog. The fetus is the underdog under current law.

With that sentiment, I am to take that you believe that a certain portion of women are not bereft before they get an abortion? I wonder how many women end up in that position as there is typically a physical promotion of chemistry within the body for the woman to become elated about the pregnancy. When there isn't is usually not a good sign for the health of the woman or the health of the child. I think it is important to note that the pregnant woman and the fetus are the same entity in that regard: if the woman is healthy and joyed then the infant is going to have a good mother; if the mother is not healthy, then there are very grave concerns.

Now, you can rally to help a woman overcome that challenge but what you cannot do is moralise, pontificate and legislate that the fetus must be born at all costs. That is deleterious to the woman's and the fetus'/child's health.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by gypsyscarlett

I've been thinking about this, and what others have posted regarding why many anti-choicers will still make exceptions in case of rape. Obviously I can't speak for them.

But I was wondering why I, as a staunch pro-choicer, get extra upset at the idea that some want to make it illegal even in cases of rape. And I think it comes down to the fact that I'm so upset about how rape victims are treated to begin with. MissesDash is right, of course. Not all victims are traumatized or fall into depression. Everyone is an individual and reacts differently.

But, regardless of how the rape may or may not affect the victim, doesn't negate the fact that someone, or some people, held the victim down and forced themselves inside of her. Saying, "We don't care about your screams and cries. You don't matter."

So I just get really upset with the thought of thereafter, more strangers saying to that woman, "We don't care what you want to do. We're going to tell you. In fact, we're going to force you. (yet again)"

Yes, this. It is true. For me, anyway.

ETA: When a woman has consensual sex, she is in control of her own life. When a woman is raped, she has no control of her life or the outcome. That is not fair or just. I go back and forth, obviously, on this issue.

[Chrissy]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

With that sentiment, I am to take that you believe that a certain portion of women are not bereft before they get an abortion? I wonder how many women end up in that position as there is typically a physical promotion of chemistry within the body for the woman to become elated about the pregnancy. When there isn't is usually not a good sign for the health of the woman or the health of the child. I think it is important to note that the pregnant woman and the fetus are the same entity in that regard: if the woman is healthy and joyed then the infant is going to have a good mother; if the mother is not healthy, then there are very grave concerns.

Re: bold. Really? Never experienced that, personally. Just felt a lot of cold, hard reality. Okay, maybe the third one. I was sort of happy, since I love babies. But the reality was sobering.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

Re: bold. Really? Never experienced that, personally. Just felt a lot of cold, hard reality. Okay, maybe the third one. I was sort of happy, since I love babies. But the reality was sobering.

The moment you find out you're pregnant, you might not be happy. But you build up the hormones, especially after the morning sickness resolves. At which point, I'm going to leave it to a doctor to give further specifics.

[RichardGarfinkle]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

First, I don't see myself as "waving aside all consideration of harm to the woman." I think that's a bit of a hyperbole. I've already given you my thoughts about life-threatening harm to the woman. And I have been thinking very seriously about the type of harm that can result from non-life threatening situations, as in kidney or liver failure. I don't have an answer, because so far, I can neither reconcile it to my anti-abortion position nor decisively say that it is cause to end the life of the child. If the life of the child is at least as important as the health of the woman, then it's akin to picking the lesser of two evils. This is where people can get outraged that I think a woman should carry a child at the expense of her liver or her kidney. (I don't conclusively think that. Believe me, I am thinking. I am struggling with the concept. That's all I can say at this point.)

As far as "only acknowledging the fetus", hopefully the above paragraph proves that is not so. Plus, I have fully acknowledged risks to the mother's life as taking precendence.

However, considering the current pro-abortion laws and my view of the fetus, my response to the idea that I champion the fetus is, someone has to. My whole life I have rooted for the underdog. The fetus is the underdog under current law.



I disagree that a temporary loss of automony is a legitimate cause to end a life.


I don't know what these current state legislation attempts are about. Honestly, I don't tend to quickly grasp evil intent, because I tend to think the best of people. But, as I've already said, this Michigan bill is insane.

And as I've said before, I'm very comforted by the fact that late term abortions are relatively rare.



Since when did the ability of a person to live on his or her own give value to that person? We support the poor, the weak, the disabled. The living breathing free thinking woman, as you say, has the advantage over the weak, the creature who is 100% dependent on its mother's mercy for its continued existence and journey to independence.

You're using the bodily automony argument at the end, which I've already tried to address. The point is that the fetus is dependent on the woman. It is the equivalent (in my mind) of a child with no alternative for care. There is a fiduciary duty. Starting at that point, if I can then address your first point about harm: those types of harms you mention (financial, emotional, decrease in quality of life--and don't forget, this is all temporary) are not sufficient justifiction to end the life of the child.

Agreed. The emotions that crop up when working through this issue have a polarizing effect and nothing ever gets done, outside of ridiculum like the MI bill. Although, I am also guilting of emoting.


I think this whole line of reasoning is absurd. A murderer can not in any way be compared to a pregnant woman, or a woman who has had sex. Sex is NOT a crime. Pregnancy is NOT a punishment. It's just a fact of life, and it should only be terminated for serious and compelling reasons, which, I believe, we're discussing, and I'm seriously thinking about, based on all of the excellent posts I've read.

You are essentially asserting that pregnancy is absolutely unique and has no comparable moral equivalents. Your reasoning seems to be that you think nature must be catered to in the creation of human life even though nature itself is the most merciless abortionist that exists.

You assert that you oppose abortion because of continuity, i.e. a zygote can grow into a fetus can grow into a child so therefore a zygote is a fetus is a child. By that chain of reasoning since we are all destined to die we might as well treat everyone as already a corpse.

But even if you treat that as hyperbole your reasoning is false since a zygote can't grow on its own. It is fed from the woman's body, protected by her body, and cannot exist without it until it becomes a viable fetus.

So. Your position seems to be that there is a single unique circumstance -- pregnancy -- in which a human being must surrender all autonomy. And the uniqueness of that cirucumstance arises because why? Because it comes about naturally? Or because it comes about by sex?

You claim not to be treating pregnancy as punishment for sex, but you clearly regard sex as somehow unique among all human activites.

Why?

Why is sex different from any other form of incursion of responsibility? Why is pregnancy the only condition that makes it necessary for person A to give their life to person B without any recourse and where person A is supposed to go along with it absolutely where even murderers have more rights?


And as for being champion of the fetus. Haven't you noticed all these discussions are happening because people in power are willing, eager, snd happy to sacrifice the lives of women for the sake of fetuses? And their implicit justification is that having sex is enough to override all other considerations.