07-04-2022, 11:36 PM
(07-04-2022, 10:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just so we are sure we are talking about the same statements. Are you saying this statement, “ I don't want the state to have unfettered control over a uterus; in any scenario at all.” is consistent with what you are now saying about viability? “any scenario at all” would seem to exclude viability.
Of course the autonomy is violated after viability. Saying it isn’t because, well, you don’t think it is isn’t really a reason. You could say the state’s interest in protecting the now viable fetus supersedes autonomy
Yes, I'm opposed to any scenario where the pregnant individual's autonomy is violated. I'll post my previous response again:
To understand autonomy, is to understand the limitations of autonomy. I'm sure you've heard the expression "your personal liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins". Once a fetus attains the status of being highly viable outside the womb, it should be afforded that same consideration. That consideration, at that point, is in no way in opposition the autonomy of the pregnant individual."
Quote:Of course the autonomy is violated after viability. Saying it isn’t because, well, you don’t think it is isn’t really a reason. You could say the state’s interest in protecting the now viable fetus supersedes autonomy.
How is the pregnant person's autonomy violated post-viability? Once a fetus reaches viability, it should be granted the same protections it would be afforded sans womb. Personal / bodily autonomy doesn't give a parent the right to end a life post birth, expect in extreme circumstances, because it would be causing harm external to themselves. Therefore, said autonomy isn't being violated.
In addition, you seem to be leaving certain parts of my replies out when responding, which seems to be causing some confusion.
