I recently heard for the first time this argument:
1. Assume for the sake of discussion that a fetus at some stage of development is granted personhood for moral purposes (not necesarily legal purposes).
2. Assume for the sake of discussion that it is a normal pregnancy without medical complications, and the life of the mother is not at risk.
3. The fetus is taking oxygen and nutrients from the woman's bloodstream, and injecting hormones and waste, which is a form of bodily violation.
4. Nothing has the moral right to perform this violation on a woman's body.
5. Therefore by the self defense principle, the woman has the moral right to use lethal force on the fetus, right up until this violation ends, at birth.
Does anyone here subscribe to this argument, and would you be prepared to have a calm and sensible debate about it?
1. Assume for the sake of discussion that a fetus at some stage of development is granted personhood for moral purposes (not necesarily legal purposes).
2. Assume for the sake of discussion that it is a normal pregnancy without medical complications, and the life of the mother is not at risk.
3. The fetus is taking oxygen and nutrients from the woman's bloodstream, and injecting hormones and waste, which is a form of bodily violation.
4. Nothing has the moral right to perform this violation on a woman's body.
5. Therefore by the self defense principle, the woman has the moral right to use lethal force on the fetus, right up until this violation ends, at birth.
Does anyone here subscribe to this argument, and would you be prepared to have a calm and sensible debate about it?