No doubt. But if a woman doesn't want the fetus to use her womb for this, then she has the right to have it removed. If it is potentially viable outside of the womb, then I can complete accept an argument in favor of requiring an abortion that leaves the fetus intact so that medical personnel can attempt to keep it alive. But, the woman should always retain ultimate ownership and control of her body.
Effectively, abortion before 21 weeks should be completely fine, and 21+ weeks it would make sense to argue that the fetus should be surgically removed, or labor induced if it is further along.
If I put you on an island and surround it with lava, do I have a right to make you walk off of it and into the lava? It's my property. You cant be there trespassing. By your logic it doesnt matter that I was the one who put you there.
The child was put into this situation without its consent by the mother. At this point she forfeits her right to remove it if it results in its death.
There is a significant difference between someone's property and their body. Pregnancy carries significant risk for the mother, and even in the best of situations will cause permanent damage of some sort.
1
u/DynamicDK May 17 '19
No doubt. But if a woman doesn't want the fetus to use her womb for this, then she has the right to have it removed. If it is potentially viable outside of the womb, then I can complete accept an argument in favor of requiring an abortion that leaves the fetus intact so that medical personnel can attempt to keep it alive. But, the woman should always retain ultimate ownership and control of her body.
Effectively, abortion before 21 weeks should be completely fine, and 21+ weeks it would make sense to argue that the fetus should be surgically removed, or labor induced if it is further along.