I originally thought this was something I came up with on my own…
I do that a lot, though… think up something awesome, go “hey! Look at me! I’m intelligent!”, then find out that I’m subconsciously plagiarizing one person or many people.
I’m pathetically unoriginal like that.
But still… this is a kick-ass argument regardless of its unoriginality, so I present it to you uncensored:
Anti-choicers/misogynists (I refuse to call them “pro-life”… because they aren’t), like to call a fetus a “person”.
I disagree with them, but let’s give them that for the sake of this argument.
So the fetus is a person…
As very-nearly-Socialist as I am, I’m also a Libertarian when it comes to personal morals.
I believe that you, as a person, have the right to do whatever you want…
AS LONG AS you do NOT violate the right of another person to do whatever they want.
And there are only two exceptions:
1. Consent (consensual sex and things like that)
2. Self-defense (they are trying to violate your right to do whatever you want in some way, so you have to defend yourself against them)
So how does this apply to the fetus?
The woman was here first. She was born first, and therefore it is her rights that should come first. As such, the fetus, if it is indeed a person, as anti-choicers claim, is violating the woman’s right to bodily autonomy.
As such, the woman can choose to consent to this violation of her bodily autonomy, and carry the pregnancy to term, or she can choose to not consent to it and defend herself against this violation by having an abortion.
Oh and no, sex is NOT consent to pregnancy… period.
Of course, this argument is not why I’m pro-choice.
For starters, the fetus is not a person.
It’s not conscious. It’s not even, by medical definition, alive until the cerebral cortex is fully formed and connects the brain stem to the spine (which, unless I’m much mistaken, is one of the very last developments in a pregnancy), and even then there’s still some question about whether or not the now pretty-much-fully-formed baby is actually still conscious due to lack of oxygen and all that.
Plus, part of
the my definition of “person” includes something like “fully autonomous”, which, of course, doesn’t happen until the umbilical chord is cut.
But even that is not why I’m pro-choice.
I’m pro-choice for a very simple reason:
I’m not a woman. I will never get pregnant. I will never have to face such a decision.
And no, I don’t believe I have the right to that choice even when it’s my baby. In that case, I can make suggestions; I can say where I stand. But at the end of the day, I’m not the one who’s pregnant. My hypothetical wife is. And I would support her hypothetical decision no matter what it is.
Because it’s her choice.
And don’t you dare try and tell me I’m pro-abortion. I’m not. If I were a woman, or could otherwise get pregnant, I personally would not choose to have an abortion.
But since that will never happen, and I will never have to face that choice, it is not my decision, and I will never presume to make it.
And so I am pro-choice.
*Oh… and you’re probably asking yourself: “did he basically call the fetus a criminal?”
If the fetus is a “person” as the anti-choicers/misogynists claim, then yes, the fetus is a criminal if the woman does not consent to the violation of her right to bodily autonomy.
Of course, that only applies if the fetus is a person which, as I’ve already said, is not true.