• joe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am not, nor have I ever, been arguing against choice. Perhaps I confused you with some unclear wording somewhere. I’m arguing that “it’s just a clump of cells” doesn’t necessarily mean society, or the law, shouldn’t care what happens to it.

    • AttackBunny@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Society absolutely shouldn’t care what happens to it, until it can function outside of the mother by itself.

      The caveat is intent though. If the mother INTENDS to keep the pregnancy to term, then yes, there should be some limitations on what she does to it. Eg no drinking while pregnant or other SCIENTIFICALLY backed things that can damage the potential baby.

      • joe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Society absolutely shouldn’t care what happens to it, until it can function outside of the mother by itself.

        Yes, that is an assertion, but why do you think this?

          • joe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a cop out that tells me you can’t explain or back up your assertion.

            Let me add more for you to work with: Society grants rights to corporations-- things that are abstract ideas and do not exist in the physical world at all-- so clearly society can grants rights to a zygote, if it deems it prudent. You are arguing that they should not do that. Now, explain why.