Except if this is an innocent person who is there as a result of her actions, related to her in body…that changes everything.
I believe having sex constitutes consent to a resulting pregnancy, so if the child is conceived “as a result of her actions”, then I agree she has waived her right to refuse, unless health complications arise which would merit ending the pregnancy in self-defense.
I find the genetic relationship of the person feeding to the person being fed off of irrelevant.
That’s a bit absurd to call the child’s death through abortion “foreseen yet unintentional”.
That’s like leaving a 4 month old baby in the bathtub while you go outside to smoke a cigarette, and claiming that his death was “foreseen yet unintentional”.
Direct abortions, those which involve intentionally, directly attacking/killing a child, are never justified.
A mother who did not consent to her pregnancy or has a self-defense claim has the right to refuse to allow her child to feed off her bloodstream via an indirect abortion. Before viability, there is no way for a child to survive upon delivery. Delivering him without attacking him and loving him until his death is the best that can be done if a woman exercises her right to refuse.
No right of the mother allows her to leave a 4 month old baby unattended in the bathtub to smoke. Therefore the scenarios are entirely different.
Though it is possible that if a woman left her baby in the tub to smoke, her baby could die without her intention, this mother would be legally responsible for her actions, assuming there were no extraordinary circumstances (mother was on prescription drugs that impaired her judgement, etc. )
I suppose a man could say that when he drags his wife around by her hair because she burned his toast, that there is this “dilemma”, too: He has the right to the privacy of his own domicile, the right of autonomy to do what he wants in his own kitchen without the gaze of the public interfering with his private affairs.
As already stated, I see no parallel between domestic violence and indirect abortion. I find it deeply disturbing you would compare a woman refusing to remain a life support machine to an abusive man dragging his wife by the hair.
But of course you have the right to present such a parallel even if it bothers me.
What say you to this? If it’s “utterly disgusting” for the man to treat another human being like this in the name of autonomy…then you should be consistent and say that it is “utterly disgusting” (even more so) to dismember a little baby in the name of autonomy.
It is utterly disgusting to dismember a little baby in the name of anything. I have said I oppose dismemberment abortions many times already. I make no judgement on those who have had abortions. I understand how compelling the choice of abortion can be and I wish them well. But I judge the action of dismemberment as objectively wrong.
