Post by Mātōnya on May 10, 2019 20:19:58 GMT
I was talking with someone on Twitter today and it seems to me that there isn't a pro-life (anti-choice) argument that isn't essentially patriarchal in the sense that women's bodies and lives must become morally beholden to—and less important in some way than—the potential lives of unborn fetuses. Like, I get that there can be moral considerations for fetuses, but I can't be made to understand how any such considerations don't inherently contravene considerations about women as persons with agency. In the end, women are morally beholden to become vessels, potentially against their wishes, and are thus a kind of slave class for nurturing any fetuses that end up forming inside of them. That how I am interpreting these issues.
So if there are any arguments that seem convincing or could convince me otherwise, I would like to be made aware of any. I understand why moral considerations for fetuses and for women might be in conflict, and perhaps they just are, but being anti-choice defaults to the moral considerations of the fetuses. Am I missing something? Is the pro-life case salvageable without demanding that women become secondary creatures?
So if there are any arguments that seem convincing or could convince me otherwise, I would like to be made aware of any. I understand why moral considerations for fetuses and for women might be in conflict, and perhaps they just are, but being anti-choice defaults to the moral considerations of the fetuses. Am I missing something? Is the pro-life case salvageable without demanding that women become secondary creatures?
