But with pregnancy, these rights are at odds with each other. Who's right is more important, the right of the baby to be born, or the right of the mother to not give birth? And at exactly what moment does this change?

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Her body, her choice. The fetus is a parasitic clump of cells until it comes- out of the womb, and it is entirely up to her what she wants to do with it. The fetus does not have the right to be born as it is a clump of parasitic cells, not a person. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right, the government cannot force you to donate blood, even if it would kill someone else who needs it if you didn't. So why should a woman have to carry around an unwanted parasite that does permanent, often harmful changes to her body and can sometimes kill her?

[–] democracy1984@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The fetus is a parasitic clump of cells until it comes- out of the womb

An embryo is a clump of cells. A fetus is an incomplete human body.

The fetus does not have the right to be born as it is a clump of parasitic cells, not a person.

Almost everyone agrees that sperm or unfertilized eggs don't have rights, but they do agree that a newborn baby has rights. At exactly what moment does it switch?

the government cannot force you to donate blood, even if it would kill someone else

There's a difference between mandating and banning a medical procedure. (Birth is different, that will happen without any intervention).

can sometimes kill her?

If the mothers life is in danger, then an abortion makes sense.

This is not an easy ethical question with a right and wrong answer. Just because you feel strongly about your answer, doesn't mean it is correct.