A fetus/baby is a human being. It is an organism composed of human cells, and the mother’s body is made to accommodate it. The only difference between an adult and a fetus is the stage of development. If a fetus is a “blob,” so are born babies, children, and adults.
A parasite is a different species which the host’s body isn’t meant to accommodate. Calling a fetus a parasite is insane.
Oh, and tumors aren’t organisms, so fetuses don’t fit that definition either.
If a fetus is a “blob,” so are born babies, children, and adults.
No, those are fully formed individuals that can survive on their own if separated from the mother. The fetus is surviving off it’s mother’s body. Stealing her nutrients. The only thing separating it from fitting the definition of a parasite is the “different species” caveat.
What’s the difference between a “blob” and a “fully formed individual” and why is killing one acceptable while killing the other isn’t? You also missed the “mother’s body is made to accommodate the child” thing, too. That’s what the uterus is for. If there was no such thing as a uterus and the fetus was a different species, then it would be a parasite. As it is though, a fetus is no more a parasite than someone living at home with their parents.
What’s the difference between a “blob” and a “fully formed individual” and why is killing one acceptable while killing the other isn’t?
The fully formed individual has sentience and can live more or less on it’s own. An infant can be passed off to someone else to care for. The blob can only survive by leeching resources from it’s mother’s body. If she doesn’t want to participate in that it’s her decision. Similar to how if someone living with their parents outlasts their welcome they can be evicted.
Do people revert to being blobs when they go to sleep, become comatose, disabled, or otherwise under the care of another person? The fetus/baby is guaranteed to leave the mother at some point, and evicting it prematurely without a very good reason or regard for its safety would end its life. That is murder. Your argument would justify cutting people off from disability benefits.
That’s not the same thing. Anyone can care for a disabled person. They don’t invade a specific individuals body who then has to deal with them for 9 months. People should have autonomy of their own body over non-sentient blobs that have formed inside them without their consent.
The fetus/baby is guaranteed to leave the mother at some point, and evicting it prematurely without a very good reason or regard for its safety would end its life.
Not murder. It’s a blob until it can survive being removed.
Your criteria for non-blobness was that the human being has sentience and it can live more or less on its own. A disabled person who can no longer care for themselves, or someone who may not fit your definition of sentience due to a mental impairment or simply not being old enough, would revert to blob status and be eligible for death because they do not fulfill both of these criteria.
The fetus did not “invade” the mother’s body because it didn’t choose to be there. It belongs in the mother’s body because the uterus exists. Even if it was there without consent, that wouldn’t justify killing it because that would be giving the child the death penalty for its father’s crimes. Your statement “anyone can care for a disabled person” highlights the issue at hand: only the mother can take care of the fetus until it is born. That makes it even more crucial to protect the fetus, because there is no other option for keeping it alive.
I already clarified the disabled thing, they would be in the “or less” side of the statement you’re referring to.
As for the rest, women exist for reasons beyond producing babies. If carrying a child would interfere with their goals they shouldn’t be condemned to it. Stop trying to force your opinions on other people’s bodies. There’s enough unwanted people suffering on this planet already.
The law on the books is that a doctor can legally perform emergency abortions. Nobody has been prosecuted on the claim that the abortion wasn’t an emergency, or even for performing an abortion at all.
The fetus carries its parents’ DNA, is created from their intercourse, and is descended directly from them. They may not have reached adolescence, but in terms of genetics and biology, it is still their child.
Great who determines it’s an “emergency”? With how poorly worded gop policies are it’s too much of a grey area to risk for many people when the punishment is jailtime or worse. A fetus is a fetus is it’s not an adolescent, more false equivalency. A fetus is a fetus, not a child.
It’s not a baby. It’s a blob. It has no sentience and the mother doesn’t want it in her body. It’s basically a parasite.
A fetus/baby is a human being. It is an organism composed of human cells, and the mother’s body is made to accommodate it. The only difference between an adult and a fetus is the stage of development. If a fetus is a “blob,” so are born babies, children, and adults.
A parasite is a different species which the host’s body isn’t meant to accommodate. Calling a fetus a parasite is insane.
Oh, and tumors aren’t organisms, so fetuses don’t fit that definition either.
No, those are fully formed individuals that can survive on their own if separated from the mother. The fetus is surviving off it’s mother’s body. Stealing her nutrients. The only thing separating it from fitting the definition of a parasite is the “different species” caveat.
What’s the difference between a “blob” and a “fully formed individual” and why is killing one acceptable while killing the other isn’t? You also missed the “mother’s body is made to accommodate the child” thing, too. That’s what the uterus is for. If there was no such thing as a uterus and the fetus was a different species, then it would be a parasite. As it is though, a fetus is no more a parasite than someone living at home with their parents.
The fully formed individual has sentience and can live more or less on it’s own. An infant can be passed off to someone else to care for. The blob can only survive by leeching resources from it’s mother’s body. If she doesn’t want to participate in that it’s her decision. Similar to how if someone living with their parents outlasts their welcome they can be evicted.
Do people revert to being blobs when they go to sleep, become comatose, disabled, or otherwise under the care of another person? The fetus/baby is guaranteed to leave the mother at some point, and evicting it prematurely without a very good reason or regard for its safety would end its life. That is murder. Your argument would justify cutting people off from disability benefits.
That’s not the same thing. Anyone can care for a disabled person. They don’t invade a specific individuals body who then has to deal with them for 9 months. People should have autonomy of their own body over non-sentient blobs that have formed inside them without their consent.
Not murder. It’s a blob until it can survive being removed.
Your criteria for non-blobness was that the human being has sentience and it can live more or less on its own. A disabled person who can no longer care for themselves, or someone who may not fit your definition of sentience due to a mental impairment or simply not being old enough, would revert to blob status and be eligible for death because they do not fulfill both of these criteria.
The fetus did not “invade” the mother’s body because it didn’t choose to be there. It belongs in the mother’s body because the uterus exists. Even if it was there without consent, that wouldn’t justify killing it because that would be giving the child the death penalty for its father’s crimes. Your statement “anyone can care for a disabled person” highlights the issue at hand: only the mother can take care of the fetus until it is born. That makes it even more crucial to protect the fetus, because there is no other option for keeping it alive.
I already clarified the disabled thing, they would be in the “or less” side of the statement you’re referring to.
As for the rest, women exist for reasons beyond producing babies. If carrying a child would interfere with their goals they shouldn’t be condemned to it. Stop trying to force your opinions on other people’s bodies. There’s enough unwanted people suffering on this planet already.
No one should be forced to carry a fetus. End of story
Nobody is forced to carry a fetus any more than they’re forced not to shoot their born children in the head.
Except for the laws that punish people who seek medical aid. As exemplified by the post. Also flase equivalency.
Literally nobody has been prosecuted for doing an abortion in a ban state since Dobbs. The threat you’re asserting doesn’t exist.
It’s not a false equivalence because, in both cases, the parent is killing their child.
It doesn’t exist except it’s on the law books. OK.
It is an entirely false equivalence. Because a fetus isn’t a child until further in development.
The law on the books is that a doctor can legally perform emergency abortions. Nobody has been prosecuted on the claim that the abortion wasn’t an emergency, or even for performing an abortion at all.
The fetus carries its parents’ DNA, is created from their intercourse, and is descended directly from them. They may not have reached adolescence, but in terms of genetics and biology, it is still their child.
Great who determines it’s an “emergency”? With how poorly worded gop policies are it’s too much of a grey area to risk for many people when the punishment is jailtime or worse. A fetus is a fetus is it’s not an adolescent, more false equivalency. A fetus is a fetus, not a child.